1:1 or 1:None?

There are many great examples of one-to-one programs that have been well implemented and have achieved their goals. Go to any Edtech conference and you will hear presentations from folks that have done this well. Or pick up a copy of Project Red, which offers a research-driven roadmap for success in transforming a school, including the use of technology. There are websites galore that cater to great articles, tutorials, and research to help schools interested in how to implement a one-to-one program successfully, such as the K-12 Blueprint site, which regularly features blogs and articles on different schools and what they are doing with technology. 

So why should we be hesitant, or worse yet, not supportive of some proposed one-to-one initiatives? Many of the ideas for one-to-one that principals and other K-12 leaders have can be summed up with the phrase “I want to do a one-to-one program.” Many times this is the only idea expressed. Where is the vision and purpose? What is the educational outcome to which the program aspires? How does the leader see learning changing in a couple of years? These questions often can’t be answered, since there has been no thought as to why have a one-to-one initiative. Successful programs will have a goal, and with that a plan that provides a roadmap to help guide the project towards its goal. Why don’t more school leaders write a good plan? A lot of times it boils down to the desire for the shiny gadgets, and a lack of will and skill to write a solid plan and implement it. In those cases, it may be better to do one to none. 

Tweet

The Texas Calculator Debate

Over Spring Break in Texas, the Austin American Statesman published an article about Texas school districts being upset that they were going to have to spend $100 a calculator for eighth grade students taking the state math assessment, as required by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). The gist of several districts' concerns is that they would rather spend the $100 on a more versatile device for students' learning than a calculator that will one be used only for math. And many districts already have tablet 1:1 initiatives where both Apples' App store and Google's Play store have many free or low-cost graphing calculator apps. Why should these districts have to spend $100 more per device, especially given that the state issued the calculator mandate without any funding to support it? Fast forward to March 20 and the TEA's Commissioner of Education, Michael Williams, issued a press release allowing districts to pilot students using graphing calculator apps on tablets on a pilot basis. This was a welcome move for districts not wanting to spend money on calculators when they already have multifunction tablets that already can host a calculator app. Notably missing from the announcement was allowing other devices to be used for testing, such as laptops or Chromebooks, which also have graphing calculator apps. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see a state agency trying to help districts use their funds for tools that best match students' needs. 

Tweet

Would you buy a new car with a blindfold on? Then why do so many schools ignore important factors when choosing devices for students?

Photo from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/squeakymarmot/2049742432/

You obviously wouldn't buy a car with a blindfold because there are so many factors in buying the car that are important, including design, features, layout, condition, and the cabin interior.  Many very well intention-ed educators are eager to put devices in the hands of students and jump on the bandwagon saying “we need to buy (insert device name here) for all students.”  This is often done without ever taking off the blindfold and getting down to looking at a schools’ and students’ needs, with a heavy dose of total cost of ownership evaluation to see what makes the most sense in a particular learning environment.

There are a host of great reasons why many different devices might assist students in their learning; Different curriculum (not just the book, but all that is done in a class to help students learn), grade levels, special needs, state requirements, testing mandates, student use cases and more should all be considered in an evaluation of devices for student. 

I suggest starting off with a needs inventory.  Get started by listing out all the things that are non-negotiable that you need the device and students to be able to do.  A short example list such as this would be a start: 

1.       Need to be able to print to classroom printers.

2.       Need 1024x1200 resolution to support testing mandates.

3.       Need ability to save documents to Google docs.

4.       Needs to save to local storage when not connected to the internet.

5.       Minimum 8 hours battery life.

6.       Science class requires USB based probe support.

7.       Social studies curriculum requires student to be able to display screen to entire class.

You also may want to list some things that would be nice, but are not true requirements such as: three year warranty, comes with a case, and has a CD drive.

At this point put this all into a big matrix or spreadsheet to start the evaluation.  It would map put like this but would have many more elements:

Device	Total Cost of Ownership	Fully Supports Learning Ecosystem	Support Centralized Application Distribution
Android Tablet
iPad
Windows Laptop
Chromebook

The first column in one that is often ignored and beyond the scope of this blog post, but it is very important.  Looking at all the costs related to student devices is imperative in an evaluation.  The upfront purchase cost is just one part, but support costs, repair costs, and maintenance costs, etc. must all be included to get an accurate picture.  A great in depth resource on total cost of ownership, or TCO, is available from the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) at http://goo.gl/BtC7L

In the end when the matrix is filled out, you should have a very good idea of what device will end up best meeting the needs of students and the district.  While sometimes it seems easier to keep the blindfold on, in the end you may end up with something that is unworkable and not sustainable for the long term. Why end up with an unreliable Pinto, when you can have a much better device at a lower TCO?

Tweet