In a recent conversation with a district leader, I discovered that one of their hottest contracts was up for re-bid. So naturally they needed to dig in to figure out what their current activities were, in order to be better informed about possible solutions. This is an extremely OLD debate, that has been had in the EdTech community for years and years. But here is some recent data to make us think a bit. …And as a great friend of mine always says: “no matter what technology conversation you are in, it will always come back to copiers, some how.” Maybe that’s true.
The Contract: District-Wide Copier Solution for All Schools
District Profile: 9 schools + 1 admin building = 35 networked copier/ printers (not counting individual classroom printers which are not supported)
Here’s my official disclaimer statement: I’m REALLY not against using paper for learning activities, just as I’m not for using a computer (digital) for all learning activities. I’m also not bashing teachers for using the copy machine. I am a teacher, and I use the copy machine for certain things. I am, however, wondering if our copy machines are literally holding us back from from engaging in more digitally supported learning experiences. I’m all for using whatever is the best pedagogical medium/ tool for the best learning experience. Having said that, one has to step back and think through the goal of what experiences we are wanting to provide our students.
This district has an average daily attendance of 3,568 students. However, the average daily membership is 3,834. The reason I pull in membership is due to the nature of the conversation. If I have 27 students assigned to my classroom, but on average, only 24 are present on a day to day basis… what teacher do you know of that only runs 24 copies and counts on students being absent? Further, probably most teachers have high expectations for the copied paper. If the student misses, it should be made up (either for homework, or some other time). We are using membership for this one. So what does the data show?
Total District Copy Damage in Sheets: 3,680,640
Total Contract Amount (not including paper): $150,000
Sheets per Students per Year: 960
Sheets per Student per Month: 80
Sheets per Student per Week: 20
Now, there are $$ amounts I don’t have in this equation. I have no idea the total amount of paper the district goes through (this may help shed light on the amount of personal printer printing that is going on). I also do not have any idea how much that paper costs. Both of which could be easily figured out to add to the conversation.
Going Digital: Hypothetically, what would happen if we really wanted to leverage more personal digital learning experiences, what would we do less of? Would we do less printing or doing activities on copied paper? Time and attention, per activity, would certainly shift. Walls could be removed, distances could be disintegrated, and information could be endless – not counted by clicks of each pass of the turnstile. We could maybe focus on more project, problem, or challenge based learning and maybe leveraging digital learning playlists to help learners push deeper and faster. These are serious questions for leaders. I’m truly not being cynical. Opportunity cost is a real thing. In order to take one thing, you have to give another up.
My Questions:
- Is this data, per classroom, something that could be researched to look for a correlation between paper work and learning effectiveness?
- Could this lead to less frequent walkthroughs, because you already know what’s going on?
- For districts who have implemented a 1:1 digital environment (or BYOD), have clicks of the copy machine gone down? Do you have an data to show that?
- If you know there is a ton of paper (more than average) going in and out of a particular classroom (just for dramatic purposes – think crossword puzzles), then could you make a good assumption about the type of work going on in the classroom.
- Does more paper, indeed = less digital?
- What do parents do with and feel about all of the paper coming home? i.e. Do they view that as their child is doing REAL work, or busy work?
- What could the off-set budget or funding go towards? …more digital experiences or devices?
- If I as a teacher really bought in and starting using the district funded SMART Board and projector, should I be doing less standing at the copy machine in the morning?
- How much total learning time was spent on the 3,680,640 pages of paper? Is that the best bang for the buck? — maybe it is.
- Is paper a safety or security blanket because I don’t have to rely on “the network” or “the server” which seems to not work when I most need it? (if this is true, then we have some work to do on our network. we have to build reliability. the network has to be a utility just like heat, water, and electricity – people kind of just expect those things to work. …and they do almost always)
Conclusion (not really a conclusion): If time and attention are some of the most valuable commodities in schools, in classrooms (but more importantly) during learning… then at some point (hopefully soon), don’t we need to make a shift somewhere in order to create more of the often buzzed about 21st Century Skills? Let’s say you wanted to focus on more digital learning needs and you cut your copying expenses in half. Then you could shift that $75K dollars towards more access for students. This information brings out 2 important issues… the first one dealing with the task and type learning activity (time + attention), the second dealing with the amount of budget going into copying and paper.
I believe in making stuff. Check that… making really great stuff. Sometimes that starts on paper, sometimes it doesn’t. I’m just stuck wondering how much copying activity sheets is helping our students learn by making…