I’ll dust off the blog for a moment to reflect on one section of the National Education Technology Plan (linking the Executive Summary). It’s an interesting document and worth more time than I’m giving it. This morning, I’m reflecting on the recommendations in the ‘infrastructure’ section and comparing it to past standards we’ve had in Kentucky over the years. The goal in the infrastructure section of the NETP is stated simply enough:
All students and educators will have access to a comprehensive infrastructure for learning when and where they need it.
One shift we can see over the years is the emphasis on access anywhere and anytime. Our devices are smaller in size and more powerful than those of a few short years ago. Remember when we had processor wars and a race to a higher and higher gigahertz rating? What processor is in your iPhone or Droid? Do you know? Do you care? Our older state technology plans called for standards on student-to-computer ratios, number of data drops and phones in the classrooms. Since that original plan – a visionary document back in 1992, by the way – we’ve seen wireless access grow, devices change immensely and we’re surrounded by projectors, IWBs, document cameras and other teaching tools.
For the sake of time, let’s skip to the recommended actions. First:
Ensure students and educators have broadband access to the Internet and adequate wireless connectivity both in and out of school.
Broadband and wireless are the words I’ll key on. With “broadband”, what does that mean? How fast must it be? The plan goes on to use the word ‘adequate’ and stresses the need for that speed in the community and at home. What the CIO can fix is the school, so let’s focus there. It sounds simple, but one call to action should be that your technical staff should try to do some basic research from a few random workstations and make sure that the performance is adequate. If it isn’t, that’s a problem. With the word “wireless”, my thinking has come around over the past few years. Originally, I would have said to hold off on wireless implementation and invest when you foresee wireless devices that would actually take advantage of the wireless infrastructure. At this point, it seems that virtually all of the growth and development surrounds wireless connectivity. If your school district doesn’t have adequate wireless connectivity within its schools, now is the time to act. With the changes that need to take place in education, the mobility of the learner is key and our schools need the wireless infrastructure to support that mobility.
Ensure that every student and educator has at least one Internet access device and appropriate software and resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and collaboration for use in and out of school
This one is certain to generate discussion. Years ago, the talk was to get to a 6:1 student-to-computer ratio. In most area schools, we’re probably in the neighborhood of 2.5:1. Statewide, we’ve seen a bit of movement as it pertains to 1:1 initiatives but, even in those districts, it’s usually limited to high school students. I’ve heard nobody speak of a device for EVERY student and I think we can agree that the reasons tend to center around lack of funding, inability to support the environment and, at this point, a teaching environment that isn’t ready to take advantage of a device in every K-12 student’s hand. In fact, if you’ll permit one more copy/paste, I like the follow-up statements to this goal, as they reference several concerns that we rightly recognize and need to address:
Only with 24/7 access to the Internet via devices and technology-based software and resources can we achieve the kind of engagement, student-centered learning, and assessments that can improve learning in the ways this plan proposes. The form of these devices, software, and resources may or may not be standardized and will evolve over time. In addition, these devices may be owned by the student or family, owned by the school, or some combination of the two. The use of devices owned by students will require advances in network filtering and improved support systems.
This paragraph hits several key points. Why a device for all? Engagement, student-centered learning, and online assessments. What type of device? It may not be standard. Who pays? It could be a mix of district-owned and personally-owned. Of course, no standardization of the device and the mention of 24/7 access causes concerns about filtering and network security, and those are mentioned as well.
Maybe I’ll come back and address the others, as I’m short on time at the moment.