Presentation for WEMTA 2010

1. 1:1 Computing:
Beyond the Halo Effect
TAMI BRASS, ST. PAUL ACADEMY AND SUMMIT SCHOOL
tbrass@spa.edu
@brasst ON TWITTER

2. •The initial buzz of
something new and
expected to be successful
•Perceptual bias where we
assume that something has
many positive qualities if it
has one positive quality

3. A Tale of Two
Laptop Schools

4. Background Info
School A School B
 Public School  Independent (Private)
 Approx 1000 students
School
in grades 7-8-9  Approx 900 students
K-12; 240 in grades 6-
 Suburban district 7-8
 Approx 12%  Urban school
Free/Reduced  Approx 16% of families
 90% Caucasian receive scholarships
 80% Caucasian

5. Program Origins
School A School B
 Began using laptops on carts in  Pre 1:1 – One lab per division
2000  2001 - Technology fund donation
 Leaders (principals and teachers) and enthusiastic board of
dedicated to bringing tools into directors initiated laptop
classrooms and out of “lab” program
settings as much as possible  Some parent/community
 2003 - 2 labs, a classroom 1:1, a support; interested teachers but
mini-lab, and 5 carts by Fall of little buy-in (top-down
 Controversy in community implementation)
 Enthusiastic kids  Controversy in community
 Parents on fence  Enthusiastic kids
 Minimal community support  Parents on fence
 95% teacher support  Mixed community support
 Low teacher support

6. Initial Prof Development
School A School B
 Prof dev committee reps  Select teachers and
from all contents/grades administrators sent to
 Focus on integration & visit another 1:1 school
transformation  Skills/application focus –
 Combo of skills & “All teachers need to
integration trainings in know how to use …”
varied groups
 Departmental  Little focus on
 Grade Level integration or how
 Interest-based technology enhanced
 Learning communities learning

7. Technical Details
School A School B
 Began with fresh  Patched together servers (no real
servers/network plan)
 Wireless APs in every room  Gradual addition of wireless
 Shared Internet w/other schools  Business-grade DSL
 On-site HelpDesk w/repair  1-person “tech depot” w/most
technician repairs done off-site
 15 minute turnaround for loaners  24 hour turnaround for loaners
 Apple – iBooks  Windows
 All grades implemented  Pilot approach – added 1 grade
simultaneously for equity per year
 No accidental coverage; initial  No-fault warranty for life of
Applecare warranty hardware

8. In the Classroom
School A School B
 Expectation of integration in  Expectation of integration in
ALL content areas academic content areas
 Emphasis on equity and  Emphasis on equity and
expanding school day providing tools
 Classes went from average of  Max class size <20
27 to average of 35  Low teacher turn-over
 High teacher turn-over  Initial traditional use
 Initial project-based learning (Word, Publisher)
 Move from middle school to  Move from junior high to
junior high middle school
 District and state mandated  Minimal testing and
testing each semester standardized assessment

9. Administrative Support
School A School B
 Founding principal retired after  Heavy admin turnover (3 heads
2nd 1st
year replaced by year of school and 3 principals since
principal program began in 2001)
 Tech coordinator left after 3rd  Current administrators
year of 1:1 supportive of 1:1 but addressing
 District-wide tech plan w/no concerns from stakeholders
focus on sustaining 1:1 program  K-12 tech plan w/focus on
 No plan for replacing hardware expanding access in all grades
 No plan for maintaining/upgrading  One director of technology since
infrastructure nec for 1:1
2001; turnover in tech
 District-wide cuts impacted coordinators K12
staffing for tech and instructional  No decrease in tech or
staff instructional staffing
 New network admin position

10. Where are they both now?

11. Spring, 2010
School A School B
 Finishing 7th year of  Finishing 9th year of
program program
 Using hardware from  3rd generation of
original 5-year lease hardware (3-year leases)
 Multiple significant
 No significant
network/infrastructure
network/infrastructure
upgrades
upgrades
 Expanded program from
 Prepping for return to 7th grade to 6-10; next
carts next year year will be 6-12 tabletpc

12. Mistakes to learn from
School A School B
 Split community  Top-down implementation
 No schedule for  No consistent focus on
replacement & upgrades technology as part of
professional development
 Idea that schools need to
 Little input from teachers
be the same, not just or parents
have the same
standards/expectations  Infrastructure wasn’t
sufficient for tools in use
 Lack of program
 No expansion of tech
promotion in community support as program
to build support expanded
necessary to sustain

13. What worked well…
School A School B
 Early teacher support (Feeding the  Ongoing focus on sustaining & funding
teachers)  No-fault warranty & loaner pool
 Input from naysayers encouraged available
 Empowering stakeholders on all  Survey of stakeholders to evaluate
levels program; responding to what didn’t
 Apple apps required minimal work and continuing what did
training - more on integration  Curriculum mapping, first for
 Solid help desk structure technology, later for all subjects w/tech
 Increased district focus on strand
technology integration  Parent & student training (orientation &
 Parent & student training ongoing)
(orientation for all)  Clear expectations of students
 Celebrating (failures and successes)  New teacher orientation
 Chocolate  Feeding the teachers…

14. Moving forward: Room for Growth
 Building professional learning communities
 Focus on teaching & learning, collaboration w/peers
 Integration as supported expectation; means to end, not an end in
itself
 Increased use of engaging & collaborative technologies –
Web2.0
 Better alignment of student skills K-12
 Cutting expenses where it makes sense
 Netbooks
 Open source, free & online tools
 Outsourcing repairs (using warranty)
 Student support model
 Integration beyond academic contents

15. What it looks like in the
classroom?
TOOLS USED
WORK SAMPLES
RESOURCES

16. Tools Used
Hardware
 ClassmatePC Tablets 6-7 (6-8 next year)
 TabletPCs 8-9 (9-12 next year)
 TabletPCs for academic teachers 6-12
 Projectors & speakers mounted in every classroom
 Peripherals – still & video cameras, doc cams, headsets &
flashdrives
 Smartboards piloted in high school math this year
Applications
 MS Office (OneNote), TabletPC apps, Inspiration, Scratch, Comic
Life, Audacity, ArtRage, Paint.net
Subscriptions
 United Streaming, Quia, Typing Pal, Nettrekker, Databases…

17. Work Samples

18. Resources
See
http://www.tech4teaching.org
Click on 1:1 Resources Tab
Tami Brass
St. Paul Academy and Summit School
tbrass@spa.edu
@brasst On Twitter