Are you confused? I am. I've been following Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) discussions for quite a while and I implemented a BYOD program before anybody had really heard of the term. We certainly didn't use the term BYOD. Instead, we talked about the "y'all come" approach as the Harker School had called theirs that when they started in 2005. Others more recently called it the college model or the Starbucks model.

Then BYOD and BYOT terminology came along and co-opted everything!

The problem with the term BYOD is that it covers anything that a student brings. iPod? Check. Feature phone? Check. Smart phone? Check. iPad? Check. Laptop? Check. Tablet PC? Check. For general school use, is an iPod like a Tablet PC with an i7 processor and 8GB of RAM running Windows 7 with both pen and keyboard input? Not even close. Yet read blogs on the topic and you see both devices are effectively lumped together as BYOD. 

So let's bifurcate the BYOD concept.

The first is BYOPD (Bring Your Own Powerful Device). This is a device powerful enough to create and collaborate with and that could be used in a 1:1 program. With such a device you can rapidly write a lengthy report, collaborate together in websites, create short videos, edit images or mashup audio, plug in peripherals, and share files in common formats with other powerful devices that may run a different operating system and be built by a different company. And it has to have a screen size suitable for doing all of this. When used in a classroom, it can be considered a powerful generic device that can accomplish the tasks in the class. For now, these requirements mean the device has to have a physical keyboard suitable for touch keyboarding as we aren't quite there with virtual keyboards or audio input. iPads with the newest release are almost there save for physical keyboard, which can be added, and netbooks, laptops, and tablet PCs are there. Okay, so some netbooks are a wee bit underpowered for video editing, but they are much closer to the criteria than any smart phone and most slate-type tablets.

The second is BAOD (Bring Any Old Device). That covers most everything else--smart phones, iPods, Nintendo DSs, generic slates, etc. These are good for information retrieval and a few other things. While I have trouble envisioning how they can be useful beyond information retrieval and as a kind of student response system (quizzes and clickers come to mind), I do know that people are researching these, so I'll hold off on judgment until I see the research. (The research involves institutional review boards, statistics, confidence intervals, and peer review, not a few random anecdotes posted in blogs as generalizations.) 

Now, go back and read Gary Stager's blog BYOD – Worst Idea of the 21st Century? If districts implemented BYOPD with a plan for providing for equity for those who cannot afford a device, Gary's concerns can be addressed. (Okay, they will probably never be addressed to Gary's satisfaction, but they will be addressed for most educators who share his concerns.)  But if districts implement BAOD, well, most of Gary's concerns are valid. If I, as a taxpayer, thought that iPods were going solve education, why would I put any money into education? 

Using BYOPD and BAOD, let's look at equity, device capability, and funding.

Equity: BYOPD has the potential for inequity if the district is not committed to equity. However, if a district is committed to equity, they will be able to create a method for those who don't have a suitable device to either receive one, or to become motivated to purchase one. BAOD just isn't the same game and really shouldn't be addressed here. 

Device capability: Gary is correct when BYOD is really BAOD and those devices are not powerful. Unfortunately, we will probably find quite a few classrooms across America that have a 1:1 program and are still stuck in "information-accessing, note-taking, and chat."

Funding: If the focus is BAOD, Gary has a point, but primarily because the schools don't have a vision of the future of school. If the focus is BYOPD, Gary is wrong IF the districts are committed to equity and have a vision of the future of school. 

 

We implemented a 1:1 pilot in eleven school weeks. We didn't set out to change the world. We didn't set out to change the school. We didn't set out to change the teachers. We set out to put more power in students’ and teachers’ hands right then. This post is a brief history of why and how we did it.

When 1:1 programs first started in the 1980s, most schools went through a multi-year process with many stakeholders before even purchasing the first computer. At the time, they had good academic, technical, and financial reasons for doing so.

Academically, schools had to answer the question of how having these computers would enrich student learning. In the 1980s, when a few Australian schools began the programs, no World Wide Web existed, the Internet was primarily in the U.S. connecting universities and government research centers, and almost no research existed on the benefits of 1:1 programs. Instead, forward thinkers like Alan Kay and Seymour Papert were putting forth ideas about how computers and technology rich learning environments could enhance learning for students.

Technically, schools had to install infrastructure and design how data would move between the computers and where ever else it was needed, with sneakernet (physically carrying a floppy disk from one computer to the other) frequently being part of the solution.

Financially, with computers being much more expensive and no infrastructure in place in the buildings, schools had to budget substantial funds to buy all of the computers and wire the buildings. Public schools had to convince the government that this was a good idea; private schools had to convince parents to dig deeper.

These were big projects that had to take several years from concept to pilot.

As the years went on, more schools started implementing 1:1 programs and more research became available that showed the benefits of 1:1 when used effectively. However, the implementation process at these schools followed the same model of a multi-year concept-to-pilot period because they still had to address many of the original questions.

All of these 1:1 programs did have one feature in common: the school specified all computers, hardware, and software, and locked down the computers. They did this for good reason as all software had to be installed on the computer, as hard as that is to believe in this day, and software could not be depended on to work reliably on computers that schools had not fully tested. And the issues of different platforms, such as Macintosh and Windows? Don't even go there–a school had to choose one or the other. Parents were then asked to buy these "special" (and expensive) computers, either directly or through a tuition increase or assessment.

A few of the challenges schools had to overcome before they could start a pilot were to explain benefits, teach technology skills, overcome negative attitudes, and develop infrastructure.

Benefits: Schools had to educate teachers, parents, and administrators about the potential benefits to student learning, and they had to help teachers develop appropriate pedagogy in their classes.

Skills: Schools had to invest significant time and effort teaching technology skills to the teachers. They had to teach things like, well, how to log in. And how to find files. And how to check email. And how to use a word processor (Wordstar anyone?). And then as time went on, they could start on more complex things, such as how to use an Internet browser. While this may be another one of those "hard to believe" things today, we must remember that these were brand new skills to most people.

Attitudes: Many teachers, hardly ever having a chance to use any technology, and finding it buggy and inscrutable when first introduced by the geekorati, believed that using "technology" in the classroom was a time waster. Many parents believed that using technology was equivalent to playing and that students wouldn't get a real education with computers in the classroom. And even many parents who agreed that technology used in school could be good were put off by the direct expense of having to pay for the school-specified computer that didn't match anything they already used.

Infrastructure: The infrastructure needed significant and costly work to support a 1:1 program, yet instead of one predominant network type as we have today, technology staff had to select from one of several types, and computers had to be matched the chosen network.

While schools had to overcome all of these issues, they were primarily trying to justify the cost. And to justify the cost, schools had to show benefits from how the program would affect teaching and learning. And to show benefits from how the program would affect teaching and learning, schools had to open up their curriculum and teaching to scrutiny within their community. What many people thought was a "laptop" discussion was really a discussion about what teaching and learning looked like, and what it should look like in the future. These were hard discussions that always take a while to resolve as the end result would be to transform teaching. And schools still had to convince parents to spend the money for infrastructure and for the expense of buying a brand new computer.

Fast-forward to September of 2009. The Graded Middle School had a problem. In spite of rich technology resources, which include three mobile computer labs and access to three fixed computer labs, the resources were not rich enough. Demand among teachers was so high that they had trouble scheduling time as often as necessary with their classes. The middle school principal, academic technology coordinator, and the director of information and communication technology (that's me), had discussed several times how we could solve the problem of teacher demand exceeding the supply. Buying more, more, more! was not responsible or feasible. From these discussions arose the possibility of a 1:1 pilot program.

We discussed how conditions in the middle school were different from conditions when 1:1 programs were introduced in the 1980’s, and in many cases different from other schools today. Several key differences–computer commodification, teacher acceptance of the value of integration, expansive software compatibility, infrastructure readiness, and parent connectedness–were differences we discussed in depth:

Computers had become commodities. Every Graded family had at least one computer, with most having two or more, and most high school students having their own. Some students already brought their computers to school, and others just connected with their smart phones. Data collected by the Graded ICT department in early 2008 showed that about 35% of sixth grade students had their own laptop at home.

Our middle school teachers had few questions about the value of integration. Most teachers were routinely using technology in their lives and, more importantly for our purposes, with their classes. The demand for resources indicated how teachers valued use with their classes. Many teachers knew how technology integration helped their students, not only by using the resources with their students, but also from their own professional growth. The predominant question in the middle school was no longer whether integration was valuable, but how best to do it.

Open source and the cloud had arrived, effectively eliminating software compatibility issues. Proprietary software, such as Microsoft Office, was no longer the only way to be productive, and most useful open source packages were platform independent, running on Macintosh, Windows PC, and Linux. For cloud-based applications, the device used was almost immaterial as Internet access and a compatible browser were all that were needed. Very few of these open source and cloud applications required specialized hardware and software, and certainly none was needed for most of what our students were doing in classes.

The infrastructure was ready. During the past few years, Graded had funded an extensive infrastructure upgrade to properly support teachers' use of technology with their students. This same infrastructure could support 1:1.

Parents were more connected personally and many were working for connected companies who actively expected employees to use technology and social networking tools within the organization.

We knew that most beginning 1:1 programs were still following a multi-year process, but we also knew that much of that time was driven by two key issues: the need to develop funding for both infrastructure and volume purchases of student computers and licenses, and by the in-depth examination of teaching and learning to build acceptance of technology in the classroom. We knew our infrastructure was ready, so what if we didn't need to buy computers or licenses? What if we used open source software that runs on the major platforms (Macintosh, Windows, and Linux) or in the cloud only using a browser? Platform wouldn't matter and students could use their own devices–and they didn't even have to be new devices. Our funding requirements for a pilot project essentially disappeared.

That left the question of examining teaching and learning and whether it was an essential precursor to a pilot. We had three thoughts. First, many of our middle school teachers were comfortable with integrating technology resources in their classrooms. Second, many of those same teachers had reached the limit of what they could do with our mobile lab resources and needed more access. Third, trying to talk with teachers about the pedagogy required for integrating current and emerging technologies is complex unless teachers have access to current and emerging technologies that they can use with real students.

In short, our teachers needed more access and a pilot 1:1 program would be very low cost. That left one final question–did we have to change teaching and learning, or was it good enough to know that, with support, the professionals who teach our students could make use of the power of 1:1 with their current knowledge and continue to learn with the devices in their classroom? We decided to ask them. On October 1, 2009, the middle school principal floated the idea to the sixth grade teachers of running a pilot in grade 6 for the second semester. Teachers jumped at the opportunity. Eleven school weeks later as the second semester started, sixth grade students and teachers embarked on the pilot together.

The rest of the history is pretty standard for implementation: communicating with parents, addressing their concerns, working with the sixth grade team planning for the pilot, providing training to teachers on cloud-based tools, doing all of the background work, addressing issues as they arose during the pilot, and on and on and on.

One detail did stand out. For the pilot, we planned to loan one of the school's older laptops to any student who didn't bring a device by using laptops from a mobile lab. We had data showing that about a third of sixth graders had a laptop but we really didn't know how many would show up with a mobile device for the pilot. I was concerned that so few would show up that we couldn't loan enough computers and we would have to call off the pilot. The pilot started and, astoundingly, about three quarters of sixth graders showed up with a mobile device. That commitment to the pilot spoke of the parents' readiness and the students' readiness for these devices to be used for learning in school.

Based on the success of the pilot due to the hard work of the sixth grade team, the model changed from pilot to implementation, with grades 6 and 7 being 1:1 this year and going to grade 8 the following year.

Our choices were specific to the conditions in the Middle School and to our specific goals. Other places and other times have different conditions and different goals.

Eleven weeks. We didn't set out to change the world. We didn't set out to change the school. We didn't set out to change the teachers. We set out to put more power in students’ and teachers’ hands right then. In that we succeeded.

We have been discussing the purpose of school again at, well, school. We should be moving past the view of school from the industrial age where we assume we are training people to follow instructions on a job. So, what is school for? One view is that it is to prepare students for life, in all its messy glory.

Yes, you students will need to support yourself but we don't know whether you will become an artist, entrepreneur  employee, etc., but we need to prepare you to adapt to change. But if we "prepare you for life" in the current practice in most schools we will give you "life" assignments, then grade them so you can know if you are good at "life". Naturally, we will ignore the fact that you do "life" every hour of every day. And therein lies the rub. Grades are perverse as they become the ultimate, yet inaccurate, reification of a student's knowledge. All of school is summed up by that little sheet of paper with nothing by the course name and the grade.

That came to mind as I was stumbled on an old email exchange while trying to find another. A couple of years ago in a far different school, one of our teachers knew an expert, X, in his subject who also knew about technology. In the process, the teacher had X meet a couple of board members, Y and Z. Just to be clear, X is also a collabucator, so keep that in mind as you read the following.

As the teacher wrote me:

He spoke to Y and Z.  They both seemed very interested, and Z asked a lot of questions.  One of X's messages was that you have to model professional practice.  What are they doing in the professional chemistry labs, bio labs, art studios, graphic design firms, etc.  These are the people who are going to hire your kids.  Colleges are looking to fill those spots, so THEY are modeling professional practice, so we should model after what the colleges are doing.

One thing X started is just to get people to SHARE what they are doing in the classroom technology-wise.  He has a group that meets monthly, I think.  They just meet and talk about what they are implementing in their classrooms.

My response:

I'm sure Y and Z liked that--but I don't think they understood the implications. What professional places don't do is have somebody create a limited assignment, then assign a grade to the completion, then convert those to report cards and GPAs. They don't give out assignments where the answer is already known just so their employees can "practice" and look up the answer if the work doesn't pay off. They don't put have an expert who comes in and passes judgment on each and every project so that it's not blessed until the expert says it's blessed. And most of our teachers would not have a clue as to how to get students to do what they are routinely expected to do in industry: identify problems, formulate possible solutions, then use technical expertise to convince people to back their solution.

Everything the parents are tied up in--the GPA that is used for sorting students--does not exist in professional practice in such a form. The assessments and methods for verification and validation used in industry are rooted in a much different set of circumstances in most places; there are a few sweatshops out there, though.  Sure, they'll argue that it is similar in in terms like "you get fired if you don't perform" and "nobody will buy your product if you don't perform". But getting fired is far different from getting a C. And going broke is far different from getting a C. Furthermore, our A students would not necessarily survive in that environment.

But I sure would love to be there when the dichotomy between what Y and Z think school is and what X is talking about finally hits them!

'Nuff said for now.