16 / 29
16
Providing each student with an individual digital
device has been a trend over the past several years.
Many colleges have been one to one (1:1) for years
and it is an increasing trend in K-12 education. The
U.S. Department of Education initiated the Future
Ready Effort to improve access to digital resources,
ensure more equitable access, engage parents to
support deeper understanding, and to ensure
stronger educators.
A number of developing nations such as Peru and
Uruguay are involved in 1:1 programs on a national
scale (Trucano, 2014). One of the key concerns
raised is the cost involved in implementing such a
program. The cost of the program is often looked at
as the reason not to consider 1:1 programs in K-12
education. This is in spite of the fact that Project RED
(2010), which stands for Revolutionizing Education,
conducted a nation-wide study of technology use in
schools in 2010 and found that properly implemented
instructional technology actually saved districts
money.
No comprehensive study had
been done to gauge the level of
individual digital device use by
students, so in the spring of 2015 a
survey was conducted of Illinois
public school districts regarding the
current status of 1:1 or BYOD
programs within each district. The
survey received more than 360
responses representing 317 districts,
allowing for some generalizations of
the status of 1:1 programing in
Illinois.
Twenty-nine percent of
respondents identified their districts
as having a fully implemented 1:1
program. Two elementary districts responded that
they provided students with two devices. In one case,
an iPad for use at home and school and a
Chromebook for use at school. Another 27 percent
were in the process of phasing in a 1:1 program or
had a program they defined as “partially
implemented.” Several of the partially implemented
programs were high schools where 1:1 was being
phased in with freshmen and then a new grade level
added each year over a four-year period. Eight of the
districts identified as “partially implemented”
commented they were moving away from BYOD and
towards 1:1 programs.
Nine percent of the districts were currently in pilot
testing with a 1:1 program and another 24 percent
were considering 1:1 programs last spring. Of those
districts considering a 1:1 program for the future,
seven of those 20 respondents who provided
additional comments mentioned currently having or
considering a BYOD program as well.
Forty districts responded that they were not
considering a 1:1 program at the time. Of those
districts that were not considering a 1:1 program,
eight provided comments. Three commented that
their fiscal limitations precluded investing in 1:1
technology, another two articulated they relied on
class sets of devices, another suggested that the
teaching staff in the district wasn’t ready to embrace
technology and another seemed to view 1:1 programs
as having a potential negative impact on social
interactions. Two districts responded they had
implemented a 1:1 program, but had cancelled the
program due to a lack of success. One of those two
districts responded that BYOD was being allowed as
an individual option for students. (See Table 1)
Do 1:1 programs really cost more?
Dr. Steven M. Baule is the
superintendent for the
Muncie Community
Schools in Indiana. He
previously served as a
superintendent,
administrator and teacher
in Illinois for two
decades. This column is
based on a research
project he conducted.
Table 1