LM NovDec2015 version 2

17 / 29

17
The myth of technology cost?
As mentioned above, one of the common reasons
for not considering 1:1 programming was identified as
cost. One district specifically mentioned the lack of
state financial support and other fiscal concerns.
Project RED’s (2010) findings seem to have shown
the opposite: “Substantial evidence shows that
technology has a positive financial impact, but for
best results, schools need to invest in the re-
engineering of schools, not just technology itself.”
The math behind North Boone’s 1:1 program at
the middle school level showed that would cost less
over time to provide students each with an individual
device than to continue to provide carts of laptops
along with desktop computer labs, printers and other
equipment. One key to this was to move towards
digital resources instead of traditional print textbooks.
Using digital resources to build a curriculum instead
of relying on textbooks to determine curriculum is a
huge shift for schools, but is important to both
improve the
ability of faculty
to properly
differentiate and
to provide each
student the best
opportunity to
learn.
Other
districts seem to
have
experienced
similar savings.
Maine Township
High School has
been able to
significantly
reduce
instructional costs by moving to a 1:1 model. Ken
Wallace, superintendent of Maine Township HSD
states: “As knowledge changes and information
changes in real time, students can be plugged into
research sites that live stream discoveries as they
happen. The reality is that 1:1 can be far superior
instructionally and by far superior economically. It
takes the power away from text book companies and
makes the teaching and learning construct more
authentic, flatter and connected to the world where
learning and discourse is happening all the time. And
it does so at a fraction of the cost of a traditional
school model .”
Of the 51 districts that assessed the fiscal impact
of their 1:1 program, 12 saw an increase in cost.
Fifteen saw a decrease in cost and 24 found the
district’s 1:1 program to be cost neutral. One of the
districts reporting increased costs identified the cost
increase was due at least in part to continuing to
purchase traditional materials in addition to the
computers. One could speculate that if the traditional
materials could be supplanted by digital materials and
potentially Open Educational Resource (OER)
materials, costs would have decreased. Another
respondent articulated that they were considering
moving to BYOD from 1:1 due to the cost, but they
didn’t provide any additional detail. Of the 15 districts
that saw a reduction
in costs, they
articulated specific
decreases in paper
consumption, energy
consumption, and
software costs.
Beyond the potential
cost savings, 39 of
the 54 districts that
measured the impact
on their 1:1 program
on student
achievement saw an
increase. (See
Table2) None of the
districts saw a
decrease in student
achievement. Eleven of the 49 districts that measured
the impact on student attendance saw increased in
attendance due to the 1:1 program. No districts saw a
decrease in student achievement. Overall, the survey
results show that 1:1 programs hold the promise to
have a positive impact on both student achievement
and the district’s bottom line.
References
November, A. (2015). Why schools must move beyond one-to-one computing. November Learning. Available
at
Project RED (2010). The Research. Available at: .
Trucano, M. (2014). Ten observations about 1:1 computing efforts around the world. EduTech Blog. November
25. Available at:
Table 2