Freedom to Learn

Michigan Virtual University and Ferris State University

Lansing, MI
 

Introduction/Overview
Organizational Change
Budget & Finance
Professional Development
Technology Infrastructure
Outcomes
Evaluation
Contact Information
 

Introduction/Overview

The Freedom to Learn (FTL) program was initiated in 2001 by Michigan Speaker of the House, Rick Johnson, and expanded by Michigan legislature and Governor Jennifer Granholm in 2003. The leadership of the FTL program is comprised of decision-level representatives from the Governor’s Office, Michigan Virtual University, Ferris State University, and Michigan Departments of Education, Management and Budget, and Information Technology. Daily operations are the joint responsibility of Michigan Virtual University (Ferris State University) and the Michigan Department of Education. In addition, the program has the assistance of statewide advisory groups from government, education, business, and industry.

A description of the project itself:

• The purpose of FTL is to engage Michigan students in learning activities through the use of one-to-one wireless computing technology to (1) increase student achievement in core academic subjects; and (2) bridge the digital divide through greater access to educational opportunities statewide.
• One-to-one wireless computing means that each participating student is provided a wireless technology device to use on a direct and continuing basis for the length of the grant. To the extent possible, students should not have to share the device with other students. It is the intent of the FTL program to empower students with “anytime and anywhere” learning. The grades, subjects, or locations impacted 2004–2005 FTL program includes 19,394 students in 180 buildings within 90 school districts. Focus is on middle school students, especially 6th graders. Each school had to qualify for federal funding to participate in the program, meaning they had been identified as “high need” schools. About one-third of the schools targeted for the program had not been meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals for academic achievement.
• To qualify, school districts (individually or in consortia) also had to meet eligibility criteria approved by the Michigan State Board of Education, including high need (poverty), high priority (not meeting AYP), and readiness. Participating school districts include larger urban districts such as Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Saginaw, and Pontiac, along with numerous rural districts across the state.
• A project timeline: 4 years 2004–2008 (an initial demonstration program preceded FTL in 2002 and 2003). The rationale for the project included the educational or organizational goal intended and its expected outcomes.
• The primary goal of the FTL program is to increase student achievement through improved instructional delivery based on the Michigan Curriculum Framework (MCF) and Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE). MCF and GLCE are Michigan's standards and benchmarks for student achievement as assessed by the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP).
• The FTL initiative is organized around six focus areas: context, classroom tools, curriculum and content resources, teacher and administrator professional development, help desk, and evaluation. Within each of these areas, HP and the FTL coordinating team have assembled specific delivery tools to support teachers and other school personnel to facilitate student achievement, particularly as related to MEAP. A variety of delivery modes for professional development allow for teachers to access the program components in order to successfully build and implement this program.

Organizational Change

The State engaged a variety of educational leaders to develop a statewide concept for the FTL program. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) approved a grant application process to ensure that each participating school district would be able to clearly describe its overall educational plan, including objectives and key implementation elements, for the project that it proposed. Districts applying for FTL funding were made aware of the following general expectations for the FTL program:

• Administrators, teachers, parents, community members, higher education institutions, technology companies, and other stakeholder partners should be involved in formulating the plan for implementing FTL.
• Applicants must provide a one-to-one student-to-device opportunity for all targeted students. One-to-one wireless computing means that each participating student is provided a wireless technology device to use on a direct and continuing basis for the length of the grant. To the extent possible, students should not have to share the device with other students. It is the intent of the FTL program to empower students with “anytime and anywhere” learning.
• Plans for implementing the FTL program should include specific strategies to ensure student use of wireless computing technology, including possible use at home during the school year and/or during the summer, and include mechanisms to track student usage.
• Working in conjunction with the selected FTL vendor, plans for implementing the FTL program should include compliance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), and security policies and mechanisms for the wireless service, including how protection will be managed against possible hacker access to the school network and authentication of users.
• Grant applicants should have plans in place that include meaningful partnership opportunities with intermediate school districts (ISDs), colleges and universities, and local businesses or community organizations. The role and expectation of each partner should be clearly defined and could include assistance with planning and research, technology support services, teacher professional development, curriculum procurement, evaluation and assessment, as well as information dissemination activities.
• It is expected that all grant recipients will participate in a formal statewide learning community under the auspices of MVU and MDE to promote sound implementation strategies and sharing of best practices.
• It is expected that all successful grant applicants will actively participate in the FTL statewide program evaluation being conducted by Michigan State University, the University of Memphis, and other FTL approved organizations.
• It is expected that relevant local resources will be used to support the proposed project, including existing technical resources and staff, past technology investments, other state and federal grants, foundation support and local community involvement and partner contributions (cash, in-kind, technical, etc.).
• All applicants must have a state-approved technology plan on file with the MDE.

Budget & Finance

FTL is authorized through Michigan Public Act 351 of 2004, which identified federal funds from Title II Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and funds from the Michigan State School Aid Act.

FTL is a state-enacted program utilizing federal and state funds. The total grant award to eligible districts is $1,000 per pupil plus a $40 per participant local agency share or $1,200 per teacher.

Federal funds: To date, a total of $26.6 million has been allocated to the FTL program from Title II Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 federal education funds. Of the $26.6 million, $20 million has been awarded to Michigan school districts. Per federal requirement, the Michigan Department of Education allocated 25% ($6.6 million) of the federal grant funds to statewide professional development.

State Funds: Public Act 351 of 2004 (Sec. 98b) appropriated $3.7 million in state funds in 2004–2005 for FTL administration and evaluation, professional development, content resources, assessment, and grant awards to eligible school districts. Of the $3.7 million in state funds, $1 million is available for new grant awards. The legislation designated that the state funding shall be used first to provide grants to districts that received money under Sec. 98b in 2002–2003 and were designated as program application sites.

Professional Development

At the core of the FTL program are strong, focused professional development opportunities for administrators, teachers, and technology staff. All activities conform to the Michigan Department of Education’s Professional Development Standards. The expectation is that 1,000 educators will have participated in FTL activities by the end of this academic year.

FTL professional development is designed to support the transformation of teaching and learning through a one-to-one laptop learning environment. Utilizing a constructivist approach, teachers create student-centered, problem-solving classrooms to engage students and improve achievement. Ubiquitous integration of technology with curriculum and instruction are mainstays of FTL’s professional development approach, focused on the overarching goals of improving schools and increasing students’ performance.

Twenty-five percent of the program budget is committed to professional development for school administrators, teachers and technology staff. Sessions include an orientation to the FTL program, technical training on both hardware and software, and workshops on integrating technology into the curriculum for successful student outcomes.

Through November 2004, over 70 FTL professional development (PD) sessions had been delivered. Approximately 90% of FTL participants (1,200 out of 1,400) have attended at least one PD session. Participant feedback is positive, confirmed by the results of their evaluations—with 85% of the ratings at excellent.

Technology Infrastructure

The legislation creating FTL mandated that the state choose a single vendor to support the program. The reasons for that mandate included accountability, consistency between schools, and the efficiency and scalability of having a single provider. The state chose HP. HP provides a complete FTL education package customized to meet the goals of the state. It includes wireless laptop computers for students and teachers, curriculum aligned to national and state standards, teacher professional development, and a learning portal hosted on HP technology. The notebook computer supplied through FTL in 2004 is HP’s nx9010 notebook computer with an Intel 2.4 GHz processor, 30 GB hard drive, 256 MB of DRAM, a 24X CD-ROM drive, and 14” XGA LCD screen. Other components of the HP package include:

• Learning Portal: A centralized learning portal hosted on HP technology, utilizing Microsoft Class Server and modeled on the Intel-supported Managed Learning System. This statewide portal will provide teachers, parents, and students with powerful communication and collaboration tools and create a more personalized learning environment.
• Software: HP also provides software that meets both teachers’ and students’ needs. For students, each laptop is equipped with an HP LearningPaq in reading, language arts, or social studies, appropriate to the student’s grade level. Michigan FTL classes also have access to lessons and projects in technology skills from Classroom Connect’s Connected Tech.
• Teachers are equipped with Microsoft Class Server software, an easy-to-use learning management tool for K–12 teachers. It provides a Web-based platform for teachers to create and deliver online lessons and assessments, and to track student progress. Other instructional tools include MS Office, MS OneNote, Squeak (for project-based lessons), and ETS Discourse (for monitoring and tracking student performance). HP is providing each participating school building with a self-contained and configured wireless network, including wireless cards, access point, and necessary switches to connect the access points to the building’s existing local area network (LAN).
• Prior to delivery of equipment, HP requested each participating school complete a Wireless network connectivity survey. Based upon the results of the survey, and following review of building architectural and network diagrams, HP furnished an acceptable and functional wireless infrastructure to support students on a building-by-building basis.
• A critical part of the FTL program is the implementation of a wireless network in schools. Wireless network security is important to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to sensitive information. The security scheme defined in the contract between the state of Michigan and HP states, “At a minimum, confidentiality must be maintained through Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), Temporal/Temporary Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP), Michael/Message Integrity Code (MIC), and 802.1x access control using an authentication server (e.g. RADIUS).”

Outcomes

FTL is an education initiative focused on improving the instruction we deliver and using technology to improve the way we deliver it. Key goals of the FTL program include:

1. Enhance student learning and achievement in core academic subjects with an emphasis on building skills to participate and lead in the 21st century workforce.
2. Provide greater access to equal educational opportunities statewide through universal access to technology.
3. Foster innovation and sharing of best practices through systematic professional development for teachers, administrators, and staff.
   
   Empower parents and caregivers with the tools to become more involved in their child’s education. Program performance metrics include:
   • Readiness: 90% of middle schools in Michigan that receive readiness funding will improve their cumulative readiness score by 10% or more. 95% of teachers will improve their readiness to use one-to-one wireless computing technology to support their teaching.
   • Every student in grades 6–12 in Michigan will have a one-to-one wireless computing technology device by 2008, funded from a combination of local, state, federal, and private sources. At least 50% of the school districts with one or more non-AYP schools will voluntarily apply for grant funds to participate in the FTL program. At least 15 non-AYP schools will participate in the FTL program beginning no later than October 2004. All schools participating in the FTL program will have access to high-quality professional development on or before August 1, 2004.
   • 95% of the students participating in the FTL program will demonstrate advanced 21st century learning skills as defined by the elements listed in the MILE Guide posted at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/guide/default.asp. 95% of the students will use technology to support their learning. 30% of students will increase their time on task (dedicated learning time).
   • Engagement: All participating teachers will successfully complete a FTL program orientation during the first year. Schools participating in the FTL program will see significant improvements in student attendance, disciplinary, and homework completion rates.
   • Community Involvement: More than 25% of the parents with students participating in the FTL program will assist their child with a home-based instructional activity that requires use of the FTL-issued computer. 90% of parents will use the equipment to improve their own technology skills.

Evaluation

The vision is to expand the one-to-one wireless education program to all K–12 students in Michigan.

• The challenges are to become creative about funding resources and to help schools prepare for a one-to-one wireless education program.
• Through a systematic evaluation process, Michigan is gathering lessons learned and best practices to share across the state and the nation.
• Lessons learned to date include the need for special attention and emphasis on the following: school principal’s full support and involvement; frequent and regularly scheduled professional development activities for all school-based personnel, including teachers, administrators, and technology coordinators; onsite presence by technical support personnel; parental awareness and involvement; public relations to facilitate staff, parental and community support; program plans guided by instructional goals; joint partnerships with higher ed, technology companies, and community members; orientation sessions involving students, parents, teachers, administrators, and staff; well-defined and complete plans for overall implementation; and regular communication with internal and external stakeholders.

Contact Information

Bruce Montgomery
bmont@mivu.org
517-664-5464