A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

6. Resouces for Technology Implementations

The case study sites varied considerably in the length of their history of involvement with technology, as shown in Figure 2. (The figure is based on the eight single-school sites only; the TeacherNet schools are not included.) As described in the profiles in Chapter 4, they differed also in the particular goals that they hoped technology could achieve, and the ways in which they used technology. Some of the sites put considerable emphasis on video and multimedia technologies, for example; some emphasized use of wide area networks, and others did not. Across all sites, however, the vast majority of technology-supported activities involved computers, and in the next section we describe the level of computer equipment at these schools in comparison with national norms.

Computer Resources

Becker's (1994) analysis of data from the 1992 IEA survey Computers in Education provides a context for interpreting the quantity and allocation of computers in our case study schools. The survey data suggest that, despite an increase on the order of 3 million computers in schools between 1989 and 1992, the average number of students per computer in America's schools remains at a level that makes adequate access problematic. Becker reports that in 1992 the average (median) elementary or middle school had 1 computer for every 15 students, while the typical high school fared a bit better with 1 computer for every 10 students. Moreover, these figures are deceptively positive, given the large quantity of obsolete computer equipment in schools and the fact that large numbers of computers may sit in laboratories where they receive relatively little use (Schofield, 1995).

As Table 5 illustrates, most of our case study schools were considerably better equipped than the average American school, even allowing for the fact that our data were collected for 1993-94. The five best-equipped schools in our sample had one or more computers for every two students.

Table 5
Density and Distribution of Computers in Case Study Schools

^a As of school year 1993-94.
^b School-within-a-school program only.
^c Four computer-equipped classrooms are used interchangeably by all project teachers.
^d Per double classroom of 64 students.

The school-within-a-school program at the secondary level, in fact, had two computers per student, a take-home computer for each student plus enough computers at school for all students to use one.

In addition to total number of computers per school and the ratio of students to computers, Table 5 shows the allocation of computers in our case study sites. For each school, the table shows the average number of computers in regular classrooms and the number of computer labs that the school maintained. The data suggest that, with the exception of Maynard, the schools in our sample did not rely primarily on labs as the mechanism for providing students with computer access. Our case study schools differed in this regard from the majority of American schools (Becker, 1994). Most of the case study sites tried to have enough computers in regular classrooms that computers could be used as one of the "rotations" for a quarter or more of the students.

Finally, the table addresses the issue of home access. A number of sites stressed the importance of giving teachers access to technology where and when they have the most time to learn about it and to use it to enhance their own productivity-that is, at home after hours. Six of the case study sites provided take-home computers for teachers. Only two sites had ongoing programs of supplying students with computers for their home use, although several additional sites had experimented with take-home computers (usually older models).

Network Resources

In 1993-94, seven of the eight single-school sites in our sample had connected at least some of their computers into local area networks (LANs). Moreover, in five cases these LANs were general purpose rather than dedicated integrated learning systems. It is helpful to compare these reports with survey data cited by Becker (1994) showing that 44% of public elementary schools and 66% of high schools had LANs in the 1992-93 school year. Seven of the eight sites also had wide area network (WAN) connections, including one that had a World Wide Web (WWW) server. Table 6 summarizes the network resources and activities at our case study sites. In the 1993-94 school year, however, only three of the case study sites had implemented a client-server network model that made a wide variety of software available to multiple classrooms, provided folders for individual student and group work, and provided electronic communication throughout the school or mini-school.

During the year of our primary data collection (1993-94), only two sites had direct connections (not modems) to a wide area network. The involvement of these schools in wide area network activities is changing rapidly, however; two additional elementary schools had solid plans for extensive use of wide area network resources in 1994-95, and most of the other sites were in the process of addressing the issue.

Costs: Required Resources

Initial purchase of the technology hardware itself is the most obvious cost of these programs, and the one cost that appears to get the most attention. Although the weight of this purchase should not be slighted in times of tight school budgets, one of the lessons of the case studies is the fact that the initial hardware purchase should be regarded as only a fraction of the investment required to support an effective program. In addition to the initial hardware, there are costs associated with software purchases, telecommunications connections, maintenance and repair, teacher training, and system upgrades and obsolescence.

Table 6
Network Resources in Case Study Schools

Cost data are difficult to gather from schools and were particularly difficult in these case studies because many costs were assumed by external agents (e.g., corporate partners), absorbed by teachers (e.g., in volunteering their own time for training and materials development), or subsumed under larger cost categories that precluded itemized accounting of technology-related costs.

The approach used by Hank Becker (1993) offers a useful alternative to trying to estimate the costs of such innovations on the basis of the often incomplete cost data reported by case study informants. Becker used a survey of computer-using teachers not to ask about technology costs directly but rather to identify features of schools in which exemplary computer-using teachers work. Teachers in Becker's sample who used computers to provide students with project-based learning opportunities involving challenging, authentic tasks were more likely than other computer-using teachers to be in schools that:

• Provide a strong social network of computer-using teachers.

• Have a full-time technology coordinator who promotes computer use among teachers.

• Receive district support for in-service training, both in tool uses of computer software and in technology uses pertinent to particular subject domains.

• Stress student use of word processing in all their subject matter classes and for extracurricular activities (e.g., school paper).

• Institute policies for equitable access to computers across genders and ability levels.

• Use computers in subjects such as social studies, fine arts, and business and industrial arts, as well as in the core areas of mathematics and language arts.

• Face maintenance and coordination problems that are not issues at schools with lower levels of technology utilization.

• Feature smaller class sizes for computer-using teachers.

Having identified features of schools with exemplary computer-using teachers, Becker then provided rough estimates of the costs associated with implementing these features. Although some of the specific assumptions behind Becker's cost estimates were not characteristic of our study sample (specifically, the class size assumptions), we find the overall approach illuminating and particularly like the fact that it encourages administrators and planners not only to think about the broad array of support costs needed to implement technology effectively but also to think in terms of annual rather than one-time costs.

Table 7 is based on Becker's general approach, but it incorporates different assumptions about (1) the number of teachers per pupil in a representative school, (2) the number of technology coordinators and support staff needed, and (3) the overlap between staff development and technical support activities and specific areas in which teachers need support. (Becker treated support for word processing use, equity, and new subject matter uses as separate cost categories.) The figures shown in Table 7 are not based on actual expense data provided to us by schools but rather are estimates of what a school might expect to spend to initiate the kinds of activities we observed. As indicated above, outside sources of funding should be explored as ways in which costs to the general education fund might be reduced.

Table 7
Cost Estimates for Implementing Technology-Supported Education Reform

Note: Hypothetical school of 800 students and 30 teacher FTEs.

Source: Table is based on Becker (1993); Tables 1 and 2, pp. 33 and 34. We are indebted to Becker for the classification of cost categories. The assumptions concerning the number of staff per pupil and the level of staff support required for exemplary technology implementations are our own, based on the experiences of our case study sites. We differ from Becker also in assuming use of computer networks and network versions for software. Thus, our projected per-pupil costs are significantly lower than those provided by Becker.

The recommended estimates provided in our table can be compared to cost data collected recently by RAND in a study of the costs of high-technology programs (Keltner and Ross, in press). Recent expenditure histories were gathered from nine schools (Keltner, 1995). In the RAND study, per student costs averages $350 a year. The major difference between the RAND data on actual expenditures and our recommended levels of expenditures in Table 5 lies in the area of personnel costs. Personnel supports for technology in our table are estimated at $269 per pupil per year or 58% of the total costs related to technology implementation. This emphasis on the human support structure is consistent with the recommendation made by policy analysts (e.g., David, 1994) that at least half of the funds for educational technology implementations should go to training and staff support. In contrast, the schools studied by RAND spent an average of just $24 per pupil annually for staff development and technical assistance for technology use. This figure is less than 7% of the schools' total expenditures for technology.

In part, this difference may reflect a failure on the part of many schools to provide the needed human infrastructure for their technology innovations. Part of the difference, however, probably lies in schools' tradition of expecting teachers to improve their skills on their own time. Many of the schools in our case study sample spent less than the figure in Table 7 for teacher access and planning with technology because teachers performed these functions on their own time. It was common for us to observe teachers meeting at 7:00 in the morning and then again until 7:00 or later at night to work on technology-related activities and issues. While such volunteerism reduces the costs to schools, the personnel costs are real from an economic perspective, whether they are borne by school budgets or by the teachers. Systemic reform efforts will be on shaky ground if they rely on this level of uncompensated dedication from teachers. Certainly technology implementations will be limited in scope if they include only staff with this level of flexibility and commitment.

-###-

[Implementation Challenges and Strategies (part 4 of 4)]

[Leadership for Technology Implementations]