Technology in Schools: the Benefit of Collaboration

As I packed for my summer trip, I was amazed at how much space I allocated to adapters and cords. You know – the digital camera and charger base, the laptop with power cords, the palm pilot and cell phone, each with its own charger base, the portable printer with its power and computer cords, the noise canceling earphones with adapters, and, last but not least, the electric toothbrush. I felt technologically outfitted for my visit to my home state.

It had been recently reported that South Dakota’s schools were wired as well, with more instructional computers per student than any other state in the country. Its ratio was reported at 1.4 students to 1 instructional computer. This is almost three times above the national average, which currently stands at four students per instructional computer.

On my agenda was a visit to my high school. I was eager to see how the infusion of technology had impacted those familiar classrooms I frequented more than 30 years ago. Surely they would have a better plan than I for keeping their cords and wires untangled.

To prepare for my visit and to better understand cost-effective technology implementation options, I called Bill Hayes, president of Thomas Communications & Technologies LLC in Ithaca, N.Y. Hayes informed me that one effective strategy was to merge district capital and technology plans. He told me that many school districts are in the process of implementing aggressive capital construction programs to upgrade or enlarge their facilities just as technology programs are also being implemented to expand educational opportunities for all students.

"Typically there are two different departments within a school district that carry out these initiatives in separate and uncoordinated processes," explained Hayes. "The capital improvement plans and the technology plans need to be merged into a common districtwide initiative to allow the school district to obtain the mutual benefits of each program. Information technology (IT) directors in school districts need adequate space, power, utility services, environmentally controlled spaces, and furniture and computer classrooms to achieve the technology plan objectives. These facility requirements are also common among all of the other educational departments within a school district that are addressed in the capital construction plan."

"Funding for capital construction and technology has historically been treated as two separate sources that cannot be intermingled," Hayes continued.

"However, the real benefit comes when all available funding sources are identified and accessed to meet the financial requirements of a common goal – excellent schools to educate children! There are many federal technology grant programs that can compliment a capital construction program. The federal E-rate program distributes approximately $1 billion annually for cabling, network electronics, wireless technologies, servers and telephone systems. Other technology grant programs provide funding for applications, training and equipment. Merging capital funding sources with IT grants creates a unique opportunity for school districts to fulfill their goal of constructing excellent schools."

"If there is a common goal in the district that derives a similar scope of work and is financed by multiple funding sources, then great efficiencies are realized at lower cost. It is much easier to construct a facility with all of the educational requirements than to have systems added to the facility at a later date. This is why the facilities planning department and the IT departments must be in constant communication and plan district-wide initiatives in a collaborative manner. The result will be better facilities at a lower cost with reduced construction coordination problems and the delivery of excellent educational facilities to our clients: the students."

I hoped to see evidence of a collaborative coordinated approach to providing the infrastructure to support student learning during my stay.

To better prepare myself on teaching and learning strategies that I also might experience on my return to the hallowed halls of Spearfish High School, I had a conversation with Caroline McCullen, a former National Technology Teacher of the Year who is with SAS inSchool in Cary, N.C. McCullen shared with me a report entitled A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy, (www.nationaledtechplan.org/docs_and_pdf/20yearsdocrevised.pdf) published by the Education Development Center for the U.S. Department of Education.

"It holds some important implications for school facilities planners," McCullen said. "The study surveys 20 policy documents ranging from A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, to The Sustainability Challenge: Taking Ed-Tech to the Next Level, by the Benton Foundation in 2003. As you might expect, most studies recommend that schools ‘improve access, connectivity, and infrastructure.’"

McCullen noted the significance of the findings. "Certainly we have to get that right, but since technology changes so rapidly, I also believe that absolutely nothing should be ‘nailed down’ or permanently placed in a classroom. Literally everything should be moveable, based upon the teacher’s style and the students’ needs: furniture, projectors, pieces, and parts of technology. How many times have you visited a new school only to find teachers commandeering power strips, replacing desks with larger tables, or taping white butcher-block paper to a wall to serve as a makeshift projection screen? When decisions are made about such things, students and teachers must be included in facilities planning if the resulting building is to reflect and support their needs."

The DOE retrospective also found that schools need greater access to "high-quality content and software."

This has "important implications for facility planners," said McCullen. "No matter how innovative the building design and the technology plan, teachers will not use technology to its fullest potential unless computers provide content that truly enhances teaching and learning. SAS inSchool, a Division of SAS, currently strives to meet this need. Curriculum Specialists from SAS inSchool work with educators and students across the country to create engaging content in the core disciplines and Spanish for grades 8-14. Dr. John Boling, director of SAS inSchool advises that schools don’t need a technology plan; instead they need an academic plan that can be enabled by technology. If we follow this advice and focus on the content and the curriculum first, the school will truly facilitate learning."

As I drove the old route to my high school in South Dakota, I could only imagine the massive changes that would have transformed it into a quality-learning environment for the 21st century. At first sight, it was evident that more had changed than I was prepared for. The parking lot was now fenced and filled with playground equipment. The marquee no longer boasted "Home of the Spearfish Spartans." My big high school was now just a small elementary school. More than just the technology had changed. I sat under the cherry tree that our high school class had planted and reflected on the enormity of the transformation of high school education that is taking place across the country, and of the challenge and benefit of collaborative efforts that yet must be undertaken to assure the success of our clients: the students.

Jim Brady AIA, REFP, is the executive director for the America’s Schoolhouse Council, which is dedicated to excellence in planning, building, and maintaining our nation’s schools. He can be reached at JimBradyASC@aol.com.