Date: Fri 20-Feb-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

edink-schools-technology

Full Text:

Ed Ink: Technology In The Schools

A relatively small portion of the Board of Education's $32.7 million budget

proposal this year has been earmarked for a major technology upgrade for the

schools. The district's technology budget totals $430,000, which should bring

a range of computer equipment, from laptops to LANs, into the district's six

schools. This significant infusion of hardware into Newtown's classrooms has

the potential to spark new levels of interconnectivity and learning in every

grade. It also has the potential to be an expensive process of trial and

error.

In coming up with a plan for developing the technological resources in the

schools system, the individual schools were given wide latitude to choose the

equipment that would best fit with their existing resources and educational

mission. This makes sense, since the different schools have different needs.

Middle Gate School, for example, has a head start on the other elementary

schools; it already has set up a local area network (LAN) linking computer

stations within the schools allowing them to share software, and it has

connected to the Internet and maintains its own web pages. The other

elementary schools are playing catch-up, and their needs at this point are

more basic.

It would make sense to have lessons learned at Middle Gate School apply to the

other elementary schools, yet the technology plan of each school seems to have

been developed more in the spirit of individual experimentation than

collective collaboration. Hawley School and Head O'Meadow School, for example,

are taking completely different approaches to getting computers into the hands

of their students. Hawley wants two computers on carts to roll from classroom

to classroom. Cost: $4,120. Head O' Meadow wants 30 Powerbooks so that every

child in a class can have a keyboard as they learn together. Cost: $67,170.

Without making a judgment on the efficacy of these two approaches, it is clear

that there is a significant cost difference. Before committing to both, some

effort should be made to determine whether one approach is really 16 times

better than the other. If the experience at Middle Gate doesn't directly

relate to what the other schools are doing, perhaps other school districts

have a track record that would inform us on which route to take.

There are other questions that need answers: Macs or PCs or both? Take-home

laptops for teachers or students or both? Restrictions on Internet access? And

who decides who gets to see what on the Internet?

To its credit, the school district's technology committee has spent a lot of

time researching modes and models for its overall plan. It has at least

recognized the need for systemwide standardization of software and hardware

without restricting the possibilities for innovation by educators in the

individual schools.

Part of the problem, however, is that Newtown is running slightly ahead of

other school districts in developing its technological infrastructure, so it

may be that we will have to learn some lessons through our own mistakes,

rather that the less expensive method of learning from the mistakes of others.

Lots of money will be spent on computers for our schools in the coming years,

and we expect, for the most part, it will be money well spent. We should go

into it, however, not wide-eyed in wonder, but wide-eyed and wary.