A Conversation Over

My View

Since 2008, we have been talking in our schools about implementing a one-to-one computer initiative for our students. It is not a new conversation, and many other districts have taken this step.

Stoughton, Mass., as a district, has been well ahead of the technology curve with smartboards in every classroom and teachers well trained to bring the resources of the world into their classrooms. All of our buildings have Wi-Fi, and in the high school alone, more than 500 log-ins occur each morning on students’ personal devices.

The debate about one-to-one never has been whether it was necessary. That was a given. The question was how to accomplish this. Some on the district’s leadership team believed we should charge a fee to families for either purchase or lease of a device, with accommodations made for poor students. Their arguments were legitimate:

• People are invested when they pay, so the devices would be better cared for;
• We can’t control what students do with devices off site, so family ownership would reduce liability for improper use; and
• Initial outlay for the devices would be cost prohibitive, and these costs would be ongoing. As devices become obsolete, we would be replacing them every two or three years. If we fell behind, we would not be providing the digital literacy that was a significant goal of the initiative.

A Contrary Stance

Then there was the other argument — the position to which I adhered. Public school should be free. No one should be charged a fee for the privilege of walking through the door. The obligation of the school system is to provide, through the public schools’ budget, all that is needed to access an education. While we have started charging fees, unfortunately, for some extracurricular activities, we had not done so for anything required of each student.

Because this argument wasn’t getting resolved, we opted for some well-conceived compromises. We gave about 30 teachers devices to experiment with for a year. This was a chance to find resources, work with some applications, design lessons for which the devices would be essential and then have them report back.

We chose teachers in different subjects and grade levels to get a good cross section. The music, art, computer, special education and middle school science teachers believed they would make use of the devices in exciting ways and wanted them immediately.

We decided we would start to outfit our schools with devices for every student while in the classroom. This would address several issues. We could roll out devices as we could afford them. We would start with all middle school science teachers. Then we would move on to one elementary grade level and additional subjects. By last year we had all 4th graders with iPads all day and devices in the hands of art teachers. This year we have moved up to all 5th grades and all middle school English classrooms.

A Quiet Ending

In the meantime, and independent of this ongoing discussion, I convened a districtwide council to build a group of interested parents, teachers, administrators and community members to advise me on school district improvements. Among topics raised was the question of one-to-one devices. Every parent expressed dismay at the idea of handing out a device to every student. One parent said pointedly, “I have eight screens in the house already; the battle is limiting screen time. If you send home another device and tell them they have to spend time on it, I can tell you right now, I won’t thank you for it.”

Web access wasn’t the issue. At least 95 percent of our households have some kind of access, and the town library offers it to those without. The local cable company gives Internet service to under-resourced families for $9.95 a month. While the digital gap is real, we are addressing it.

So in a quiet way, without it happening at a specific hour, the conversation has simply ended. With everything the students need on the Web or in the cloud or some other accessible server, the actual device has shrunk to relative unimportance. As long as we can give students access to the same technology while they are in school and ensure it is worthwhile, the question of what to give them at home is simply and finally irrelevant.