right devices for our students? Can the net-
work support the load of all those devices?
What do we do with the technology we al-
ready have? Do we have the manpower to
maintain all of those additional computing
devices?
Planning is the key to a successful rollout.
Before beginning, know this: There will be
mistakes, and that’s OK. No plan is per-
fect, and if you overplan to get everything
just right, you will never get started because
technology is always changing.
Our first step was to give our stakeholders
a voice in the planning process. We surveyed
all of our teachers and asked them what
technology they thought they would need
in their classrooms. We also put together a
focus group made up primarily of volunteer
teachers, along with some administrators,
parents and students.
We made a conscious effort not to cherry
pick the employees in the group – anyone
who was interested in participating was al-
lowed. This group met to discuss the three
key areas of the plan: vision, devices, and
policies and procedures.
The vision session was the most critical.
At this meeting the focus group was tasked
with one question: What do we want our
students to get out of technology? The group
created a list of nine desired outcomes for
student learning with technology. These de-
sired outcomes served as the foundation for
the plan and informed all of our conversa-
tions and decisions.
The next step was to determine what
would be the right devices for our students.
To begin, we invited three companies –
Apple, Google and Microsoft – to visit
and present their vision of the technology-
infused classroom. The focus group then
convened to share their thoughts on the pre-
sentations, the possibilities and limitations
of the various devices.
Ultimately we were not just choosing de-
vices for our students, we were choosing an
ecosystem; easy-to-use software and hard-
ware working with synergy for our students
and teachers. Due to the speed at which
technology changes, the group was asked
to consider three factors as they vetted the
various options:
• Choice – will the solution allow students
The vision session was the most critical. At this meeting
the focus group was tasked with one question: What do
we want our students to get out of technology?
to have some agency in the tools they use?
• Flexibility – will the solution be able to
keep pace with the rate of technology change
during its expected lifespan, and allow us to
easily adapt to changes?
• Standardization – will the solution work
across the organization so that it will be af-
fordable to procure, maintain, provide pro-
fessional development, and also able to col-
laborate with others, both in and outside of
the district?
With these guidelines in mind, the group
formulated a recommendation for student
devices for all grade levels. For our TK-2
grades, the group felt strongly that tablet
devices were necessary to support younger
students who would benefit from a simpler,
more tactile experience.
Recommended for grades 3-8 were
Chromebooks because the laptop form fac-
tor would better facilitate writing goals.
Chromebooks also made a lot of sense for
these grade levels due to California Assess-
ment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP) testing. They wouldn’t have the
same challenges tablet devices do with key-
board support. In addition, having students
use the same devices every day that they
would use for the test removed a potential
barrier at test time.
At the final meeting, the group discussed
the various policy and use decisions that
impact how the technology can actually be
used to support instruction. Would certain
grade levels benefit from 1:1 access, or would
a smaller number of devices in class for use
in stations be optimal? Should students be
allowed to take devices home? How restric-
tive should the web filtering be? Should stu-
dents have access to YouTube?
One of the challenges with the technol-
ogy-enabled classroom – especially where
the internet or collaboration is involved – is
how to decide whether the value of some-
thing for instruction outweighs the potential
for misuse or off-task behavior.
During these discussions, we established
a philosophy of “erring on the side of in-
struction” any time we came to a contentious
point. Students will always test the bound-
aries, but we do not want to limit the options
that our students have at their disposal just
because a small number of students might
make poor choices.
Outside of the obvious limitations required
by the Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA), we made a discernible effort to make
our students’ computing experience similar to
what they will face in the real world.
The most important decision that came
out of this process was the selection of what
ecosystem would best meet the needs of our
students and teachers. We placed a high pri-
ority on providing a workspace for students
that was device agnostic. We believe it is
not about learning to use a specific software
application or program because programs
change over time and often are dependent
on specific hardware or operating systems.
With a device agnostic approach, students
learn the fundamentals of different comput-
ing tasks like word processing, spreadsheets,
presentation creation, etc., using tools that
are available on all hardware and operating
system platforms, so that what they learn is
still available to them regardless of the de-
vice they choose to use. Additionally, any
content they create can easily be taken with
May | June 2018
9