statewide digital transformation: legislation for education...statewide digital transformation:...

29
Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired by May 2017 Sponsored by HP

Upload: others

Post on 31-Jul-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Statewide Digital Transformation:

Legislation for Education

A Thought Leadership Paper by

One-to-One Institute Inspired by

May 2017

Sponsored by HP

Page 2: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Forward

“Take risks. Ask big questions. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes. If you don’t make

mistakes, you’re not reaching far enough.”

- David Packard, Co-Founder of Hewlett Packard.

HP has a long tradition of supporting innovation in education, beginning with our founders,

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. For years, HP has worked to change the equation in

education. We're aiming our efforts inside and outside the classroom, working with students

and educators to redesign and complement the learning process, wherever it takes place.

Through our unending commitment to educators, unrivalled breadth of industry-proven

solutions and investments that advance institutional and academic success, HP is redefining

the role, the reach, and the results of technology in education across the globe.

We believe that everyone—no matter who they are or where they come from—has the right

to a quality education. We’re driven by the knowledge that, as we help build better education

systems, we’re helping achieve meaningful outcomes for us all. We leverage the combined

experience of thousands of schools around the world in a scientific approach to education

technology that enables personalized learning, deeper student engagement, instructional

innovation, and better school management. The team includes an array of current and former

K-12 education officials from across the country, committed to the personal success of every

teacher they engage.

To that end, we welcome the opportunity to work with key public officials to promote

thought leadership, our role as an exemplary global citizen, and the HP brand. As the

education of our children represents the most noble of causes, we take great pride in

supporting this study.

Developed by the One to One Institute and Project RED, the report provides objective, no-

nonsense evaluation of past efforts. By learning from past efforts across the country, we are

empowered to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and what factors should be

considered for future education technology initiatives. We hope you find the attached study, a

first of its kind, a valuable resource in the years to come.

Our teams welcome the opportunity to become part of the dialogue. You can learn more

about our efforts at www.hp.com/hpeducation

Elliott Levine Mike Belcher Gary Fuchs Director of Education Director of EdTech Innovation Government Relations HP Distinguished Technologist

2 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 3: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Introduction

Many states have enacted legislation to launch programs aimed at increasing learner

productivity and achievement in order to fuel state and global economies. Of these policies,

one includes providing students with technology so they can develop and strengthen

academic and 21st century skills. Legislation that calls for a personal, portable device for

each learner is known as a “one-to-one program.”

In the majority of these cases, policy making is related to changing or transforming

education practices. Operative policy making requires a sharp grasp of the nature of policy

and practice as well as an understanding of how the two are intertwined. To ensure

achievement of the education outcomes set forth in policy, and realize a return on

investment, it is crucial to tie together policy and practice.

Practice is resistant to change. It is what people do based on what they know and what they

have experienced. Policy is written word; practice exists in know-how. A major policy

hurdle is ensuring it translates into practice.

Over the past 15 years, One-to-One Institute has researched one-to-one teaching and

learning best practices and legislation across the United States to determine what works

and what does not. Findings from One-to-One Institute point to key components required

for effective legislation, program expectations, and implementation.

Good policy starts with a clear vision that honors existing practices in order to influence

future practices. This puts those activities in a different light, helping to pave the way for

new behaviors while garnering momentum. This paper provides models of successfully

legislated one-to-one programs, as well as lessons from failed attempts to implement

statewide one-to-one initiatives.

Appendix A provides a practical tool in the form of a checklist that policy leaders can use

to ensure their proposed legislation includes the elements required for successful

legislation development and implementation fidelity.

Model Legislation: Three Statewide One-to-One Initiatives Through legislation, Maine, Michigan, and Utah established statewide one-to-one

education technology programs. Each built upon its predecessor. What follows is a

synopsis of each state’s policy model.

One-to-One Institute researched best practices around these policies. Findings guided the

identification of key components for legislation aimed at creating successful, sustainable,

and scalable statewide one-to-one programs.

Maine Learning Technology Initiative – MLTI

The Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) was the first of its kind. In 1999,

3 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 4: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Governor Angus King had the vision of creating an education environment that well

prepared Maine’s learners for a rapidly changing information age. Governor King and the

Maine Legislature created a Joint Task Force to examine and strategize around this vision.1

At the start of the initiative, the Joint Task Force recommended providing personal,

portable technology to seventh and eighth grade students and teachers. This initial release

of technology would lay the groundwork for future expansion for other grade levels. The

Joint Task Force identified guiding principles for the MLTI program which are

incorporated into the original legislation. They are:

Equity – Promoting equal opportunity and providing meaningful access to learning

technology resources for all learners, including those who are economically

disadvantaged or have special needs

Integration with Maine’s Learning Results – Supporting student achievement of

Maine’s Learning Results through the integration of learning technologies that are

content-focused and can add value to existing instructional methods

Sustainability/Avoiding Obsolescence – Providing future sustainability of learning

technology resources to adapt to future educational needs and to avoid obsolescence of

learning technology resources

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development2 – Providing effective

preparation, professional development, and training programs for teachers and other

educators in the use and integration of learning technology tools in curriculum

development, instructional methods, and student assessment systems

Economic Development – Fostering economic development across all regions of the

state and the preparation of students for a technology-rich economy

In 2001, after a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, Apple Inc. was awarded the contract

to provide technology to seventh and eighth grade classrooms. The company issued 17,000

Apple laptops in Spring 2002. Maine’s Department of Education issued a second RFP for

MLTI in January 2006. The second contract was also awarded to Apple Inc. As feedback

and evaluations indicated that the program was successful,3 state educational leaders

looked to refresh technology already in schools, but also expand the program to state’s

high schools.

Working to make this expanded goal feasible, the state was able to negotiate a reduced rate

with Apple for the new lease agreement in 2009. The lower price would allow the state to

procure up to 100,000 machines within the existing funds appropriated for educational

technology. Under the agreement, the state was able to provide laptops to all high school

students, and replace older machines in the middle schools. This expansion added 70,000

MacBooks. While not all local education agencies (LEAs) were required to participate in

the program, superintendents indicated overwhelming support for the laptop expansion.

The fourth generation of MLTI began in 2012. Governor King’s successor, Paul LePage,

wanted to expand the program to include multiple platforms (computers and tablets) and

solution providers. Today, schools have the ability to select a platform and solution tailored

to their unique needs. As of the 2014-2015 school year, MLTI has deployed more than

75,000 tablet and laptop computers to participating schools. In 2016, MLTI provided a

refresh and ‘opt-in’ strategy. Most of the 2013 cohort participated. Those who opted in

4 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 5: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

from grades K-6 or 9-12 from 2013 could continue on a fourth year lease, or participate in

the refresh.

MLTI is overseen by the Maine Department of Education. The department is responsible

for RFPs and all other facets of the program. For the 2017 school year, the department

moved the original process of device purchasing and deployment—which previously

involved the department ordering and deploying devices—to a grant system. Under the

new protocol, schools opt in through a grant process and work directly with the vendors the

state accepted under the program umbrella.

Funding

To find the original funding for MLTI, Governor King and the Legislature established the

Maine Learning Technology Endowment. The endowment was created from Maine’s

budget surplus from 2000, and was slated to equip all middle school students and teachers

with personal, portable technology. The legislation also called for the establishment of a

state endowment that would provide ongoing funding for MLTI. The endowment receives

funding from state appropriations, capital investments, as well as other public and private

sources deemed consistent with the guiding principles. The Education Commissioner was

assigned to manage the endowment, and is charged with maximizing the use of the

principal without ultimately diminishing the endowment’s fund balance.4

In addition to the state endowment, a fundraising plan was included. The fundraising plan

was to be incorporated into each school or district plan for sustainability. For the duration

of the endowment, the Education Commissioner and Commissioner of Administrative

Financial Services were tasked with seeking and submitting grant and fundraising

strategies to support the learning technology plan—particularly for expansion of the

program.

Professional Learning

The legislation incorporated specifics for teacher pre-service preparation and professional

learning. The statute provided for intensive professional growth experiences for teachers,

and fostered a ‘just-in-time’ classroom-based professional growth strategy. The foundation

for these recommendations was based on research from a variety of sources presented by

the Joint Task Force.

Program Evaluation and Assessment

Maine Education Policy Research Institute has performed the program’s independent

evaluation from 2003 to present day. It is a non-profit, non-partisan research institute

funded by the Legislature and the University of Maine. Their MLTI studies have

qualitative and quantitative elements including briefs that share educator and student

opinions and observations, as well as a drill down into specific program elements.5

MLTI Positives

Governor and Legislature—state-level lead, launch, and continuance

Stakeholder statewide Joint Task Force researched and designed

Pioneers—dove into risky undertaking having no precursors to mission or approach

Retained keen focus on student learning outcomes

5 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 6: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Shared stakeholder supported vision and mission

Majority of key legislative components incorporated in policy language

Allocates funding plans

High amount of local control

Defines sustainability strategies

Quantity of local control

Required program evaluations—internal and external

Statewide program became fabric of education system within first year of

implementation

Single solution provider at the onset solidified high-quality implementation and

accompanying state and local support

MLTI Negatives

Inconsistency in professional development leadership and execution

Absence of consistent, independent external program evaluator to perform ongoing

analysis of student-level achievement data statewide

Results regarding how teaching and learning have been transformed are

unclear

Lack of public sector funding as outlined in MLTI policy

Michigan’s One-to-One Program – Freedom to Learn

Freedom to Learn (FTL) was launched in 2002 by the Michigan Legislature and Governor

John Engler.6 Then House Speaker, Rick Johnson, ignited the one-to-one initiative after

seeing how technology could level the playing field for all learners. Speaker Johnson saw

this as a golden opportunity for Michigan learners, specifically those from rural and other

underserved areas, to receive high levels of rigorous learning not accessible in their local

area for financial reasons and lack of broadband.

The Governor’s and Speaker’s vision was to generate high-performing, learner-centric

ecosystems by supplying each student and teacher with consistent access to 21st century

tools through personal, portable technology. A core mission of the program was to increase

student achievement in core subjects through the power of technology. Special attention

was given to students in rural and high-priority schools.

FTL goals, embedded in the state mandate, were to foster effective and efficient learning

environments and improve student learning and success. Program goals included one-to-

one access to wireless technology for K-12 students to facilitate increased student

achievement. Other mandated goals included:

Enhance student learning and achievement in core academic subjects with an emphasis

on developing the knowledge and skills requisite to the establishment of a 21st century

workforce in Michigan

Provide greater access to equal educational opportunities statewide through ubiquitous

access to technology

Foster effective use of the wireless technology through systematic professional

development for teachers, administrators, and staff

6 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 7: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Empower parents and caregivers with the tools to become more involved in their

child's education

Support innovative structural changes in participating schools and sharing of best

practices among program participants

Governor Engler and the Legislature dedicated state and federal funds to a Demonstration

Phase in 2002. Five regional sites across the upper and lower peninsulas, called

Demonstration Sites, were selected to incubate best practices for using wireless technology

in schools with the intent of improving student outcomes.7 The Demonstration Phase

reached approximately 7,000 students and 400 teachers, in 90 schools across the state.

The Demonstration Sites were able to choose among a variety of devices so the state could

evaluate which was best suited to reach the desired outcomes. HP was the successful

bidder, with the statewide option for another vendor to cover no more than 10% of grant

awardees. HP’s nx9010 wireless-capable notebook computer, paired with a new

instructional model centered on inquiry and project-based learning, was selected for the

program. The implementation phase delivered the $1,040 HP package to individual

teachers and students.

The early positive results from the Demonstration Sites inspired the expansion of the

program in 2004. More than $37 million in federal and state funds was appropriated to

serve approximately 30,000 students in more than 200 schools (mostly middle schools)

from 100 school districts over a four year period.

There were four rounds of competitive grants awarded between 2003-2004 and 2006-2007.

FTL was directed by a four-person team. It was jointly administered by the Michigan

Department of Education (MDE) and Michigan Virtual University in the first years. In the

last two years of the program, Ferris State University replaced MVU as the co-

administrator of the program with MDE. There were numerous advisory groups guiding

and monitoring FTL. However, a 32-member statewide group representing government,

education, teacher and administrator associations, and business and industry provided key

assistance with all facets of the program throughout the duration.

Funding

In 2002-2003, Governor Engler and the Legislature allocated $22 million in state funding

to create FTL. More than $10 million was also available for districts through the U.S.

Department of Education’s program for education technology grants. An estimated $7

million for the program also came from state carryover funds that had been previously

allocated to Michigan by the federal government.

Twenty-five percent of an LEA’s grant budget had to be committed to a professional

learning plan for the effective integration of technology into the curriculum. LEAs were

also required to cultivate local partnerships with other schools and representatives from

business, industry, and higher education. Goals for professional development for each LEA

had to include academic achievement in math, science, and English language arts, as well

as student engagement and reductions in detentions, suspensions, and dropout rates.

7 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 8: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

In 2003-2004 LEAs were granted $250 in per pupil funding for the students they had in 6th

grade. To be awarded federal funds, qualifying LEAs had to define how they would meet

the requirements outlined by the U.S. Department of Education, and how they plan to

provide an opportunity for each pupil to receive a wireless, personal computing device. As

the program evolved, issues emerged. One challenge was having sufficient capacity to

meet the technology services needs of individual LEA’s in a timely fashion. HP gave FTL

a $532,000 grant to subsidize Help Desk services.8

Professional Learning

Developing local professional growth capacity was at the core of the state’s program.

Super Coaches served at the state level and district Lead Teachers were the heart of the

LEA’s professional learning framework. A research-based model for integrating

technology into curriculum and instruction was deployed across the state and embedded in

regional week-long professional learning sessions. A wide variety of professional growth

opportunities existed for every adult learner—from early adopters to late adopters. Some

sessions were statewide and content driven while others were customized to an LEA or

regional need. After year one of professional development, sessions became customized

and personalized to meet the unique user needs and skill development. This led to a

mentoring/coaching framework that cross-pollinated the experienced teachers and

administrators with those who were novices.

Orientations for every district and school in the program were held before learners received

their devices. Parents/caregivers were part and parcel of this process. The student could

receive his/her laptop after the parents/caregivers participated in face-to-face information

sessions. Multiple sessions were held to accommodate a variety of schedules.

The legislation did not require or call for professional learning for administrators. HP was

asked to provide resources to expand professional growth opportunities to superintendents,

principals, and their teams. A statewide leadership component was established and

disseminated.

Monthly face-to-face meetings with all regional Demonstration Site Leaders facilitated

robust problem solving, collaboration, and identification of ongoing professional

development needs. This proved to be one of the most valuable aspects of program

implementation.

Program Assessment and Evaluation

A key component of FTL was a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation study designed to

gauge the impacts of the program relative to its primary goals. The evaluation was

structured to assess the degree to which each program goal was achieved. Michigan State

University (MSU) was awarded the first bid as program evaluator. However, FTL

executive leaders wanted a more granular evaluation of student and teacher behavior than

MSU was able to provide. When the contract for the evaluation was bid a second time, the

Center for Research in Educational Policy at The University of Memphis was awarded the

bid.

The FTL program was ultimately implemented in 195 Michigan schools during 2005-2006.

8 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 9: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

FTL students (5,770), teachers (380), Lead Teachers (75), and parents/caregivers of FTL

students (1,241) completed 7,466 surveys. A total of 485 hours of direct classroom

observations were conducted in 826 FTL classrooms.9 10

FTL Positives

Governor and Legislature—state-level lead and launched

Stakeholder statewide task force researched and designed

Demonstration Sites garnered best practices and solutions to avert issues in subsequent

years and carve avenues for professional communities of practice throughout the

program

Statewide team hired, including project manager from vendor and FTL, to fully

execute program

Pioneers—dove into risky undertaking having one state as precursor to mission and

approach

Retained keen focus on student learning outcomes

Shared, stakeholder-supported vision and mission

Majority of key legislative components incorporated in policy language

Allocates funding plans

Defines sustainability strategies

High amount of local control

Professional development was saturated with capacity built statewide and locally

Upon FTL repeal, a nonprofit to amplify one-to-one best practices was created by the

Legislature

In 2006, One-to-One Institute was created to amplify one-to-one best practices and

research11

FTL Negatives

At least 50% of FTL schools failed to keep their commitment to sustain the program

beyond the four-year grant period

A majority of public school state superintendents opposed the funds allocated to FTL

and thus lobbied against its continuance

There were many LEA leadership changes in FTL schools

Emergence of new, less functional, and less expensive devices that schools chose

reduced the quality and quantity of meaningful learning experiences. FTL had no

flexibility provision for device expansion that included new market tools.

Statewide program was not institutionalized

The FTL legislation was repealed when a new governor was elected

Utah’s Digital Teaching and Learning Program (DT&L)

Utah is currently in the first year of a legislated statewide one-to-one program, called the

Digital Teaching and Learning (DT&L) program, after a failed attempt to pass similar

legislation in 2015. More information about the original legislation can be found in the

next section. Instead of funding a statewide one-to-one program in 2015, the Legislature

chose to create the Digital Learning Taskforce to investigate the issue and provide

recommendations prior to the next legislative session. The task force was co-chaired by the

Utah State Board of Education (USBE) and Utah Education and Telehealth Network

9 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 10: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

(UETN).12

The DT&L legislation is unique. Because it was crafted by one-to-one experienced

educators, researchers, and policy makers, the language is highly specific and incorporates

each of the key elements associated with successful education technology programs. Those

key elements drove the development of the DT&L grant applications. The notion is that if

the LEA demonstrates adherence to the critical components contained in the application

they will have high potential of achieving desired outcomes. The task force laid out the

vision and guiding principles for the DT&L program and both are incorporated into the

Utah Master Plan.13 The program’s vision includes:

Change and improve the culture of public education, classroom instruction, student and

parent engagement, teaching, and learning processes

Support the Utah Core and provide systemic support for student engagement and

classroom innovation

Provide access (teacher, student, and home) to quality digital curriculum, learning

management support structures, collaboration systems, formative assessment systems,

ongoing access to proven software, and instructional practices research

Prepare students for college and careers including an emphasis on higher-order

problem solving across the curriculum

Broaden STEM career path options for students

Support the drive toward on-demand, 24/7 learning and the flipped classroom

Drive economic development by providing students the skills and experiences they

need to give Utah companies the quality workforce that they need

Move toward the goal of having 66% of all working-age residents holding a post-

secondary degree or certificate by 2020 (outlined in the state’s 2020 PACE goals)

Funding

In the 2016 session, the DT&L bill was revamped to add $10 million of ongoing funding

and $5 million of one-time funding as well as define the process for application to the

program. The 2017 Legislature pulled the $5 million one-time funds. The DT&L

legislation calls for the state board to implement a process to identify savings and the

return on investment/impact of DT&L which is meant to lead to financial program

sustainability over time.

For fiscal year 2016, the Senate appropriated to the UETN, as a one-time appropriation

from the Education Fund, $4 million for DT&L. It also appropriated the USBE Initiative

Programs a one-time appropriation from the Education Fund of $1 million. Pieces of the

legislation are administered by USBE and other pieces by UETN, each separately.

Professional Learning

Unlike Utah’s one-to-one legislative predecessors, the DT&L master plan and legislation

incorporated the pronounced requirement that administrators (superintendents, principals,

etc.) engage in learning how to lead change transformations required by digital conversion.

The mandate called for high-quality professional learning for teachers with a focus on

meaningful technology integration with teaching and learning. Utah’s standards for high-

quality professional learning are noted in the legislation. Pre-grant application boot camps

10 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 11: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

were also held for teachers and administrators. The content and curriculum of these

sessions was primarily high-level information and guidance for the application process.14

LEAs applying to DT&L are mandated to commit to specific measurable achievement

outcomes for learners in addition to the following: professional development, readiness

assessment, school improvement plan, demonstration of cost savings, increased attendance,

improved education resources efficiencies, decreased disciplinary incidents, parental

involvement, security policies, in-house tech support, and increased graduation rates.

Additionally, the LEA has to incrementally match the budget for digital learning to get to

the required per-student annual expenditure.

Current Status

As of the close of the 2017 legislative session, the DT&L program continues with $10

million of ongoing funding for the 2017 fiscal year. The Legislature declined to provide

any one-time funds. LEAs have received the $15 million 2016 funding ($10 million

ongoing and $5 million one-time funding) and are implementing their approved plans. The

state has released an RFP funded at $700,000 for an independent evaluator as called for in

the legislation. Looking forward, we can reasonably expect that there will be another LEA

application period this summer. Also, the LEAs must complete an evaluation of their

program and submit it to the independent evaluator.

DT&L Positives

One-to-one legislative language is best in breed as of this writing

Governor and Legislature—state-level lead and launch

Stakeholder statewide task force researched and designed master plan for essentials

External expertise was highly utilized through development of policy and practice

Retained keen focus on student learning outcomes

Majority of key legislative components incorporated in policy language

Allocates funding plans

Defines sustainability strategies for the state and LEAs

Quality amount of local control included

DT&L Negatives

USBE staff do not have the capacity or desire to fully and functionally implement the

program

There is not a designated leadership team for DT&L

LEAs not demonstrating application expectations were awarded DT&L grants

Lack of hired statewide team or project manager to fully execute statewide program

Program evaluation RFP is well below budget required to perform scope of work

Failed Statewide One-to-One Legislation

Utah – The Education Modernization Act

In 2014, Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart presented the idea of a statewide one-to-

one program. On February 14, 2014 Rep. Francis Gibson, the Chairman of the House

11 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 12: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Education Committee, presented HB131, also called the Education Modernization Act. The

proposed legislation called for $200 million from the state General Fund in 2015, with an

additional $150 million in 2016, which would replace textbooks with tablet computers. The

bill was an attempt to provide a computing device to every K-12 student in the state, as

well as provide potential funding for digital resources and support.

The bill allocated $50 million in one-time funding from the Education Fund and $150

million ongoing from the General Fund to create a statewide technology grant program

available to all school districts and charter schools

For participants, the bill provided for technology infrastructure, high-quality

professional development for teachers and administrators, and “one-to-one mobile

device technology” for students

Details of the initiative would have been managed by the Utah State Office of

Education, with direction from an advisory committee made up of school

administrators, technology professionals, and a “change management expert”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Francis Gibson, said at least 50 hours of teacher professional

development would be necessary for the technology to be effective with students15

Although the Education Modernization Act did not become law, the debates around the

bill, and discussions about the importance of technology in education, may have led to

other positive outcomes, including the formation of the Digital Learning Task Force and

the eventual passage of DT&L (both outlined previously).

Challenges during the Process

Some claim that politics around Speaker Lockhart played a role in the original bill’s

failure. However, the price tag was the biggest concern.16 The Utah Education Association,

citing financial concerns, took political action soon after the bill was announced. Ninety-

eight percent of their members did not support and/or were concerned about funding a one-

to-one program. In spite of substantial opposition, the proposal passed the House Education

Committee. As the bill entered the budgeting process, Governor Gary Herbert weighed in,

saying he would veto the bill if the price tag exceeded $30 million. In the end, the Senate

offered up $26 million to the House Speaker Lockhart. She walked away from the table

and HB131 died in the budget process.

Education Modernization Act Positives

The proposed bill dealing with technology was comprehensive and aligned with the

Project RED research (similar to the bill passed by the legislature the following year)

Education Modernization Act Negatives

There was substantial political opposition to the Act

Little work was done prior to introducing the bills to develop a shared vision, or

engage stakeholders

The proposed bill called for greater funding than was politically tenable

Idaho – Students Come First Program

In 2011, the Idaho Legislature passed sweeping education reforms. State Superintendent of

Public Instruction, Tom Luna, named the program “Students Come First.” The program

12 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 13: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

consisted of three bills which required major changes to the state’s education system. The

bills were:

SB1108, which dealt with labor relations

SB1110, which instituted a pay-for-performance system

SB1184, which provided one-to-one technology for teachers and students17

The technology bill was the least controversial of the three reforms. Under the law, all high

school students and teachers would receive a laptop computer. The rollout would take four

years and would begin with teachers in 2012. The provision also required students to take

two semesters of online courses. The funding formula was intended to cover the expense of

the laptops, but also wireless broadband service in the high schools, as well as professional

development.

Challenges during the Process

Because Luna tied all three bills together, opposition to any one of them could affect the

passage of all three. The state’s largest public school teachers union condemned what they

dubbed “The Luna Laws,” along with most Democrat, and even some Republican

legislators. There was mixed support from school administrators and boards in the state.

Even though some districts supported the measures, there was clear opposition from some

larger and more politically connected districts in the state.

SB1110 received the least direct opposition, although the teachers unions and other

education leaders came out against it. The bill provided a number of rules under which

teachers could receive bonuses for outstanding student performance. SB1108 attracted the

greatest opposition.18 There were strong accountability measures within the law that were

particularly concerning to teachers and administrators.

SB1184 also had vast opposition even though it provided substantial benefits to districts.

The concern was that the state was facing budget shortfalls. The Democratic Minority

believed the shortfall would result in cuts to districts which would force them to layoff

teachers.19

All three bills passed in spite of opposition. Adversaries organized and garnered the

number of required signatures to force a veto referendum. The bills were then placed on the

ballot as Propositions 1, 2, and 3. In November 2012, all three laws were stuck down.

Proposition 3, the one-to-one high school program, was rejected by 66% of voters.20

Students Come First Positives

The state developed a vision and goals for the project

The legislation included provisions for professional development

The state had launched a pilot prior to the full 1:1 program legislation being proposed

Students Come First Negatives

Students Come First is three bills, so the program deals with much more than just 1:1

computing

There was substantial political opposition to the program

13 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 14: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Little work was done prior to introducing the bills to develop a shared vision, or

engage stakeholders

Illinois – Technology Immersion Pilot Project

Lt. Governor Quinn and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) created the

Technology Immersion Pilot Project to provide a more equitable education for all K-12

students and ensure that all students developed necessary 21st century skills. The program

initially provided one-to-one technology to students in targeted geographic and

demographic areas. Other smaller education technology initiatives were championed at the

same time.

The General Assembly appropriated $5 million to launch the i-Connect project in 9 schools

within seven schools districts in 2006-2007.21 When implemented, the funding was

sufficient to expand the program to twice as many schools within the approved districts.

The schools represented elementary and middle schools primarily located in the Chicago

area, with four schools resided outside the region.22

Under the pilot, schools would receive:

Laptop computers for all participating

students and classroom teachers

Professional development for teachers

Technical assistance for school-based

networks

As chairman of the Illinois Broadband Deployment Council, Quinn was also committed to

improving access to high-speed Internet technology for the state. In 2006, he partnered

with the ISBE to develop the project, targeting $10 million for the initial phase. After the

smooth rollout of the pilot, Quinn anticipated that he and the ISBE would be able to rally

support for statewide expansion.

With the state-funded pilot under way, and a number of other small initiatives sparking

interest across the state, Quinn made his move to secure funding for a large-scale,

statewide one-to-one program. Hoping to model the project after successful programs in

Maine and Michigan, Quinn pushed for HB5000 during the 95th General Assembly. The

bill was called “The Illinois Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act” and was intended to fully

fund one-to-one programs in 300 state elementary schools.

In May 2008, Quinn submitted the “Children's Low-Cost Laptop Ordinance” to the

Chicago City Council for approval. If adopted by the City Council, it would have provided

teacher training and at least 15,000 low-cost laptops to students with the highest poverty

rates attending the Chicago Public Schools. Neither the House Bill, nor the City Ordinance,

were adopted.

Challenges during the Process

Politics and corruption played a major role in the outcomes of Quinn’s education

technology efforts. In the state’s 2002 gubernatorial election, Quinn won the Democratic

14 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

In 2006-2007, $10 million would provide 5,000 students with a device and give districts necessary infrastructure funding and support. Today’s lower cost devices would serve 50,000 learners for the same price tag.

Page 15: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

nomination for Lieutenant Governor in the primary, and went on to be paired with

Democratic U.S. Representative Rod Blagojevich in the general election. Both were joined

together as a single ticket for the general election. Blagojevich was impeached by

the Illinois General Assembly and removed from office by the Illinois Senate in January

2009.23

While Quinn was not implicated in the corruption charges that landed Blagojevich in

prison and rose to the Governor’s office in 2009,24 by the time he assumed office the

country had fallen into a deep recession. Every state government was struggling

financially. Even if Quinn were working within an ethical and unified government, he

would be challenged to convince others to fund a new laptop program. As a result, HB5000

struggled, and after a few amendments were added by the House, it was assigned to the

Rules Committee and never emerged.25

Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act Positives

The state undertook several measures prior to proposing a full statewide 1:1 program in

the legislature, including piloting the program, encouraging LEA independent efforts,

assessing statewide infrastructure

The vision included a moral imperative that everyone could rally around

Proposal included provisions for professional development

Funding could be used for network technical assistance

Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act Negatives

The timing of the proposed legislation aligned with unexpected economic issues for the

state

The timing coincided with serious political and legal issues for the governor

The proposal did not include some components we believe are essential for successful

implementation

Large Scale One-to-One Programs Enacted Through

Alternative Means

Nevada Ready 21

Nevada Ready 21 (NVR21) is Nevada’s six-year, statewide one-to-one program. It is tied

to the state’s economic development strategy, Nevada Ready! NVR21 is led by the Nevada

Department of Education in collaboration with the Nevada System of Higher Education,

local school districts, and public and private organizations. Using state funds as directed by

the Governor and Legislature, the program is expected to be continuously funded, at a

minimum, through 2019-2020 bi-annual budget session.

To oversee NVR21, a 61-member task force was created in 2014. Representatives from

many stakeholder and provider groups participate. Upfront research regarding statewide

connectivity and possibilities for expansion guided the planning. All manner of expertise

was utilized in the development of each aspect of the program. Ongoing evaluation and

assessment, and feedback from the Education Commission and LEAs drive the program’s

15 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 16: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

maintenance and efforts to scale.26

The core of the program is aimed at increasing student achievement and attainment of 21st

century skills and standards in partnership with parents/caregivers, community, business

and industry. NVR21 calls for each learner to have access to two crucial educational

prospects. These are:

Skilled educators who value and foster personalized, student-centric, connected

learning

Uninterrupted access to a personal, portable wireless technology device

The NVR21 team entered into a long-term partnership with an external consulting

organization to guide their planning, development, and implementation. Each step in their

strategy was aligned with research and best practices associated with successful one-to-one

implementation models, particularly the Project RED Model©. Each system necessary for

successful one-to-one programs is incorporated into Nevada’s plan. These key components

are clearly defined with accompanying descriptors and strategy. These components

include: infrastructure, instruction, evaluation and assessment, leadership, professional

development, finance, and communications.

NVR21 is led by a Program Director, Program Manager, and Communications Officer.

Additional team members include an internal evaluator, IT analyst, four professional

learning experts, and two instructional integration experts.

In the first phase, CTL was awarded the bid for the program’s technology (a Chromebook

device). The solution included professional development through a third-party provider

that works in tandem with the state-provided professional learning teams.

To inform strategy for the second phase, the NVR21 leadership team held several forums

to get feedback and direction. A more flexible plan is being developed that opens the door

for other devices and platforms allowing schools to opt in for certain aspects of the

program and not others.

Funding

In Nevada, the state budget is developed in the spring of even-numbered years. State

agency biennial budget requests have to be submitted on or before September 1 of those

years after which budget hearings are held. Twenty million dollars of Nevada’s General

Fund has been allocated for NVR21 through a technology grant program. There is also $2

million set aside as an incentive for LEAs to develop their Wide Area Network (WAN) and

personnel to manage the program. At this writing, it appears the Legislature will continue

to fund the program into the next phase.

LEA Requirements

Participating LEAs are expected to meet rigorous requirements through an application

process to ensure there is a foundation for successful implementation. Selection criteria for

LEAs include:

16 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 17: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

School WAN connections

School principal’s commitment to participation in professional development and to

creation of a culture fostering student personalized access to a connected, 21st century

education

Whole school participation with all teachers committed, participating in professional

development, and fostering student access to a connected, 21st century education

Schools with high populations of English language learners, special education, and free

and reduced lunch are given preference

First, second, and third-round applications are for middle school. Fourth, fifth, and

sixth-round applications are open to high school

A seven-person application evaluation committee reviews and recommends grant awards.

Recommended awards then proceed to the Education Commission for final approval. In the

first review process, a number of schools were not recommended based on their inability to

demonstrate capacity in one or more of the selection criteria.

Evaluation and Assessment

The program evaluator is the Reggio Research Center for STEM Education at the

University of Nevada, Reno. The results of their 2016 study shows the program is on track

for meeting expected outcomes. Evaluators found that there is strong evidence that one-to-

one computing in K-12 schools has a positive impact on learner achievement and

proficiency. The report also states that in order to meet program bandwidth demands by

2018, the ‘typical’ Nevada district has to increase its bandwidth by at least three times its

current capacity.27 The program’s Internal Performance Manager’s report demonstrates the

planning and implementation benchmarks have been optimally achieved.28

Early Positive Observations

NVR21 was informed and guided specifically by the Project RED Model for Success©.

Each key element from the latter research and best practices were incorporated into

planning, development, and implementation. The program has had consistent leadership

and external consultant support throughout the process. There has been intense focus on

fidelity of implementation at the state and local levels. Early evaluations show progress

toward desired outcomes. It appears the Legislature will continue program funding through

their biennial process.

Program leadership is focused, capable, and dynamic. Leadership has used a hands-on

approach with direct 360-degree communications. The team seeks feedback to adjust the

program and meet each school’s unique needs. There is also a strong framework for

professional learning across the state for teachers. It is a collaborative effort between state

and district personnel. CTL provides a modicum of professional learning as well.

Early Identified Areas for Growth

Some Nevada LEAs will not participate in the program since the first phase used

Chromebooks. These districts have already implemented education technology platforms

other than Chromebooks and believe they cannot support multiple devices with current

resources. Given this feedback, the NVR21 leadership has held forums with LEA

stakeholders to better understand their needs and wants. The input from these groups is

17 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 18: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

being incorporated into the next phase of the program. This will result in a high level of

flexibility for districts considering participation.

Professional learning is also being assessed and revamped. This next phase will include

professional growth opportunities for principals and superintendents. High-quality

leadership is paramount for successful digital transformation.

NR21 Positives

A large task force of stakeholders and provider groups was assembled prior to securing

funding

The task force crafted a vision and implementation plan

Superintendent and Governor were aligned

The vision is about transforming learning and economic development

State superintendent incorporated NR21 into his general budget

The state took advantage of all available expertise during the planning stage

The state of the infrastructure throughout the state was assessed as part of the initial

planning

Funding included provisions for a program leader and other key staff positions

The plan included professional develop for all district leaders and trainers

An independent evaluator was hired

Implementation was guided by the latest research

LEAs were required to meet readiness criteria and make guarantees regarding

implementation that are aligned with the research

NR21 Negatives

The approved funding was far less than requested, and is insufficient to achieve the

goal of statewide 1:1 computing K-12

Authorization of funding spans three biannual legislative session, which increases the

risk of losing funding

The device chosen through the statewide bid stopped some districts from applying

There continues to be infrastructure issues in rural areas around the state

Virginia – e-Learning Backpack Initiative

Virginia’s Legislature has a long history of supporting educational technology. During the

2000-2001 legislative session, a House and Senate Joint Resolution was introduced. The

legislators understood that if they wanted schools to prepare students for life and work that

technology would need to play a significant role. In the same year, HB301 was adopted

into law. The bill provided for the inclusion of an education technology strand in the

State’s Education Standards of Quality.

The resolution states the following aspirational goals:

Enable new and more effective methods of learning

Develop student computer skills which are crucial to their advancing to institutions of

higher education and entering the workforce providing benefits not only to the students

but also to the state’s economy

18 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 19: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

The Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) is responsible for financing education

technology, of which the e-Learning Backpack Initiative is a part. Rather than funds being

appropriated through traditional legislative action, the VPSA sells promissory notes, and

uses the capital raised through these sales to provide competitive grants to schools.29 The

state issued notes in fiscal year 2015 and again in fiscal year 2016 for $58 million each

year. This level of funding allows the state to provide $26,000 in grant funding to each

school and another $50,000 in grant funds to districts. Schools that serve only pre-

kindergarten students were not eligible. Localities are required to provide a match of funds

equal to 20% of the total grant amounts provided to the school division. At least 25% of the

local match must be used for teacher training in the use of this technology.

The Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative was designed to improve public schools that

failed to become fully accredited.30 The program provides every ninth grade student in

qualified schools31 with a tablet or laptop computer, digital content and applications, and

access to content creation tools. The goals of the Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative

are to:

Improve student achievement and graduation and dropout rates by providing the

infrastructure, tools, and content necessary to extend learning capabilities and create a

personalized learning experience for high school students attending at-risk schools

Support virtual learning to ensure equitable learning opportunities for all students

Engage all students in learning through technology to increase graduation rates

Ensure college and career readiness by equipping every student with the knowledge,

skills, and experiences necessary for academic and workplace success

Serve as a catalyst for economic development by preparing a globally competitive,

technology proficient workforce to attract businesses to all regions of the

commonwealth

Improve the physical well-being of students by reducing the weight of backpacks and

learning resources

Language Amendment

The original initiative only included tablets in its language about approved devices. With

the rise of moderately priced Chromebooks, the Legislature was pressured into amending

the law to include laptops. The amendment covers supplemental grants issued during the

2014-2016 biennium beginning in Spring 2015 and Spring 2016.

In fiscal year 2015, participating schools received:

A supplemental grant of $400 per student reported in ninth grade fall membership for

the purchase of a tablet or laptop computer device, and

A supplemental grant of $2,400 to purchase two content creation packages for teachers

and students

While much of the focus of the initiative is currently on the supplemental grants provided

through the VPSA for eligible schools, the Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative is

actually a broader initiative intended to assist all schools in the transition to digital content

and tablet or laptop computers.

19 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 20: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Professional Learning

The Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative Summer Institute was held in August 2013 to

assist all school divisions in the transition to personal portable devices and digital content.

The Executive Summary of the Summer Institute details the panels on parent and

community engagement, policy, infrastructure, devices and device management, digital

content and textbooks, and professional development.32

Digital Content and Infrastructure

In 2014, the Virginia Department of Education launched a statewide contract with Copia

Interactive. They established a system whereby textbook publishers enter a partnership

with Copia to digitize their proprietary textbook content and make it available to school

districts. Teachers could choose resources from a range of pre-approved textbooks on a

unit-by-unit basis. The system allowed teachers to choose a lesson from one digital

textbook and then decide to use a chapter from a different textbook, from a different

publisher, for their next lesson.

Virginia’s Governor Terry McAuliffe has led an aggressive push to improve high-speed

broadband access for public schools. In 2014, working in partnership with the nonprofit,

Education Superhighway, commonwealth officials determined that only 25% of students

across the state had sufficient bandwidth and connectivity speed to support digital learning.

Virginia’s funding approach is unique. The state created the VPSA with the responsibility

to issue debt to raise capital. This has provided them with a steady funding stream, but the

state has incorporated several components, based on research and best practices that are

important to successful and sustainable programs. Properly addressing infrastructure,

finance, and professional learning are all key. Virginia is an innovator in their approach to

digital content as described in the previous section.

Because the program is in early stages more time will be needed to track progress and

evaluate effectiveness. The method of financing education technology in the state, although

novel, should also be carefully evaluated in terms of its ability to not only finance current-

day needs, but to also assess the long-term effects of amortizing costs over the next 20-30

years.

e-Learning Backpack Positives

The state incorporated components, based on research and best practices important to

successful and sustainable programs. This includes infrastructure, finance,

professional learning, learning standards, and digital content.

Districts have device choice between a tablet or Chromebook

Virginia is an innovator in their approach to digital content

e-Learning Backpack Negatives

Taxpayers will be paying off the debt decades after the technology is obsolete

Bandwidth is an issue for up to 75% of schools in the state

New York - Smart Schools Bond Act

The Smart Schools Bond Act (SSBA) was passed through the 2014-2015 Enacted Budget,

20 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 21: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

and approved by the voters in a statewide referendum held during the 2014 General

Election in November 2014.33 SSBA authorized the issuance of $2 billion in bonds to

finance educational technology, upgrades to infrastructure, security upgrades, and/or

facilities construction in the state’s K-12 schools.

According to information released by the state, the purpose of SSBA is to improve learning

and opportunity for students in public and non-public schools by funding any of the capital

projects listed below.

Install high-speed broadband or wireless Internet connectivity for schools and

communities

Acquire learning technology equipment or facilities, including but not limited to

interactive whiteboards, computer servers, and desktop, laptop, and tablet computers

Construct, enhance, and modernize educational facilities to accommodate pre-

kindergarten programs and to provide instructional space to replace classroom trailers;

and/or

Install high-tech security features in school buildings and on school campuses,

including but not limited to video surveillance, emergency notification systems, and

physical access controls

Districts are required to develop a three-year technology plan called a Smart Schools

Investment Plan (SSIP) and submit it to the state in order to be approved for funding. To

receive funding the SSIP must include the following:

Linkages between the district’s long-term educational plan and technology

Learning opportunities beyond the classroom through the use of technology

Plans to address the educational needs of all students, including students with

disabilities, English language learners, and those who have not succeeded in traditional

classroom settings

In addition, the SSIP must include the following critical elements which the board believes

are necessary for long-term success and sustainability of the program.

SSIPs must identify the strategic approaches that have been used to identify the needs

of its students

Districts requesting funding for capital construction projects must demonstrate that the

proposed projects are fulling a need based on enrollment projections, and will be used

to create high-quality instructional space for the students. The intent of this capital

funding is to either create additional space for pre-school programs, or to replace

mobile classroom units, such as trailers, with permanent learning environments.

Security projects require a description of the work to be done and the need it will meet.

For technology projects, districts will confirm that the proposed technology purchases

will be aligned with the district’s instructional technology plans.

Adequate Infrastructure

The state realized that in order for technology to have the potential to improve learning,

schools must have sufficient connectivity infrastructure and bandwidth. To ensure schools

21 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 22: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

have adequate infrastructure to serve the learning needs of students, SSIPs must commit to

meeting or exceeding the bandwidth guidelines provided by the Federal Communications

Commission.

Professional Development

The district must provide a professional development plan for teachers and administrators

which will lead them to be able to integrate technology in ways that will enhance

instruction. Districts are also required to contact the State University New York's (SUNY)

teacher preparation program to request advice on this issue—although SSIP and SSBA

funds are not allowed to be used for professional development expenses.

Technical Support

The district must explain the plan for providing sufficient technology support. When

describing the support strategies, districts are asked to consider the personnel needed to

prepare, maintain, and provide day-to-day classroom support. SSBA funds are not allowed

to be used to cover expenses related to technology support. The state suggests working

with the local Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) if the district needs

help with technical support.

Sustainability

A long-term financial plan is a required part of a district’s SSIP. While the district is not

required to provide a plan to sustain the program without the financial support of SSBA, a

financial plan does need to demonstrate the ability to pay the recurring costs that are not

covered by the SSBA.34

Smart Schools Positives

The SSBA legislation defines the funding mechanism, the goals, and the criteria for an

acceptable project

The legislation requires districts to submit a strategic plan before they receive funding

A long-term financial plan is a required part of a district’s strategic plan

LEAs must meet the bandwidth guidelines provided by the FCC

LEAs are required to work with SUNY to ensure quality of their professional

development

LEA’s must demonstrate linkages between the district’s long-term educational plan

and technology

There is the expectation to address the educational needs of all students, including

students with disabilities, English language learners, and those who have not succeeded

in traditional classroom settings

Smart Schools Negatives

Smart Schools is a capital improvement program, funding devices, upgrades to

infrastructure, security upgrades, and/or facilities construction. The state wants it to be

a learning program with full responsibility on LEAs to deliver expectations.

Review committee has power to deny funding unless all criteria are appropriately

addressed in the LEA’s strategic plan

The New York committee, as was the case in Utah, may be reluctant to deny LEA

funding, even with applications that do not comport with the letter of the law

22 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 23: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Grant funds are not allowed to be used to cover expenses related to technology support

Raising bond funds as a means to pay for technology may be questionable because tax

payers will pay for the program decades after the technology is obsolete

Conclusion

Legislative language matters. Policy and practice must come together for successful

transformations. Interlacing these through the promulgation process is imperative.

Professor the Hon. Stephen Martin, Chief Executive for the Committee for Economic

Development in Australia, has outlined five key stages which are critical if governments

hope to introduce new policy successfully.35 They are:

Creating a sense of urgency about the need to introduce the change. This includes

developing the internal political will to introduce and support reform as well as the

broad-based community acknowledgement of the need to change.

Forming a coalition of interests that support the change

Developing the change vision. This involves more than describing the outcomes of the

reform but also why the reform is necessary.

Communicating the change vision. This involves establishing key narratives that link

to a cohesive vision. This skill is one of the fundamental capabilities of a government

and important for bringing people along with any change.

Empowering others to act. Any change will result in winners and losers, with those that

miss out often being easily identifiable and more vocal in their opposition than the

beneficiaries of the change. The public service provides a critical bridging role

between political decision making and the wider engagement in reforms by the

community.

This examination of statewide one-to-one programs demonstrates that good policy does not

necessarily ensure good practice. There is a symbiotic relationship between policy and

practice that is important to understand in order to be able to implement, with fidelity, the

vision, goals, and requirements of the legislation.

Project RED identified nine key factors of proper implementation, along with a host of

other best practices. A shared vision, state and district leadership, comprehensive

communications, and ongoing, job-embedded professional learning are among the top best

practices that also need to be taken into account. Overcoming the challenges of

implementation fidelity is important to transform surrounding systems and increase

resilience to pressures that can cause them to veer off the research-based path to success.

Each one-to-one program discussed demonstrates how elusive goal attainment can be.

Legislation in Illinois died in committee and was never brought to a vote. Idaho passed

their legislation and it was overturned by referendum. Although Utah’s first attempt to pass

one-to-one legislation did not pass, the Legislature funded a structure to investigate best

practices and their efforts led to the Digital Teaching and Learning program.

23 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 24: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Nevada took a different legislative route. Their statewide one-to-one program was bundled

under an already existing economic development program. A new vision for education,

including a one-to-one scenario, was articulated and included in the Governor’s budget and

approved by the Legislature. Similarly, Virginia’s program was approved by amendment to

the budget.

Michigan’s program was the second statewide program in the country when the legislation

passed in 2002. Although the reports from Michigan State University and University of

Memphis were positive, the legislation was repealed in 2006.

Maine’s statewide one-to-one program has been sustained and expanded over the long

term. The state was unique in having a one-time budget surplus in 1999 that funded the

entire program. Although the program continues to be funded, there is little evidence the

program has led to any measurable student achievement gains. In fact, Michigan’s program

was the only program to date to demonstrate systemic, but only moderate gains in

academic achievement. It is too early to know the effects on student achievement and

sustainability for the programs in Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and New York.

Much has been learned about best practices from research in the one-to-one programming

domain. This includes an understanding of legislation and policy components that may

drive successful planning, implementation, sustainability, maintenance, and program scale.

The goal of effective one-to-one policy is to enable and ensure program desired outcomes,

scale, and financial sustainability. Language can be dictated. High-quality practice cannot.

24 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 25: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Notes and References

1 Maine Legislature. (2001). Task force on the Maine Learning Technology Endowment. Teaching and learning for tomorrow: A learning technology plan for Maine’s future. Retrieved from http://maine.gov/doe/mlti/about/history/mlterpt.pdf 2 For the purposes of this paper, the phrases, “professional development” and “professional learning” are used interchangeably. 3 Maine Education Policy Research Institute. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives mid-year evaluation report. Retrieved from http://maine.gov/mlti/articles/research/Mid-Year%20Evaluation2003.pdf 4 Maine Learning Technology Endowment, Sec. II-1. 5 MRSA §12004-I, sub-§18-C (1999). 5 For these reports, refer to http://maine.gov/doe/mlti/about/research/ 6 Michigan Legislative Council. (2006). Michigan School A id Act compiled and appendices. Retrieved from http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/publications/jointrep/schoolaid/schoolaidactcompiled.pdf 7 Michigan Legislative Council. (2003). Michigan School A id Act compiled and appendices. Retrieved from http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/Archives/PDF/act2003.pdf 8 PR Newswire. (2004). Michigan Freedom to Learn receives half-million-dollar award from HP. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/michigan-freedom-to-learn-receives-half-million-dollar-award-from-hp-75444032.html 9 Center for Research in Educational Policy. (2007). Freedom to Learn program: Michigan 2005-2006 evaluation report. Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/crep/pdfs/michighan_freedom_to_learn_laptop_program.pdf 10 Center for Research in Educational Policy. (2008). Freedom to Learn program: Michigan 2007-2008 evaluation report. Retrieved from http://one-to-oneinstitute.org/images/remository/Freedom_to_Learn_Evaluations_2007-2008.pdf 11 Refer to http://www.one-to-oneinstitute.org/ 12 Refer to http://www.uen.org/digital-learning/taskforce.shtml 13 Utah Education Network. (n.d.) Utah’s master plan: Essential elements for technology powered learning. Retrieved from http://www.uen.org/digital-learning/downloads/Utah_Essential_Elements_Technology_Powered_Learning.pdf 14 At this writing there is not an adopted, public plan for implementing the professional learning for this program. The master plan laid out this guidance for its development. Refer to http://www.uen.org/digital-learning/downloads/Utah_Essential_Elements_Technology_Powered_Learning.pdf 15 Utah Education Association (n.d.). Technology initiative gains little traction. Retrieved from http://www.myuea.org/issues_action/uea_under_the_dome/2014_session/hb131_public_ed_modernization.aspx 16 Pearson, B. (2014, Dec. 23). A look back at the 2014 legislature. The Daily Universe. Retrieved from http://universe.byu.edu/2014/12/23/legislative-round-up/ 17 SB1184. Idaho Legis. Reg. Sess. 2011 (Idaho 2011). Retrieved from https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2011/legislation/S1184.pdf 18 Shallat, A. (2013, Feb. 20) Teacher beef: Luna laws fortified by high court ruling against union political contributions. The Blue Review. Retrieved from https://thebluereview.org/teacher-beef/ 19 Idaho State Senate, Idaho House of Representatives, Democratic Leadership. (2011). Democrats denounce bullying tactics and same bad ideas in S1184 [Press release] . Retrieved from http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2011/03/Minority-release-3-23-11.pdf 20 StateImpact. (n.d.). Idaho voters resoundingly reject Propositions 1, 2 and 3. Retrieved from https://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/tag/propositions-1-2-3/ 21 Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, Standing up for Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.standingupforillinois.org/connect/i-connect.php 22 Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, Standing up for Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.standingupforillinois.org/connect/tipp.php

25 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 26: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

23 Long, R., & Pearson, R. (2009, Jan. 30). Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been removed from office. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-blagojevich-impeachment-removal-story.html 24 Corely, C., & Morris, M. (2009, Jan. 29). Illinois Lt. Gov. steps in after Blagojevich impeachment. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100027473 25 For the full path of the bill refer to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=5000&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=35963&SessionID=51 26 State of Nevada, Department of Education. (n.d.). Nevada Ready 21: Igniting economic development through students' 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Legislative/Nevada_Ready_21/ 27 Raggio Research Center for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education. (2016). Raggio Research Center: 2016 summary and annual report. Retrieved from https://www.unr.edu/Documents/education/raggio/RaggioAnnualReport2016Print3-10-17.pdf 28 State of Nevada, Commission on Educational Technology. (2016, Sept. 19). [Meeting Minutes]. Retrieved from http://www.doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ndedoenvgov/content/Boards_Commissions_Councils/Commission_on_Educational_Technology/2016/September/EdTech%20MinutesSept2016.pdf 29 Cannaday, B. K. (2007). Virginia Public School Authority educational technology notes Series V, Series VI, Series VII and Series VIII [Memorandum]. Richmond, VA: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education. 30 In February 2013, the Virginia Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee recommended an amendment to the 2012-2014 budget language. The committee recommended changing the way existing funds for VPSA supplemental grants were provided to schools that were not fully accredited. The change would allow those schools to purchase tablets for ninth grade students as a part of the Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative. For more information see http://doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/technology_initiatives/e-learning_backpack/index.shtml 31 Qualified schools are defined as those schools serving ninth graders which administer Standards of Learning tests in the spring and are not fully accredited for two consecutive years based on school accreditation ratings in effect for those two consecutive fiscal years. For fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, schools may also be qualified based upon ESL and free/reduced lunch percentages. 32 Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Virginia e-Learning Backpack Initiative Summer Institute. Retrieved from http://doe.virginia.gov/support/technology/technology_initiatives/e-learning_backpack/institute/2013/executive_summary.docx 33 Smart Schools Bond Act. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.nyscoss.org/img/news/advocacy_vi64w47f8w.pdf 34 It is also valuable to note that once approved, districts do not receive their allocation. Funds are only distributed by the state on a reimbursement basis. 35 Martin, S. (2014, Oct. 16). What makes good public policy? Retrieved from http://www.ceda.com.au/2014/11/what-makes-good-public-policy

26 www.one-to-oneinstitute.org

Page 27: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Appendix A - Statewide Digital Transformation Legislation Checklist Page 1 of 3

APPENDIX A

STATEWIDE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

LEGISLATION CHECKLIST

Prior to Legislation Development Groundwork

Vision o Key state leaders are aligned around the mission o A taskforce of representative stakeholders and providers is assembled o The taskforce crafts a shared vision, mission and implementation plan o A Root Cause Analysis is conducted defining underlying issues o Representatives from all constituent groups affected by this new

legislation discuss challenges and goals, and reach consensus o The problem or challenge to be addressed by the legislation has been

defined o There are clearly defined goals

Current policies are not in conflict with goals of the new legislation

The state has an inventory of all hardware and software deployed in schools within the state

A statewide network capacity assessment is conducted

A feasibility study is conducted (readiness, sustainability, and overall ROI)

There is a high level implementation conceptual draft that includes: o Resources needed for success (money, time, expertise, personnel,

infrastructure, etc.) o Roles and responsibilities o Timeline o Goals and benchmarks

Legislation Content Administration

Provision to hire statewide program leadership and implementation team Funding

Initial appropriation is sufficient to achieve the short-term goals

There is a plan for longer term sustainable funding

Page 28: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Appendix A - Statewide Digital Transformation Legislation Checklist Page 2 of 3

LEA expectations are clear and specific o Financial sustainability

Maintenance Refresh Scale

o Staffing o Leadership

Infrastructure

Bandwidth o In 2013 the FCC established a minimum bandwidth target of 100 Kbps per

student for schools, and has increased the target goal of 1 Mbps per student by 2018.

Wireless Network o To provide wireless access to all learners in all learning environments

requires a fairly complex infrastructure that includes servers, switches, routers, access points, a wireless LAN controller, and cabling. School buildings can vary greatly, so your wireless network will need to be designed for your specific set of needs.

Interoperability o The back end administration of a 1:1 program breaks down into 4 main

categories: Management (as in network or device management), Applications, Data, and Networks. There are a number of advantages when data, and other information and resources can seamlessly flow from between networks, applications and databases including improved security, productivity and expense.

Safety and Security o Schools are highly regulated and are required to employ protocols to

protect students from illicit content, predatory behavior, and to ensure sensitive information provided to the district remains private. For more information on this topic search for HIPAA an SIPPA guidelines for schools.

Technical Support o One-to-one programs often underestimate the amount of support their

staff and students will need, and not having timely support can severely handicap a program. Programs need to include plans for immediate trouble shooting, 24 turn-around on repairs, and other support. The metrics for how many staff are needed is traditionally tied to the number of devices deployed and the type of device.

Digital Learning Environment

Learning Management System o Software for management, tracking, documenting, reporting, and

delivering courses, assessments, and record keeping. There are a wide

Page 29: Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education...Statewide Digital Transformation: Legislation for Education A Thought Leadership Paper by One-to-One Institute Inspired

Appendix A - Statewide Digital Transformation Legislation Checklist Page 3 of 3

range of LMS functionalities: supporting classes, serving as a platform for fully online courses, blended learning, and flipped classrooms.

Digital Content o Dynamic, flexible, self-pacing content that is, ideally, interoperable with the

district’s assessment systems and student information system.

Digital Assessments o Systems for periodic evaluation as well as ongoing formative feedback

accessible to students, teachers, and parents. Ideally, all assessments will be interoperable with digital content and the district’s student information system.

Professional Development

A provision is included for teacher technology training, and ongoing teacher professional learning to effectively embed technology in personalized learning for students

Provides for ongoing learning for District Leaders and Principals in 2nd order change and transformational leadership

Data Collection and Utilization

Legislation provides for an annual external evaluation of the statewide program

The legislation provides for an annual LEA internal evaluation that requires reporting back to the state

The legislation requires districts to establish digital systems for ongoing formative assessment of learning

Prototype

Legislation directs districts to have a small scale implementation, with all necessary components, to assess and adjust prior to large scale implementation