Are we headed for a 1:1 future?

The big news a few weeks ago was that after their snarky face-off on 60 Minutes in May, Intel and OLPC decided to "make up" and have Intel sit on the board of the OLPC/XO program (see news here).

The bigger question remains how the learning process utilized with millions of kids is going to change once there is a true 1:1 ratio of computers to students. It's easy for a national ministry of education spokesperson to say they're going to come up with $100 million to buy the hardware for their kids, it's quite another to describe exactly what the brave new world of 21st Century learning will look like.

Here are some key things that need to be in place for this to actually yield the outcomes we want (instead of outfitting 100 million students in developing countries with expensive toys):

1. A definitive (or at least confident) articulation of teaching methodology that takes into account the presence of the machine. Beyond saying "Kid's take to technology like bears to honey", not that many people have articulated a clear system for successfully incorporating laptops into the teaching process for any teacher (not just techno-enthusiasts). Large scale experiments (like the four-plus-year-old Maine project) have been strangely silent about what they've learned about specific teaching methods associated with the laptops, beyond the anecdotal and self-congratulatory. In some cases, large-scale efforts have failed or been scrapped for political reasons or lack of observable results. Even the research cited at the cheerleading "Anytime Anywhere Learning Foundation" is heavy on the "perceptions of participants" and light on the recommendations for scientifically-based, sustainable methodological models.

2. A system that will seamlessly allow teachers to manage the flow of content, student work, assessment data, etc. This will need to be an easy-to-use, inexpensive, web-based platform for learning and teaching. It can't be a "course management" platform like so many so-called "Learning Management Systems" are. Rather, it must deliver the ease of use of iTunes and the robust data-driven management tools of a Salesforce.com or NetSuite.

3. Curriculum content. I've said in previous posts that there will always be a place for premium content. Nowhere will that be more manifest than the places that try to scale up a 1:1 laptop initiative. My prediction: the more students they try to put on it, the more the teachers, parents and administrators will call for high quality content. And solutions that count on "wiki" style social content development will not deliver what these participants want -- material that will engage students, guide them in an individualized way through the material, be responsive to data trails left by previous work by the same student (and by work of similar students), etc. This is not the kind of stuff that will be developed by a dedicated 6th grade teacher in her spare time.

I am a true believer that 1:1 initiatives can work. But we've only scratched the surface about how.

wjk

The cost of an online HS education

First a quick personal story: My oldest son is a very wonderful kid. He is very intelligent, very engaging, very funny. He's also, for some reason, failed to excel in a school setting. He learns the material, and often becomes astonishingly conversant in the topic. He just won't do the work.

So now he's a senior in high school (by age anyway) and still needs to make up several classes worth of work, along with his current work load, in order to graduate with his class this spring. We have adopted a "credit recovery" approach that relies on web-based high school courses provided by Brigham Young University.

There is a lot to be said for this method of receiving credit:

• The student can self pace



• The student can be self-directed



• All assessments are performed online with instant feedback to the student



• There is a remarkable diversity of courses one can take to fill credit requirements



• It can be done anytime, anywhere



• There is access to a course instructor for questions and feedback



• Every course is accredited and (at least in our school district) accepted for equivalent credit.

So, knock on wood, we'll have a joyous graduation celebration this spring.

However, this whole experience has got me thinking about online education. It definitely does have its benefits. And it is extremely cost effective. As a little exercise I calculated what it would cost to get a complete high school education on byu.edu. It turns out to be $7,000 (which includes $25 per half-semester course to pay a proctor fee for the final exam, or $625), or $1,750 per year.

The chart shows the breakdown of costs. In addition to the coursework, students here in Multnomah County can get free online tutoring through the local library system through an arrangement with tutor.com.

I'm not advocating that everyone just get their high school courses done online, I am interested in what the implications are for the public school system. This is a far cry, economically, from a $15,000 per year private school alternative. It essentially sets the bar for a quality, diverse, guided path through the required curriculum at $7,000. The question is, what value does the public school system deliver for the remainder of the money spent. In Portland, the cost of educating a student for one year is $9,714, or $38,856. By my calculation, the coursework associated with that investment has been valued at $7,000. How is the district delivering an additional $31,856 of value over the course of a student's high school career?

I'm definitely not trying to undermine public education. I'm just pointing out that alternatives exist at a price point that is attractive. And I'm wondering if this might spur those in charge of public education policy to innovate a bit more to meet the needs of the students and parents in their systems on the basis of this new economics.