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