Making SchoolsFuture-ProofImplementing flexible technology nowto prevent major overhauls later.

BY ALAN DESSOFFFrom District Administration

Under pressure to keep spend-ing down but also keep pace withrapid technology changes, manydistricts are future-proofing theirschools-trying to get the mostout of tech spending by providingsolutions they can use now and inthe future without major, expen-sive infrastructure overhauls.

"We try to make sure we'renot dead-ending," says Paul Gust,district technology director in theSaugatuck (MI) Public Schools,which is using the latest advancesin interactive whiteboards. "Wedon't want to jump into somethingwithout being sure it has a viablefuture."

In the Folsom Cordova (CA)Unified School District, it's called"future focus," says Chief Tech-nology Officer Joe Jenkins. "It'snot so much a hardware-specific

mentality; it's trying to make thetechnology more flexible and uti-lize wireless infrastructures."

A future-proof facility is "theescort to a probable future," addsFrank Locker, president of FrankLocker Educational Planning, aconsulting firm in Dover, NH. Hedefines it as "inherently a flexiblebuilding that can be used as ap-propriate today but allows futurereinterpretation and reassignmentof programs and functions," an-ticipating and supporting changewithout expensive remodeling.

Implementing and maintainingthe right technology infrastruc-ture is not a technical issue buta "strategic issue that requiresthought and leadership," PeggyMunkittrick, senior director ofproduct strategy for Schoolwires,wrote in a white paper, "K-12 Uni-fied Technology Model for Creat-ing a Technology Framework InSupport of Strategic Initiatives."

Alan Dessoff is a contributing writer for District Administration. Condensed,

with permission, from District Administration, October 2010. Copyright 2010,Professional Media Group LLC. The complete version of the article is available

at www.districtadministration.com.

www.eddlgest.com46

Making Schools Future Proof

As districts develop their technol-ogy plans, she continued, "it isessential to consider how theirtechnology infrastructure canmore effectively leverage the Web2.0 technologies."

Going WirelessWireless is dominant in schools

today, so running cables every-where is no longer imperative,says Robbie Ferris, president andCEO of FirstFloor K-12 Solutions.The main challenge is to provideenough outlets so students canrecharge their laptops. But withPDAs, iPhones, and some laptopswith batteries that last up to 10hours, "technology can get to thepoint where we won't even needall those outlets, because studentscan plug in when they get home,"Ferris says.

Ted Finch, a technology analystwith sustainability consulting firmFutureProof, points out that, in-creasingly, students are using theirown laptops at school. "To future-proof schools to cope with thistrend, it is important for schoolsto set up a strong wireless networkacross the campus," he says. Tofuture-proof a wireless network,"assume one laptop per child inevery classroom, library, and com-mon space in the school, and thenensure that the wireless networkcan handle that many laptops atonce, and with enough bandwidthfor every student to access stream-ing media concurrently, all with a

strong signal."But some districts, like the

Cumberland County (NC) Schools,still use wires. "Everything is stillhard-wired," reports Tim Kinlaw,associate superintendent of thedistrict. Accordingly, classroomplugs for students' laptops arepart of a new sustainable buildingdesign prototype for K-12 facilitiesintroduced in the New CenturyInternational Elementary School.Other features in the building,including a ground-source geo-thermal system and a solar pho-tovoltaic power system, promiseto significantly reduce costs nowand in the future, and requirelittle change in infrastructure. Thenew school is projected to save$60,000 annually while serving asan environmental teaching tool. "Ifyou really want to future-proof aschool, you have to design It to thegreatest extent possible to impactstudent performance and reduceenergy consumption In a big way,"says Ferris.

Communlcations/AlertsOther technologies are helping

districts improve infrastructureefficiencies and reduce costs infunctions like communication andalerts. The Northeast Metro 916Intermediate School District inMinneapolis has adopted Honey-well Instant Alert, a Web-basedemergency notification systemthat will quickly notify parentsand staff members of situations

March 2011 47

THE EDUCATION DIGEST

ranging from school bus accidentsto school closings due to weather.Instead of using telephone callingtrees, the district reaches its au-diences through voice, text, andemail messages.

Faced with a tight operatingbudget, school administratorsalso use a file attachment featureto deliver nonemergency informa-tion to parents, such as remindersof meetings, that previously weremailed or delivered by students."We used to send out a Thursdayfolder with lots of papers thatstudents would take home," saysKristine Carr, the Northeast Metrodistrict's director of administrativeservice. With the file attachment,schools have cut paper consump-tion and printing and mailing costs.As more districts invest in virtual-ization, some find they can lowercosts with zero clients insteadof thin clients. Thirty-five zero-client stations in the Westerly (RI)Public Schools are predicted to

save the district nearly $160,000over a three-year period. Unlikethin clients, zero clients-smallsilver portals the size of a Big Macbox-have no internal processing,thus reducing maintenance andservice costs usually associatedwith individual PCs. Zero clientsare like "a portal between the userand the keyboard," recording keystrokes back to a virtual machinerunning securely in the district'sdata center, explains Mark Lamson,Westerly Public Schools' directorof technology.

Interactive WhiteboardsSmartboards and projectors

are among other technologies thathave changed. "Interactive smart-boards are standard now," saysFerris, and "projectors have gottenso advanced, you can mount themon the wall.

The Vallejo City (CA) UnifiedSchool District had purchasedinteractive board systems in the

www.eddigest.com

Future-Proofing lipsExamine existing technology, then consder:e UPGRADES-How easy or realistic is it to upgrade? Has the vendordesigned it to be easily upgraded?* LIFE CYCLE-How long will it be before your technology is obsolete?What happens then?

* INFRASTRUCTURE-Do you have the wiring, network, and facilities tosupport an expansion of your technology five years from now?

* SUPPORT-Do you have the tech support for such an expansion? Ifnot, do your vendors provide the necessary support?

48

Making Schools Future Proof

past, but they were expensive. RoyLi, the district's director of technol-ogy, searched for alternatives thatmight fit better in terms of func-tionality, cost, and "future vision."

He found the eBeam Edge forEducation, an interactive white-board solution from Luidia, andthe district bought 250 units. Eachreceiver unit, about the size of aboard eraser, takes only minutes tpinstall. The portable unit activatesan image drea up to 9 feet by 5 feetand is compatible with standardprojectors.

Gust, of the Saugatuck PublicSchools, and other administratorsalso see a viable future in eBeam,citing Its retrofittable design thatallows schools to use existingwhiteboards and surfaces, stream-lined installation, the ease of mov-ing the units from one classroom toanother, and attractive cost.

In the CloudSome districts are adopting

cloud-computing solutions to re-duce future infrastructure needsand costs while providing newinstructional capabilities. Li ispartnering with Google on a cloudproject to allow teachers to set upvirtual classrooms.

The New York City Departmentof Education estimates it will saveup to $5 million annually on emailinfrastructure through a cloudsolution from ePals SchoolMailthat integrates technologies fromMicrosoft Live@edu, a no-cost plat-

form accessible through popularweb browsers for Windows, Mac,and Linux operating systems.

"Instead of having your owndata center and putting in a bunchof hardware, you can take advan-tage of the Googles and Microsoftsof the world. They run their owndata centers much more efficientlyand cheaply than we can," saysBruce Lai, chief of staff in the officeof the chief information officer inthe New York City DOE.

The Software and InformationIndustry Association's educationdivision has established a workinggroup to explore what it means forschool districts. Karen Billings,vice president of the division,says the group will consider theinstructional implications of cloudcomputing, such as "what it meansin terms of empowering teachersto operate with more up-to-dateinformation and Instructional set-tings and whether it's a way toengage learners," Billings says.

Even as more district leadersbegin future-proofing schools,Locker, of Frank Locker Educa-tional Planning, says he doesn'tfeel the concept has moved intothe "general culture." Most dis-tricts, he says, are "highly focusedon current practices and meetingcurrent trends. Even some prettysophisticated districts are runningwith some pretty outdated technol-ogy infrastructure and hardware.So we have a lot of catching up todo." U

March 2011 49

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author:

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Dessoff, Alan

Making Schools Future-Proof

Educ Dig 76 no7 Mr 2011 p. 46-9

0013-127X

Prakken Publications, Inc.

P.O. Box 8623, Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8623

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproducedwith permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright isprohibited.

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub- licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.