1 to 1 Disruption

Many times, the traditional IT questions being asked are not the ones that capitalize on the power and opportunity of a modern 1:1 program. And in many cases, the measurement of gains--or lack of-- is based on inappropriate evaluations. 

We are seeing much the same with the iPads today in that traditional computing models, IT considerations and assessment measures pretty quickly doom many efforts at immersive integration. The iPads are a completely different "space" and fail miserably when the well-rounded application of iPads are stuffed into square computing boxes of office utilities, if you catch my drift. 

Curriculum should not be a response to technology, but rather the exact opposite. The tech is used to support and amplify the curriculum allowing the teacher and student to be more efficient and effective. The diversity of today's tech in both its scope and its depth vastly changes the teaching/learning dynamic. Unfortunately, however, many of the integration models have not been updated in a long time and are thus vulnerable to archaic, even dysfunctional application of the tech essentially ensuring that the project will be sabotaged from the inside-out.

I'd suggest that until the initial scope and dreams (for lack of a better word) of your 1:1 can be conceptualized, considering the IT aspects and opinions is counter productive and even detrimental. The reason is that the conventional IT questions and perspectives will alter the trajectory of a 1:1 converting it into a traditional and dated integration design complete with obsolete measures of success. And as we read here on the list, will certainly begin the downward trend of any chance of demonstrable successes even before the project is launched.

Oddly, it should be the tech folks who are on the sharp end of the spear with 21st century 1:1 models, but instead there seems to be a thread of obstructionism woven into the IT fabric of many school districts. Which is why many of the forward-thinking or progressive tech programs come from outside the system. But, of course, that is exactly what is to be expected when one subscribes to the implications of "disruptive technology." 

Literally stated, it cannot come from those within the system because often they are the very ones who are trying to avoid the so-called "disruptions." Obviously we learn from the past, but we also need the wisdom to know when the environmental conditions have changed enough that our existing understandings are no longer generalizable to the current landscape. And I'll be first in line to admit that instructional technology, educational computing, and digital learning are not what they were even three years ago, let alone ten when many of our 1:1 attitudes began to crystalize.