District Administration - February 2009 - (Page 19)

in test scores from the prior year at about the same rate as other students in the district.” In other words, laptop programs do not raise test scores. As the pressure for achievement increases as No Child Left Behind pushes school systems to 100 percent student proficiency by 2014, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify expenditures that do not have an impact on the bottom line of improving student achievement, at least as it is measured on state accountability systems. Advocates for learning with laptops would say that you can’t measure effectiveness with traditional measures of student performance, as it’s a mismatch in skill sets. In fact, I often told parents if you ask how laptops improve test scores, you are asking the wrong question. However, laptop programs have yet to come up with a way to measure efficacy, and principals and schools are evaluated on standardized test scores. In fact, if your goal as an administrator is to raise test scores with laptops alone, you will likely fail. As a further blow, research from the U.S. Department of Education published in 2007 on the effectiveness of reading and math software concluded that there was no measurable difference between the use of software and traditional methods. What does this mean for implementing a one-to-one laptop program, especially in today’s climate of increased accountability and diminishing resources? It depends upon the circumstances of individual schools. If you are in program improvement or close to program improvement under NCLB, laptop programs will not help you to raise the basic skills of students. You don’t have the time to wait to see if the program will work; you need results now. If your school has good test scores, has effectively implemented research-based instructional methods in reading and math, and has a supportive local community, however, a laptop program may help you to get to the next level. www.DistrictAdministration.com The Need for Leadership If you are considering implementing or continuing a laptop program, it is important to recognize the importance of the site administrator in the process and the pressures that he or she will face. The principal will always have to justify the program with data, so an effective monitoring program will have to be established. This is traditionally an area where laptop programs have fallen down. In the absence of compelling data from the school, it makes it all the harder to resist the pres- sure from the story that standardized test scores tell. In a policy brief from Andrew Zucker, senior research scientist at the Concord Consortium, entitled “One-to-One Computing Evaluation Consortium,” published in November 2005, Bette Manchester states, “There needs to be a leadership team that looks at things through three different lenses: the lens of curriculum and content; the lens of the culture of the building; and the lens of technical needs.” I believe this is an effective organizational framework February 2009 19 http://www.qomo.com http://www.qomo.com http://www.DistrictAdministration.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of District Administration - February 2009

District Administration - February 2009 Contents Advertiser Index Editor's Letter News Update Security Curriculum Crisis Response Supervisor's Opinion The Rise of the Virtual Teacher Speaking Their Language Alternate Transportation Routes Opinion The Aftermath of the New 403(b) Regulations How Well Does This Web Site Work? Problem Solution New Products Product Focus Professional Opinion

District Administration - February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.