I missed the first 10 minutes of the Project RED presentation, but was immediately engaged by the slide displayed when I walked through the door. More than half of survey respondents (62%) reported that ubiquitous technology in their schools increased high-stakes test scores, and 48% reported a reduction in disciplinary action.
Project RED is the research project of Jeanne Hayes, the Hayes Connection; Tom Greaves, the Greaves Group; and Leslie Wilson of the One-to-One Institute. Through surveys and interviews, the group seeks to show the true financial benefits of education technology. They have focused on two key issues: student achievement and the financial impact of technology on state budgets. To my knowledge, no other group is making a research-based financial connection between education technology investment and state economies by analyzing cost savings, cost avoidance and revenue enhancements to state budgets with investment in educational technology.
The results were encouraging. When Hayes presented the disciplinary action finding, several audience members shared their experiences. A principal reported that when his school moved to one-to-one computing, the number of police referrals for disciplinary action dropped from weekly to just a few per year. Project RED takes the anecdotal a step further by calculating the cost of a police referral to the community, multiplied by the number of incidents to show significant cost avoidance.
Greaves also noted that in schools with ubiquitous technology, there is much more collaboration and more one-to-one time between teachers and students. The flexibility for students to work independently, in small groups, or in a more traditional manner has the effect of reducing class size by 2/3 without changing the actual student to teacher ratio.
The research also showed that schools with ubiquitous technology provided teachers with more scheduled professional learning. Instead of annual or quarterly workshops, teachers were engaged in weekly and monthly learning. The principal of the one-to-one school noted that his school has professional development twice a week and they look at response to intervention every Friday. They are using data to change instruction. “It’s a welcome relief. I’m not exhausted and my teachers aren’t scared,” he said.
A teacher from a different school noted that “Technology makes teachers feel professional, invigorated.” Again, Greaves takes the measure a step further. “When teachers feel invigorated, attendance goes up,” he said. “What’s the cost of reducing substitutes?” Nationwide, it could be in the billions.
This is an essential project to understanding the future of learning in our schools and how to develop policy and funding to support a competitive 21st century economy. Districts have the opportunity to participate in this research project by completing the online survey at www.projectred.org
Deadline: November 16, 2009
The better questions are all about “how” rather than “whether”. There aren’t too many principals out there that wouldn’t love to have a one-to-one ratio of computers with students rather than constant budget cuts, an “energized” and engaged teaching staff instead of endless “not enough time…” and “not in my contract…” objections.
When I read statements like “Nationwide, ” insert favorite benefit here “may be in the billions” I’m not hearing solid finacial research, I’m hearing preaching to the choir. Where’s the beef?
Only when school board staff can point to the kind of solid numbers that Project Red is talking about getting as a justification for investing at a level to make any of these things happen (WAY more for infrastructure/computers coupled with WAY more for teaching staff how to actually leverage that infrastructure) can districts start to dig out of the “RED”.
The best question of all is “what is the COST of failing to prepare kids for for their future” in the global economy. Translate that to now-dollars and you’ll see the investment that are required to get the job done. If Project Red can deliver on the building the case for near-terms cost avoidance benefits, coupled with believable projections for hard dollar benefits that acrue to the government agencies and communities that have have to find the spine to fund what’s required, then things can change.