Big Schools Can't Compete with Small Schools... in Computer Technology?

The big schools are supposed to be better than the small schools, right? Better academic results, more course options, better pay for staff, more efficient use of resources -- all that economy-of-scale stuff, or so the big-town advocates of school consolidation would tell us.

Yet Luke Evans at KELO-TV offers a report that turns the economy-of-scale argument on its head [Luke Evans, "Education Expense," KELOLand.com, 2007.08.17]. While high schools from mid-sized Madison down to tiny Oldham-Ramona are working toward the goal of laptops for every student (Madison is there, Oldham-Ramona is in the process), Ann Smith, Sioux Falls School District Library Coordinator, says a one-to-one laptop program wouldn't work in Sioux Falls. Smith cites the technical difficulties of two thousand students all hitting the Internet at the same time and swamping the school computer network. Smith says (in Evans's paraphrase) "the Sioux Falls Schools are too big to make the cost of the laptops effective for their budget." She feels the Sioux Falls schools get more bang for their buck out of portable computer labs and another, better-tested technology: paper and pencil.

Smith's statements fly in the face of conventional wisdom in economics and education policy. "It's like running water anymore, you just have to have a computer in this day and age and most colleges require a laptop or some sort of computer," says Oldham-Ramona Superintendent John Bjorkland. But could this acceptance of technology as an absolute necessity in the classroom be driving the budget crunch in South Dakota schools? As these pages have discussed elsewhere, all this computer technology creates educational opportunities, but it also creates permanent increased operating expenses for schools -- computer maintenance, all-too-frequent software and hardware upgrades, and high salaries for computer support personnel who may not even teach a class. Parents feel the financial squeeze, too, as they find themselves having to put down deposits, buy computer insurance and accessories, and even pay replacement costs for the expensive equipment that their children are now expected to carry with them every day.

Evans writes, "As technology continues to advance, educators will be watching to see whether more computers mean a better education for South Dakota students." But as this blog and Professor Schaaf at South Dakota Politics have pointed out, researchers have already found that the integration of laptops into the curriculum fails to produce any solid academic gains. Some high schools that bought into one-to-one laptop computing early are already abandoning the concept as all buck and no bang.

Smith seems to be reading this research and is willing to challenge the idea that more technology is automatically better:

Can we still do a fine job of educating students and have them well prepared top succeed in the a changing world with the mobile labs we're adding? Absolutely. Is it critical to have everyone have their own computer to do that good job of educating? No.

Smith is clearly no reactionary desperately trying to preserve the sanctity of a librarian's precious books (books! such an antiquated method of transferring information -- no hyperlinks, no embedded video, no flashing graphics, just... oh, knowledge). She recognizes that technology has its place; that place just isn't in every kid's hands and backpack every moment of the school day.

Can small schools really integrate laptops and other technology into their classrooms more quickly and efficiently than large schools? That remains an open policy question. But the more important question is, "Should any schools, large or small, make the effort to integrate laptops into the curriculum?" Governor Rounds and the 41 schools buying into his Classroom Connections program seem to think that question is already settled, but as Librarian Smith and available research demonstrate, that question remains open for debate as well.