My school district has an issue with slow internet access during the main business hours of 7:30 am to 3:00 pm. The speeds are slow enough that some teachers have left the library and labs to return to classes. Who should be worried about this?

Well, educational technology leaders should be worried about this. The purchase of computers and technology and the drive to use them has pushed school networks to a point of diminishing returns. If we are spending money to acquire technology, we want to make sure the benefits are maximized. In some cases it might be time to pare back computer inventories until the network capacity catches up.

But I think the people who should be most worried are the vendors who are in the business of making internet accessible educational products. How many times have you heard some one say a web site is “soooo slowwww” and then avoid the product because of the perception of a slow website? The reality is the web site might be slow - but it might not! The reality is the internet access capacity for the school or school system might be the culprit, which in turn is making the web business look bad.

So internet capacity is becoming a concern. It did not used to be. But having three T1 lines sounds like a lot of capacity and it is if you have 500 computers. But it is not if you have 3000 computers.

I would like to hear thoughts on internet capacity and how school systems are dealing with that challenge.

I am becoming familiar with Google Docs. My first experiment is to create a Web 2.0 spreadsheet that tracks my Capstone project at the University of Virginia. Click on Google Docs Spreadsheet to see the spreadsheet.

Schools can have too many computers!

The case I am making is that each school systems should drive to an optimum number of computer systems that can exist on the computer network. This “optimum number” is not a function of the number of schools, teachers, or students but rather is a function of network bandwidth, money, and network support resources. I argue that there is a point of diminishing returns to a strategy of continuing to make computer purchases and increasing inventory. I argue that there is a careful balance that must be maintained between the number of computers for students and the performance of the network.

Keeping computers current (refreshing technology) – It is easier to ramp up and purchase computers than it is to manage inventory and keep the computer technology current. (I define current as 5 years old or less.) Some districts have continued to grow computer inventories to a point that it is impossible to fulfill any original commitment to a 4 or 5 -year refresh plan. Letting inventories grow has effectively let school system realities be more like an eight year refresh plan.

A key driver of the refresh plan is the available funds. To determine how many computers a school can support on a 4 or 5 year refresh plan, one can use a simple math model. Take the amount of money available for hardware purchases, divide that number by $1000 (this will ballpark how many systems you can buy), now take that number times 4 (or 5) the number of years in the refresh cycle. I argue this number is a schools optimal inventory.

The last facet that must be part of any district’s refresh plan is “what do we do with the old computers?” Each school district must think about how they are going to repurpose and then ultimately dispose of equipment. There are some things, I argue, that you want to guard against.

• Having the old computers find their way to the ESOL and Special Education programs. This will create the perception of these programs getting the old equipment. It adds to the digital divide.
• A computer that has been replaced should be counted differently in inventory than new computers. A repurposed computer should never be replaced – it has already been replaced once.
• “Old” computers will have old software. Teachers might get comfortable with the old software and that makes it problematic when a system tries to dispose of that system

The figure below was created using the VOKI website. A VOKI is an animated figure that can be used to liven up presentations or web pages. In this case, press the “play” arrow and hear the VOKI speak.

To get your own VOKI navigate to www.voki.com

Now why would you want to use a VOKI? Well, take a look at this example. here the VOKI introduces the Pen Tray on a Smart Board.

Espoused theories are the ones we learn about in college. They can be recited, discussed and tried out. One might even adopt an espoused theory of teaching or learning or discipline or leadership. But the good intentions often run head on into what we are used to doing in our real lives – our daily M.O. For example, most people will agree that it is a good idea not to talk on your cell phone while driving. So we espouse this philosophy until our own cell phone rings while we are driving. It becomes very easy to succumb to “Do as I say and not as I do.”

Many times it is “TIME”that impacts how we react or respond to a person or a situation. So when it comes to shifting the continuum from Espoused Theory to Practiced Theory, I try to keep these in mind:

• Try not to trade short term gains for long term success
• Try to identify the theories-in-use by those you would like to influence

So what are some of your thoughts and tips about holding to your “Espoused Theory” of teaching and learning?