Results provide the starting and ending point for any initiative. Specifying a program's goals from day one and determining how progress will be measured is an important first step. Ongoing monitoring of results is key, as is stopping at various points along the way to take a look at the overall impact of the initiative and determine any changes that are required as a result.

Not only is this sort of evaluation crucial to the success of individual programs, it helps education leaders in other parts of the country and the world learn from one another's success and build new programs based on scientifically-based research. To stay on top of the research around ubiquitous computing, visit K12 Computing Blueprint's Research Watch.

STATE INITIATIVES

A number of states around the country have launched initiatives aimed at bringing one-to-one computing to students statewide. Whether the program was designed to ramp up quickly (like Maine's MLTI initiative, which extended laptops to all students in grades seven and eight) or focused on a more limited number of pilot sites (like the Texas TIP research program which involved 21 implementation and 21 control schools), program evaluation was an integral part of these statewide initiatives from day one.

Michigan's Freedom to Learn (FTL) initiative, implemented from 2003 to 2007, provides one example. A key component of FTL was a three-year rigorous and comprehensive evaluation study, conducted by the Center for Research and Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis, to measure progress towards the program's goals. Conclusions from the CREP report included:

• There were significant instances of FTL students outperforming non-FTL students on the state's math and reading tests and evidence that FTL students had developed key skills and knowledge needed for the 21st-century workforce.
• Freedom to Learn teachers and students widely agreed that laptops had a positive impact on student motivation, learning and achievement.
• Teachers reported greater confidence in their ability to effectively integrate technology into instruction and an increased readiness to do so as a result of professional development efforts that were key to the program.
• FTL served as a catalyst for innovative technology interventions that remained consistent in yielding improved educational opportunities for Michigan's students.

Research results from other state initiatives can be found at:

The Maine Learning Technology Initiative

Texas TIP Program

South Dakota's Classroom Connections Program

DISTRICT PROGRAMS

Program evaluation and professional research are a part of a number of district-based initiatives as well. In Kent, Washington, for example, an ambitious one-to-one initiative that now involves all seventh graders, with other grades being added, began with a single "proof of concept" program. Kent Technology Academy (KTA), housed in the Mill Creek Middle School, opened in the fall of 2005 with ninety seventh graders and three teachers.

Research was conducted at KTA during year two of the program and results published by Dr. Karen Banks of Data Detectives.

The findings included:

• The students participating in the pilot represented the diverse population of the district as a whole and the positive results, across the board, indicated that the one-to-one approach worked for a diverse group of learners.
• The program attracted students to Mill Creek with interest in the program exceeding availability.
• Achievement of KTA students on state exams (WASL) exceeded the performance of the overall district and of the state as a whole.
• Students in KTA (and in some other Mill Creek classes using technology) were highly engaged in their school work—excited about their projects and the strong support from their teachers. They reported that they worked harder and more efficiently because of the technology.
• KTA teachers received a great deal of training—with an emphasis on pedagogical best practices, not just technology use—and they reported that this training was useful in implementing the approaches used in KTA.

The research also identified opportunities for improvement. For example:

• Technology glitches caused some implementation problems with participants feeling that hardware vendors were "not offering products that would meet the optimal needs of KTA."
• Many of the students reported feeling stressed by the high expectations placed on them—including the work that they were expected to complete at home using their laptops.
• Challenges arose when students or faculty members left the program and routines needed to be established for incorporating new students and training new teachers.

As the Kent one-to-one program expanded to involve additional students and schools, careful attention was paid to the lessons learned in the initial years. "Much has been learned from KTA about the practical aspects of putting laptops in the hands of middle school students," said the Data Detectives research report. "For example, the types of hardware and software needed, costs in terms of central personnel and support, how to structure tech support, types of training teachers need, how to address security issues, and the physical needs (building, space, furniture) of such an initiative."

KTA and the Kent-Meridian Technology Academy (KMTA)—a ninth grade program which opened in year three as the original seventh graders reached high school—continue to function as "proof of concept" schools, allowing the district to try out new technologies and approaches before disseminating them more widely. Click here to learn more.

Research results from some other local one-to-one initiatives can be found at:

Irving, Texas

Lemon Grove, California

Auburn, Alabama

Henrico, Virginia

GATHERING AND MANAGING DATA

In addition to research projects with prescribed goals and a finite time frame, ongoing technology-enabled data analysis can play an important role in monitoring results and refining approaches. The latest tools being used for such purposes are known as School Performance Management Systems (SPMS)—comprehensive systems that help foster data-driven decision-making at all levels of the school district.

The Knox County Schools, in Tennessee, is in the process of implementing such a data system. Their new SPMS will tie into current systems scattered throughout the district and, according to the district Web site, offer "snapshots in time," allowing administrators, principals and teachers to tailor education to specific student needs. The data can be analyzed in a variety of ways to determine the performance of a student, a teacher or a particular school and what factors might be contributing to failure or success.

By tying data to financial and budget information, administrators can also allocate dollars more effectively and gain a better understanding of the return on their investments. District leaders are also discussing future add-ons such as "formative tracking," which monitors a student's learning progress throughout the school year rather than relying on end-of-course exams.

Implementing School Performance Management Systems involves educating all stakeholders about data-driven decision-making and the specifics of using the new tools to access "key performance indicators" (KPIs) at the district, school and classroom levels. Once this is done, administrators, principals and teachers will all have the necessary resources to:

• Provide an accurate and actionable picture of a district's progress;
• Deploy formative and summative benchmark testing;
• Track and monitor student progress and mastery of skills, then adjust and individualize instruction;
• Manage standard-based curriculum and individual instructional plans;
• Use and share standards-based resources and an online repository of third-party teaching materials and assessment items in an open, content-neutral and SIF-certified platform;
• Utilize compelling, insightful reports on student proficiency;
• Monitor professional development planning and effectiveness;
• Optimize instruction and staff productivity.