Several people I work with have asked about the distribution of computers within the school. Which is better (Lab vs. Classroom)? Once you get to the point of putting computers in classrooms, the question of how to distribute them never seems to be raised.

"Why, obviously we will be fair and give each person
one until all have a computer in each room!"

While I don’t object to this plan, I would prefer to distribute instructional resources on a less political basis than fairness to the faculty. There are some excellent reasons to distribute one to each room until everybody has one. These reasons have nothing to do with being fair to the faculty. Consider the following "strategic" reasons for putting a computer in each room.

1. Staff Development Reason #1 - Students will not be offered a chance to use a computer until the teacher develops a lesson which has as one component the use of a computer. Note this does not speak to "meaningful" use of a computer. Teachers will not entertain the notion of using some foreign teaching resource if they are not familiar enough with the resource themselves. This does not require a depth of expertise, but something beyond "awareness" of the existence. By placing a computer in each room, you are "investing" in your faculty FIRST. Any other model is just wasting time! Note that this carries with it an expectancy of instructional uses in the future.



2. Staff Development Reason #2 - Since you probably will not have enough money to finance a computer in every classroom in one budget year, you have a chance to carefully select who is in the first round and who gets a computer later. A strategic way to make this decision would be to consider the opportunity you have to further your staff development cause within your school. You should select only those people who will pledge to:
   • try it out
   • provide support to their colleagues later and
   • are willing to increase their technological competence through staff development opportunities

These "early starters" will be your technology leaders a few years down the road. They will be "proof" to the remainder of the faculty of what can be done. These people will lead by example as well as provide role models for those less inclined to embrace the use of technology. You will do well to have several of these people.

With this approach should come some building-level perks. If you are going to use them as future staff development leaders, you have to invest in them now. They have to understand that with these perks comes the responsibility of showing others what has been learned. If they are not willing to give the time to help others, then pick other people to receive the first computers. What are these perks? They always get the newest computers. Their computers are passed to whoever is next in line. (Who can better take advantage of the "bells and whistles" on the newest computers?) They always get the first copy of the newest software. (Who is going to demonstrate/teach the new software?) They always are brought to the table to discuss your technology plans for the future. They are consulted on real decisions that affect the technology in the school. They always get staff development dollars to attend conferences, workshops, etc. on technology. They get the building-level recognition of this "role" they are playing and the official appreciation for what they are giving back to the faculty. (If they are not giving back, then move them off this list and they get in line just like everyone else.) This approach should not be interpreted as faculties with "second-class" and "first-class" members. You will have to insure that those at the front of the line see themselves as 'advance scouts' rather than 'privileged characters.' This perception is critical since your funding sources will dictate how long it will take those at the back of the line to move up. Ideally, everyone should see themselves a little bit lucky and a little bit envious of the other positions in line. Those receiving the resources early have to give up time. Those receiving the same resources later do not have this time requirement. Those receiving the software packages first will learn on their own. Those who come later will have the advantage of walking on roads cut by the early birds. If you think it is fun to have the resources first, image what it would be like to have trouble, raise your hand for help, and realize the calvary isn’t coming--YOU are the calvary!

What's Next? 

When you have placed a single computer in each instructional area, where do you go with the next computer? Many schools adopt the "fairness" rule and begin a second pass through the school. Generally this pass is even less strategic than the first one. While I enthusiastically support putting a computer in each room to allow that teacher the opportunity to begin the long process of learning to use technology, the distribution from here on is very "iffy" in my book. When you bring a single computer into a classroom, the teacher may or may not try to incorporate the computer directly with students. It often can be a private workstation for the teacher. When you bring the second computer into the room you are planning on the students doing something on one of the two computers. The teacher is forced to create some instructional activity to use with this new resource.

Consider the possibilities and the future value to the school of the distribution of 10 computers.

1. You could put one in ten rooms.
2. You could put two in five rooms.
3. You could put five in two rooms.


Option 1 offers the advantages of spreading out the purchases in several places. You will be getting ten people to stress themselves on exactly what will be different in the way you conduct the classes. You have ten people to train on the subtleties of classroom management. Surely you will get more good role models using ten people than using less. Option 2 offers the advantages of giving these five teachers more computing stations to manage. If you plan to ultimately have more than three computers (teacher station + xx computers) in each room, you have taken a big stride in each of these rooms. You reduce your staff development focus from ten to five people. Do you really have ten people ready to make the leap to a change in classroom management? Sharing ideas and strategies may be easier with five people than ten. Option 3 offers the advantages of giving you a chance to look at the ultimate model you hope to have in all of your classes. These two teachers will have ALL workstations exactly alike. This makes training and maintenance easier. These people will undergo a dramatic change in the way they teach only once. The other distribution models force the teachers to chance their management issues each time you add new computers. You will provide electrical, furniture, and connectivity all at once. Do you hope the way you arrange electrical outlets will be a suitable arrangement 5-10 years from now? You could consider the first two classrooms as "experiments" in locating the computers. The cost of wiring a room generally precludes movement of cable drops and electrical outlets after the initial installation. Should you cluster the computers on a single wall or spread them out within the room? It might be nice to get advice from a teacher who had taught in different configurations using 5-6 computers rather than be forced to say to someone you are stuck with a bad configuration for the life of the building!

The point isn’t to promote one distribution plan over another. Each different distribution plan has merits with a particular staff having a particular technology focus. The point is to get you to think about the choices and to make a strategic decision at each decision point in the process.