A digitized school can only become a reality when every link in the chain holds

They say a chain is never stronger than its weakest link. The digitalization mandate that schools have received from the government has many links in the chain from decisions down to the workshop in the classroom and the students. In an op-ed in DN by Skolinspektionen their review shows that 75% of schools do not follow the requirements that exist within the mathematics and technology subjects. This isn’t really news so much as a confirmation of the gut feeling that many, myself included, carry. But why does it look like this? And what can we do about it?

All change is evil, even the good kind. :) Jokes aside, large changes require cooperation and collaboration. When it comes to digitalizing schools — which is one (many) big change (and takes a very long time) — there is a whole heap of stakeholders, companies, agencies, departments and administrations that in one way or another have something to do with this — before it reaches the classroom floor. So before we even, for example, talk about programming in mathematics there is a whole chain of links that must hold for it to be possible at all. I thought we’d look at one of these chains, what the problems are and what we might do about them.

Digitalization is complicated

All too often discussions around digitalization (in schools) are simplified to single parts. It’s of course important that we decide whether, say, a Chromebook or an iPad for students is the best device for our particular school and the type of teaching we want to conduct. But that alone is far from enough. Even a Chromebook is pretty useless if the student doesn’t have a working account, if password policies are broken or if the classroom the teacher teaches in doesn’t have an access point that can deliver a stable internet connection. Or if the internet provider is poor. Or if the teacher lacks the competence to teach the relevant area. It’s even the case that it’s quite rare for an individual school to be able to decide which tools should be purchased, both hardware and software. In the same way it doesn’t matter what software, learning platform or fantastic service we’ve bought if the hygiene doesn’t work, because we can’t even use it.

So there are a lot of dependencies that must work for digitalization to even be an option in the classroom. In addition, the digital solution must be worth more than it costs and be a much better tool (in cases where the digital can replace the analog) to challenge, for example, a proven and reliable pen, paper and an analog book (of course there is no contradiction between analog and digital tools — teachers usually know which tools are needed for their lesson).

In the image below you can see the parts that constitute digitalization in a typical primary school. Almost all of these parts have one or more dependencies attached to them. Digitalization is complicated,

Digitalization components at Årstaskolan

The classroom — on the pitch and trust capital

In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff and all students — every lesson, every day. Here the “match” is truly underway, every lesson, every day — and the clock is ticking. Guaranteed teaching minutes. Curriculum documents with a lot of content that has to be covered. There is really no pause button to press.

In many cases I see how the reservoir of trust in using digital tools and in relying on them to work is very low. Many don’t want to gamble teaching minutes on whether it will work this time — and above all not build teaching that depends on digitalization if they don’t feel completely confident with the digital environment they have. They’ve been burned too many times. And where do the boos land when someone fails? Right on the players down there on the pitch where the match is happening.

What I want to point out here is that there are several factors interacting in why we can’t reach the leverage we want. Therefore we must strengthen the links in the chain. In my view it’s rarely that the school doesn’t want to work with digitalization. More often the conditions simply aren’t there, and digitalization doesn’t really want to work with the school.

Example chain — Programming within mathematics and technology

If we take the example ‘Programming within mathematics and technology’ and try to map a dependency chain of what is needed for it to become a workshop in the classroom, it could look like the below.

The links I raise here are common problems. If even a single one of these links fails, it’s more or less game over.

1. Digital device

Whether students have 1:1 (one device per student) or some form of cart with devices or a computer lab where they are located, there is usually a company (A and/or B) that supplies these. The school has made some kind of choice based on a predetermined offering procured by the principal or similar. If the principal has ensured that the company (A and B) has good support for the devices, makes sure they are reliable, are adapted to the different ages in the school (6 years and up) and can deliver them on time and that the school consciously chose the devices based on how they want to teach and use the tools (and not just based on budget) and that there are routines at the school ensuring that students have access to devices in a good way — with loan devices if they break or similar — then we can move on to the next link.

NOTE! In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff and all students — every lesson, every day.

2. Storage/charging

For the devices to work in the math lesson late Tuesday afternoon we need to make sure students can charge their devices at school. Solutions for this can be student lockers with power outlets, classrooms with many power outlets, or security cabinets in the classrooms with power outlets. Of course companies (A and B) contracted to supply the digital devices have focused on good battery life (along with weight and durability) so they should last at least a day of “office work”.
But depending on tasks, backup is always needed in this area.

Fixed? Next link… NOTE! In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff, all students — every lesson, every day.

3. Internet

Most of the tools we use at school for programming are web-based for several reasons. Both because they are cloud-based, so students can continue using the tools and work on their projects outside school, but also because they can be considered (more or less) standards and recommendations from, for example, Skolverket.
So if the internet provider (C) can deliver the capacity ordered by the procurer and it is sufficiently provisioned and company (D) has a fast and well-tuned network with enough access points to cover the number of devices in the school’s active area and company (E)’s internet filter is not blocking the wrong sites, we’ve come a long way and can continue to the next link.

NOTE! In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff, all students — every lesson, every day.

4. Account management

To be able to log in to their devices students have accounts managed by company (B). Since we have students aged 6 and up a functioning password policy has been agreed and procured that fits these children.

For this to work well, passwords should never need to be changed except when the student themselves thinks the password has been compromised. If most tool logins use SSO (single sign-on) we now have a good chain to start teaching with and around the digital. Besides this, logging in no longer takes more than a few seconds.

NOTE! In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff, all students — every lesson, every day.

5. Teachers

Most mathematics and technology teachers do not have any prior competence in programming. And as we know, competence in an area is required to successfully teach it. The higher up in age groups we get, the more competence is required. We’ve had programming in the curriculum for a few years now but we also knew this would probably be introduced a year or so earlier, so why haven’t teachers learned programming yet?

I’m not a teacher myself, but as I understand it it’s not entirely clear who should ensure teachers receive further training. Is it up to the teacher themselves? Is it the responsibility of the principal? If we play with the idea that each school management ensures teachers can use the time agreed for professional development — and that teachers themselves are responsible for their professional development and further training and now have the competence — then we can move on to the next link. The last one.

6. Programming

All right! Let’s go! All students have devices they can quickly get started on and log in to at every lesson, with reliable internet. It’s extremely rare, at most once a year, that some individual student has problems, but it’s usually solved easily and quickly by the school’s support staff. The teacher knows the things always work and has high trust in the digital tools and in their own competence.

NOTE! In the classroom everything has to work at least 99 times out of 100 for all staff, all students — every lesson, every day.

Shared prioritization and a plan B and C

Of course you can draw similar chains of dependencies within all parts of digitalization and if we together would start by prioritizing students’ learning and the teaching and with that the dependencies needed to be able to fulfill that, we’d be a long way along. That we (companies A, B, C, D, E, the school, the school leadership, the staff, the administration, the government, SKL, the principal or whoever we are) have a shared prioritization so that teaching can be carried out.

Does the network go down? Don’t panic, companies C and D have dropped everything and are on the issue. Bring up the school’s backup network and keep surfing.

Do a number of computers have manufacturing defects and don’t work? Calm down. Right now a bunch of technicians are sitting in a SWAT van on their way to the school. Where possible, have a local B- and preferably a C-plan for high-priority areas.

Logins must be possible on offline devices (if the network is down for a while). Alternatively the school might choose a device such as an iPad (which only has local login) instead of a computer (if offline login doesn’t work)? Mobile routers with 4G for internet access (for example during national exams) if the network is down.
Be proactive and risk-analyze what can go wrong and find solutions for this. The C-plan could be even more drastic and involve skipping several links. Use private devices, share your phone’s internet and similar.

Personally I’ve worked like this for about 10 years and I can safely say I am very rarely affected by the commonly occurring problems. Not something I recommend though. But a plan C is good. It’s our job — those of us who work with and decide about IT — to sweep the path clear of obstacles for staff and students.

Lifelong learning — professional development and local competence

A big piece in getting digitalization to work is competence in the area. It applies to the whole chain and at the individual school it concerns students, staff, school leaders and of course pedagogical IT and support staff — all with different roles and competences.

Ensuring people attend a course for a couple of days no longer really works and we must solve the issue of teacher in-service training. School leaders must ensure teachers’ time is protected and that teachers themselves are responsible for their professional development.

Only when we have clear shared priorities and can uphold and demand accountability from all links in the chain will we be able to continue the digitalization journey out at our schools around Sweden.

What it comes down to in the end is that all of us links in the chain must pull in the same direction and have the same priorities. Until that happens, digitalization will look extremely different, both between and within schools.