Microsoft Bring Your Own Device To School - 2012 Briefing Paper K-12

Bring Your Own
Device To School
The consumerisation of IT has accelerated a new model
for 1-to-1 learning, where every student brings their own
device. This discussion paper examines potential deployment
models from teaching, learning and IT management
perspectives.
Bruce Dixon, Anytime, Anywhere Learning Foundation
Sean Tierney, Microsoft Corporation

Windows
in the classroom briefing paper 2
BYOD to school education
®

Executive summary
The ongoing debate regarding the Bring Your Own Device
(BYOD) model in schools warrants deeper analysis to help
educators and institutions understand this provisioning model
and its potential benefits and pitfalls for learning.
This discussion paper sets out to investigate the myths and
understand which questions should be addressed when
considering allowing students to bring their own devices, and
which option might be best suited to a school or system’s
culture. It is intended to stimulate discussion around what
constitutes best practice 1-to-1 learning.

Contents
Executive summary

2

1-to-1 learning programs are not new

3

Do schools still need to provide computers?

4

Bring Your Own Device. Five potential models

6

Myths and misperceptions
To BYOD or not to BYOD

11

Conclusion

2 BYOD to school education briefing paper

10

14

1-to-1 learning programs are not new
1-to-1 learning programs have been evolving over the past two decades. While some have
amounted to little more than replacing pencil cases with laptops, properly structured, they
can deliver strong benefits and redefine learning. These gains should be used to benchmark
today’s Bring Your Own Device environments.
The adoption of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
models in schools is largely the result of two factors:
school budget constraints and the consumerisation
of technology.

Informal observation and classroom experience also
suggest that, when students have their own laptops,
learning is deeper and they engage in more intellectual,
conceptual, analytical, creative thinking.

As school budgets have been cut, so the prices of
laptop-like devices have dropped dramatically with
the introduction of netbooks, apps-based tablets
and e-books. Smaller devices, such as tablets and
smartphones have become internet-enabled, with a
variety of apps that seem full of promise. And then
there is the simple reality that more and more students
are coming to school with their own devices in their
backpacks.

Rapidly evolving technology has also influenced the
nature of 1-to-1 learning programs. For example,
the Internet has become richer and more accessible,
opening new ways to collaborate, communicate
and connect to ideas and people, including, but not
limited to:

This confluence of conditions has fostered the idea
that students could use their own device at school.
The appeal, of course, is that on the surface, BYOD
seems to provide a way for schools to have a 1-to-1
program but not pay for it – a sort of ‘have your cake,
and eat it, too’.
But this assumption requires deeper scrutiny. As a
starting point, it’s essential to bear in mind what makes
1-to-1 learning successful and how it has challenged
classroom practice over the past few years.
From a tentative start in the early 90s, 1-to-1 learning
has become a worldwide phenomenon reaching millions
of students. In their evaluation of six major 1:1 initiatives
in the US, Argueta, Huff, Tingen and Corn1 reveal that
teachers and students agreed laptops increase student
engagement, with students reporting an increase in
the amount of work they are doing both in and out of
school. But more importantly, 1-to-1 learning has shifted
the focus from teaching to learning. Rather than
teachers controlling process and knowledge, students
have become empowered learners and active
proponents of their understanding and ability to
connect ideas in new ways.

•
Redefining learning communities, as well as where,
when and how learning took place.
•
Creating new paths between students and intellectual
guides/experts beyond the classroom.
• I troducing a world of disciplines beyond those
n
defined in the traditional curriculum.
•
Demonstrating the power of individual contribution
to bring about large-scale change through collective
action e.g., DeforestACTION.
Cloud computing – in concert with powerful laptops and
software that continue to function when the Internet
connection is lost – has also been able to deliver a
seamless computing experience; not just setting the
preconditions for anywhere, any time learning, but
shaping its very nature by introducing rich new ways for
students to research, learn and collaborate. And that is a
critical factor for teachers, principals and parents to bear
in mind when considering a BYOD model.
After many years of teaching and measuring learning in
a 1-to-1 environment, both educators and researchers
have been able to identify what constitutes a successful
model. Their findings have been clear. Simply equipping
students with their own devices and digitising existing
curriculum is not the right approach. Instead they
see the purpose of 1-to-1 learning as being to create
confident, flexible, self-directed, life long learners.
Any successful BYOD program needs to embrace and
support this core premise and not detract from it.

1/ Argueta, R., Huff, J., Tingen, J. and Corn, J., 2011.

“Laptop Initiatives: Summary of Research Across Six States.”
The William Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation
http://1to1atoc.wikispaces.com/Research. p. 7.

BYOD to school education briefing paper 3

Do schools still need to
provide computers?
It’s a question that hard-pressed schools are asking themselves. However, careful
analysis reveals that even small devices can have large implications.
With today’s rapidly accelerating consumerisation of
technology and the proliferation of affordable appsbased tablets and smartphones, the concept of shifting
to a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) provisioning model
has obvious appeal.
Both perception and statistics indicate that a large
number of students have a ‘smart enough’ phone that
could connect to the Internet. The thinking behind
BYOD is that these devices could now come out
of the backpacks, policies could be rewritten and, at
some level, students’ own technology could be used by
every student in the classroom.
By identifying student-choice BYOD as a solution to
today’s financial challenges, there have been attempts
to rationalise the decision, retrofitting the BYOD solution
to criticisms of today’s schools. One such claim is that
the real drive to BYOD is to empower students by letting
them make choices about their learning tools.

The decision of what device each student should
use is not being made with an eye to optimising the
pedagogical use of the device but, rather, is based on
preferences, which can be driven by trend and
fashion or, more significantly, on what the student can
afford. This has significant pedagogical implications as
it also implies:
• devices are used for a class activity, the
If
teacher needs to cater to the least powerful
device in the classroom.
•
Often the least expensive devices are designed
for consumption, rather than creation. Even when
creation is possible, it is difficult. So for those
who can only afford one of the smaller devices,
creating is more difficult.
• students cannot use the same program/
All
application, even if the teacher determines it
has pedagogical value.

Unfortunately, with this model BYOD does not seem to
be about either self-directed learning or personalising
instruction, since its focus is not to provide each student
with the best tool for a specific task, but rather whatever
their families can provide.

Therefore, before embarking on a BYOD program,
it’s important to spend time discussing the
pedagogical objectives of school computing with all
of the teaching staff. The following table could form the
basis of this discussion.

Smartphones

Apps-based Slate/Tablet

Pros:
Video, camera, Internet browser,
GPS, lightweight

Pros:
Video, camera, Internet browser, lightweight,
larger screen

Cons:
Small screen, voice calls or texting during
class, control (it’s hard to verify what students
are really doing on their phones) insurance
(who is liable).

Cons:
Does not support digital pen so students have
to ‘write’ with their finger or type. May not
have the processing power or compatibility to
run demanding education applications. Digital
keyboard can be cramped.

In a limited way, student smartphones can support
learning. Students can research online if there is an
Internet connection. Video and still cameras can be used
to record observations and presentations. Students can
record classes to play them back later and they can also
communicate and collaborate with each other and use
educationally sound applications and ebooks for revision
or learning.


For slightly more cost, slates add the ability to use a
digital keyboard for note taking and provide a larger
screen that makes it easier to write, draw and read.
There are also opportunities for content creation, as
well as communication and collaboration.

Computing Capability Taxonomy

Sample capabilities*

Smartphone

Apps-based
Slate/Tablet

Laptop PC

Slate/Tablet PC
with Pen

Pedagogical Potential – basic to advanced

Internet research.
Voice, video and audio recording
conferencing and collaboration.
Supports small amounts of typing.
Video and audio capture and editing.
Supports music composition, playing in,
composing and so on.
Supports typing of longer assignments.
Multitasks for complex research and
knowledge building.
Supports fully functional software for CAD,
Web and graphic design.
Supports programming and handwriting
recognition for Maths, Music, Chemistry
and Asian characters.
Note taking with digital pen, intuitive and
natural remote learning, fluent mind mapping,
prototyping and complex visual thinking.
* Reference as of July 2012, Sean Tierney, Microsoft Corporation

Laptop PC

Slate/Tablet PC with Pen

Pros:
Video, camera, Internet browser, full keyboard,
runs educational applications, mouse control

Pros:
Video, camera, Internet browser, full keyboard,
digital pen for handwriting input, runs
educational applications

Cons: No handwriting recognition
Laptops take learning to a higher level with their
higher performance levels that enable them to run
educationally sound applications for music composition,
graphics, and so on. The full keyboard also provides
students with an easier way to take notes and manage
their work.

Cons: Tablet PCs offer the best of all worlds.
They’re fully featured for learning, and they have the
important extra ability of the digital pen that opens up
a whole range of pedagogical opportunities including
writing chemical and mathematical formulae
as well as Asian language characters. They can
also jot notes that can be converted to text.


Bring your own device
– five potential models
Although BYOD is often referred to as one single model, there are many interpretations. It’s
important to match yours to the school’s pedagogical goals.
BYOD models take many forms. Given that most
1-to-1 learning programs are built around students
having 24-hour access to their own laptop, the options
primarily become who chooses what type of student
devices and how they are funded.
Having the school define a single laptop model is
currently the most common and by far the most
successful 1-to-1 learning model. Although it can be
described as BYOD because students use their ‘own’
laptop at school and at home, this provisioning model
was developed well before the term became popular.
Central to this model is the concept that the school
defines the required minimum specifications for student
laptops. Schools usually specify a brand of manufacturer
and model, which includes a single operating system or
platform. And the family purchases the laptop – with or
without funding support.
In these cases, the school may negotiate with a
distributor to make laptops meeting these specifications
available for purchase, often through the school, or
directly from the distributor but under the school’s
purchasing agreement. By working with a distributor, the
school is usually in a better position to also negotiate an
effective and accountable service policy.
In some schools, there may be scope to define different
form factors or models for different grade levels or
age of students. For example it is not uncommon for
schools to specify a fully functional laptop for Junior


Secondary, or Middle school students, and a pen and
touch-enabled tablet for senior grades or High School
students.
While this format of BYOD does provide for the school
to clearly define the device, this does not in any way
diminish consideration of the needs and preferences of
students, who may often be involved in the specification
process as ‘interested stakeholders’.
In many of the earliest 1-to-1 programs, the debate
around school-owned versus student-owned laptops
involved discussion on student’s sense of ownership,
both in terms of the learning possibilities and care and
handling of the computer. The pedagogical goals were,
however, always at the forefront in determining the
minimum specifications.
Where purchase is facilitated through the school, a
variety of financial models have been developed,
ranging from back-to-back leasing to rental and hire
purchase usually depending on the financial governance
of the school or school system.
In addition to this model several others have been
proposed. To help you evaluate which one is most
appropriate for your school setting, they are
explored in more detail following. They can form a
useful basis for discussion.

1.

School-defined single platform laptop
The school defines the required minimum specifications for student laptops.

Who determines the technology choice?

Considerations

School in consultation with stakeholders

What is the percentage contribution from families?

What are the funding options?
Can be parent or school funded, or a combination of
both, as a co-contribution.
Benefits
•
Student computers all have the same capabilities, so
no student is working with an inferior tool
and teachers can plan learning activities around
these capabilities
• he specification of a single model and brand
T
offers the best volume buying power, simplifies
servicing arrangements significantly, and lowers
costs accordingly.
•
Devices are fully functional laptops, which can be used
for the full range of learning activities.
• the school – all the costs for the laptop are
For
paid by the parent or through a significant
co-contribution from the parent. Within this model
there usually is a process for the seamless provision
of support for less financially able families.
•
The school network manager can easily manage
connections and server.
• f a student has a technical problem, support at the
I
school is familiar with the hardware and/or other
students in the class can help.

•
This can range from 100%, with parents shouldering
the cost of a full-featured laptop as well as service,
warranty and replacement for
each of their children at school, to a partial or
co-contribution model. Under the 2010 Victorian
Netbook initiative, parents contributed 30% of the
cost of the netbook.
•
Since the cost of providing computers shifts away
from schools under these models, school technology
budgets can be used to co-contribute to the cost of
each student’s laptop, support equity access programs
for less financially able families or to provide an
enhanced level of both infrastructure and/or hardware
service support.
•
Depending on the financial model used, ownership
at the end of the product’s life cycle must be
clearly outlined before the commencement of any
program. While this usually defaults to the families,
other options are available.
•
Where the provision model also includes coverage of
high-speed broadband Internet access at home (e.g.,
Portugal), this may provide for a possible contribution
from a telco or government body under an ongoing
national funding initiative.

•
The service provider can be held to account for
efficient turnarounds.
•
The school can negotiate with the service vendor for
loaner laptops for any extended service needs.
•
Significant cost benefits in the total
package for parents from bulk purchasing,
servicing and licensing.


2.

School-defined single platform laptop, plus another device
This is often referred to as 1-to-2, or 1-to-many. In addition to the single platform laptop defined by the
school, the student is permitted to bring other ‘devices’ such as a smartphone, e-book or touch tablet.

Benefits

School in consultation with stakeholders. Additional
‘device’ is usually the choice of student.

• can be used to ‘legalise’ smartphones in schools
It
and allow for school policy to more effectively guide
appropriate use.


•
When used as supplementary devices, this format
allows for flexibility and personal choice, while
ensuring there is a common standard across a class.

Core device is parent or school funded, or a
co-contribution. Additional ‘device’ is 100%
parent or student funded.

•
School or jurisdiction has the option to manage
software licensing on devices.
Considerations
• martphones, as with 3G or 4G enabled modem
S
sticks, are unfiltered.
•
Additional devices can be seen as distracting.
•
Maintenance of any additional device is entirely
the responsibility of families usually through
consumer channels.

3.

School-defined multi-platform laptops
Similar to Model One, but the laptop, which must adhere to a minimum specification level,
can be provided for several platforms or manufacturers.

Considerations

School in consultation with stakeholders.

•
More work for the network manager to manage a
variety of laptops

Can be parent or school funded, or a combination of
both, as a co-contribution.

• uying power and bulk discount purchasing
B
options are diminished, for both hardware and
service accountability

Benefits

• eachers and tech support staff need to be familiar
T
with several platforms

•
Parents or students who prefer one platform or
manufacturer over another have a choice.
•
School or jurisdiction has the option to manage
software licensing on devices.


• ot all programs are available across platforms,
N
although many are, although with some differences
due to platform standards

4.

Student-choice of laptop or tablet
Students can bring a laptop (no matter what form, including netbook) with full PC functionality, or a
tablet

Considerations

Students and/or families with limited consultation
with school.

• tudent devices do not all have the same capabilities.
S
Some have inferior tools and teachers must plan
learning activities around the lowest capabilities.

100 % parent funded.

• ome devices can’t do consumption and production/
S
creative tasks or even input full sentences easily.

Benefits

• uch more work for the network manager to manage
M
a variety of devices.

• arents and students who prefer one platform or
P
device over another have a choice.

T
with several platforms and many devices
• uying power and bulk discount purchasing and
B
licensing options are significantly diminished, for both
hardware and service accountability. Consumer-level
service expectations. Need to rethink service process
to ensure viability.
• ost programs/applications are not available across
M
all platforms and devices or function very differently
across various devices.

5.

Bring your own whatever connects to the Internet
When people speak broadly of BYOD, this is the option they are usually referring to. This model allows students to
bring any device that connects to the Internet – smartphone, e-book or 5-year-old laptop from their parents. There
are no minimum specifications for screen size, keyboard, storage, ports and so on.

Considerations

Students and/or families with limited
consultation with school.

• tudent devices do not all have the same capabilities.
S
Some have inferior tools and teachers must plan
learning activities around the lowest capabilities.

100 % parent funded.

• ome devices can’t do consumption and production/
S
creative tasks, or even input full sentences easily.

Benefits

• uch more work for the network manager to manage
M
a variety of devices.

• arents who prefer one platform or device over
P
another can choose what they prefer.

• uying power and bulk discount purchasing and
B
licensing options are significantly diminished, for both
hardware and service accountability. Consumer-level
service expectations. Need to rethink service process
to ensure viability.
T
with several platforms and many devices.
•
Most programs/applications are not available across
all platforms and devices or function very differently
across various devices.
•
Wide variety of devices and device functionality
engenders considerable complexity in the classroom.

Myths and misperceptions
There are many assumptions around BYOD, so deeper thinking is required to ensure that the
full implications of various deployment models in a school environment are understood.

When evaluating BYOD it’s important to depart
from a pedagogical perspective. A good start is to
consider the three core principles of successful
1-to-1 learning programs:
•
Any investment in devices must be aligned with an
investment in professional development.
•
The initiative must be scalable.
•
The initiative must be sustainable. This normally
includes making sure those who benefit from the
initiative make a co-contribution.
Some of the key myths around BYOD programs go
against these principles and their core underpinning,
which is equity of access for all students.
Myth 1: BYOD is always financially sustainable.
In pursuing their vision of 1 to 1, many schools relied
on grants and government largesse as sole sources of
funding. In this case, changing government priorities
means the funding often stops, and, potentially, so does
the 1-to-1 initiative.
A family co-contribution, on the other hand, provides
ongoing support. It need not be onerous, and gives
students and their families a sense of ownership of
the program while leaving the decision of selecting an
appropriate pedagogical tool in the hands of
the educators.
Although many schools worried about asking families
to contribute, BYOD models are frequently based on a
100% contribution by families, which may not be either
sustainable or reasonable. There is often a case raised by
the school community that says schools or governments
should not ask parents to contribute to
the cost of public education. Indeed, in some
Nordic countries it is illegal.


Myth 2: BYOD is cheaper.
Although BYOD may seem, on the surface, to save
money, does it really? Network, security and technology
management become more complex with widely
different devices. The greater the complexity, the greater
the costs for support. In fact, in talking to schools in
Australia who have moved to BYOD, Microsoft has heard
that some have found the total cost of ownership for
BYOD models is 25-30% higher than before – though
this is hidden by moving some of the costs to parents. If
the school absolves itself of responsibility then students
may not be able to participate in class.
Professional development remains a priority no matter
how the technology is provided, and requires ongoing
investment. What additional forms of professional
learning are required when there’s a more challenging
multi-device environment?
Myth 3. Just get the devices in
their hands.
The myth is that today’s students intuitively know how
to use technology for learning. Schools that implement
student-choice BYOD with this belief in mind often:
• ail to envisage what constitutes great, technologyF
rich learning.
• ase their programs on technology rather than true
B
pedagogical transformation.
Although it is true that many students are comfortable
with technology and not timid about trying new
applications, this does not mean they know how to find
the most pedagogically appropriate technology tools. It
is the job of educators to provide this type of guidance
and support, and this job is made more difficult when
there is a range of devices with diverse capabilities.
In many ways, student-choice BYOD and the technical
problems it creates can be a classroom distraction rather
than a pedagogical benefit.

To BYOD or not to BYOD?
Choosing a school provision model requires a responsible and thorough examination of
the broader issues that experienced schools have addressed in order to implement successful
1-to-1 learning programs.
The following questions can help to establish the
preconditions for BYOD programs and sharpen
focus on readiness, planning, and specific
implementation procedures.

Readiness
1. oes your school have a high level of expertise,
D
resources and budget to effectively manage
a variety of technologies across a variety of
platforms and devices?
Managing a variety of platforms and devices is more
difficult and time-consuming than managing a regular
1-to-1 learning program.
If you do not have the expertise, resources and budget
to effectively manage a variety of technologies across
a variety of platforms it is imprudent to embark on a
student-choice BYOD model.
2. oes your funding model ensure equity
D
for all students?
The basic foundation on which 1-to-1 learning was
established was equity and universal access. In fact, if
the initial concept of 1-to-1 learning had simply been
built around the idea of allowing any student fortunate
enough to have a laptop at home to bring it to school,
(BYOD if you have one), the idea would have joined the
exceptionally long list of failed educational innovations.
There is an assumption today that BYOD means every
student will have some type of technology to use at
school. The inference here is that schools can use the
money they save not buying laptops to provide devices
for any students who do not own them. This requires
having options in place to avoid the creation of a
digital divide within the classroom. These initiatives
require strong visionary leadership. The financial
challenge of implementing a 1-to-1 learning program
can be daunting, but schools should be very wary of
seemingly easy answers that do not serve the interests
of all their students.

3. oes your BYOD program ensure that all
D
students have access to devices and software
that provides the same level of functionality?
Successful 1-to-1 learning programs are based on the
principle that any software application used within a
school had to provide the same level of functionality not
just for the affluent, gifted or financially challenged, but
for every single student.
4. re your teachers comfortable and
A
confident about managing a technology
rich and diverse classroom?
Even the most competent and technologically literate
teacher would prefer to teach without the distraction
of explaining how to do the same thing across multiple
devices. Clearly, a move to a mixed environment can add
an extra level of complexity.
The ability to scale the development of confident
users of technology across whole school staffs has, to
date, been a major weak point. Too often attention
is focused on the ‘innovators’ – those who are very
comfortable with technology – rather than working with
the true transformers.
These are teachers who will want simplicity and focus
on pedagogy. These are the teachers who should be
nurtured at all costs, for they ultimately are the ones who
will bring whole schools on board. They do not want or
need the distraction of figuring out whose machine can
do what, or whether or not a needed application will run
on a diverse range of computer models, platforms, and
device forms within their classrooms.


5. Does your school support all aspects

of self-directed learning, giving students a
voice in how, what and when they learn and not
just in the choice of a device?
If the rationale for a BYOD initiative is to support the
concept that students should be able to select the digital
tools they will use for their learning, there needs to also
be some alignment within the school vision and mission
about who makes the decisions around what, when and
how the students learn.
If the vision includes assigning responsibility for such
matters to students, in a truly self-directed manner,
then there would be a case for having students choose
their own device.
However, caution needs to be exercised to ensure that
selection is based on pedagogical support rather than
other uses (to listen to music or use as a phone) and,
most importantly, price.

Planning
BYOD may be seen as a way to shift the cost of 1-to-1
learning to parents. However, it is beneficial to reflect on
the following to ensure the decision is being made in the
best interests of the students, and that it fits with your
school’s vision and goals.
1. ow do you develop criteria to clearly
H
define your student’s personal
computer requirements?
BYOD should not be based on the myth that any device
is appropriate as long as it puts the power of the Internet
and digital learning into each student’s hands.


The decision about which model, which make, even
which platform to buy is never easy. Indeed, with the
number of large-scale countrywide and school-based
programs, product assessment is becoming a science
in itself. It is important to build a robust process around
this decision and establish strict criteria based on what
will best meet the pedagogical needs of students and
teachers over the ensuing three or four years so that
students have the best possible devices.
Although there is no doubt that cost is important,
the experiences of schools around the world over the
last two decades has shown that cost should not be
the major reason a model, platform, or device type is
chosen. A less expensive device that does not meet
the learning needs of students or provide support for
the teaching practices within a school wastes valuable
financial resources and, in the long term, is more costly.
What should never happen is that teaching practice
be determined based on the functionality of the least
powerful BYOD device in a classroom.
After criteria based on learning and teaching needs, the
most important criteria for device selection has been
service turnaround and machine reliability and usability.
Equally important is being able to assess a supplier’s
ability to meet SLAs for the life of the selected device.

2. ow have you communicated your vision
H
to stakeholders and involved them in the
planning process?
If your stakeholders do not know or understand your
vision of the learning opportunities 1-to-1 learning
makes possible, they may believe any device will be
appropriate for learning and not provide the strong
support you need.
Therefore, the engagement of stakeholders is essential,
not only with an eye to potential funding support or
added technical expertise, but also to ensure that the
1-to-1 learning program is supported and owned by
the whole school community. Without this, there is the
likelihood of friction and scepticism, and an emphasis on
cost rather than outcomes.
All communications to parents must fully outline
the provision model, the rationale, benefits and the
advantages it provides all students. A communication
plan must include frequent communiqués to parents
and community members, that anticipate parental
concerns, respond to questions, and provide
opportunities for stakeholders to witness the 1-to-1
initiative in action to understand the pedagogical value
of the decisions made.

Implementation Procedures
The need for, and design of, implementation procedures
is more complicated when implementing a BYOD
initiative because lines of responsibility are less clearly
delineated. Therefore, it’s useful to consider the
following procedures and policy questions first.
1. ho is responsible for maintenance of
W
student devices?
Student-choice BYOD programs are often sold on
the apparent advantage that responsibility for laptop
or device maintenance moves from the school to the
students and their parents. However, this assumption
warrants deeper analysis.
A good starting point is to establish what the standard
process will be for students having their laptops
repaired, and if a ‘standard’ school policy can actually
be enforced when responsibility for upkeep lies outside
the school.
Successful 1-to-1 initiatives have always been built
around service level agreements (SLAs) that meet
rigorous key performance indicators, such as a
turnaround of 95% of repairs in 24 hours. They also
include contingency plans, usually loan devices that are
swapped on premise to rapidly get students up and
running. These kind of agreements will be harder to
establish and enforce without the collective bargaining
power of whole school agreements.
If an organised maintenance plan cannot be established
then, inevitably, there will always be a percentage of
students who cannot participate fully because their
device is under repair, lost or malfunctioning, making
classroom management challenging.


2. Who determines device life cycles?
Device life cycles are also an important consideration.
While three- or four-year rollovers are standard in
most school-based programs, it’s difficult to enforce
upgrades under a student choice BYOD plan. The
challenge becomes teaching across different generations
of technology and feature sets. Teachers are placed
in the unenviable position of trying to leverage
contemporary technology, without excluding students
who don’t have it.
3. ow will you manage Help Desks and
H
in-house support services?
Experience shows that a well-run Help Desk is central to
the smooth running of a 1-to-1 learning initiative. This
is because 60-70% of all problems tend to be software,
rather than hardware related, making a help desk an
important first base.
In a student-chosen BYOD environment, the role of
the Help Desk is vastly expanded to cater for multiple
devices and operating systems. Student-manned Help
Desks can be a practical solution, but it’s important to
ensure that processes and systems are in place so that
support can be provided promptly and efficiently.

4. Re-imaging, viruses, security
In a student-chosen BYOD environment image
recovery, which, in a school-managed environment
is embedded in the school management systems,
becomes challenging. It is the same for security
authentication and virus protection for devices that will
connect to (and potentially infect) school networks.
Within any provision model, it is important to assign
responsibility for managing compatibilities, images,
viruses and security. Whether this be the student
manned Help Desk, the manufacturer, the service
agent or students, what matters is that there is clarity in
understanding who is managing these matters.
5. ill extras, such as extended
W
warranty and insurance, be
mandated or optional?
Experience tells us that in a school environment a
percentage of student laptops and other devices will
inevitably be dropped or knocked – and break. When
that happens, the student needs to know the device can
be repaired immediately, without any discussion about
insurance assessment, or argument about whether the
damage was intentional, or without any demarcation
at any point between the insurance company, the the
manufacturer warranty provider, and the repairer, as too
often happens on individual claims.
Therefore devices within any 1-to-1 initiative need to be
covered by full warranty and insurance for the full term
that they will be used at school.


Warranty management can be similarly challenging.
Many laptops are sold in retail with a one-year warranty,
and extra years can be expensive. For a four-year cycle,
a fourth year warranty can be prohibitively expensive
at retail, and it is often only the weight of numbers in a
school-based program that makes the pricing viable.
6. ow will you manage
H
software licensing?
In recent times the availability and cost of software
applications has changed dramatically. With the advent
of Web apps, plug-ins, and so on, there are a large
number of applications that can be obtained for little
or no cost. Issues around affordable licensing for 1-to-1
learning programs have largely been resolved.
Microsoft licensing schemes offer a number of ways
to license students for the core software they use –
including Windows® and Microsoft® Office – even on
their own devices.
However, there are still specialist applications such as
virus protection or those focused on specific subject
areas such as Mathematics, Music and Science, that may
require school licensing. Schools need to ensure that
school software is covered for home and school use and
updated regularly.
Finally, there is the matter of cost. Be wary of some
of the sometimes misleading claims associated with
‘freemiumware’, as the trade-off for ‘free’ is often
associated with some form of advertising, which in itself
raises ethical issues that should be thought through and
be in line with school policy.

7. an school policy still dictate what is on
C
students’ devices and how they are used?
With school-based 1-to-1 learning programs, policies
around personal use are the responsibility of the school.
With student-choice BYOD, it is usually not so clear. In
fact, the assumption often is that if parents or students
choose and buy the device, they are free to determine
what is installed on it and when and how they use it.
Well before you initiate your 1-to-1 learning program,
therefore, it’s important to develop a clear policy for
your school in conjunction with parents and students.
This should be reviewed at least annually and widely
communicated. It should also cover a wide range of
areas relating to the effective use of the students’
laptops, including:
• ill laptop insurance be mandatory or optional? Will it
W
cover the device at home, at school?
• ho will define and/or review the data limit for
W
downloading versus purchasing more credit?
• hat is the process for reporting lost and
W
stolen devices?
• hould Web 2.0: Facebook , Twitter, and so on be
S
allowed, restricted or banned? Why?
• hat is the school’s personal software policy?
W
• ho is responsible for ensuring batteries are fully
W
charged, and are there any options if they are not?
• hat is the process when devices are left at home?
W
• hat is the process for virus protection / removal
W
(cost of re-imaging)?
• ho is responsible for secure storage?
W


Conclusion
BYOD is a trend that needs to be carefully examined in an education context to ensure that
the models we deploy are successful. At the heart of good 1-to-1 learning is equity to ensure
that all students have equal access to technology-rich experiences, and simplicity to ensure
that it is easy to manage and sustain.
Between equity and simplicity, however, come
considerations of cost. So while today’s confluence of
affordable devices, cloud computing and innovative
technology dangles a tempting prospect in front of us,
educators face a number of difficult decisions before
we finally deliver student learning experiences as broad,
deep, relevant, complex and creative as we would like
them to be.
This discussion paper presents some of the varying
BYOD models, their nuances and the considerations
that accompany them. 1-to-1 access to technology
is challenging traditional ideas about teaching and
learning, and the arguments herein emphasise that
BYOD decisions need to be education-based, not
purely technology-based. They need to deliver tangible
benefits for student learning.
The arguments also ask us to question a number of
assumptions about BYOD. In particular, we question
whether BYOD really reduces the total cost of device use
in schools, or whether that cost has been hidden; that is
to say, passed on to parents.
At the moment, BYOD presents more questions than
answers. Hasty decisions made today risk casting a
long shadow and undermining some of the important
achievements made to date.
Most importantly, there needs to be agreement on
the equitable and sustainable provision of technology
so that the core ideas of 1-to-1 learning, refined over
many years of classroom experience, are not lost in the
stampede to a new deployment model. This is especially

important, given that previous educational innovations
have taught us that early reports of success can overlook
complexities that only become apparent over time.
Poorly executed BYOD learning environments, for
example, are at risk of amplifying the mass inequity that
is already evident across so much of our educational
systems with the best technology only available to those
with the means to afford it. At the other end of the scale,
it is equally inappropriate to set the use of computers
within a class at the lowest common denominator simply
because four or five students are using devices that are
not able to complete the work required.
Without clear and strong leadership, schools could
introduce inequity, complexity and costly support and
insurance issues into their technology programs –
completely undermining their goal of making computing
simple, powerful and accessible to all.
If our goal with universal access to technology is to
empower our students to be successful citizens in the
21st century, then we must ensure that our deployment
models do not compromise this goal.
Schools need to be vigilant and protective of the
foundations of equity of access on which all of our
education systems are firmly founded. With this in
mind, all stakeholders – teachers, parents, students and
principals – need to work through the tough decisions
early to drive home the best outcomes for all students
at all times.

At Microsoft we’re passionate about learning. We see education as the transforming
force behind social and economic progress, and students as humankind’s greatest
potential. Our commitment to schools is deep and ongoing. Through our Partners
in Learning program we’ve invested over $500 million to support the mentoring
of some 2.8 million teachers worldwide. We’ve inspired countless students with
innovative software and opportunities to work. And we partner with governments
and inter-governmental agencies to imagine, plan and deliver next-generation
learning the world over.

www.microsoft.com/education

© Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, the Microsoft logo and Windows are either trademarks or registered
trademarks of Microsoft in the United States and/or other countries. 15715-0812/MS

Microsoft Bring Your Own Device To School - 2012 Briefing Paper K-12

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Microsoft Bring Your Own Device To School - 2012 Briefing Paper K-12 (20)

More from Microsoft Education AU (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Microsoft Bring Your Own Device To School - 2012 Briefing Paper K-12