digitalliteracynh.org

Now in its fifth year of a 1:1 laptop initiative, Windham High School finds itself in a place where it can take a look back at some of the progress it has made. What follows is a condensed discussion with some of the key staff members involved in the process.

Bethany Bernasconi (Dean of Science and Engineering), Mary Christie (Technology Integrator), Dave Rioux (Technology Staff) and Patrick Kaplo (Science Teacher) were kind enough to offer some of their insights on how the transition has affected classrooms as well as the broader WHS academic environment.

A Pedagogical Shift:

One of the first topics brought up by the group was technology’s role in changing classroom pedagogy.

By using her iPad in conjunction with the student laptops, Bethany has increased the scope, efficiency and quality of her classroom feedback. “The iPad totally changed the way I grade and assess students,” she begins. “Using iAnnotate, I can grade students and give them accurate feedback on labs and other materials they are submitting electronically.”

She details this process. “They’ll submit things to me [on their laptops], and iAnnotate allows me to circle and highlight all of the sections of the document. I can then email their document back to them with all the markups on it.”

This feedback can occur anytime, from anywhere.

The impact of the tablet has also expanded her classroom presence. For instance, Bethany can access the immediacy and power of the teachable moment by projecting her iPad to the class. “I have an app that will project my iPad screen onto the LCD projector. It completely untethers me from the front of the room so I can really get out and seamlessly display what the kids need while working with them.”

Reliability & Efficiency:

The discussion then turned to the dual benefits of reliability and efficiency that they attribute to 1:1.

Bethany argues that this reliability allows them to place teaching & learning before hardware.“When you have carts, you can’t always get them, so you plan your instruction not around what’s best for the students, but around the availability of carts. Here, it’s the opposite. It’s the students needs that dictate the instruction. That’s the goal, we are here for them.”

Patrick adds a story that is familiar to all teachers: “At my old school we had the cart of laptops… getting them running all the time and having your students logging in and knowing how to make it happen quickly is really difficult to do in practice. Your IT people can say we can have them working, but you don’t have that fluency.”

Instead, student laptops have made his teaching more efficient and far more effective. “Sure, we can get this work done in a laptop cart model, but having the 1:1 allows them to engage in the process of problem solving on their own time. Now I know that they have a computer with the same software that we used in class, and they can use it at home. It allows me to move my class much more quickly.”

Bethany, who runs a flipped classroom, likewise increases her efficiency by broadening the availability of her content. “The vast majority of my class is online. I have multimedia PowerPoints that I can deliver [online] and have them take notes. They can fill in information as they need to, but their whole class time isn’t spent typing, so they are really engaged in the conversation, not on their computers.”

This efficiency translates directly to instructional quality, argues Patrick. “Our kids have their laptops out, plugged in, and they are collecting data in minutes. It’s really nice. It gives us the confidence to introduce a lot more depth. Instead of sprinkling our curriculum with these kinds of things… now I don’t have to worry about that. I can say, ‘yeah, let’s weave in as much application as possible.’”

Bethany leverages the laptops to incorporate more personalized learning experiences and a differentiated classroom environment. She describes her class as “constantly evolving based on students needs.” She adds, “technology allows me to do that. I can scaffold much easier, I can prepare much more easily… technology doesn’t make you a better teacher, but it allows you to translate the classroom you imagine into reality.”

One of her favorite applications involves group work. “I can create for different assignments for one class. So that kids come in and take a quick little pre-assessment quiz on the computer, which them gives them a number or letter that they would belong to. They can then do scaffolded activities based on their level of learning. But the assignments are geared toward their group.”

Technology, she argues, is just a tool that allows her to make it happen. “I can do that quickly, and I can do that effectively, and I can cater to each student.”

Access, Support and Meaningful Work

In a recent (and very powerful) interview, Anant Agarwal, President of edX online learning, discussed the democratizing effect of online learning platforms.

Bethany brings a similar mentality to a 1:1 school environment. “It’s the access. They have access to their notes all the time, they have access to the lessons all the time, they have access to anything they need to learn at any time.”

Access to content, she argues, not only levels the playing field but also allows students to learn independently. “When you have all the kids that have equal access to this across-the-board… they are naturally inquisitive, if you know? So I have a YouTube channel where I publish videos for my students. I only ‘like’ the other channels that are really good resources, because I know when they go to my website they are going to be curious. They are going to click on this and they are going to click on this. So it is starting to create those pathways for them.”

These structures are so prevalent, adds Mary, that Windham needs to offer a wide variety of learning platforms and software. “We provide quite a suite of software: we provide iWork, Microsoft Office, iLife, which is your multi-media, the whole Adobe creative suite, InDesign, Dreamweaver, illustrator, and a number of open-source things. So the kids have quite a toolbox.”

She also sees the computers as part of a larger web of support for students. “One of the things we are trying to do is to get all of our students using these tools. There are a lot of students who may not be identified [as special education], but they could benefit from hearing their writing being read back to them, absolutely. Also, the more and more everybody is using it the less stigma there is about using it. So it really is growing in our community.”

She adds a cautionary point. “One of my main concerns is that I don’t think they realize that their laptop has $2000 worth of software on it. They will leave here and think that they will be able to go into a store and buy the same thing for a reasonable price… and they won’t.”

These structures have translated directly to the quality of student work. Mary said the change was both powerful and immediate. “By October, I was blown away. I couldn’t believe the quality of the products these kids were turning out, media-wise they were making movies, they were making podcasts, they were producing like crazy. And the learning you saw being presented there was way above and beyond taking a test.”

They agree that it has also translated to an ownership mentality among the students. “They are managing the tools themselves. They know how to use them as well as any of our teachers do.”

Concerns With 1:1:

Though all three teachers agreed that the successes of the 1:1 environment have outweighed the challenges, it is important to understand some of the concerns they acknowledge in their own environment.

One of the first, they all agree, is the issue of classroom management. Mary is quick to point out the learning curve associated with the laptops. “This was definitely a big deal when we started this. We brought in a lot of very experienced teachers, who are very good at teaching, and they had to learn a whole new set of classroom management tools. And to be honest in the first few months they were thrown by it.”

Opening a classroom to the web can be a distracting endeavor. But it’s manageable, says Dave. “One thing we push to the teachers is that it’s more of a disciplinary problem than a technology problem. Don’t be afraid to say ‘shut your screens.’”

Another concern they addressed was how to mitigate inappropriate/ non-academic use of technology. “One of the big questions that emerges with a one-to-one program,” Mary points out, “is how do you control your kids? I do think it has required of retooling on the teachers part as to where you are in the classroom, what your classroom presence is, setting expectations, and things like that.”

With respect to proper use, WHS has left much of the responsibility primarily in the hands of students. Dave looked first to games. “We have kids that are going to play flash games, they are going to watch streaming video, it’s going to happen. But we try to put that on them as a matter of responsibility. If you don’t get your homework done it’s your fault.”

Liability, professionalism and morality, however, require WHS to protect students from inappropriate content, malicious websites and unwanted use of personal data.

Dave first notes the measures they have taken in order to filter web content. “We use Lightspeed for our filtering. This product is unique because it protects students (and their computers) wherever they happen to be. They have software on their laptops, so when they go home– this was a big thing the community– they needed to be filtered at home. We needed to do that, so we switched over to Lightspeed and it has been really good in my opinion.”

There is also active discussion around letting teachers filter content according to their curricular needs. Dave continues, “we are pursuing something called Web Zone for teachers. This allows teachers to allow and restrict the sites that they think are good or need for class and the kids will be able to join that zone to access those sites.”

They offer an example: “So, let’s say you were teaching a unit on how special effects are produced in movies. You may have five web sites that you would like your 9th graders to use for research, but two of them are blocked by the content filter. Instead of going to your IT staff for help, now you can take matters into your own hands and add the two sites to a web zone. Once a student has joined that web zone, the rules will now be applied to their browsing session.”

Universal internet access, both at school and at home, was another challenge to WHS. Dave points out that this quickly became an equity issue. “We had a few kids that couldn’t afford Internet at home.” Luckily, WHS was able to address this issue through their service provider. “We were able to provide a small flash drive sized modem, and we just installed the software on there. They were able to use that to access the internet instead.” Dave adds, “I think Comcast was able to provide that for the school for free.”

Also of importance was the liability and protection of the actual machines.

In addition to the web-filtering measures, the school contemplated other ways to protect their investment. “We didn’t install LoJack on the computers because if you take the price per unit and multiplied out by all her students it was astronomical. It was way more than our losses, because there isn’t really any in school theft.”

Dave adds with a smile, “theft isn’t a problem in school because everyone has a computer. We have a lot of jokes where they will take a laptop, stick it in a locker for a week and then we will find it, but we really don’t lose a lot of laptops.”

The last noted concern was the verticality of Windham’s approach. Because the sending schools function on a PC platform, the shift to Apple and 1:1 represents a drastic change when students enter high school.

In order to mitigate some of these transitional issues, WHS has begun sending their used laptops to the middle school to be used by students there. “What’s happened with last year’s seniors is that the ones that are too antiquated have gone back. Many of the other ones that are still in good shape, however, have gone down to the middle school.”

While it hasn’t eliminated all concerns, notes Dave, students are now more comfortable with the operating system when they arrive at Windham. “It’s not necessarily a one to one program but it helps bring in technology there.”

A special thanks to the WHS staff for their honesty, clarity and unbelievably good work.

The last few posts have covered some of the ideological, cultural, financial and structural complexities involved with the transition to a 1:1 environment. This post will shift focus to a few ways schools can support integration after the initial flurry of excitement and change.

Mary Christie, the Technology Integrator at Windham High School, explains that meaningful follow-through can occur through purposeful hiring, active training strategies and teacher autonomy.

Building the  Staff:

Mary plays an active role in recruiting and retaining innovative staff members both within and outside the realm of technology. She notes, “the big idea is people. If I’m going to make this work I’m going to need people to support it.”

With respect to the Technology Department, Mary lists her staffing needs: “I need a technician on site all the time– we’ve got 1:1 and those things break. I absolutely need tech-support. I need a trainer. I absolutely need somebody to support the teachers all the time. And I need a [district] network person.”

Mary expands her focus to positions that encourage outreach and simplify logistics. “We have a help desk person, and she is the front line for everybody. We also have somebody from the Special Education department that focuses on assistive technologies. So there are three of us [housed in the school] for Technology and one from Special Education.”

This active coordination of staff extends beyond her department. “Because we were a new school there was an expectation, if you teach here, this is what you will be doing. So hiring was essential to that.”

Teacher Training:

Another key role that Mary plays involves training and professional development.

Patrick Kaplo, a WHS Science teacher, describes her importance to the staff in general. He characterizes her role as “acting as a liaison for us.” Additionally, Pat points out that as teachers have become more comfortable with the 1:1 program, the needs of PD have changed significantly. “What we needed in year one was very different than what we need now in terms of support and resources. So her position evolves as the needs of the students and teachers evolve.”

He describes the benefits of her coaching personally. “One way I access [Mary] is by simply knowing that I have somebody in the building whose job it is to help me bridge where I am with what I want to be able to do.”

He adds, “I can say ‘hey I’ve got this great idea…’ and I have a person who gets more excited than I am.” This engagement, in turn, keeps Pat excited about his own work. “To see somebody else react to that and say we are going to do it, that is a really exciting and empowering feeling to have. When somebody hears your ideas and wants to work with you on that. It’s an exciting part of working here.”

Promoting Self-Directed Learning:

Mary is more than happy to let the teachers lead the integration in their own ways and on their own terms. In order to foster this self-directed learning, technology-related PLCs balance structured collaborative learning experiences with individual autonomy.

Mary describes the setup and evolution of the PLC structure.“The first year the teachers had one technology PLC class a week. The second year it was two a month. Now we are down to one a month. And we do believe that one a month is important.”

Pat adds a faculty perspective. “So you are down there with 4 to 8 other faculty members in a dedicated space, and you’ve got your laptop out. So you’ve got a chance to practice some of the skills that she is promoting.”

Not everything is up his alley, adds Pat, but the majority of topics work for the majority of staff members. “Some of them, right off the bat, I recognize are not usable for me. And then all of a sudden, she’s talking about some other little widget or web technology, or piece of software that I have never used. I’ll be all over that.”

Mary is proud that some PLCs take on a life of their own. “In those sessions, there is a lot of sharing, and sometimes I just go to hear what everyone has to say.” Teacher-driven innovation is the point. “Sometimes people will be working together on things that I don’t even know about. They have taken an idea and they have run with it.”

The Path Ahead:

As her role continues to evolve, Mary’s focus will not. She consistently brings the conversation back to importance of staff and students. “I do think that that teacher education piece is so so important. Otherwise the stuff just gathers dust. You have to get student buy in, but you also have to get teachers to buy into technology.”

She also looks forward to capitalizing on the progress they have already made as an organization. “Teachers just can’t imagine going back to where they were four years ago… I could do it, because I am a teacher and I know how to teach, but I’m so used to using all these technologies.”

She adds that in the case of both students and staff, the transition to 1:1 has been a journey worth remembering. “People who have left here have come back and said ‘I didn’t know how much I was going to miss it.’”

When embarking on a comprehensive technology integration plan, especially when establishing a 1:1 environment, there are myriad battles that take place publicly.

Other complexities emerge, however, behind the scenes.

They are not showy or flashy, but technology support systems are necessary: these systems involve network infrastructure, hardware and software maintenance, computer deployment, reconditioning, replacement, and perhaps most importantly, the management of support staff.

The lack of these systems can mean the difference between successful integration and catastrophe. So it is a good thing that Windham High School has designed their systems well.

Dave Rioux, a member of the Windham technology staff, sat down for a conversation about some of the logistics involved in supporting a 1:1 environment. One might expect this discussion to be technical and detached; however, it is comforting to know that his first focus was on the staff and students.

Driving WHS technology is a core belief that technology works best when it is in the hands of staff and students. They work toward this goal in two ways: first, by  maintaining the equipment efficiently and effectively, second by providing the support that teachers and students need in order to use it well.

A Culture of Ownership:

When looking at the feasibility of a 1:1 program, one of the first questions that comes up involves responsibility. How does a school put computers in the hands of students while also maintaining reasonable control over damage, theft and replacement costs?

Dave says the answer involves a culture of ownership among the students.

Windham distributes student laptops at the beginning of the school year. Over the summer they are collected, cleaned and re-imaged. Despite the collection process however, a student can count on seeing the same computer year after year. “We give the kids their laptops, and they keep their laptops for their entire high school career. That’s important. It’s important because of how they take care of it. In other words, they are going to see that well taken care of laptop next year.”

Additionally, Dave notes, Windham protects their investment through school policy. “We have certain rules set up around how they maintain their computers, just like textbooks, just like anything you give them for school property, that they take care of them, they come back in pretty good condition.”

As a result, the computers remain relatively cared-for. “If kids take care of their machines, there are seniors who graduated last year, who handed me back their laptops that looked practically brand new, except for some dirt.”

A Quick Turnaround:

A 1:1 program only works when students and teachers can count on access to their school issued computers. In other words, as both teachers and students depend increasingly on technology, lengthy repairs or damaged equipment can affect entire school curriculum.

To this end, Windham has worked extensively to mitigate the costs and time associated with repair. Dave explains their approach. “Apple has self servicing accounts, so once you have somebody in school that is trained and certified, we can do the repairs here on site, and we get paid a small amount for each repair– it goes into an account, it doesn’t go to us– it’s considered warranty work.”

Between discounted rates for parts and an in-house repair program, Windham keeps their costs down. “So we get a discounted educational price on the parts and we are paying a lot less for those. And we also get additional money back for doing the repairs. And so what would normally be very expensive becomes manageable.”

WHS began with an alternative repair approach that involved insuring the machines, but this quickly became untenable for them. “We originally insured our computers, but it was astronomically expensive. Say, for example, you had a broken screen. Once you pay for shipping, pay for the initial assessment, pay for the parts, pay for the return shipping, it was like $400. And then it was also out of our hands for two weeks.”

Dave continues, “now I build monitors, and kids will come in and I can get it turned around in the same day and with all the parts and labor it’s like $150. So we are getting two days turnaround instead of two weeks, and at a fraction of the price.”

What matters most, however, is that the technology stays in the hands of students. “It is really important to have a quick turnaround, because if you are relying on that in your curriculum and your instruction, and kids say oh I don’t have a computer for the next two days, it’s an issue.”

He adds with a smile, “they try to use that as an excuse too; however we try to avoid that as much as possible.”

Despite their savings, repair and replacement costs are still an issue for Windham. In order to defray some of these expenses, they designated a pool of money to be applied to general repair costs.

Dave explains how this pool works. “We collect a $35 user fee per student per year, unless [the student is] on free and reduced lunch. Most of that goes towards accidental repairs.”

They also use the fund to cover larger incidents. “Things like a broken screen, or a liquid spill, or things like that that are obviously somebody not taking care of their stuff, we will charge at most $100 for a repair like that.”

Of course, Dave admits, they can’t control everything. “We had a student whose laptop got ran over by a car. It looked like a Pringles potato chip. But we kept it reasonable. His replacement cost was $100.”

Even in cases of catastrophic damage, there really isn’t anywhere for the student to hide. “We keep loaners on site. Kids will come in and sync their home folder, or they will use Google Drive to store their stuff, and they will take the loaner and go on their way. We will give them back their repair two days later.”

Access to Data:

Technology loses its meaning without reliable access to data. Therefore, data storage is a priority at Windham– both in terms of capacity and reliability. Dave refers first to the large amount of server space available to both students and staff. “We have 8 TB of server space dedicated to students And 4 TB for the teachers to do their syncing.”

Like the laptops, however, data storage is grounded in a philosophy of student ownership and responsibility. Students are encouraged, but not required to back up their data. “We have local servers, and the kids can choose to sync to them. There are options too. They can set their preferences to sync whatever they want to sync.”

The school understandably puts limits on files types stored on the school servers. “We don’t sync music folders or anything like that. Anything that is in their documents folders and preferences get synced up– if they choose.”

The technology staff enforces the storage policy to keep the data manageable. “Every once in a while we have to go through the servers and delete all the MP3s and larger video files and games. However, if you’re just talking about documents, maybe a few pictures, it really doesn’t take up that much space,” admits Dave.

Justifying the Tools:

Technology integration requires a significant expenditure of time and money. It also requires the expenditure of school resources associated with training, support, curricular work and professional development.

It is appropriate, therefore, to demand that it improves student learning in real and measurable ways.

To that end, Bethany Bernasconi (NH Teacher of the Year and WHS Dean of Science & Engineering), reflects on this measurement as a school wide endeavor “I think we can look at the types of products that students are able to put together, we look at the impact of those products on their own learning, and the learning of their peers as well.”

Documenting school-wide success admittedly requires a diverse approach, notes Bethany. “It’s hard to measure success across the board because everyone is using technology in different ways.”

Mary Christie, the WHS Technology Integrator, adds that this diversity is one of WHS’ greatest assets. “Part of the thrill of it all is that we have this baseline level of technology that is accessible to all students and all teachers, and then we have individual passions or interests of the teachers. And this starts to guide the group as far as how to use technology.”

Bethany sees further value in technology’s capacity to facilitate student interaction across grades and classrooms. “A lot of time, my AP students will produce products that my Honors students can use as resources. My Honors students will produce materials that my College Prep students will use as review guides. The College Prep students will then produce materials that they share amongst themselves, or with the larger school community.”

Another important measure of success is through the voices of students, notes Bethany. “At the end of each semester I always survey my students about my use of technology in the classroom. Did these pieces really contribute to their learning in the classroom? Where their pieces that they felt were unnecessary? And a lot of it is just open dialogue.”

Likewise, she demands as much creativity and pragmatism in her teaching as she expects from the products of her students. With respect to integration, she notes, “I dove into everything and I told my students you need to let me know what works and what doesn’t work for you. If it doesn’t help your learning, then we’re going to toss it.”

This pragmatism translates to fundamental changes in teaching and learning. “One of the things my students really struggled with was doing tests on the computer. We teach them all these test taking skills like crossing out and taking notes, and all of a sudden I was giving them a complex multiple-choice question, and they weren’t able to write what they needed to write. So now I don’t use that in my class. In a another class that might work really well but it’s that kind of student feedback that helps me improve my teaching.”

It also goes to show that with proper tools and support, great things can happen.

In late October of 2008, Windham High School embarked on a plan to provide a comprehensive and flexible digital learning environment for its students. Today, they enjoy the benefits of a fully integrated and supported 1:1 laptop program.

The next series of posts will explore how this transition took place.

The 1:1 Decision

A 1:1 platform, in which every student is issued a computer for the length of the school year, was not the end goal of technology integration at WHS.

Instead, Windham’s program was driven by ideology. Mary Christie, the current WHS Technology Integrator, reflects on the process. “We had a couple of ideas that I think really really contributed to the success of this. One was using technology to improve student learning and continuing to focus on what we want the technology to do, and then deciding what technology we would use.”

In other words, they began with the idea, not the hardware.

To develop this idea, Windham created a practical vision of technology. It reads in part:

The one-to-one digital learning environment supports all students by providing equal access to global information and educational resources.  Students will be engaged through the means of communication and information acquisition in which they already participate.  This environment encourages individual responsibility, both in terms of care for property and responsibility for one’s own education.  Accessible, technology-rich environments foster the development of interpersonal collaborative and 21st century skills allowing us to better prepare our students for post secondary opportunities and/or employment.

WHS also reviewed the benefits & drawbacks of two common methods of technology deployment: computer labs and computer carts.

It was immediately clear that the computer-lab model was not sufficient for the needs of the students. “In traditional computer lab settings,” they argue, “students who have access to technology… are generally restricted to specific computer… [and] core content classes have limited or no access to technology.”

Likewise, the computer cart model led to arguably fragmented learning experiences and a lack of curricular depth. In this model, “teachers must plan and sign up for the lab weeks in advance. In this case, teachers use technology for a single event. When the class period is over, there is a disconnect, and it may be weeks before the class will be able to use the mobile lab again.”

In short, WHS recognized that 1:1 was the model that best achieved their stated educational goals. In their own words, it “assures equity in access to digital resources, emphasizes the use of technology as an integrated tool, and engages students through the interactive, electronic environments they already utilize.”

Choosing their Tools

Once WHS established a working vision and determined on a method of deployment, the school had to consider the actual tools they would be using.

Initially, the hardware discussion was quite limited, notes Mary. “One of the big arguments [by the school board] was that we want PC and not Apple.”

The rationale for the PC environment was two-fold. First was the perceived necessity of the Microsoft Office suite. The second was district consistency. Mary notes that “the rest of our district is PC-based, so we are kind of under this one umbrella. So a teacher or student could go all the way from grammar school to high school and everything is the same.”

Enter Apple’s education team.

When Apple entered the conversation, their primary challenge was to replace district reticence with confidence. Mary acknowledges the simplicity of their approach. “Apple sold the school board on the program, basically. A group of people went to New York and Apple sold them on 1:1 laptops.”

Windham made four basic arguments for the Apple platform. The first was an acknowledgement of the companies experience and reputation for support. Not only had Apple been associated with thousands of previous deployments, they boasted “nationally recognized professional development programs which are essential for success.”

Dave Rioux, a member of the WHS Technology Department, reflects on the importance of this support for the staff. “Apple came in and spent two days with us, with the teachers. It was three days in the first year. They took [the staff] through everything.”

The second advantage was the ease and relative safety of the operating system. They were drawn to the idea that the Apple platform was  “not susceptible to PC viruses and spyware,” and offered “an integrated suite of digital authoring tools” which incidentally included Microsoft Office.

Third was its flexibility. They note that unlike a PC, “Apple’s hardware allows flexible options as it has the ability to run multiple operating systems such as MS Windows and Linux.”

Lastly was the comprehensive nature of the company itself. In the words of Windham, they provided a “‘one stop shop’ (hardware, software, professional development, service and support) for a successful implementation.”

Turning the Corner

These factors coalesced in in October of 2008, when the Windham School Board voted unanimously to adopt a 1:1 learning environment for Windham High School– in partnership with Apple Computer.

It is important to acknowledge that the transition to 1:1 occurred simultaneously with the construction of a new school building, mitigating some of the logistical challenges of deployment. Mary notes, “we were new, and we did have the advantages of some new things. There were a lot of advantages, you could say, because we were a new environment.”

WHS was also able to orchestrate this transition with its hiring practices. For instance, WHS’ website states that “expectations are clearly communicated to potential staff so as to ensure that those that accept employment at Windham High are committed to the mission of implementing a successful digital learning environment.”

The advantages of a new school and a new staff, however, didn’t eliminate all the logistical hurdles, notes Mary. “There was still a lot of scrambling those last six months of planning.”

One of the first challenges was making sure the new building could accommodate such an infrastructure. “It really hadn’t been confirmed that we were going to go one-to-one. It was sort of a last-minute push. So the building was 90% finished, when all of a sudden it was like oh my gosh, we have to do this.”

Second was garnering support of WHS stakeholders; the transition (and its price tag) were not an easy sell. “There was a problem with that. There wasn’t time for community buy in. The board said, go with it, run with it.”

Ironically, this was complicated by the established tradition of community support, says Mary. “The community here is very involved in education. It was presented and voted on in the same school board meeting. So the community immediately sort of freaked out.”

Gesturing in the air, she describes the scene. “It was a big flurry of activity,” then offers a lesson for other districts: “I would encourage community involvement from the beginning.”

More to come on how WHS overcame some of these challenges related to community, staff and students.