By Randall Fielding, AIA

Billions of dollars are being invested in wiring schools for desktop computer networks. Laptop computers and wireless networks offer an appealing alternative, promising greater access for the learner and reduced infrastructure. Glenn Meeks and Prakash Nair debate the issues. Glenn is President of Meeks Technology Group in Cary, North Carolina. Prakash Nair is President Elect of Urban Educational Facilities for the 21st Century (UEF-21), New York City.

RF: Glenn, Prakash made presentations at the CEFPI and UEF/PEB/CAE conferences in Baltimore last month, putting forth the notion that schools would be better off investing in laptops and wireless networks rather than wiring classrooms for desktop computers. What is your opinion on this approach?

GM: I agree with Prakash 100% that in terms of mobility and access, laptops are great. But in terms of bang for your buck, I do not agree. Meeks Technology recently planned a high school in Allen, Texas, with a footprint of nearly 500,000 square feet. The bid for a hard-wired network came in at $1.5 million; the system included 5,600 data/power ports, spread throughout the building, with an electrical outlet and 100MB per second network transmission capacity at each port. An alternative bid for a wireless system came in at $3.5 million; the system included 2-300 transmitting hubs, delivering 10MB per second shared capacity at each node.

The curriculum calls for students to present assignments using multi-media tools, with files often exceeding 15MB—too large to work effectively with wireless technology. The wired solution offers ten times the capacity at less than one half the cost—an easy decision for Allen High School.

PN: I predict that, two years from now, this debate will look ridiculous because advances in technology will make wireless communications in the classroom the only sensible choice in most situations. Costs are changing rapidly. Whereas the Allen High School project was bid with PC transmitting cards that cost in the $350 to $500 range, a WaveLAN card, developed by Lucent Technologies, is now available for $179.

RF: Prakash, your argument for laptops and wireless networks is particularly compelling for renovation projects, where the cost of opening walls and expanding the electrical power infrastructure are greatest. Do you have the same opinion for new construction?

PN: I would definitely propose that all new schools consider wireless first. Getting into the actual technology solutions for a minute, let us take a hallway in an old school with eight classrooms in a double-loaded corridor. One option is to fully wire two of these classrooms and equip them each with 30 computers. Under this scenario, the remaining six classrooms will not be computer enabled. In New York City, it would cost about $150,000 to bring electric and network cabling to each desk within these two classrooms. The cost of the computers is extra. With this solution, you would essentially have two very inflexible computer labs within every eight-room segment of the school. On the plus side, you would have a very generous bandwidth for your heavy multi-media applications that must travel through the LAN. However, this arrangement will not necessarily speed up Internet communications, which will continue to trickle in at about 1.5 mbps.

Assuming that this same corridor has four wireless hubs installed with overlapping coverage, any two unwired classrooms equipped with wireless cards can be simultaneously on the wireless LAN, each receiving 20 mbps of data. Since the LAN itself is only used to communicate with the Internet or send messages to others on the network, this data-transfer rate or bandwidth is more than adequate.

I believe that the economics for wireless computing works in new buildings as well. I am a proponent of wireless computing not simply because of the economics, but because it provides the least intrusive and most flexible method for bringing computers into classrooms and into school. For example, a child working on a research assignment in the library could continue that research in the classroom, lunchroom or even in a shady corner of the courtyard.

“There is a tendency to look for solutions that will work in all cases, but there isn’t one—what works in Raleigh, North Carolina will not likely work in New York City, Chicago, Detroit or Los Angles.” -Glenn Meeks

RF: Glenn, how is it possible that wiring for hubs in key locations can cost twice as much as wiring all classrooms?

GM: One wireless transmitting hub for every 1,500 to 2,000 square feet is required. For Allen High School, this resulted in 200-300 hubs. In this case, we had steel floor construction; hubs cannot transmit through steel floors. Each hub itself costs $985; add to that the cost of the card at the transmitting location, plus the cards in the laptops themselves. You also have to consider the power requirements to charge hundreds of laptops. The battery life before re-charging is about two hours. You need charging stations or mobile charging carts with a large capacity. If you plug 30 laptops into a typical classroom, you are definitely going to blow the circuit.

You also need to consider the long-term costs. Desktop computers are often used for five years and longer in schools; when a hard drive breaks down, it can be replaced economically. Laptops typically cost twice as much as desktops for the equivalent features; the typical lifespan is 2 ½ years, and if a hard drive breaks down, it’s not economical to replace it.

Geographical location and renovation versus new construction is also a key. The $150,000 costs Prakash described to wire two existing classrooms in NYC do not apply to suburban or rural areas. For new construction in the suburbs, the average cost to wire a classroom is a bout $3000; a wireless solution is about twice that.

Another factor to keep in mind is the global limitations of bandwidth. Wireless networks are undergoing explosive growth, and there is simply not enough bandwidth to accommodate it. As processor speeds and hard drive capacities have increased, so have file sizes, and this trend will continue. There is no technology on the horizon that will allow wireless networks to catch up with the bandwidth capabilities of a wired network.

RF: Prakash and Glenn: can you summarize the differences in your approach to technology design for elementary, middle and high schools?

PN: For the first time [because of the technology available], we have the opportunity for teachers to do what they need to do – serve as facilitators, and motivators with the ability to tailor their service to the needs of individual children. As to the precise manner in which computers will be integrated into the curriculum, that is the purview of educators.

I am uncomfortable with the term technology design because design is not about technology but about education. The idea is to get appropriate technology into the hands of children. If you are asking at what age a child should have access to a computer on a full-time basis, I think all children from the fifth grade onwards should have their own portable computers. In my opinion, high school kids should be using computers in class up to 50% of the time. Teachers in laptop-equipped schools tell me that it is appropriate for elementary and middle school kids to use computers 25% - 30% of the time. Software support for classroom education continues to improve each day and that is another factor to consider when you talking about integrating technology into the curriculum.

GM: There are three tiers of computer competency: The first involves basic literacy - what is this thing? How do I get it to work? The second is more abstract - what do I need to accomplish? What tools (software) do I need to get this done? The third level is about composition - the ability to organize materials for a presentation.

Basic literacy is important at the elementary level. Learning occurs primarily in a classroom with a single teacher. Teachers need the ability to present materials to the whole class and to individuals via a computer network.

Middle and high school students require all three levels of competency, and should have access to a computer for about 1-½ hours a day. For new construction, we often develop a computer commons area; 25 – 30 computers are located in a central area that serves an academic “house.” Classrooms surround the computer commons. Glass in the classroom walls allows teachers to keep an eye on the commons area.

In high schools, subjects such as computer-aided design and video production are served by specialized computers located in labs.

RF: Prakash and Glenn, there is a good deal of research and literature that questions the value of technology for learning, or at a minimum, advises a good deal of caution. Clifford Stoll writes: “No computer can teach what a walk through a pine forest feels like. Sensation has no substitute.” Please comment.

GM: The ability to manipulate information is the key to economic success in our society. Technology is actually increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. It’s critical that our schools teach computer skills in order to level the playing field.

PN: We need to find the best way to integrate technology into the curriculum – and I am not talking about the obsolete idea of computer labs. Also, the popular practice of putting one, two or four PCs in a classroom is a dumb idea—period. Please lose it. It takes away valuable space in already overcrowded classrooms and does nothing to integrate computers into the curriculum.

From my own observation, I know that a computer in a child’s hands can become an instrument for learning—particularly in poor, urban areas where computers and the Internet can bring a wealth of information resources to children that they would otherwise not have access to. For computers to be meaningfully integrated into the curriculum in schools, I am convinced that two criteria need to be satisfied:

First, kids need to have access to laptops or some other portable computing device if not full-time, then for some significant period of each school day. I say portable device because the computer should be usable as a tool to enhance learning English, social studies, geography, math or even music. It should be available when needed and out of the way when not needed—like a pencil. A PC is simply not suitable in that context.

Second, kids should be able to have structured access to the Internet, to supplement the work they do in class, in the library and at home. Wireless computing with laptops provides portability, flexibility and convenience that children working individually, in small groups and teams could never get from hard-wired PCs.

“The popular practice of putting one, two or four PCs in a classroom is a dumb idea … It takes away valuable space in already overcrowded classrooms and does nothing to integrate computers into the curriculum.” -Prakash Nair

Pages: 1 2