Intentional Planning For Supporting One To One Initiative

Don Ringelestein, Executive Director of Technology, Yorkville CUSD #115

Most districts engaged in intentional planning regarding oneto-one (1:1) devices and the types of devices that would be used. This was commendable work.

However, what many districts overlooked was the need for a deliberate plan to support and sustain those devices.

Students can be hard on their devices—some even intentionally cause damage. As a result, break/ fix work for district staff has become overwhelming, often leading to burnout due to the sheer volume of work combined with the staff ’s inherent desire to provide high-level support to students and colleagues. This has also led districts to purchase large numbers of spare devices for use as loaners, diverting funds that could be better allocated to other critical needs.

Furthermore, many districts have not developed intentional strategies to ensure that their network, server, and storage infrastructures are adequately scaled and supported to handle the connectivity demands of thousands of devices. For example, a former superintendent once asked me why our district couldn’t achieve the same uptime as a bank, clearly not realizing the financial and technical requirements involved in achieving such high availability.

“Due to a lack of dedicated testing environments and staff for validation, updates are frequently deployed directly into production environments without sufficient testing—posing serious risks when those changes don’t go as planned”

I have worked at medium-sized districts supporting up to 12,000 devices, with only one person charged with supplying the network connectivity they need. Necessary changes to improve services or conduct maintenance can only be performed after hours, which, in districts with high schools, often mean working late into the night. Additionally, due to a lack of dedicated testing environments and staff for validation, updates are frequently deployed directly into production environments without sufficient testing, posing serious risks when those changes don’t go as planned.

Schools have also taken a fragmented approach to defining technology support staffing needs. Districts often fail to comprehend the number of break/fix technicians required to support student, staff, and classroom technology. Furthermore, in most cases, districts have not given consideration to providing support for essential systems, such as network, server, and database support. The result is that in many cases districts staff these critical support roles on an ad hoc basis, resulting in inefficiencies and service gaps.

Leadership of technology teams, while often considered, varies widely in effectiveness depending on district size, demographics, and access to local IT talent. In some cases, district-level leaders with little or no background in technology are tasked with overseeing IT functions—despite lacking the time, expertise, or insight required to support their teams effectively.

Cybersecurity remains a persistent and pressing concern for district technology leaders. According to surveys conducted by CoSN (the Consortium for School Networking), cybersecurity consistently ranks as a top priority. The increasing reliance on technology for both instructional and operational functions has raised expectations for system availability, yet most districts lack the budget for staff-dedicated security leadership. Many still rely on outdated antivirus solutions that cannot keep pace with modern threats. As a result, schools remain vulnerable to ransomware and denial-of-service attacks and lack the internal resources to respond effectively when incidents occur.

Student device security is also inadequately addressed. Technology departments often find themselves playing a reactive game of “whacka-mole” as they try to block student access to inappropriate content. Once one website or tool is blocked, others are discovered—sometimes by teachers who depend on those same sites for instruction, creating internal conflicts. Although tools exist to help manage this, they are often cost-prohibitive.

Student use of VPNs further complicates efforts to maintain secure and policy-compliant environments.

Finally, many schools have failed to identify which technology risks they are willing to accept. Few have prioritized systems based on criticality or uptime requirements, and too often, risk-related decisions are made by underqualified IT staff rather than senior leadership. Any cybersecurity professional knows that risk management must be led at the highest organizational level. In many cases, school boards and leaders, while admirably serving school communities, do not appreciate their value in making risk-related decisions. Their direction is of vital importance in providing direction and dollars to be allocated to ensuring the security of the district's information systems.

In summary, most districts have not clearly defined the support structures necessary to sustain oneto-one initiatives. This has resulted in significant staff burnout and overextension of IT support teams. Combined with the fact that school district technology salaries are generally uncompetitive compared to the private sector, it has become increasingly difficult to attract and retain the high-caliber talent needed to meet modern demands. This has led to an unsustainable model for school technology support— one that compromises both technology staff well-being and the reliability of much needed technology services delivered to students and educators.

Risk Management

Financial

Storage