The evolution of the BYOD programme in Australian schools
The Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programme has been transforming learning – and shifting costs – in Australian schools for over a decade.
The origins and growth of BYOD in Australia
The first 1:1 device program in Australia started in the early 1990s at Methodist Ladies’ College in Melbourne, an independent school with the resources to implement a standardised device and software system. However, the high costs of purchasing and maintaining school-owned devices meant that widespread adoption of the program was limited to well-funded schools.
Read the latest print edition of School News HERE
A major turning point came after 2013, when the Government-funded Digital Education Revolution (DER) ended. Schools that had relied on government-provided laptops needed a way to maintain a 1:1 student-to-device ratio without direct funding. This led to the rise of BYOD programmes, where students were required to bring their own laptops, tablets, or iPads, with the cost shifting to parents.
Professor Therese Keane is Associate Dean at the La Trobe School of Education—among other things—researches the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education. We spoke with Professor Keane about the evolution of the BYOD programme and the impact it has had on Australian schools and families.
Advantages and Challenges of BYOD
Professor Keane explains that BYOD programmes typically follow one of two models:
• BYOD specified device: where schools require students to use a specific school-approved device model, ensuring uniformity and minimising inequities amongst students. This programme also provides greater consistency and stability for teachers who aren’t required to be familiar with, and manage a range of different devices. However, it does place greater burdens on families, who have no flexibility and may be forced to purchase a device that exceeds their budget.
• BYOD minimum specifications: Students can bring any device that meets certain technical requirements, giving families more choice and flexibility when it comes to costs, but creating challenges in compatibility and support. Some students might be able to bring high-end devices while others will be using more dated technology.
“A key challenge in BYOD programmes is when students bring devices that do not meet the minimum requirements, potentially affecting their ability to engage in digital learning,” says Professor Keane. “Additionally, teachers may face difficulties in troubleshooting a wide range of devices. However, with advancements in technology and improved student digital literacy, these challenges have become less significant compared to a decade ago.”
Digital equity and the BYOD divide
While BYOD has increased access to technology, it has also raised concerns about digital equity, particularly for students from lower-income families.
“While BYOD programmes are not solely responsible for widening the digital literacy gap between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged communities, they can contribute to existing disparities.” Professor Therese Keane
Some of the key issues caused by the digital divide, according to Professor Keane, include:
– Device quality – Wealthier students often have faster, more powerful devices, while others rely on older, less capable models. This can impact their ability to run advanced software and affect their access to resources.
• Internet access – Some students lack reliable home Wi-Fi, making it difficult to complete assignments. “This issue was particularly evident during COVID-19, when schools and Education Departments had to provide internet dongles to ensure students could access online learning,” adds Keane.
• Classroom Stigma – Students with outdated devices may feel embarrassed or struggle with group activities requiring advanced technology.
Should families choose the most expensive device?
Given the obvious challenges faced by students with older or cheaper devices, should schools be encouraging families to purchase the most expensive model they can afford?
It is a difficult choice: invest in a high-performance model for long-term use or opt for the cheapest option that meets school requirements right now, especially given the constant improvement and developments in technology?
Professor Keane suggests:
“For secondary school students, aim to purchase a device that exceeds the minimum specifications set by the school… and buy a device that will not be outdated in 12 months. Investing in a higher-performing device can enhance functionality and ensure longevity, as most devices should ideally last three to four years to provide better long-term value.”
“For children particularly in primary school… however, a device that meets the minimum specifications is generally sufficient to support their educational needs.”
Keane suggests that some strategies to reduce inequality caused by the BYOD program could include
– schools offering loaner devices or financial assistance for disadvantaged students;
– providing cloud-based software to ensure all students have access to essential software and platforms regardless of their device;
– providing workshops for students and parents to improve digital literacy and help understand their devices;
– and partnering with local businesses and communities to expand internet access and technology support.
“By taking these steps, schools can help ensure that BYOD programs enhance learning opportunities rather than reinforcing existing inequalities.” Professor Keane
The future of BYOD in Australian Schools
“BYOD is firmly established in Australian schools and is expected to remain a key component of digital learning,” says Keane. “Given the increasing reliance on technology in education, it is unlikely that schools will revert to shared computer access among students and classes.”
The evolution of the BYOD program in Australian schools has significantly transformed digital education, but while it has made 1:1 device programs financially sustainable, it has also highlighted the digital divide between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Future success of the program will depend on schools “focusing on policy refinement, digital equity measures, and infrastructure support to enhance learning outcomes,” Keane explains.
