A survey in Louisiana finds that most schools do not have the technology to support the Common Core online testing that will begin in 2014-2015. This will require a major investment in hardware and infrastructure.
Here is part of the article:
BATON ROUGE — A survey of Louisiana schools shows most lack the technology and facilities needed to conduct online testing that’s to be part of a new Common Core Curriculum to be implemented in the 2014-15 school year.
The Department of Education asked school systems around the state to report the numbers of computers available to students, their operating speed, the type of Internet connections and bandwidth available and where to computers were located, such as in classrooms or computer laboratories.
The “Technology Footprint” shows a shortfall in computers, high-speed Internet connections and facilities in which testing can be conducted.
“We must believe our students and teachers can achieve great things, but they need access to the right technology to do so,” Superintendent of Education John White said in a news release. “We are not there yet. Too few schools are ready for the digital age. If we plan now, and invest our funds wisely, we can change this.”
Only five school systems — Ascension, City of Bogalusa, Red River, St. James and FirstLine Schools of New Orleans — meet the minimum device readiness requirements and only two school systems — Ascension and St. James — meet both device and network readiness guidelines for online testing, it said.
In Caddo Parish, the report said, “currently 3 out of 46 schools have an adequate number of computers that meet current minimum computer hardware specifications for online testing in 2014-15. In order to bring all schools in Caddo Parish up to the minimum testing readiness level of a 7-to-1 student to computer ratio, the district will need to either purchase an additional 2,814 devices and/or upgrade some of the 2,952 computers that potentially could meet the new minimum computer hardware specifications.”
In DeSoto Parish, it read, “currently 1 out of 9 schools has an adequate number of computers that meet current minimum computer hardware specifications for online testing in 2014-15. In order to bring all schools in DeSoto Parish up to the minimum testing readiness level of a 7-to-1 student to computer ratio, the district will need to either purchase an additional 175 devices and/or upgrade some of the 117 computers that potentially could meet the new minimum computer hardware specifications.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Isn’t this the bottom line? Common Core means more profits for technology and text book companies. Bill Gates and company are doing what predator capitalists do, they are using money to make money. In taking their business practices in the corporate world into public education, however, they have stirred up a hornet’s nest!
Was this what the Gates “investment” all about? Was the endgame of the ed deform movement to sell more computers?
Yes, to sell more computer software at least.
Look at this real-life picture of fourth graders trapped in front of all that dreary and expensive hardware, being forced to consume an endless, expensive testing regime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/online-testing-revolution-comes-to-schools/2012/06/26/gJQACaIJ4V_story.html
I say again: children are being FORCED, by laws nobody remembers passing, to give up their precious, once-in-a-lifetime human childhood to arrogant, profit-driven technocrats. Everything else in the Common Core is window dressing, until we address that emergency. They control the master-list, hold the carrots, and wield the stick.
Where did private, billionaire corporate reformers get the legal right to compel children and teachers to obey their entrepreneurial accountability schemes? How, exactly, did they pull that off? Who are the cowards who are letting them get away with it?
With some delay and difficulty, we did get my guest analysis of the Gates Foundation’s education program up on Edweek. I agreed to submit it, ahead of time, to the editors.
They couldn’t pinpoint any misstatements, but had some stylistic concerns regarding shades of meaning they were uncomfortable with. These weren’t requirements. They didn’t censor it, and the blog doesn’t reflect their own analysis (as far as I know). I edited only two words they were uncomfortable with, out of about a dozen suggestions.
I changed the word “illegal” to “extralegal”, describing Arne Duncan’s imposition of the Common Core through his RttT and NCLB waiver requirements.
In my explanation of the economic advantages of the common core to Microsoft itself, they preferred to say that “several” features would create a spectacularly favorable business climate, instead of “every” feature. I settled on “almost every”, just to avoid argument.
The Gates Foundation’s Education Philanthropy: Are Profit Seeking and Market Domination a Public Service?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/
“If schools don’t have adequate Internet, Mr. White needs to talk to his boss and Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater,” Campbell said. “They’re the reason we don’t have high-speed Internet in rural areas. This was a gift to people who needed it. But Bobby Jindal lives in a country club world.”~~~~Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell.
A grant was turned down by Gov, Jindal who just felt a private company, I guess, could do it better. So, yes, making a profit for somebody is more important. In Louisiana, it looks that way!
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120713/NEWS11/120713001/Report-shows-schools-technology-lacking?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
To be honest, I think the infrastructure improvements will end up being so costly that poor schools will continue doing bubble tests for years.
To have in place by 2014 is quite a goal and when states have no money…..well!!!!
The issue at my daughters’ schools in Oakland was never a dearth of computers but rather the district’s absolute failure to hire enough computer techs to deal with them all. There were also problems with getting the wiring set up properly, esp. b/c the building went through periodic waves of modernization.
It always reminded me of an organization purchasing a fleet of cars but refusing to budget for mechanics to take care of them all. A stupid and cheap approach. One of the worst parts was watching the wasteful cycle of barely used (or even untouched) computers grow old and become obsolete, only to get thrown out and replaced by newer models that would also then sit unused.
One weird thing was watching all the fanfare when computers were donated by a local corporation, or how excited people would get when a chunk of funding came in for new computers. But no one really wanted to deal with Part Two = the personnel requirements of computer ownership. Since there weren’t enough computer techs to do the troubleshooting in a timely manner, the teachers would get frustrated and give up on trying to use them.
What a help the Gates Foundation would have been if it had decided to strengthen the computer tech support systems of struggling schools instead of doing what it’s doing. But I guess to do something actually helpful like that Bill Gates would have had to grasped the realities on the ground.
“We must believe our students and teachers can achieve great things, but they need access to the right technology to do so,”
So… is the question about using new technologies for achievement – or for testing? Louisiana isn’t alone. My elementary school’s computer lab (Seattle) was closed down for one third of the school year – to give high stakes tests. And we were still giving the REALLY big high stakes tests using bubble sheets. Next year they’ll be online.
With the full implementation of the ccss in 2014, it’s easy to see that lab shut down – for testing – for half of the school year, or more. Guess what it’ll be used for the majority of the rest of the time? Putting kids online for commercially developed programs specifically designed to raise scores on high stakes tests. Teachers are hit with a constant barrage of email, hawking such programs right now. And of course their rating as a teacher will depend on those scores.
Some pro ccss-ers insist testing will not increase. I do not believe them for a second. There will be more high stakes tests, and virtually all of them will be taken on computers.
Just a few years ago there was a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm around using technology in the classroom to revolutionize teaching and learning – blogs, wikis, podcasts, gaming, constructivist pedagogies, etc. – all around new technologies. Guys like Richardson, Warlick, and Stager led the charge. I was following along with them, and it was a very exciting time. Interesting to see a couple of those names commenting on your recent writing, Diane.
Unfortunately, the edtech train, with all its fantastic technologies, ideals, and innovations, was hijacked by the edreform movement. The ccss will be one more big nail in the coffin of that oh so promising time.
Maybe the Gates Foundation could help out these schools. Oh, wait, they are too busy devising new evaluation systems for teachers so we can get rid of all those horrible teachers ruining the lives of our youth (satire here folks!) Oh, yeah, those evaluations will be based on those same test scores that schools don’t have enough computers so kids can take the tests in the first place.
Every day I say to myself, this can’t possibly get any more bizarre. And then it does.
These systems do not evaluate, they de-value. Gates would never put any of his funding into investing in people, i.e. technicians or teaching staff.
In my district, we are “encouraged” to submit grant proposals to the local “Education Foundation” that utilize technology, but no money from the grant could go toward compensating a person for the extra time to teach or plan for these programs. Teachers are expected to find innovative new ways to use technology within their own teaching schedules with no concern for training or constructing plans that implement the new tech. We’re just expected to do MORE work for no additional pay–the money only can go toward the purchase of tech. And here’s the rub–the programs must ONLY cover initial purchases and not long-term maintenance of the technology. Nice, huh?
Pretty good indication that there is more interest in selling a tech product rather than helping teachers how to best use it. Profit and more profit!
You know, I’ve always had a bad feeling about the motivation behind these technology grants, but the more I learn about them, the more convinced I am that there is something more to their purpose than just bringing “innovation” to our schools. If it quacks like a duck…well it just might be a duck.