Howard Blume of the Los Angeles Times wrote a scathing description of the failed implementation of the $1.3 billion iPad boondoggle, which shows poor planning, a thrown-together program that amounted to buying gadgets with no preparation for using them.

 

“In the first formal evaluation of the troubled iPads-for-all project in Los Angeles schools, only one teacher out of 245 classrooms visited was using the costly online curriculum. The reason, according to the report, was related to the program’s ambition, size and speed.

 

The analysis found that district staff was so focused on distributing devices that little attention was paid to using iPads effectively in the classroom.

 

The report, conducted by an outside firm at the request of the school system, was intended to provide an early assessment of the program, which began last year at 47 schools.

 

Among the issues cited at several schools: high school math curriculum wasn’t provided, efforts to log in and access curriculum were unsuccessful and at least one school said it preferred the district’s own reading program. Four out of five high schools reported that they rarely used the tablets.

 

“The overarching theme of comments … was that deployment of devices on this scale and pace had never been attempted before in the district, and that [teachers and others] had to learn and adapt as the project unfolded,” the report said.

 

This view was echoed by many of those the researchers interviewed. The early goal “was to just get the devices out, that was basically it, just get the devices out, use them as quick as possible … there were other goals …. they were talked about but they really didn’t get implemented,” one technical specialist told evaluators.

 

A district leader who was not identified said: “We didn’t have enough people so everyone was working on deployment … that really, really impacted our professional development [training] rollout, in fact we barely had one because of that.”

 

The review, conducted by a nine-member team from the Washington, D.C.-based American Institutes for Research, offers a sharp contrast to early pronouncements from the school district on the $1.3-billion effort. In particular, Los Angeles schools Supt. John Deasy labeled the project “an astonishing success” and officials faulted media reports for suggesting otherwise.

 

Now, if only the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board would read Howard Blume’s brilliant reporting, maybe they would stop blaming teachers and their union for Deasy’s failures.