This Los Angeles blogger contrasts the successful implementation
of the 1:1 iPad policy in Lewisville, Texas, and the mess in Los Angeles.
It seems that the educators in Lewisville thought through what they planned to do, how they planned to use the iPads, what might go wrong.
And the educators in Los Angeles just bought them.
Consider the differences when you look at the graph.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Not all districts that go with one to one technology allow their students to take the iPads home. That’s a fact. Superintendent Deasy is using the “poverty” card and claims it is a civil rights issue. Sure, schools in low income areas should definitely provide the same access to technology, and maybe even a little more since they are most likely to not have it at home, but this is taking civil rights into a whole new direction.
Isn’t it a civil rights issue that many students don’t have access to health, dental and vision care? Isn’t it a civil rights issue that many go home to chaos and overcrowding in their homes? Isn’t it a civil rights issue if the only halfway decent meals are available only at school?
This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. We need to take care of children’s everyday needs so that they will be able to come to school able to focus on instruction and are exposed to a curriculum rich with the arts and PE. They can certainly learn without an iPad, but they can’t and won’t care about school until the other issues are addressed.
As for LAUSD, last year they started offering in-class hot breakfast, and dental/medical assistance for those children. Not perfection, but those items are definitely being addressed.
Another difference: actual EDUCATORS were involved in deciding, planning, and implementing the LISD program. In LAUSD, it was all in the hands of bureaucrats who didn’t think past signing the contract.
“. . . bureaucrats who didn’t think past signing the contract.”
Wonder why?
Man, what is that foto of at the top of the page?
A rotting persimmon? A fungus amongus? Some internal body part?
Probably a rotting apple. But yes, I had the same initial reaction.
I guess it would be better to say that the SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS choose to buy them as many teachers were against it and many school administrators are NOT educators….just a point.
Read you entire book in a weekend. have a second copy at school and our school librarian is purchasing some for the library.
>>> Diane Ravitch’s blog 10/9/2013 9:28 AM >>>
dianerav posted: “This Los Angeles blogger contrasts the successful implementation of the 1:1 iPad policy in Lewisville, Texas, and the mess in Los Angeles. It seems that the educators in Lewisville thought through what they planned to do, how they planned to use the”
The Lewisville program, according to the chart, has many advantages but it also specifies that “parents are to pay a small yearly fee to help cover costs”.
This is not a desirable aspect of any public school program, and hardly something that should be emulated.
Yes, public school is supposed to be free. The point here is that iPads are costly to purchase and replace. School districts that plan to have them taken home should allow for parents to both opt out or tp request financial assistance to cover the yearly fee as does Lewisville according to their website.
Otherwise, there seems to be no practical way to handle district-wide rollouts. It seems that some districts are taking a “wait and see” attitude when it comes to sustainability. This is not a good way to commit to spending our limited funding.
Dag! Gotta love the business model of LAUSD and corporate privateers; and the gross incompetence and malfeasance that we see all too often in the business world. Snap!
Anybody know if this sort of thing is coming down the pike in NY/NYC?
They have amplify Klien’s company. The units are less expensive but are not working . I suspect it is the common core apps.
This blogger does not know what is going on in LAUSD. They do not have the documents, I do. Given to me by a high district official as we have their long time trust.
There is no law to allow them to be taken home, page 14 of the Feb. 12, 2013 power point. In the documents they are to check them in with the teacher every day. The cost are: LAUSD 32GB iPad-$599.00, charger-$19.00, USB sync cable-$19.00, keyboard-$54.00, total-$770.95. LAUSD paid almost the same for the run of 700,000 units as an elementary school in England for 1,200 units. Good buying. In the Feb. 12, 2013 Jaime Aquino, yes the same guy we forced out, power point on page 16 it states “We will not spend more than $200 with a 5 year guarantee.” In 2-6 weeks after in January, 2013 the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee approved $1,598/device. Have you ever heard of anything crazier?
If they buy the $200 device there is a surplus of $26 million/year and all paid from the general fund and sustainable forever.
If they buy the iPad for $1,000 each as is approved for 30,000 units they have a negative of $169 million/year.
With the $200 device and the savings of $26 million we can stay in the general fund have the technology and put physical education and the arts back into the schools.
Which one do you want now? Are you for porking Apple worldwide with this or how about the $50 computer in England designed for students and experimentation with electronics? This is massive corruption.
Also, bloggers should really know of what they speak and if they cannot put up the documents do not speak.
So, Blogger, put up the documents which back up what you have in your chart. I know you cannot, I have them and they are distributed to certain people right now. In fact, you can see some of them now at “Hemlock on the Rocks” and soon you will be able to see them all as soon as we blow Apple out of the water and the crooks at LAUSD including now to my surprise Ratliff. Yesterday, on the David Cruz Show she stated she had in her hands the document for the parent responsibility and she said on the air that if you lose or damage you are responsible. No, the document says if you WILLFULLY or NEGLIGENTLY lose or damage. Go look into the Black’s Law Dictionary and look up the legal meaning or go to your unabridged dictionary. This is a very high legal standard which means with intent and forethought not I just lost it.
Ratliff is supposed to be a lawyer and as you know I bugged those on this blog to support her and you did to stop the billionaires and now it looks like they have gotten to her. She is going to have more bad days like after she spoke and the next day when I was on the same show on Truancy and the district. This will not go unanswered. No good lawyer does what she is doing. I guess she really has no real experience with anyone of any competence.
Facts and documents are what they are and that is not up to Oh Well. Remember Jack Webb “Just the facts mam, just the facts.”
Mr. Buzzetti, while I know that we usually find ourselves on the same side of most issues within LAUSD, I’m unable to understand what exactly you’re saying.
The person who researched this information from Lewisville, Texas does know a lot about what’s been going on in the District and has worked tirelessly to expose much of the injustice, incompetence and corruption that have taken place in the LA public school system over the past ten years. Your criticism of her effort here does no one on our side of this struggle any good.
Please edit your writing before you hit the Post button. For example, “If they buy the iPad for $1,000 each as is approved for 30,000 units they have a negative of $169 million/year.” What does that mean? I’m guessing “they” is the District, but what does “a negative of $169 million/year” mean? That this purchase will put a $169 million dent in the District budget? Before you criticize someone’s thought processes, you should think about making your own clearer to your audience.
I’ve watched you at LAUSD Board Meetings and enjoy the way you stick it to board members, no holds bared. But George, please make your points more accessible. I’m pretty sure Deasy & Co. casually dismiss your comments and ideas as those of a kook. We know that you know a great deal and have as many facts at your fingertips as any LAUSD watchdog. But that information goes to waste when it’s presented in such a haphazard fashion.
We appreciate the work you do, but unless you express yourself more coherently, you will most likely find yourself working alone. And that shouldn’t be.
Well stated. She is right, George.
George is a talker, not a listener, who uses this blog to sound off and he never, ever responds to the replies to his posts here.
He sure knows how to burn bridges and cruelly publicly trash those who could have been allies. He is constantly trying to puff himself up, as if he’s the Lone Ranger who always knows better than everyone else.
It comes as no surprise to learn that he’s seen as an incoherent loose canon. He lost me long ago with his self-righteous, holier than thou posturing, as well as his shortsighted unfailing support of Parent Trigger/Parent Tricker laws. It looks like this guy is on no side but his own.
There are two documents. One was given to the board, another came out two days later which modifications especially to the terms of responsibility. Not sure which one you have or Ms. Ratliff has. Could be the problem.
As an educator in Los Angeles, I can tell you that the educators, meaning teachers, principals, substitute teachers and other on-site staff and faculty had nothing to do with the iPad/Tablet decision. It was made by two people who want to boast of their accomplishments at school reform even though many of the choices they make are disastrous to the district, schools, and especially the students of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Furthermore, under the Pearson program attached to the iPads, they are negating the purpose of Common Core which is to slow down and help students learn to process, analyze, and evaluate information. Instead they are going to script the lessons by broadcasting lessons from a central computer to each classroom. All 2nd graders will be doing the same things. All 4th graders will be working on their lessons as dictated by the school district through the centralized lessons. If a class has difficulty with the concept, too bad. They will have to move on to the next lesson whether or not they are ready. This can delay a child’s development and actually lead to becoming years behind by the time they reach high school because they were not allowed to master a concept before moving on.
In LAUSD, the entire program is destined to fail leaving the taxpayers with worthless technology and a billion dollar bill to pay off over the next 30 years.
“the iPad/Tablet decision. It was made by two people who want to boast of their accomplishments at school reform…”
That’s a no brainer. García and Galatzan have their fingerprints all over this debacle.
Sorry, wrong “reply to” this @ Buzzetti: There are two documents. One was given to the board, another came out two days later which modifications especially to the terms of responsibility. Not sure which one you have or Ms. Ratliff has. Could be the problem.