Archives for category: Technology, Computers

Jaime Aquino, the deputy superintendent for instruction in LAUSD, unexpectedly quit his $250,000 a year post, although he plans to stay until the end of the year.

The story is that he was disheartened by the change in the board, in which progressive members took control away from the corporate reform bloc controlled by Eli Broad.

Board members expressed dismay about his departure and praised him fulsomely.

Aquino was in charge of Common Core implementation, and rumors are swirling that he may be blamed for the controversial decision to invest $1 billion in iPads, using money that was approved by voters for 25-year school construction bonds.

Aquino was a graduate of the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy. He was hired by John Deasy less than two weeks after Deasy took over.

Clearly Aquino was disappointed when the corporate reform bloc lost control and was reduced to only 2 votes on the board.

He personally donated $1,000 to the political campaign of Monica Garcia, the school board president, who was supported by the Eli Broad/Villaraigosa funders.

A teacher sent me the following comment: ” I am a K-5 arts teacher with LAUSD.   Jaime came to speak to the arts teachers when he was newly hired and bluntly stated that he had shut down arts schools in the past for teaching “frivolous arts activities”.  I hope our next Dean of Instruction makes the arts a priority in our district.”

This article asks: “LAUSD iPad Deal: iPaid Too Much?”

Is it legal to use voter-approved construction bonds with a 25-year or 30-year paydown period to buy devices that will be obsolete in 3-4 years?

Isn’t this a misdirection and misuse of what was approved by the voters?

Were voters misled?

Would they have approved a $1 billion tax to pay for iPads?

Surely there must be a city or state official with the power to investigate this mess.

This teacher blogger, Rene Dietrich, addresses an open letter to Apple about the iPads for all students in the district.

Such questions as whether they are configured to block inappropriate content; whether Apple will offer training and tech support to teachers; whether they can be used without access to the Internet; whether there is any way to disable them if stolen; and many more. These are the kinds of questions that school districts should get answers to before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new technology.

In the article in Sunday’s New York Times magazine about the introduction of Joel Klein/Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify tablet, Klein asserts that those who oppose his views on technology are ideological, not evidence-based.

Klein asserts that we can’t hope to compete with Korea and other nations with high test scores unless we put kids on his tablets.

But here is a contrary view, forwarded to me by Will Fitzhugh of The Concord Review.

It is an excerpt from Amanda Ripley’s new book, The Smartest Kids in the World:

 

...But the anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans waste an extraordinary 
amount of tax money on high-tech toys for teachers and students, most of which 
have no proven learning value whatsoever....“In most of the highest-performing 
systems, technology is remarkably absent from classrooms.”

ignore shiny objects 

Old-school can be good school. Eric’s high school in Busan, South Korea, had 
austere classrooms with bare-bones computer labs. Out front, kids played soccer 
on a dirt field. From certain angles, the place looked like an American school 
from the 1950s. Most of Kim’s classrooms in Finland looked the same way: rows of 
desks in front of a simple chalkboard or an old-fashioned white board, the kind 
that was not connected to anything but the wall. 

Tom’s school in Poland didn’t even have a cafeteria, let alone a 
state-of-the-art theater, like his public school back home in Pennsylvania. In 
his American school, every classroom had an interactive white board, the kind 
that had become ubiquitous in so many American schools. (In fact, when I visited 
Tom’s American high school in 2012, these boards were already being swapped for 
next-generation replacements.) None of the classrooms in his Polish school had 
interactive white boards. 

Little data exists to compare investments in technology across countries, 
unfortunately. But the anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans waste an 
extraordinary amount of tax money on high-tech toys for teachers and students, 
most of which have no proven learning value whatsoever. As in all other 
industries, computers are most helpful when they save time or money, by helping 
to sort out what kids know and who needs help. Conversely, giving kids 
expensive, individual wireless clickers so that they can vote in class would be 
unthinkable in most countries worldwide. (In most of the world, kids just raise 
their hands and that works out fine.) 

“In most of the highest-performing systems, technology is remarkably absent from 
classrooms,” Andreas Schleicher, the OECD international education guru, told me. 
“I have no explanation why that is the case, but it does seem that those systems 
place their efforts primarily on pedagogical practice rather than digital 
gadgets.” In the survey conducted for this book, seven out of ten international 
and American exchange students agreed that U.S. schools had more technology. Not 
one American student surveyed said there was significantly less technology in 
U.S. schools. The smartest countries prioritize teacher pay and equity 
(channeling more resources to the neediest students). When looking for a 
world-class education, remember that people always matter more than props.

Ripley, Amanda (2013-08-13). The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got 
That Way (pp. 214-215). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

The New York Times magazine has a long article by Carlo Rotella about the first trial of the Amplify tablet in the schools of Guilford County, North Carolina. Amplify is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and run by Joel Klein, the former chancellor of the NewYork City public schools.

Klein is certain that public education in America is a disaster and the only things that can save it are disruptive technology and the Common Core. Those are the same recommendations made by the task force Klein co-chaired for the Council on Foreign Relations last year.

Happily for Murdoch, Klein, and other apostles of saving the schools by selling technology to them, they have a friend in Arne Duncan. He is quoted as follows:

“To keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing for the past hundred years — everybody working on the same thing at the same time, not based on competency. . . .” He sighed and let the thought trail off, then added his standard reminder that we must equip our students to compete with counterparts in India and China. He did acknowledge, though, that the fear of falling behind puts added pressure on school systems to do something, anything, which then makes them more vulnerable to rushed decisions and to peddlers of magic bullets. “There are a lot of hucksters out there,” he said.

“Duncan, whose longtime allies include Joel Klein, Bill Gates and other apostles of disruption, has a record of supporting reforms that increase the role of market forces — choice, competition, the profit motive — in education. He wants private enterprises vying to make money by providing innovative educational products and services, and sees his role as “taking to scale the best practices” that emerge from this contest.”

One of the trainers of teachers uses a phrase that we have now heard about a million times , meaning that we are experimenting on you and don’t know how things will turn out: “Another PLEF, Wenalyn Bell, told her group, “It’s like building a plane while it’s flying.”

Rotella retains a healthy skepticism. He knows that Los Angeles laid off teachers while it spent big bucks to buy iPads.

He ends with these observations from his last interview with Klein.

“Take Finland,” Klein continued, citing everyone’s favorite example of a country that puts its money on excellent teachers, not technology, and routinely finishes at the top in international assessments. “There’s a high barrier for entry into the teaching profession,” the kind that lets in the Robin Britts and keeps out weaker aspirants. Teachers there are also well paid, held in high esteem and trusted to get results without being forced to teach to the test. But America’s educational system is a lot bigger, messier, less centralized and more focused on market-based solutions than Finland’s. Also, our greater income inequality and thinner social safety net make for much wider variation in student performance, and a toxic political climate has encouraged our traditional low regard for teachers to flower into outright contempt.

“Still, if everyone agrees that good teachers make all the difference, wouldn’t it make more sense to devote our resources to strengthening the teaching profession with better recruitment, training, support and pay? It seems misguided to try to improve the process of learning by putting an expensive tool in the hands of teachers we otherwise treat like the poor relations of the high-tech whiz kids who design the tool.

“Are our overwhelmed, besieged, haphazardly recruited, variably trained, underpaid, not-so-elite teachers, in fact, the potential weak link in Amplify’s bid to disrupt American schooling? Klein said that we have 3.5 million elementary- and middle-school teachers. “We have to put the work of the most brilliant people in their hands,” he said. “If we don’t empower them, it won’t work.” Behind the talking points and buzz words, what I heard him saying was Yes.”

Red Queen in LA writes a snappy and irreverent blog.

This post is her best ever, or at least the best I have read.

In it, she decimates the decision by Los Angeles school officials to spend $500 million on iPads–using money from bonds that will be paid off in 25 years–and another $500 million to upgrade the schools for Internet connectivity, plus $38 million for keyboards, plus untold millions for professional development and other unforeseen needs, at a time when teachers are laid off, class sizes are huge, facilities are crumbling, and programs are cut.

This was not a wise decision for many reasons, she argues. For one thing,  “tablets” are no substitute for computers:

We all know this about tablet “computers”:  they are not real “working” machines.  When I proposed buying a tablet for my student the dude behind the counter told me: “Don’t do it.  You’ll have to buy a keyboard, it has way less memory and no ports, a smaller screen and slower speed:  it’s just not what a serious student needs.  By the time you’re done adding on, you’ll have a machine almost as expensive as a real computer with far less functionality”.

Any parent will have received that advice from just about any computer salesman.  And while there are a few serious students out there who no doubt feel otherwise, I think it’s a fairly safe bet that the word on the street is:  tablets are no substitute for a computer; students need computers.

But she is even more outraged that the district leaders pulled a bait and switch, first asking voters for permission to sell 25-year bonds to repair the schools, then using that money to buy tablets with a short lifespan. She writes:

“A fool and his money are soon parted”; common sense dictates a little skepticism be employed in warding off financial chicanery.  There are so many get-rich – excuse me, get-“smart”-quick schemes floating about EdReform/Common Core Land that their sheer volume belies legitimacy.

No one purchases a car with a 30-year loan.  Long-term financial “instruments” are intended for a more “durable” purchase like, say, a house.  Or a school building.  If you purchased your Honda Civic with a house mortgage, you would find yourself paying for that auto to the tune of several times its original worth, a dozen years or longer beyond when it was melted into candlesticks.  How does it make sense that LAUSD stakeholders should be purchasing ephemeral electronic equipment with long-term constructionbonds?  Where’s the common sense in hoodwinking tax-payers with such a scheme that doesn’t even seem legal?  When will the average voter ever agree again to finance any child’s public educational needs when there are only foxes in charge of the hen house?

And more:

Maybe this is all more complicated than it seems.  But since it was we taxpayers who invoked the common sense solution of approving bond money to maintain school facilities sufficiently, we deserve transparency regardingdecisions that reverse course on how this money is spent.  And we deserve legal redress should the caretakers of our money not spend it according to our wishes.

Our children need teachers — more teachers — who can conduct school within classrooms of a manageable, teachable size.  Our children need a village-worth of support staff to enable and assist those teachers to engage their learners.  Our children need to attend school in facilities that are clean, commodious, safe and stimulating.  Diverting funds from rank-bottom pedagogical necessities in favor of frivolous electronics in service of opaque commercial ends, just makes no Common Sense.

 

What do you think about Los Angeles spending $1 billion on
iPads, money taken from school construction bonds approved by
voters for……school construction. The iPads will be obsolete in
3-4 years. The bonds won’t be paid off for 25 years. Really
disturbing, but here is a hopeful comment, suggesting that there is
some oversight: “●●smf responds: I am a member of that selfsame
bond oversight committee and I voted to approve this iPad for
Everyone deal as a pilot at some 30 plus schools. Only that and
nothing more. “Notwithstanding grandstanding from he
superintendent’s office nothing further has been approved by
anyone. The Apple contract purchases iPads for every student ONLY
IF AND WHEN the Bond Oversight Committee and Board of Education
approves Phases Two and Three. There is is no autopilot. “Your
concerns for your students at your school are our concerns. We on
the bond committee cannot by law buy your school new library books
or arts or choral music programs. Deputy Superintendent Aquino may
wax poetic about how the iPads will give your school art and music
programs; like all good salespeople he believes it what he’s
selling. But I don’t buy that balderdash than any more than you do.
“Our kids don’t need arts applications, they need Arts Teachers.
“We don’t need music apps or dance apps or drama apps – we need
Dance Teachers and Music Teachers and Drama Teachers. We need
Teacher Librarians in secondary and Elementary Librarians in in the
early grades. “And Health Teachers and Nurses and
Counselors.”

A letter from a teacher in Los Angeles about the decision to spend $1 billion to buy iPads.

“How could the bond oversight committee actually approve this deal when we (a specific school in LAUSD) still have classrooms with chalkboards, desks from the 1950s, an internet infrastructure that constantly lets us down – we can NEVER play video because there is never enough bandwidth, a library with a book collection that has an average copyright date of 1989, only 4 library books per pupil, 10 computers in the library with an average age of 2006, 48 students in a 10th grade English class, 45 students in a biology class, no art classes, no vocal music classes. What we could use instead of ipads is every classroom is a smart classroom, new desks that kids can actually fit into, multiple computer labs, a new, larger, tech friendly library with at least 14 books per pupil, art classes, wood shop, computer labs, the list goes on. What is going to happen is before the entire roll out of ipads, LAUSD is going to realize either by their own admission or a lawsuit that this experiment is not going to work. Also, voters within the boundaries of LAUSD are never going to vote for another bond measure. Therefore, this specific school will not be getting ipads nor new construction, new books, new desktop computers anytime soon.”

A reader wants to know the answer:

“The LA Unified School District is going to spend $1 billion on iPads at a cost of $678 per device, more than the tablets cost in stores. They come with “partially developed” educational software and are being paid for by school construction bonds.

“There are currently over 16,000 repair requests across the District that have yet to receive a response. The Venice High visitor bleachers at its football field have been collapsing for years and are dangerous. Many schools need their air conditioning systems fixed. Ever try to teach literature to 40 kids in a non-air conditioned classroom? I guess it doesn’t matter now because LAUSD and the educational reform movement don’t care much about literature anyway.

“School construction bonds? Exactly which part of a school’s construction is an iPad? This deal reeks of collusion and kickbacks. Three LAUSD Board members own Apple stock. How on earth does the Board accept a deal for these devices that doesn’t include a discount? I mean they’re buying 660,000 units.

“Apple’s Mac Rumors site recommends NOT BUYING this current iPad edition because “updates are coming soon.” The bureaucrats at LAUSD responsible for this deal should go to work at the Pentagon. Maybe when this boondoggle is finished, they can sign a deal with Kohler or American Standard to replace all the toilets in LAUSD schools.

“Why hasn’t anyone on the LA School Board investigated this? Why hasn’t United Teachers of Los Angeles investigated this? Why hasn’t the LA Times or the LA Daily News investigated it?

“If I were still teaching, I’d feel as if I were working in an asylum.”

A reader submits the following comment. He or she might
also have noted the computer failures of testing companies this
past spring, for example, in Indiana and Oklahoma. The reader says:
Pearson has a pattern of poor performance nationwide, stretching
back for more than a decade. For example, A. In 2002, a computer
glitch caused malfunctions in some online math tests and Pearson
incorrectly failed nearly 8,000 Minnesota students on a test that
was required for high school graduation. Pearson agreed to pay up
to $7 million in damages for that problem. B. In 2007, a Minnesota
online statewide math test was shut down after the program
malfunctioned for 25% of the districts that were using it. C. In
2010, the results from online science tests taken by 180,000
students in grades 5 to 8 were delayed due to scoring errors. D. In
2005, in Virginia computerized tests were misgraded. E. In
2009-2010, Wyoming’s new computer testing program failed and the
state demanded that Pearson repay $9.5 million for “complete
default of the contract.” F. In 2011, according to the Tampa Bay
Times, students taking Florida’s new computerized algebra final
exam could not submit finished tests because Pearson’s servers were
down. For more details see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/enough-is-enough-pearson-_b_3146434.html
These online testing problems are not confined to Pearson. There
has been a concerning pattern across states over a number of years
with several testing companies in addition to Pearson. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/04/severe-technical-problems-raise-concerns-over-online-tests/