TannerVision

Schools are Essentially Custodial- and we may want to market that

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:49:00 +0000

Alvin Toffler, author of the groundbreaking 1970 book Future Shock, stated in a recent Edutopia interview:

"The schools of today are essentially custodial: They're taking care of kids in work hours that are essentially nine to five -- when the whole society was assumed to work. Clearly, that's changing in our society. So should the timing. We're individualizing time; we're personalizing time. We're not having everyone arrive at the same time, leave at the same time. Why should kids arrive at the same time and leave at the same time?"

It is an interesting perspective which underscores the changing nature of work in modern society and juxtaposes the logistics of school which are still mimicking the work model of the industrial revolution. This was the main point of his statement.

I see an opportunity here, though. Setting aside the logistical concerns of having students come and go at different times, I think Toffler's idea underscores how important the custodial nature of schools really is. I wrote about this in a blog post a while back when I asked if we were in the "Post-School Era."

"One important distinction between traditional K-12 schools and our online counterparts is the custodial function of K-12 schools. Much of the instructional function can be digitized and delivered online, asynchronously, but K-12 schools still have a custodial responsibility to care for children while their parents work. I think that in the past, we have seen this as a "degredation" of our profession, as if parents think we are primarily babysitters who happen to teach kids some stuff. (This feeling is reinforced whenever we call a snow day that parents think we shouldn't have called.

"I propose that we focus on our custodial function as a strength that we can use to market ourselves. In an era when education can be provided easily without a physical school building, we will be hard pressed to compete with virtual charter schools who can hire anybody with a bachelor's degree to deliver canned content online. However, they cannot supervise students or take care of their physical needs online. Our facilities and qualified staff, which are our greatest expenses, must also be our greatest assets."

I cringe as I read my comments above, because they seem to accept the idea of virtual charter schools as being as good as highly qualified teachers and the rich resources of traditional schools. I don't believe that, but I also need to remind myself that not all of our customers (parents and students) value qualified teachers and rich resources as much as I do. (And I'm always mindful of Clayton Christensen's warning that disruptive innovations start out as inferior products.) The more competition we (educators) face in our marketplace, the more we need to be attuned and responsive to customer demands. If highly qualified traditional teachers and nice facilities are not highly desired, then we can't bank on them alone to keep us "in business."

Of course, we can inform our customers about why these are good things, the same way that any company informs its customers why their product's features are important. But we also need to be responsive to the other desires of consumers.

As we design ~~schools~~ learning environments, we need to market the value of schools, even if the value to the parents is not the same as what we value! This is difficult for us educators, since we are proud of our knowledge, our skills, and our qualifications. After all, we value education, so we are proud of the education and training we have received. But we should acknowledge that in the new world of competition, caring for children is just as important as teaching them.

Texas Instruments finally takes my advice- TI calculator coming to iPad

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:49:00 +0000

I don't know if this has been officially announced yet, but Texas Instruments is going to finally release their TI calculator software as an app for iPods and iPads. This is an obvious move, which I predicted back in 2007 ("The Calculatorization of Computers").

It should come as no surprise, since the value of the TI calculator is the software, not the hardware. Yet they kept charging a premium price for virtually identical hardware, as comically illustrated in this XKCD strip.

The only reason TI has been able to keep charging for their calculators is because they have the entrenched standard model of calculator in the education industry, most importantly with textbook publishers and the College Board.

So, even though it took them five years to figure out an obvious idea, I'm glad they are doing it.

Chromebook Pilot - Initial impressions

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 19:46:00 +0000

We (Oregon, WI) are in the third month of a Chromebook pilot right now with a single class (22 students) of 3rd graders.

They are Samsung wifi-only. Instead of paying $20/unit/month, we purchased them up front for $720/unit.

Pros:

Instant on
8 hour battery
No moving parts except for keyboard
Almost no initial configuration (just have to enroll the 'books into the GApps domain)
Management in GApps console is fully integrated
Centrally managed Chrome Extensions and a veritable plethora of config options.
Cost is comparable to iPad once you figure in the extra costs for iPad warranty, keyboard, and VGA adapter
No iOS-VPP mess
No AV or anti-malware installation and config
They are inherently multi-user, unlike most tablets and all iOS devices, so each user's stuff stays safe

Cons:

No Java, so not suitable for a teacher computer (our gradebook is Java-based)
Not specifically kid-proof (not that we've had an issue, but I expect eventually we will, since we gave them to 3rd graders)
Cannot "push" Chrome application, only extensions, from the management console.
Procedure for managing extensions requires finding the Extension ID and URL, which looks like this: hcifofgaphfkfdcjbdogpamghiihilkl;https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx, and is not always easy to find unless you actually install it first.

Overall, the Pros outweigh the Cons, but you have to make sure you know the answer to "What do we want students to be able to do?" and "Why are we doing this?"

If you want to do video editing, then these will not do the trick- get an iPad and iMovie. If you want an all-day netbook, these are great!

Why I think corporate lawyers are trying to kill WiscNet. And how you can help stop it.

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:27:00 +0000

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Rep. Janet Ringhand and Sen. Jon Erpenbach, urging them to eliminate sections 23-26 from the UW System Omnibus motion. It's not the most eloquent thing I've ever written, but I wanted to make it clear and succinct. Following the letter is a disclosure and a rationale for why I wrote this.

Representative Ringhand,

I urge you to eliminate sections 23 – 26 from the language contained
in the UW System Omnibus motion headed into the budget bill. This
language is short-sighted, partisan, and puts corporate interests
ahead of the public good.

Wisconsin cannot afford to return another $39 million in federal
broadband stimulus money, especially after it returned $23 million
earlier this year.

WiscNet, a 501c3 non-profit membership organization, relies on all
aspects of University of Wisconsin, and vice-versa. These types of
interagency collaborations promote consolidation of public services,
cut costs, add jobs, and result in increased efficiencies due to our
large scale.

Driving a wedge between WiscNet and the University of Wisconsin will
result in significantly higher costs for all 450+ WiscNet members
throughout Wisconsin. The cost of Internet access for all schools,
libraries, municipalities, universities, and colleges will increase
dramatically.

I hope I can count on you to oppose this ridiculous legislation.

Sincerely,

Jon Tanner

Full disclosure: The district for which I work is a WiscNet customer, and I am one of the primary decision makers regarding Internet services, which is a WiscNet service. I do not work for WiscNet, nor am I on the WiscNet Board or hold any other position within WiscNet. I was previously the volunteer chair of a WiscNet working group, and I have presented at their conferences. I generally have a positive view of WiscNet, for reasons described below.

Why am I opposed to this?

First, it smacks of corporate graft. Dismantling a cooperative organization which provides a valuable service to its members at a lower price than is available from private vendors doesn't make any sense, unless you are one of the private vendors who wants to get paid more. And believe me, they will get paid more. And they hate not getting the business. (In a previous E-rate bid, a vendor whose closest office is 150 miles away specified hardware requirements that would have cost us about $10,000 to implement. When they didn't get the bid because their initial and ongoing costs were way higher than WiscNet, for lower bandwidth, they filed a complaint against us and eventually got our E-rate funding taken away on a paperwork technicality. WiscNet, on the other hand, freely recommended a corporate vendor when it met our needs better than WiscNet could. Now tell me, which one has our best interests in mind?)

Second, it is logically inconsistent with the idea of reducing costs. For comparison, consider another budget repair item- the requirement for educators to pay more for their insurance and retirement benefits. I'm going to get paid less next year because I, like all educators in Wisconsin, will be required to pay more toward our health insurance and retirement, while taking a freeze in pay. I'm not a huge fan of this. However, it is at least logically consistent with the stated intent of saving money. I know that the district for which I work will be able to balance its budget in part because it will save money since we employees are paying more of our income for our benefits. So, even though I dislike it, it is logical.

Disbanding WiscNet in order to save money, though, it logically inconsistent. The initial savings to the state budget's bottom line will be dwarfed by the higher aggregate costs for each WiscNet member (school districts, libraries, technical colleges, and universities) to negotiate individually with a vendor. Trust me- I've costed these out with vendor proposals. The cost will then be passed along to taxpayers. Either that, or the Internet access services for students, library patrons, and educators will be reduced. Broadband Internet access enables the jobs we want to provide: high-tech, growth-oriented, and high-paying. Making it harder to get this access, while raising the cost for taxpayers, hurts everybody except the corporate shareholders.

Finally, it has no relevance to the UW System proposition. It just doesn't. How does legally limiting what UW-Madison can do give UW-Madison more flexibility? It doesn't. In fact, it's the OPPOSITE.

Because of this, I urge all Wisconsin taxpayers to contact your representatives to ask them to remove sections 23-26 from the UW Omnibus Bill. More resources are available at http://www.wiscnet.net/welcome-to-wiscnets-website and http://www.ijohnpederson.com/2011/06/im-going-to-need-all-of-you/

20 Years of Linux

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 02:21:00 +0000

My wife found this on the GeekMom blog and shared it with me. It's a great, simple introduction to Linux for those who have maybe heard of it but don't really know what it is.

The Post-School Era- Are we there?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:49:00 +0000

Recent events in Wisconsin have accelerated the pace of change of education in the state. For years, we've been saying "Education must change to survive." I'm not sure everyone was convinced of that, especially those of us inside the educational establishment of K-12 public schools. We have historically been somewhat insulated from market forces. Enter Governor Scott Walker and his budget repair bill. This may not have been the way we wanted the change to occur, but it certainly has forced us to meet the challenge head-on of staying relevant and competitive.

As Clayton Christensen predicted, the disrupting change cannot come from the established system, for the system always seeks to preserve itself.

Governor Walker's initiatives include the following:

Lifting enrollment caps on charter schools
Allowing open enrollment to happen basically year-round
Allowing any UW 4-year university to open as many charter schools as they want
Charter school teachers need not be licensed teachers- anyone with a bachelor's degree can be a teacher
State aid cuts to districts

When I thought about the combined effect of these initiatives, a phrase came to my mind: "the post-school era." (I think it's original. Maybe not.) The point is, the ability to create an unlimited number of charter schools, which can draw an unlimited number of students from anywhere in the state, at any time, and being able to hire anybody with a bachelor's degree to teach them, means that students and parents will be free to move at will to whatever "school" they like best.

When I think about the online schools that exist, with their comparatively miniscule facility budgets, the ability for each teacher to have 50+ students, and the lack of transportation costs, it means that online charter schools will be able to deliver instruction at drastically cheaper rates than brick and mortar public schools. So, no need for public schools, right?

Well, not quite.

One important distinction between traditional K-12 schools and our online counterparts is the custodial function of K-12 schools. Much of the instructional function can be digitized and delivered online, asynchronously, but K-12 schools still have a custodial responsibility to care for children while their parents work. I think that in the past, we have seen this as a "degredation" of our profession, as if parents think we are primarily babysitters who happen to teach kids some stuff. (This feeling is reinforced whenever we call a snow day that parents think we shouldn't have called.)

I propose that we focus on our custodial function as a strength that we can use to market ourselves. In an era when education can be provided easily without a physical school building, we will be hard pressed to compete with virtual charter schools who can hire anybody with a bachelor's degree to deliver canned content online. However, they cannot supervise students or take care of their physical needs online. Our facilities and qualified staff, which are our greatest expenses, must also be our greatest assets.

If we are successful, we will excel and families will flock to us. If we are not, then we may very well usher in a post-school era.

What happens when the rest of the world gets online?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:58:00 +0000

Matt Barrie, boss of Freelancer.com, said: "About 70 per cent of the world's population have never been online, and most of those people earn less than £5 a day. When these five billion people come online what will that do for wage inflation?"

Sounds like we'll all need to become Linchpins.

The Parent Movement to Reform Schooling #pbtsn11

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:50:00 +0000

At Will Richardson's Educon 2.3 session, he asked:

Can we leverage the networks that we currently have to bring 10,000 (or more) parents together across the country next fall to hold a real conversation about education and change?

Have an idea? Share your ideas on an evolving Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=17JAvqo_ImHfoUh8b1GtrAQ3JK8bYgj8YfKmqDKH6sPU

#pbtsn11

Creativity and Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:16:00 +0000

After listening to Sir Ken Robinson's speech at the WASB conference yesterday, several of us had an interesting discussion about the tension between standards and creativity. (Important note: I'm talking about student creativity, not teacher creativity, though that was also mentioned.)

All three keynote speakers at the conference- Dr. Yong Zhao, Jeannette Walls, and Sir Ken Robinson - asserted that our students need to be creative to be successful in the future. Ken Robinson specifically stated that it is possible to teach students how to be creative using a systematic approach. This is counter to the myth that "some people" are born creative and the rest of us are not. He also cautioned us against confusing "standards" with "standardization."

Naomi Harm, who was in the audience, posted some relevant resources on Twitter during the speech, including a rubric for creativity.

These rubrics are part of the free online course "Intel Teach Elements: Assessment in the 21st Century Classroom" at http://www.intel.com/education/video/assess/content.htm

I would highly recommend that anyone interested in pursuing "creativity education" or assessment of 21st Century Skills work their way through the Intel classes. There are brief online modules, as well as the option to enroll in DPI-sponsored workshops.

I think it will be very important to consider how we assess and deliberately teach creativity so that our "laser-like" focus on student achievement does not have the unintended consequence of emphasizing math and language arts to the extent that it reduces or eliminates other subject areas or experiences which are vital to engage students in creative pursuits. Not that you cannot be creative in math, language arts, or anything else. Sir Ken specifically refutes that myth, as well. But with our limited time and our results-oriented mindset, I fear we may slide toward using test results as an overly-important indicator of "achievement" in the limited areas in which we are evaluated.

Apple has broken up with schools, and that's good for Education

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:56:00 +0000

Apple has broken up with schools.

If this surprises you, then ask yourself how long it has been since Apple released a product that was clearly designed for the school market, such as the eMate. For that matter, it has been years since there was even a distinct product line for education such as the eMac. All Apple's products fall into the category of consumer electronics now.

Need more proof? More recently, the closing of the Apple Learning Interchange and the discontinuation of the XServe hardware line are clear signs that the long love affair between Apple and schools is over. Even these notices read like "Dear John" letters- "We'll still keep supporting the XServe" is the equivalent of "we can still be friends."

While disappointing for schools, this could be a very good thing for education.

Why the breakup? Simply put, there's not much money in education these days. Back in the 90s, and even in the early 00s, education was Apple's bread and butter. It was also perceived that Apple's long-term success depended upon getting a foothold in the enterprise market. XServe was an attempt to do that. However, Apple never had a big footprint in the enterprise, so it was primarily the education sector and media production companies that bought XServes. Virtualization and datacenter management started a race to the bottom for enterprise hardware anyway, so even stalwarts like HP and Dell had to find ways to stay competitive.

(Ironically, HP and Dell are expanding into the education market at the same time that Apple is leaving. In fact, HP and Dell are now ramping up their education-specific hardware packages and even bundling professional development with the purchase of hardware. Dell is recruiting educators to go on the road and present their educational offerings to schools.)

Why are Dell and HP getting into education just as Apple is leaving? Mainly because Dell and HP don't have a iPod-killer to make zillions of dollars like Apple does. Enterprise spending is flat and margins are thin. Education is their only place to go.

Although the education sector may feel jilted by Apple (indeed, it was pretty much the faithful dedication of the adoring education market that kept Apple alive during the 90s), this may actually be a good thing for education in the long run.

Why? Because Apple is focusing on personalized electronics. More than just consumer electronics, they are making devices for each individual person, customizable to the unique personality and needs of the individual.

Not only is this a good example for education, but schools are now being forced to cope with highly personalized, un-managed, decentralized iPads and iPods. Instead of putting all their money and effort into providing, managing, and standardizing fleets of Macs, schools can now take advantage of students bringing their own devices to school and using them to customize learning.

The way Apple has given up on standardized, batch-processed, centrally-managed electronics is an example for education. The batch processing, standardized model of education is dying. The new era is individualized, customized learning according to the unique needs of every student.

Playing to Learn Math

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:07:00 +0000

This is a really good analysis of how students learn in games, and how we could teach Algebra in a similar way.

Playing to Learn Math? on Prezi

Airfoil

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:10:00 +0000

Here is a recent comic from XKCD.com.

It makes me wonder how our teachers respond to students who ask insightful questions?
And more convictingly, it makes me reflect on how I respond to teachers who ask insightful questions.

Source: http://xkcd.com/803/

Top ten list: Things to consider when moving toward Web 2.0, open source, and free software

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 02:27:00 +0000

Here is my basic list of advice for other district leaders when approaching the whole topic of Web 2.0, open source, and free software.

1. Know the difference between "Web 2.0," "open source," and "free" software.
2. Don't assume that anybody else knows the difference between those.
3. Continually ask yourself, "What are we really trying to accomplish with this tool/software/etc.?"
4. Educate your bosses- bring them to SLATE, WEMTA/FTC, T+L, or ISTE conferences.
5. Be pragmatic, not zealous. People will believe you more if you are realistic about limitations.
6. Think about the support model!
7. Convince people by having them state their fears. Honor them, then use force-field analysis, implication wheels, and other Thinkertoys to move ahead.
8. Don't get trapped by "all or nothing" thinking. Hybrid models tend to work best.
9. Ease restrictions to see what the customers want, then let that guide your plans.
10. Choose the simplest solution.

Inbox Zero... So what's next?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:39:00 +0000

So you've achieved the mythical "Inbox Zero." Congratulations! So, "What now?" you may be asking yourself. Here are some suggestions:

Don't obsess over keeping it at zero. That's completely not the point. Let your inbox grow, then deal with it all at once.
Unsubscribe from as many email lists as you can.
Use the "Gmail +" trick to track who is distributing your address.
Schedule your email time- deal with a whole bunch at once, instead of as they arrive.
Turn off your email notifications so new messages don't interrupt your work.

Enjoy your newly found free time!

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:37:00 +0000

If you don't have time to read DRIVE by Daniel Pink, watch this video.

I wonder how this applies to schools, which seem to be trying to emulate the very business practices that Pink says are no longer relevant for work other than repetitive processes.

Case in point: merit pay, which flies in the face of Pink's research on compensation and motivation. In some ways, it seems like schools are perfectly set up for this: teachers are not given financial rewards for the success of their students, and almost all teachers entered the field hoping to "make a difference" or because they felt "called." This correlates with the "sense of purpose" that Pink describes.

According to Kevin Carey, education policy analyst for The American Prospect, teachers must actually relinquish some of their autonomy in order to attain the status of professionals. Is this in conflict with Pink's ideas, or does it complement it?

In addition, teachers have a tremendous amount of autonomy in their daily work.(1) Though it is becoming less so due to NCLB and a variety of other factors, it remains largely autonomous. Is it reasonable to expect us to INCREASE teacher autonomy, though it may decrease professionalism? Would Pink even advocate for such a practice, given the highly autonomous nature of the teaching profession?

Teachers enter the profession with a strong sense of moral purpose.(2) However, they tend to lose this over time, resulting in low morale, loss of professionalism, and leaving the profession.(3)

It seems that schools already have in place the three crucial components Pink describes: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. So, how can we maintain teachers' moral purpose, or re-ignite it among those who have lost it? How can we support the "loose-tight" school culture described by DuFour while providing the necessary autonomy to motivate teachers?

Sources:

Source: Teachers College Record Volume 91 Number 4, 1990, p. 509-536
Kate Eliza O'Connor, 'You choose to care': Teachers, emotions and professional identity, Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 24, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 117-126.
Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199-211.

The Collapse of Complex Education Models

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:06:00 +0000

I finally got around to reading Clay Shirky's blog The Collapse of Complex Business Models (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex-business-models/ ) and, as usual, I see some dire warnings for public education.

The following portion has, in my opinion, particular ramifications to public education:

In 1988, Joseph Tainter wrote a chilling book called The Collapse of Complex Societies. Tainter looked at several societies that gradually arrived at a level of remarkable sophistication then suddenly collapsed: the Romans, the Lowlands Maya, the inhabitants of Chaco canyon. Every one of those groups had rich traditions, complex social structures, advanced technology, but despite their sophistication, they collapsed, impoverishing and scattering their citizens and leaving little but future archeological sites as evidence of previous greatness. Tainter asked himself whether there was some explanation common to these sudden dissolutions.

The answer he arrived at was that they hadn’t collapsed despite their cultural sophistication, they’d collapsed because of it. Subject to violent compression, Tainter’s story goes like this: a group of people, through a combination of social organization and environmental luck, finds itself with a surplus of resources. Managing this surplus makes society more complex—agriculture rewards mathematical skill, granaries require new forms of construction, and so on.

Early on, the marginal value of this complexity is positive—each additional bit of complexity more than pays for itself in improved output—but over time, the law of diminishing returns reduces the marginal value, until it disappears completely. At this point, any additional complexity is pure cost.

Tainter’s thesis is that when society’s elite members add one layer of bureaucracy or demand one tribute too many, they end up extracting all the value from their environment it is possible to extract and then some.

The ‘and them some’ is what causes the trouble. Complex societies collapse because, when some stress comes, those societies have become too inflexible to respond. In retrospect, this can seem mystifying. Why didn’t these societies just re-tool in less complex ways? The answer Tainter gives is the simplest one: When societies fail to respond to reduced circumstances through orderly downsizing, it isn’t because they don’t want to, it’s because they can’t.

In such systems, there is no way to make things a little bit simpler – the whole edifice becomes a huge, interlocking system not readily amenable to change. Tainter doesn’t regard the sudden decoherence of these societies as either a tragedy or a mistake—”[U]nder a situation of declining marginal returns collapse may be the most appropriate response”, to use his pitiless phrase. Furthermore, even when moderate adjustments could be made, they tend to be resisted, because any simplification discomfits elites.

As Clayton Christensen and others have pointed out, public education in the US has been given four major imperatives throughout its history.

Preserve the Democracy and Inculcate Democratic Values
Provide Something for Every Student
Keep America Competitive
Eliminate Poverty

The latest one, to eliminate poverty, is embodied in the infamous NCLB legislation.

As I look at the history of public education in the US, I see the law of diminishing returns. The first era required modest resources and didn't upset much of society, but in return it produced an educated ruling class (albeit of white, privileged males). The second era provided vocational training to everyone. It required more resources to teach so many students, but it resulted in the huge benefit of a literate population, which is largely to thank for the economic agility and prosperity of the 19th century United States. The third era required even more resources, as it sought to not only sustain the previous two imperatives, but to also develop science, engineering, and technology leaders to bring American back to preeminence in the industrialized world.

The fourth imperative, added on top of the others, is to improve the achievement scores of every child, not just the average scores. This is where the law of diminishing returns really kicks in. Moving the average up is much easier than moving all of the scores up. This is why some AYP consultants suggest that schools identify the students who are just barely under the threshold of meeting the standards, and focus on improving their scores, while basically ignoring those who already meet the standards, or are "too far below" to help.

(A brief analogy for those of you who are not teachers: think about your home's electricity. You probably have electricity 99.9% of the year, which means you are without electricity for around eight hours and forty-five minutes. If you want to guarantee yourself 99.99% access to electricity, it's going to cost you a lot of money. You may need to purchase a gas-powered generator, or connect to a redundant power grid, or install solar panels attached to a battery, or equip your house with battery backups. All that, just to guarantee an additional seven hours per year of electricity. If you want even better (99.999% uptime), then you may have to implement ALL of the above, at a huge cost, to guarantee that you have power for all but five minutes of the year. And that's still not a guarantee that you will reach 100%.)

I see us about to embark on a fifth imperative, brought on by two forces: the legislation mandating Response to Intervention (RtI), and the customer demand for individual learning plans. RtI is a great idea, and is much needed. In fact, it can reduce special education costs since it intervenes to help students with classroom strategies instead of waiting for students to fail before giving them assistance (in special education programs). However, it is another level of complexity, which requires large expenditures in teacher training, data analysis, and intervention support. (Note that I'm not criticizing RtI, because I do think it is valuable and effective, but am merely pointing out that it is another level of complexity built upon the rest of the educational delivery model.)

Now add individualized learning, which is a worthy goal of many educational institutions and for-profit businesses. The organizational complexity and costs of implementation are staggering. How do we track the learning of each individual student? How do we group students? According to age? According to ability in a certain area? According to social skills? Some mixture of them? If we do group differently than status quo, then how do we resolve the conflicts created by the complex structures underlying them, such as transportation, class size, lunch and recess schedules, summer vacation, promotion to the next "grade level" only at the end of the year? Teacher certification based on the "grade level" of the student?

Even if one school, or one school district, does succeed in changing some (or all) of these underlying complexities, it will receive enormous pressure to conform to neighboring districts. Vacation schedules, bus routes, and athletic schedules create dependencies between districts and local businesses. For example, I once worked at a high school in which we tried starting classes at 10 AM, based on brain research of teenagers. It only lasted for one semester. The problem? Classes had to last until 5 PM, which meant our school's athletics schedule was incompatible with all the other schools in our conference. We changed to an 8 AM start time so that our athletics teams could compete with others.

Another example of this pressure is the Wisconsin law prohibiting schools from starting before September 1, and the Minnesota law prohibiting schools from starting before Labor Day. The reason? Both states' economies rely heavily on tourism. A huge portion of tourist income is made in water parks, which need lots of cheap labor (i.e., students) in the summer to keep them running. In addition, Labor Day is one of the biggest vacation times of the year. If school starts before that, not only to waterparks and other tourist attractions lose their labor force, but families don't travel.

All these factors provide an example of the complexities involved. When faced with such daunting, and seemingly insurmountable complexities, my natural instinct is to say, "We should just start over from scratch." Unfortunately, that's hardly practical, unless you convince everyone else to do the same. And even if one could convince everyone else to do the same, there are federal mandates, state legislatures, and various bureaucracies involved, each of which is self-sustaining. As Shirky points out:

There is... one element of complex society into which neither markets nor democracy reach—bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies temporarily suspend the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In a bureaucracy, it’s easier to make a process more complex than to make it simpler, and easier to create a new burden than kill an old one.

This leads me to the conclusion that American public education, as bureaucracy-dependent as it is, will not, of its own volition, simplify. It may be that, as Tainter says, "[U]nder a situation of declining marginal returns collapse may be the most appropriate response."

My glimmer of hope is that many of the complexities schools face involve the moving of physical objects (students, staff, and materials), which technology is well-suited to streamline. The bureaucratic inertia is still there, as is the institutional peer pressure, but if enough customers (parents) are able to find individualized learning at a less expensive rate (or in a simpler fashion), these forces may realize they also need to reorganize in order to survive. Either individualized learning will become less expensive and simpler, thanks to advances in technology, or the whole system will collapse.

Schools: the new market for Counter Terror Electronic Warfare

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 18 May 2010 03:01:00 +0000

ijohnpederson provoked my thinking with this:

We've all had the conversation in our heads about, "What happens students bring their own device into school?" In the next few years this conversation will morph into, "What happens when students bring their own networks into school?" Just when you begin to understand the "whack a mole" of managing filtering proxy bypasses, now you have a new element of connectivity to work with that's technically completely out of your control.

"What about CIPA?" Well, yeah. Think beyond that though. The student today that's the "source" for the latest filter bypass proxy site is the one that's carrying this device next school year. What's the plan when there are 5 students carrying these things? What happens when students have the "option" of choosing which networks they use to get to the Internet?

I have no answers. Just thoughts, questions, and concerns.

Here's my response- a little thought experiment that assumes that:
1) There is no appropriate academic application of student-owned electronic devices, and
2) Schools are responsible for blocking (rather than educating) students from accessing content on their own devices using their own networks (as in your example).

1. Obviously, the first step schools would take is to make a rule prohibiting such devices. In my experience, simply making a rule banning devices does not work. They are too easy to hide, and many staff don't want to enforce it.

2. When simple enforcement doesn't work, people often seek a technical solution to prevent usage. The one that comes to mind is to make students walk through metal detectors or body scanners to find prohibited materials, like some schools do now to enforce the prohibitions on weapons in schools.

But parents might object to their kids going through body scanners, and metal detectors ruin the aesthetic appeal of the school.

3. So instead of just detecting devices, you could destroy them- install door frames with strong electromagnets in them. Any electronic device going through gets fried. Staff could use separate doorways, or use their ID card to temporarily deactivate the electromagnets.

This should work pretty effectively to fry those wifi routers smuggled in backpacks, at least until students build Faraday cages for their devices. So then you are left with the option to...

4. Block all signals using "Counter Terror Electronic Warfare" technology. Netline, an Israeli company, has a variety of great products to block cell phones, WiFi, etc.

The company claims their equipment is "perfect for

Military units

Bomb squads

SWAT teams

Anti – terror units

Police forces

Anti-drug units

Riot-control units

Prison authorities"

While it doesn't specifically say "schools," I think it would still work.

Or you could just let students access Facebook. Oh, the horror!

Jon

Is Viacom becoming a lawsuit company instead of a TV company?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 07 May 2010 03:17:00 +0000

Cory Doctorow posted an interesting analysis of "lawsuit for profit" techniques in his article "Viacom v YouTube is a microcosm of the entertainment industry." These types of lawsuits really irk me. It used to be mostly patent trolls who would actively stifle innovation by filing suit against companies actually doing something will new technologies, but the practice has recently been embraced by larger companies, such as Verizon vs. Vonage.

(In case you aren't familiar, Verizon sued Vonage for allegedly using Verizon's intellectual property of VoIP, even though Verizon wasn't using it, and wasn't going to. They basically just extracted tons of money out of Vonage for something that they wanted to kill.)

Now it's even worse- making money by suing YouTube for showing your content. It's especially bad when you consider that a different arm of the company is responsible for putting it there in the first place.

Introducing the iSmartTablePad

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:36:00 +0000

Do you want to buy a SmartTable or a Microsoft Surface Table, but don't have $8,000 - $10,000 to spare? Here's a revolutionary new device that offers increased functionality and flexibility for only a fraction of the price!

Introducing the iSmartTablePad!

The revolutionary iSmartTablePad (iSTP) top view.

The iSmartTablePad (or iSTP) is a revolutionary new device which brings the technology of the SmartTable or Microsoft Surface to the masses at an affordable price.

Pricing
The iSTP is competitively priced at only $505.99. How do we do it? We reduce costly manufacturing and distribution costs with our unique and easy self-assembly process. There are only three parts:

Apple iPad ($499)
Duct tape ($6.99)
Base unit (price varies depending on model)

Easy three step assembly
1. Create a loop of duct tape and place on back of iPad computing surface.
2. Press iPad firmly against top of base unit.
3. There is no step 3.

Functional design

Pictured with deluxe recyclable base in "Computer Vintage" motif.

The base is made out of eco-friendly, 100% recyclable materials and is available in a variety of sizes and styles to match any decor. Pictured here is a vintage "Computer Forms" box. Its functional aesthetic conveys the high-tech nature of this device. The table is the perfect size for the touch screen surface, allowing students to still rest their elbows or sippy cups around the edge. The height of this stand allows pre-K children to stand or sit comfortably around the touch surface. A wide variety of bases and stands is available through third party manufacturers.

Safety
The base is still filled with vintage green-bar computer paper, which provides a stable base to prevent tipping, and enough weight to reduce accidental movement of the iSmartTablePad. The smooth corrugated base provides just enough friction to hold it in place on most classroom floor surfaces, but is easily movable by an adult.

Security
To prevent theft or loss, the computing surface can be removed and stored in a locked location. There are a variety of third-party vendors who offer locking bases which allow you to store the computing surface right in locking station.

Portability
Portability is a huge benefit to cash-strapped school districts. Because the iSmartTablePad can be moved easily between rooms, it is not necessary to purchase a separate $8,000-$10,000 SmartTable or MS Surface Table for each room.

The iSmartTablePad Portable Cart (sold separately)

Portability is not just about cost savings, though- it's about improving student learning. No longer do you have to buy a 1,000 yard extension cord to take the computing power of the SmartTable outside. With the iSTP, you can actually bring the computing power with you!

If you plan to use multiple iSmartTablePads, you can utilize our handy iSmartTablePad Cart, which can contain and transport up to fifteen iSmartTablePad surface devices.

Availability
The iSTP components are available now from the Apple Store, Staples, and cardboard recycling dumpsters near you.

Calling the iPad a "productivity tool" is like calling the iPod a musical instrument

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:26:00 +0000

Buying an iPad and calling it a productivity tool is like buying an iPod and calling it a musical instrument.

Don't get me wrong, I like the iPad. But I like it in the same way that I like those cool new 3D LED flat TVs. They are both cool ways to entertain me.

There is a reason why they are called "consumer devices"- because they are built for consuming media, not producing it. And the iPad is wonderfully designed for consumption of digital media. That's why it comes with a really awesome screen, but very few input ports. I remember an adage from my childhood about people having two ears and one mouth because we should listen twice as much as we speak. Apply this logic to the iPad: It has a great screen, built-in speakers, headphone jack, and wifi, all of which are great for consuming media. Its input devices are just the screen, which has a mediocre virtual keyboard, and an optional Bluetooth keyboard. No camera, USB ports, FireWire ports, etc. Basically, it's all output, and no input. Great for consumption, not for creation.

Ironically, the iPad fits nicely with the traditional schooling model, in which students are seen as merely recipients of information (consumers). Putting all student textbooks and other resources on an iPad is a lot more attractive than lugging around textbooks.

This doesn't mean I'm giving up on it as a student-use tool. Back in 2007 I wrote about my hopes for using the iPod Touch as a student computer. The two main things the iPod Touch lacked are now available for the iPad: VGA output and an external keyboard. (I haven't tried them yet, and I probably won't until Google Apps has an iPad-optimized version of Google Docs, which is the only thing I use for word processing anymore.) Once software development progresses, there is hope that the iPad could become more capable of content creation than it is now.

While the iPad is not (yet) a replacement for a regular computer (I'm writing this on a notebook, the iPad sitting closed on my desk), it could still be the new face of computing. Its low price makes it attractive for what Clayton Christensen calls "non-consumers." The mediocre keyboard could be "good enough" to make it a hot seller among people who don't want to spring for a more expensive computer. Face it- computers have evolved into entertainment devices. The only thing holding them back has been that they don't look nice in living rooms, and they aren't as intuitive as cable TV.

Although the iPad is not a true "disruptive innovation," because it really is not new technology at all, just a nice packaging of existing technologies, it is a great example of Daniel Pink's assertion of the importance of good design. You can do everything the iPad can do on a cheap Dell tower (well, except walk around with it). So why did 300,000 people buy and iPad in one day? Design. Really good design.

So, if you want a really good Kindle replacement that does a whole bunch more stuff, buy an iPad. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that it's going to make you more productive.

Flash is not a deal-breaker for the iPad

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:38:00 +0000

I started writing a response to David's comment on my previous iPad post, but it got long enough to make into its own post. I don't really have a response about the iPad's lack of a camera. I don't use mine very often, so for me it's not a big deal. But that's my personal preference. As for Flash, Andy Ihnatko described it as follows during his Brainstorm keynote:

"Flash is a pig with wings on roller skates in outer space, greased up, chased by three drunk guys. That's how bad Flash is."

I tend to agree. Flash was never designed for video, it just happened to become the de facto standard because it was convenient for YouTube, not because it's technically superior. Andy shared that disabling Flash on his Windows and Mac machines drastically reduced computer problems that appeared to be software conflicts. I can't testify to that myself, but I also dislike Flash. I strongly prefer either Quicktime or Silverlight because they are simply better video. Other than that, Flash is basically just for annoying popup ads (IMHO).

Apple is using its leverage to kill Flash. Although you may see it as a huge deal, or that Apple is unfairly using strongarm tactics to kill competition, I disagree simply because Apple has never supported Flash on the iPhone or iPod. If Flash were that big a deal, people wouldn't buy the iPhone. There is still a market pressure, and Apple is about making money. If they were going to lose money because sales shifted to a Flash-supporting device, they would change. But it's not happening.

Another factor is HTML5. Getting rid of the non-standard "embed" tag and making video a simple inclusion in multiple formats will actually open the market to various options. There is a little bit of movement this way, but Apple is pushing the issue.

The fact that most large Flash-based websites have separate non-Flash versions for iPhone shows two things. First, that it is possible to create decent websites, especially for mobile devices, without Flash. (In fact, it's probably better, since Flash doesn't flexibly re-render well, and it requires the whole object to be loaded first.) Secondly, it shows that web designers (even YouTube) realize that there is a big enough market that they have to cater to it. In effect, this is a vote for the iPhone OS in spite of the lack of Flash support. Would people like to have Flash on the iPhone? Sure. But obviously it's not a big enough deal to make them switch. Apple has calculated the risk and knows that they have a "good enough" product without Flash to force content providers to use alternatives.

So, even though people say the iPad will fail because it lacks Flash (and a camera, and USB ports, etc.) I think they are the same people who said the iPhone would be a colossal flop because it lacked a keyboard. I think Apple knows what it's doing. People will buy it. And not just because they are mindless fanboys (thought that will certainly sell quite a few), but because Apple knows design.

Why the iPad is the new face of computing

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:52:00 +0000

The iPad is the new face of the computer.

I didn't think this a month ago. That was before I heard Andy Inatkho explain how every perceived shortcoming is actually a feature, and before I read the following in Linus Torvalds' biography:

In fact, nobody even wants a computer. What everybody wants is this magical toy that can be used to browse the Web, write term papers, play games, balance the checkbook, and so on. The fact that you need a computer and an operating system to do all this is something that most people would rather not think about.

-Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) in 2000, in the book Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary

These are shocking words from somebody whose major life work is developing an operating system he wrote basically from scratch. The fact that he wrote it in 2000, before the iPod (yes, iPod, with an "o") even existed is downright scary.

This supports what Andy Inatkho said about the iPad at his keynote speech at Brainstorm 11. Basically, he went through all the "shortcomings" that iPad critics listed, and debunked them by showing how the iPad accomplishes the true need in a better, more elegant way. For example, the lack of an accessible file structure is a huge complaint. Andy approached this gripe like a psychologist by asking, "Why do you need access to the folder structure?" He listed the probable responses like "So we can move files around and open them, and launch applications" and then explained how the iPad has better ways of doing this.

Andy's contention is that the iPad is the first really new re-imagining of the computer since the iMac. The iMac, of course, was predicted to be a total failure because it didn't have a floppy drive, and relied on this useless thing called USB for keyboard and mouse connections. Everybody knew that "real" computers needed floppy drives and PS/2 ports. The iPad is predicted to be a failure because it lacks USB ports, a physical keyboard, Flash support, and a folder structure. But if you look at why we really use those, it's not because they themselves are terribly important, but simply because they are the status quo method of providing something else that people want.

And what people want, according to Linus Torvalds, is a "magical" toy that provides entertainment and some basic useful functions. Can it really be coincidence that Apple itself calls the iPad "magical" in it's marketing?

EeePC status, two years in

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:04:00 +0000

I recently got an email from a colleague in another district asking how our EeePC netbook implementation was going. Since I haven't updated in a while, and people somehow actually stumble across this blog when looking for information on EeePCs, I figured I would post my impressions of our current status.

My impression is that our EeePC program is a success. Our middle school has about 65 of these, and they have actually been quite resilient, which is surprising considering the amount of abuse and vandalism that normally occurs at the middle school. The teachers seem to think they are working, because they had 33 of them in the 2008-2009 school year, and they chose to spend hardware funds (and in come cases department budgets) to double the number for this year.

The key to keeping them in good shape, we have found, is having a person who takes ownership of them (in our case, a Tech EA who is in charge of checkouts), and a good "custody chain," meaning the Tech EA puts the fear of God into the teachers who check them out (along with very clear expectations for how they are to be treated, tracked, and returned), and the teachers in turn enforce those expectations with their students.

The result of this is that the three units that have stopped working have all been from other schools. One at the high school broke because somebody left a USB drive on the keyboard and tried to close it, resulting in a cracked screen. The others were failures of the mouse button at an elementary school. One was covered under the one year warranty. The other was past the one year warranty mark, so we kept it for parts.

The main problems we have had:

Some models of EeePCs (4G and 4G Surf, that we know of) have a known issue in which their wireless settings default back to "manual" instead of "on boot," and to "Channel 11" instead of "All Available Channels." There is a system update which fixes this, but that leads to problem #2...
We have no management system in place for these. We never intended for there to be- they were to be niche devices with no upgrades or software installation. I guess I was short-sighted. Anyway, it now requires that we touch each unit to install the system update to fix the wireless problem.
I screwed up when ordering the EeePC 900A units, and they came with only a 4GB drive, which will fill up if you have automatic updates enabled (which is the default setting- argh!). So, before they connect to the network, you have to turn off automatic updates. This means no automatic patches, so then we revisit problem #2.
User perceptions. We have had a few teachers who requested these, thinking that they would have a CD-ROM drive and be able to run SmartBoard software. So, communication failure on my part. Users who understand the limitations and niche applications of them are generally pleased.
Small keyboards result in some bad key placement. I have large hands (I can palm a basketball) and I can touch type on them with some effort, except for the right Shift key, which is shrunk to half size, and the backspace key, also shrunk to half size.

In my opinion, if you set expectations clearly and have somebody take ownership of them, they work well in the niches for which they are designed.

Your mileage may vary.

MasStore pilot presentation at Brainstorm

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:24:00 +0000

Doug Baker, a member of the OSD IT staff, and Andy Bernstein of WiscNet, recently co-authored and delivered a presentation at "Brainstorm 11.0," a conference for technology workers in K-12 schools in the Midwest which drew around 500 attendees this year. Their presentation was titled: "MasStore: A Solution to Offsite Storage and Disaster Recovery." Doug described Oregon's experience as part of the MasStore pilot, which has the goal to implement offsite, network-accessible data backups on a huge disk array in Milwaukee. In addition, Doug presented the test results of several different protocols (iSCSI, CIFS, NFS and FTP), the configuration options that he found successful, and recommended practices for other districts that may choose to implement this.

Andy described how the NetApp hardware and vFiler service works, provided theoretical throughput times, and identified further questions to be investigated.

Oregon participated in the pilot because it was a founding member of the Critical Data Backup and Recovery Working Group established in 2006. The MasStore project evolved out of the CDBR. MasStore has the potential to provide greater reliability, quicker recovery times, and lower cost thantraditional tape-based backup systems.

Other organizations which have begin piloting the program include UW-Green Bay, the city of Beloit, Waunakee School District, and UW System Administration.

If you are interested in the gory technical details, you can view Doug's presentation as a PDF at http://www.wiscnet.net/images/stories/brainstorm11_masstore.pdf or view the MasStore FAQ at http://www.wiscnet.net/masstore-network-storage/FAQ.html

Digital Nation- review and reflections

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:58:00 +0000

I was recently asked to comment on the PBS Frontline documentary Digital_Nation. Ironically, I watched the video while doing other work online, so I probably fell victim to the quality-reducing effect of multitasking that is explained in the video, but I apparently managed to pay enough "continuous, partial attention" to find the video interesting and thought provoking. I'm blogging my response as much to record my own thoughts as to solicit feedback from others.

In order for my thoughts below to make much sense, you should watch the video first.

I basically agree with the premises and conclusions of the video. The social and health implications of technology use are staggering.

On a personal note, this is why my kids have very strict screen-time limits: absolutely no screen time under two years old; no computer use until 4 years old; 18 minutes max per day on computer OR 25 minutes TV time. I think there is very little, if any, value for small children to use computers or watch TV.

And yet, I'm cautiously optimistic about the possibilities of technology.

The thing I keep running into is the inevitability of technology exposure, as Jason, the principal at IS 339 argued. It is a societal task- we ALL need to get to the point where we realize that we need quiet, thoughtful time without interruptions. Unfortunately, I think most of American society is based on a desire to avoid personal self-reflection. Heck, all advertising is based on the idea that there is something wrong with us that can only be solved by buying a product. To get really deep, I think it's essentially a psychological and spiritual deficit. We generally actively avoid self-reflection (which is what James Paul Gee said in the video).

(If you really want to hear me rant about how we, as a society, are making choices that are detrimental to our children because we want more stuff and don't want to face ourselves, you can read it here.)

The whole debate about our brain development and attention span depletion is nicely summarized and contrasted in two articles: "Is Google Making us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, and the rebuttal, "Is Stupid Making us Google?" by James Bowman. My take on it is that yes, our brains probably are being changed due to our exposure to technology and media, but that is what we would expect, and may actually be beneficial if we are going to spend our lives processing digital inputs. If we don't like this scenario, then the solution is to address the root causes, not the tools that we use to address them.

The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer has been on my shelf, partially read, for a couple of years. This video reminds me why I want to finish it. Marc Prensky's counter-argument to Oppenheimer in the video, that technology is simply the better, modern way to engage in learning, is decent, but needs to acknowledge the risk. The high engagement factor that technology provides, which makes it effective as a learning tool, also makes it a very tempting distraction, to the point of addiction (which I believe is real).

Second Life is interesting. I'm not convinced that it will be effective, but I could be wrong. I wrote about my doubts, and the possibility that I'm just too old for this stuff, in another blog entry.

In summary, I think I identify with Doug Rushkoff's summary statement, "I'm still a believer" because of the possibilities of technology. I also have a healthy dose of wary suspicion that we might be using technology more to avoid life than to enhance it. We need to be able to turn it off. But are we willing to?

What do you think?