IPOD BOOSTERS BUSTED

A reader reminded us of this story from last week.  As you may recall from the news, in the face of a nearly $700 million shortfall in the state government's budget, Democrats in the state House of Representatives were pushing for a $38 million spending increase for public schools to "promote educational technology", whatever that might mean.  Fortunately, State Rep. Matt Gillard, Democrat from Alpena and the new chairman of the House subcommittee for K-12 spending, told us:  An iPod for every student.  For those behind the tech curve, an iPod is a hand-held electronic device that plays digitally recorded music.  Allegedly it can also do things like displaying documents kids might use in their schoolwork.

Well, beyond denying children the pleasure of the aroma of freshly mimeographed hand-outs by electronically transmitting documents to them instead, there is the dubious prospect that iPods would be used for anything so useful as schoolwork.  (Yes, I know laser copiers replaced mimeograph machines long ago.  But my point stands.)  After all, paper hand-outs can only be replaced by electronic transmission once every student in a class always has his or her iPod available.  How often will that happen, especially in the zoos that pass for schools in many districts these days?  Furthermore, the case has yet to be made that calculators, laptops, and iPods do anything to improve education over blackboards, chalk, pen, and paper.

In fact, it would seem obvious that buying an iPod for every student is such a dumb idea, especially during a severe budget crunch, one wonders why Gillard and his colleagues, House Speaker Andy Dillon, Democrat from Redford Township, and State Rep. Tim Melton, Democrat from Auburn Hills, were thumping for this expenditure.  Well, folks, as it happened Apple Inc., the manufacturer of the iPod, gave Gillard, Dillon, and Melton a free trip out to its headquarters in California last month.  Lo and behold, upon returning home to the Winter-Water-Wonderland, the three amigos suddenly thought an iPod for every K-12 public school student was a nifty idea.

So much for politicians having political savvy, because Gillard, Dillon, and Melton reaped the whirlwind of public disgust with such a transparent and venal quid-pro-quo.  By the end of last week, Gillard axed the iPod proposal, and he and his comrades each reimbursed Apple $1,700 for the cost of the junket.  (Hey, don't think the Democrats are the only ones with their hands out for corporate goodies.  Apple paid over nine grand to entertain five Republican House members at its California headquarters a few years back when they were trying to get the contract to supply laptops to sixth graders.  In the end the Republicans stiffed Apple and went with Hewlett-Packard instead.)

Mike Flanagan, the state superintendent for public schools, was dismayed by the debacle.  He argued that the $38 million was an important expenditure, not to buy iPods but to get up and running the "21st Century Learning Environments" program.  Hmm.  Why is that not reassuring?  At least the iPods would have been real hardware.  A "learning environments" program sounds a lot like a toilet flushing, except that good money instead of a lot of crap disappears.  So maybe we should thank Gillard, Dillon, and Melton for their poorly concealed horse-trading.  It may have gone a long way to souring everyone on a $38 million expenditure that would have been a boondoggle however the money was spent to "promote educational technology".

Comments

[Steve Goulet]

Do you actually believe that promoting educational technology is a waste of tax payer money? Online learning and distance learning are already being used to reduce costs and improve results all over the country. Why not invest in an infrastructure that can take advantage of technology to create efficiencies?

[B Post]

As a former engineering educator of 15 years I'll step in and offer my opinion on educational technology. In most cases of my experience the technology and any benefits that might be involved are usually poorly understood by the people making the funding decisions. They have a vague notion that we should promote "high tech", and that if something is done with a computer it will be better. Take for example the investment by Rockford Public Schools maybe 10 years ago in a "state of the art" converged network that merged voice, data and video. To this day we still are not able to make these things work in the mainstream. Voice over IP is only beginning to take hold reliably. My point is that when something is billed "state of the art" to an engineer that means "risk". Rockford Public spent a lot of money up front and then had to hire another person full time for maintenance. They eventually scrapped the system. The last I heard they were also still having problems even getting teachers to implement something as basic as an online electronic gradebook.

The point is that there is a whole lot of "gee whiz" technology out there, but there is no firm evidence that implementing any of it actually promotes learning. Basic skills of word processing and spreadsheets I can see, but beyond that it's merely high tech toys. Distance learning can have its place, but it's a niche or special purpose technology at best. If we really want to look at how technology can promote learning, then do a limited funding for a study that can prove results. It's irresponsible to simply throw a huge bucket of money at a problem without first demonstrating a reasonable risk of success for that investment. As a taxpayer I believe that everyone must view all expenditures as an individual investment. And when you do that you realize that the next thing you want is that magic word: accountability.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

Do I really think "promoting educational technology" is a waste of money? I sure should do. Let me explain, because you taking that phrase to mean one thing, and I understand it to mean another (relying upon what the backers of the expenditure have said). Why do taxpayer dollars need to be spent on "promoting" technology? Either use it, teach it, or forget about it. Don't waste money on promoting it. That said, I'd be surprised if we disagree on that score.

Hi, Brian.

Thanks for the cautionary tale about Rockford's experience. I agree. Certainly our public schools should be teaching students how to use spreadsheet and word processing software, just like they taught me how to use a calculator and a typewriter when I was student back in the Stone Age. But just as calculators and typewriters were not tools of instruction in my day, I don't buy the idea that computers are needed for instruction today. That not to say that it never makes sense to use information technology in the classroom, but it's not critical to do so.

Regards, Bill

[beentheredonethat]

With the rate that technology is outdated, most districts can't afford to keep up with the changes. My kids did a power point at home only to find out that the computers at their school were unable to deal with it.

Have we had any update on how the six grade laptops have helped out kids with learning? No follow up done. According to reports, more than half are still reading below grade level. What happened to Bleke's goal of having all kids reading at grade level by 2007.

It's wonderful to implement a program, but if you don't have the resources to support it it's worthless.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Nancy.

You make an excellent point about the problem of upgrades. You also raise a good question about the laptops the state handed out a few years back. I'm unaware of any study reporting on their effectiveness.

Regards, Bill

[Tommy Times]

1. Books are still the #1 form of educational technology.
2. Word processing is a secondary technology. It doesn't help writers to organize thoughts or communicate more clearly.
3. Spreadsheets, calculators, and computers are a primary technology. They change what we can do in science and math. But that makes teaching and learning those subjects harder, not easier. The schools have not gotten very far at changing the way that science and math are taught to reflect the context of the new technology. It's not easy to do, and there is a lot of resistance from parents, teachers, and students.
4. Technology to do education, as opposed to education about technology, is not going to be as effective as human centered education. Online learning can be a good thing, especially as it allow kids in remote areas to take specialized classes. But the new high school requirement to take an online class, just to do it, not for any educational reason, is boneheaded.
5. ipods as a teaching tool? that is way down the list of priorities. They can be useful; I know people who listen to podcasts on software technology during their commute to work. And I know kids. Kids would not use pods this way.

[B Post]

In general I agree with what Tommy says above with a couple of clarifications:

1. Word processing actually can help writers organize their thoughts as long as the tool doesn't get in the way. It allows the opportunity to learn from doing re-writes that are otherwise cumbersome and nearly impossible if you had to re-type from scratch. This of course requires a teacher that is willing to focus on the subject of critical thinking and writing improvement for this to have any effect though.

2. Tommy is correct: spreadsheets can't teach math. But that's not what they're designed to do. Their strength in the classroom is in data analysis. This applies best in science classes where students are performing experiments where data is gathered. It can then be analyzed, graphed, and studied for trends. Experimental error and souces of error can then be determined or hypothesized. Once again this presupposes a teacher who is willing to focus on critical thinking rather than just assigning busy-work. If that criterion is not met then the technology is just a wasted expense...like it has been in far too many cases.

Just a side note on hardware and software update practices: I work at a local aerospace company and our hardware refresh rate seems to average about 5 years. Many of us are still using Office 97. Does this mean that we're out of date? No! It just means that we haven't identified any burning reason for any benefit that we would get out of an upgrade to justify the cost. So much for needing the "latest and greatest" that our school officials preach to create fear that our kids won't be competitive in the workplace.

[Tommy Times]

I agree with B Post, but I would also go a step farther, regarding spreadsheets. They don't just let you analyze and graph data. Calculators have done (at least analysis) for forty years. They (and other software) let you analyze much more data, and in ways not imagined by traditional statistics. Comparing this kind of data analysis to traditional lab work is like comparing building a skyscraper to building a house. The latter can be learned by doing. The former requires strong conceptual understanding and rigorous design, not 'hillbilly engineering'. That is what I mean when I say technology makes teaching math and science harder, not easier.