The Space Race

Hopefully you all know that iPads and laptops are two completely different spaces. 

Although there is some significant overlap in key areas such as media consumption on the internet, e-reading, social media, and even light word processing, in most cases the two classes of devices, in my opinion, should be viewed as totally different tools designed for completely different tasks.

Although many schools are reverse-engineering tech integrations (and a few are even doing post-mortems) it sounds like some tech directors have found themselves ahead of the curve (which you are as long as you can still provide viable input into the nature and trajectory of the rollout). So I hope they take advantage of it and discuss with their teachers the potential benefits and drawbacks of all devices under consideration. But they also must read between the lines of the teachers’ wants and dreams and apply their wisdom according to their needs, not necessarily your own as the tech director.

I’m often quick to say if I could only have one technology device, it would be my 11” MacBook Air. Hands down. No questions asked. Period. End of story. But that is because a significant amount of my work involves traditional office utility applications, email., digital video and uncompromised access into State computing systems.  However, if I were to truly integrate a piece of tech into the curriculum, or across a handful of curriculums, I might find that a laptop will encourage mundane or traditional educational outcomes. Or worse, just become a redundancy that’s mobile.

The iPad, when used effectively, can cause a change in the educational outcomes; a good one if used effectively, and a negative one if the iPad is forced into a laptop role. If your heart is set on traditional I/O computing, then nothing but a traditional computer will work. But if you are considering venturing outside the world of word-processing, presentations building, spreadsheets, website construction, code writing, and desktop publishing etc. then the iPad has tremendous merit.

As far as security, it is not just schools looking to harden the devices. In fact, collectively they are rather late on the scene. Tri-letter agencies like the NSA have guidelines for many OSs including iOS. Oddly, I don’t see any of the many flavors of Android listed, and as expected, Windows makes up the bulk of the spots on the list.

http://www.nsa.gov/ia/mitigation_guidance/security_configuration_guides/operating_systems.shtml

I think enough of the dust has settled on the tablet space to make informed decisions about their role in education, all grounded in realistic expectations of performance and impact. That also means we can be frank about the device and speak ill of it when it fails to function as advertised. I tried to express these feelings in words, which ended up in an essay, that ended up in a blog contest. The content of my contest blog post is my passionate plea for the perfect tablet for education, and is presented a blog post here titled "Great Technology Melts In Your Hands."

Great Technology Melts In Your Hands

Great technology melts in your hands

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-Arthur C. Clarke

As I watched the latest crop of tablet computers graduate from drawing board to Christmas list, I am again thrilled to have plenty of choices for use in education. But my standards are high. I expect nothing short of magic from my tablets. I expect them to become invisible. To disappear before my eyes. To melt in my hands.

You see the tablet is not important. It is what the tablet does that justifies its existence. Tablets are conduits to something else. To somewhere else. To anywhere else. The tablet is capable of doing so many things to such a small extent that if ever we successfully label a technology a tool, and really mean it, the tablet is a worthy recipient.

When a student uses a tablet to read, the experience must be immersive. No, really immersive. Like beyond the cliché. On the stage of education, the electronic device must never expect its role to be more than a supporting actor. To do its job well, the tablet must blend into the background silently serving up words while hoping desperately to be forgotten. And it must be really happy in that role. Just like when the physical book dissolves away the moment it gets good. Really good. Goosebumps good. You know what I mean.

Yet if the interface of a tablet requires hard touches, multiple swiping attempts and emits enough alerts, popups, hangs, hiccups and chirps to scare a horse, then the tablet is overshadowing the star of the show; biting the hand that feeds it content. You know the feeling. Like when a great thought is lost with the snap of pencil lead. Or when the crux of the plot is wedged between two stuck pages now holding hostage three hundred pages of priceless tension.

Watching students, and even my own kids devourer a foot-high stack of Harry Potter, I know they are different people afterwards. They have been to a place in their minds where the magic truly is real, and they want nothing more than to plow into another book, damn the big words, full speed ahead! Literacy can be a noun, but I prefer it as a verb. Literacy is an experience. A feeling of confidence. An acquired dimension that can never be taken away. 

The books, however, fare far worse; cover torn, pages bent, spine broken; the souvenir scars of a wonderful adventure that still brings a grin even when alone. But none of that matters if the book is more important than its words. And the same is true for a tablet. Neither is to be placed on a shelf and venerated as the next big thing. It is to be consumed. Used. Pushed. Threatened. Challenged. Loved.

The tablet as an e-reader is a portal to another land, another time. A beautiful place that has not gone unnoticed by non-profits who are delivering tablets by the thousands to sub-Saharan Africa where books made out of actual paper are unknown. Each pencil-thin rectangle of screen real estate is a world-class library filled with an ever-growing collective record of humanity. A record that is as much a birthright on this planet as food and water.

The perfect storm of technology and literacy empowers my students to go far beyond grade-appropriate childhood dreams. Students actually trust us to fulfill our promise of educating them better than any child before has been taught. And through technology, today they know more, they see more, they demand more. 

And at no time in human history have teachers had the tools to actually deliver on that promise.

©2012

Shiny Semantics: Why the Chromebook is not 121

I think first, we need to be on the same page with the overall topic since many 121 discussions bog down in semantics. Here are two definitions of one-to-one (121) computing. The first from the Center for Digital Education’s One-to-One Computing Handbook:

“One-to-one computing simply means "anytime, anywhere technology for every student.” http://media.centerdigitalgov.com/reg2view/K12_6_23.pdf

And the second from Wikipedia citing an Educational World article.

“One to One Computing in education refers to a computer for every student which is an initiative created by many companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Dell, HP, and Intel. One-to-one computing means that every student or teacher is given a computer, the Internet and software anytime and anywhere. The term computer is used to mean a personal computer, laptop, netbook, handheld, or tablet.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_to_one_computing

So the short explanation for my comment is that although the Chromebook provides access to an extensive array of online resources, Web2.0 tools, and digital storage/sharing solutions, it works only* with an active and fast enough internet connection, only with software tools available online, and only with peripherals whose drivers are installable on the device.

I did incorrectly profess that the Chromebook is incapable doing anything in the absence of an Internet connection. Since June, Chrome has had limited access to recently updated word-processing Google Docs, calendar, and Gmail, and quite recently, more companies are making offline apps beyond games and reading material.

Here’s what seems available thus far for offline use:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/collection/offline_enabled?utm_campaign=en&utm_medium=social&utm_source=en-social-na-us-social-gplus-post

I’m sure there will be great advances in offline use as the Chrome/Google Docs interaction matures, however, at the moment the blogosphere seems undecided as to what apps actually work well offline, and what provide such limited access as to not qualify as “working” offline. Other’s still require a mandatory “downloading” or “updating” of content ahead of time to have any offline capabilities, which, of course, requires preparation and forethought. Not deal breakers, but certainly concentration breakers.

But back to the question. The spirit of a 121 as defined above does not impose limits on use or connectivity, but instead encourages the anywhere-anytime access to the technology. It is within that “anywhere-anytime” aspect that I find the Chromebook concept in its current iteration as a “substantial limitation” if applied as the one-to-one device.

Personally I am a fan of the Chromebook, and enjoy watching it evolve just as I have many other technologies. It is especially exciting to consider it as a disruptive tech that in many cases unabashedly plays by its own set of rules. But that said, I do not feel that the Chromebook should be endorsed as a true 121 solution. I do feel comfortable supporting it if the integration effort assumes the limitation of the device, and does not overrepresented or oversell the instructional capabilities of the Chromebook.

As you know from my prior writings, I might react quickly and viciously when a technology tells me what I can and cannot do. And I feel qualified as an advocate for students and teachers who want to use technology in pursuit of the best educational experience possible.

I know first-hand, as do you, the importance of an Internet connection in education as well as almost everything else.  But I also know that there is a very rich world of instructional technology that does not need a dedicated Internet connection. My fear with the Chromebooks is that through their current dependence on an active Internet connection they will begin to dictate curriculum after we have fought so hard to put the teacher back in charge of the classroom. If the only realistic solutions a teacher, administrator, curriculum director, or parent has involve an active Internet connection, then we are wildly underestimating what we can do with instructional technology.

The Chromebook is dancing a fine line between its dependency on the Internet and stand-alone apps. At the moment, the internet rules, but even within a year, there could be an effective compromise that 1) won’t open up the machine to mal-everything, 2) require an expensive “hard drive” storage platform raising the price, and 3) diminish Google’s bottom line which is completely invested in devices being tied to the internet.

Remember, all the above is strictly my opinion. It should be take with a gain of salt, or heck, perhaps the entire shaker full. But if the true spirit of a one-to-one requires anytime, anywhere, then the Chromebook, great as it is, has, in my opinion, substantial limitations.

That said, I believe the Chromebook would make an ideal platform for a school-wide integration where the strengths of the device are maximized, and its limitations are minimized. But the term one-to-one should be avoided in that case.

Of course this being tech, and especially Google, it could all be a different story tomorrow.

Two types of schools...

Where the buck stops is a good question, but ultimately, I think that there is a need for someone to be considered "the" technology leader, and in most cases, it won’t-can’t-shouldn’t be the superintendent.

I know there are many ill-conceived technology integrations across the state, as well as great ideas but implemented exactly backwards to best practices. However, there are now so many of these types of integrations that it might just be the new way of doing business. So instead of standing on the sidelines or trying to get out of the way (to avoid blame, etc.) those best positioned to understand the tech and its roll in education need to step up to the plate and provide some survival mechanisms to do the best with what the situation presents.

While I can certainly understand running from potential train wrecks, after enough crashes, one starts to wonder who is running the railroad. With all the hardware thrown at problems (whether real or perceived), the situation is begging for solutions, and solutions, as Einstein observed, will not likely come from the same minds that caused the problem in the first place.

Since it is obvious that integrations are now being launched without traditional proper planning, then we should look for the cause of this change in order to understand why it’s happening. And then look for positive solutions to make the best of the situation.

Sudden iPad integration is a country-wide phenomenon, and the push-back from instructional technologists is also a common reaction. But just as widespread is the push forward from pro-educational technology groups and organizations, let alone vendors. 

Instead of fighting or blame storming, ed tech leaders need to consolidate solutions to bring out the best in what the integration can offer regardless of its flaws. 

There are probably two types of school districts right now. Those that have had a sudden and loosely planned influx of iPads, and those that will have a sudden and loosely planned influx of iPads.

You must have followers to be a leader.

Hi All,

I think editorials such as the one under discussion are both wake-up calls, and evidence of the failure of tech leadership.

(http://online.qmags.com/TJL0912/default.aspx?pg=2&mode=1#pg2&mode1)

Two of the reasons iPads are bought en mass and distributed, often with less planning than the day’s hot lunch menu, is because the iPad is easy to understand and is sexy. Those qualities make it easy to talk about, and easy to drop-ship into classrooms.

So while it is fun to bash spontaneous iPad integrations, it should really be cause for some serious introspection from tech directors. So rather than trying to stop integrations, tech directors should be moving to the forefront of the integrations forcing the issues of teaching, learning, pedagogy, and yes, device management across the existing infrastructure.

We know that a significant amount of tech will appear regardless of the presence of district tech personnel in the decision-making. So think about this. Who, exactly, should the enthusiastic masses turn to when they want to integrate iPads? Especially when there is a donor or funding source at the ready.

Like it or not, the animosity between wide-eyed teachers and grounded tech directors is growing. And the iPad is simply a catalyst just as the Internet, the laptop and class websites have been in the past. The iPad is just more obvious.

Here is another article from THE Journal. For me, this kind of story is infinitely more helpful then an opinion piece that offers problems, but no solutions except to "Stop."

http://thejournal.com/Articles/2012/09/12/using-ipads-with-mixed-ability-students-teachers-must-give-up-some-control.aspx?=THEMOB&p=1

If "stop" is the message of tech leaders, then their days as leaders are numbered.

Pockets of Excellence

As far as "unplanned" implementations of iPads and iPods in MCPS, I don’t know of any.

However there are several planned but loosely or unrelated integrations.

 Of the ones I mentioned, you are correct in that one is in the Hellgate district, and there is an integration effort on the move at Target Range as well.

Of the MCPS ones I know about that would qualify as integrations, they include: Paxon 2nd and 5th grade 1:1 (at the bottom of this MCPS webpage) http://www.mcps.k12.mt.us/portal/paxson/ActivitiesandEvents/tabid/3238/Default.aspx 

 Franklin, Hawthorne and Lowell  (MCPS iPad training on the in-service day): http://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-teachers-train-on-ipads/ 

Lewis and Clark is using iPads in their library with great success in particular with kindergarten writing. I also understand that the Rattlesnake school PTA is moving forward on a teacher-centered use of iPads, hopefully in the fall.

And I’ve heard that there is interest in iPad use at Sentinel for movie production and/or photography, but I don’t know the status on that one.

And there are several science teachers in the district who are using them for various tasks.

 As far as unplanned, or without IT staff, I assume you are not counting the ones at Paxon (since it is a large scale integration with updated wireless in the building) and not the Franklin, Hawthorne and Lowell project since CSPD is on-board and it was scheduled during the teacher day), and not the Rattlesnake one since my contact there said that MCPS IT folks have been consulted regarding bandwidth and other issues.

 It looks like some of the changes are being implemented that were foreshadowed a while ago. This quote from an MCPS teacher in a Missoulian story about Matt Clausen might have something to do with the integrations springing up:
 “For too long, teachers have had to deal with a “technological bureaucracy,” making the implementation of new tech tools difficult at best.”
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_2b045a0e-df2a-11df-af57-001cc4c03286.html 

 I’d guess it’s those “Pockets of Excellence” that MCPS is now calling upon.

Forced Introduction

Hello, My name is Martin and I am a concerned parent whose children attend public school in Missoula.

While I do have an above-average interest in instructional technology, I am really just looking for leadership from those who are or should be on the cutting edge of educational tech. I travel quite a bit and see many wonderful integrations of tech beyond the traditional desktop PC. I see educational transformations taking place with digital devices from speicalized video cameras to iPads, and share that with other parents and teachers. Often the excitement brews as the potential of the tech materializes into practice.

But then something happens. It is as if the different technology is competing with the old to the extent that a wall of excuses is put up preventing implementations from moving forward, or any benefits from being realized. I have trouble viewing new tech as a threat, but as some of you have pointed out, I don’t run the school network. But I do pay for it. And I do have the same high expectations for those running it as I do for those whose job it is to teach with it.

Lately I have noticed an increased pressure from the network-side to direct aspects of curriculum. Intended or not, that is essentially taking the decision-making and control out of the hands of the teachers, curriculum directors, and School Boards, which I view as very dangerous. As a parent, I have deep concerns when limits are placed upon the tools teachers can use to teach. And it makes me mad to hear directors of technology and network administrators make fun of the very teachers and administrators that are literally counting on them for support. And if the teachers cannot turn to you, then they will turn somewhere else. I believe that is what is happening.

Learn. Implement. Rock the World!

Some good iPad resources can be gleaned from the integration efforts in the Chicago Public Schools.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=177069

http://www.govtech.com/education/iPads-In-The-Classroom.html

Some of the schools have websites that share their apps, best practices, and user videos. Here are a couple:

http://ipadsatburley.blogspot.com/

https://sites.google.com/site/ipadsinchicagopublicschools/

I doubt there has ever been a more helpless target for those who have trouble understanding technology’s role in education than the iPad. The personal nature of the iPad allows almost anyone to quickly form an opinion about the device, informed or not. And since many tech users seem to expect perfection from Apple products, there is little tolerance for shortcomings or obviously missing features.

At the moment, Missoula has at least five distinct and mostly unrelated iPad integration efforts underway of various flavors and degree of operation. There is a dual-grade 1:1 under construction, a PTA funded teacher-centered 1:1, a dozen iPads in place in a school’s library, and a deep integration in a middle school--here’s their iPad Handbook-Procedures etc.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hellgate+school+ipad&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellgate.k12.mt.us%2Fcms%2Flib%2FMT15000294%2FCentricity%2FModuleInstance%2F373%2FiPad%2520Handbook.docx&ei=AzWgT_fON4WPiAKt2fixAg&usg=AFQjCNFa1y5q5bv3sWVw8oNIQTXfvuyFsQ

There are also many pockets of iPad use tucked away in classrooms all across the Missoula districts. And there are plenty of iPads floating around in the rarified air of administration.

In answer to the question about high school use, there are some powerful advantages to using the iPads with Vernier probeware (the LabQuest2’s Connected Science System is pretty amazing!); and Pasco’s AirLink provides a physical data stream via BT up to 10m from the sensor.  And don’t forget Vernier’s Video Physics where you can capture video, plot motion in the movie, and then view graphs of the physical parameters from the video. It’s like a combination physics lab/TV station. In fact, with iMovie, you can easily shoot, edit, render, and upload a movie completely on an iPad. Works slick, but no green screen yet. This latter use really drives home the potential of the camera upgrade in the iPad3.

Xplane9 is a fairly substantial flight simulator for aeronautics, and the foreign language apps are surprisingly useful for teaching and learning.

For projection and screen mirroring, Doceri can create some tremendous options with its whiteboard-to-movie-to-YouTube pathway, especially when timestamps are included for navigation Splashtop and Splashtop Whiteboard make any computer/projector system run from an iPad detethering the presenter from the podium. LogMeIn works great, and Google Docs, although limited compared to PC operation, still has great potential.

Google Earth is fabulous, and you can run kmz and kml files easily with 90% -100% (my opinion) functionality. Here are some great starter kmz sites:

http://earth.tryse.net/

(one if his best , I think: http://earth.tryse.net/Forests_nw.kmz )

http://www.googlelittrips.org/ (great for literature/Comm arts/Humanities across the curriculum)

And you can supplement GEarth content with:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/2012-world-factbook/id307337503?mt=8 (The CIA World Factbook App)

The mention about special needs/assistive tech is an important one. While some of the killer apps for AT like Proloquo2Go are a little pricy ( http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/proloquo2go/id308368164?mt=8 ) it is a true life-changer that dwarfs in cost compare to a single doctor or therapist visit.

And for those of us who have been working in instructional tech for decades, there is the perennial Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything (iPad):

http://www.schrockguide.net/ipads-in-the-classroom.html

I could go on, but you get the point. iPads are not a conventional computing device. While many people stereotype them, and vocalize their disappointments with the iPad when it does not play by the same old rules of IT, I consider that just normal and unfortunate growing pains for education. But given that many businesses (including almost every Fortune 500 Companies (>94% at last count) are using or actively testing iPads), medicine, commercial aviation, research laboratories, the military, higher education, industries around the world, and clinical placements and data collection across almost all fields, avoiding iPad use in education, whether by design or defect, in my opinion, is nothing shy of proudly planting a flag in mediocrity.

Teachers can be just as lost as anyone else about the use of an iPad. The usual steps educators and tech folks take as they approach, climb, and overcome the implementation hump of any new or disruptive technology are 1) use it to do what we can already do (think comfort food), 2) supplement what we can already do, but begin to push the boundaries (think mobile presentations, utility app use), and 3) to go boldly where it was impossible to go before.  I believe it is the job of enlightened IT folks to speed the process and encourage the leaders empowering them to focus on the good in education and not to punish them or make fun of them for taking risks.

Teachers need visionary tech leaders. The iPad is a transformational technology and defies many conventional measures used to address the efficacy of technology in schools. While a poorly supported integration effort can die a painful and embarrassing death, the likely cause is not the device, but rather one of imagination, wisdom, and judgment. Cheap netbooks sucked (in my opinion) and thusly were not going to get better in educational settings. iPads don’t suck, so they should not begin to suck when placed in schools. Simple enough.

My take is if IT cannot imagine what it would do differently with unlimited funds, a thousand new iPads, or bottomless bandwidth, then its time for a upgrade.

Cases and other distractions

Regarding iPad cases, here are some observations made during conference presentations I attended last month where iPad cases came up. The presenters were from a large school district back east that went 1 to 1.

They did not suggest any particular case as long as the corners had a heavy level of protection. Edgewise hits were rare and of their failures due to impacts, it was all corners. While the magnetic covers are sexy, they also cannot be depended upon as a handle and students would move or try to carry the iPad with the case cover only to have the iPad separate and head out on its own.

Some of the super cases like Otter Box can present syncing/charging/connectivity issues and may not dock well with others. Plus they add significant weight which can increase the drop rate and lessen the one-handed use of the iPad.

I don't use a screen protector either. All of them reduced the screen responsiveness and clarity. My iPad 1 has traveled the world and got a daily dose of salsa and grapefruit squirt for over a year. It was played with by kids, shared in classes, passed around in conferences, and never suffered in the least. It had the original iPad case (felt-like cloth). My macbook air, on the other hand is pretty beat up and I had to unbend one of the usb ports after it was dropped in security at the Amsterdam airport. There is still a pretty good ding in the side of the screen but the buffer space around the display did its job.

On battery life, I not met an original iPad that did not perform well, even after two years of hard use.

Bluetooth is an excellent method of connecting stuff (I use keyboards, speakers, and Pasco probeware, etc.) but it is somewhat temperamental and I've had to turn off my bluetooth in order to use the onscreen keyboard since the iPad wanted to talk with the BT keyboard if within range regardless of my wishes.

I've heard that low-power use USB keyboards can function with the iPad using the USB camera connection kit even if the iPad complains when you connect it.

Finally, I'd suggest trying out a half-dozen different cases in the wild and see what happens. Some designs are great on paper, but fail in practicality. And others might serve certain grades or uses better than others. My suggestion is to focus on the case over what the case can do besides protect the iPad. And some of the good protection ones are inexpensive if that's all they do.

Risk vs. Reward

I’ve worked with admins who were confident in their skills, but failed to acknowledge the internal vulnerabilities of their own network. For example, at one meeting an admin was bragging about all the security measures, yet “forgot” to disclose all the network rights and hardware access that student techs had, along with the long chain of shared passwords across both time and machines, as well as legacy access from years gone by. And it just got worse when the admin’s security measures and talent overtly paled in the face of what Google employs. Plus, there is only one point of blame when things go south locally, and it usually lands on the overworked shoulders of the head admin, whereas Google’s security layers are extensive, deep, and redundant.

In fact, its rather hard to argue against Google when considering actual numbers. How many districts do you know that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security and virus protection? Not to mention counting nines on uptime and server redundancy. Google’s lifeblood resides within security and reliability, so its hard to believe that any individual school district has a greater emphasis on email security and uptime compared to Google.

As far as Google mining email, well, so what? (“reading” is a little presumptuous, and I like to joke that I wish they would read my email, and please reply to it!)  All commercial services do it, and now with the new NSA facility in Utah, pretty much everything on the net will be mined and archived regardless of where it’s so-called home is located. Personally I would much rather have Google’s bots “reading” my email than a network admin searching for buried bodies, gossip, or AUP infractions.

Along with what Bill mentioned in the recovery of work time when Google services are used, it also follows that the spiraling vicious circle of network control begins to unwind when the immense responsibilities of maintaining the email service are relinquished. To mix my metaphors further, the sysadmins can only stretch so far before snapping at the very users for whom the infrastructure was designed to serve in the first place (and whose very purpose within the system pays for the service).

Depending on your clout with Google, special arrangements can be made. I believe the U of Wash was successful with limiting the undesired access through their agreements. Google is interested in safely and productively moving into the public school k-12 arena especially as evidenced with their “YouTube for schools” venture. The Google strategy for systematic deployment of their products is based on the model (similar to the tobacco companies) of “brand imprinting for later actuation.” If students use the free or school-based Google Tools, then they will be more likely to adopt them (the pay versions) when they’re working in the professional world.

I agree completely that there is a diversity of viable options for email services, and there is some safety in having various platforms to compare against one another. Unfortunately, sometimes other factors enter the equation that are not necessarily exclusively focused on the wellbeing of the enterprise.

It can be very good to outsource to a less expensive, more secure, more reliable, more stable system, especially when even a brief glance at the horizon should enlighten most savvy folk that self-hosting major server operations is nearing the end of its shelf-life. Now that we are over 12 percent into the 21st century, we should start acting like it. If I had to bet on the long term viability of a company, I would not hesitate to place Google well ahead of MS where cloud services are concerned. I use MS at work or when I have to, but Google and others when I need to. There must to be an open discussion about these topics because others are counting us to provide an honest assessment of the best options weighed across many individual parameters. If the discussion is ever shut down prematurely, then likely something else is going on. And its probably just a stubborn opinion wedged somewhere in the gears of progress.

Macs play well with Windows

The "play" depends on how well the IT dept. knows their own system and the Macs. Some things are confusing, while others are the same, some are better. If you have serious concerns, contact Apple. They have been extremely helpful at analyzing the situation and finding the paths of least resistance in cross-platform integration.

Of course there are some differences. Macs are in use all over the world high in end server platforms, but their direct and native support is in question right now based on the elimination of their Xservers.

We've had some trouble with IT people who did not know their way around a Mac and really messed things up. Once it was realized that the problems were self-inflicted, things have been working beautifully since.

About half our students and a large segment of our faculty are using Macs right now, and it really opened some eyes when it was discovered that approximately half of the computer users were not receiving appropriate (or any) support from IT. It caused a serious rethinking of the role of IT and whether or not users should venture beyond IT's limited skill set, or if IT should be adapting to the changing computing landscape as part of their job description.

We really want the opinions of all our IT people to matter, and the way that happens is if the opinions are at best informed, or in the least couched within admitted limits or missing knowledge. A healthy sprinkling of adventurous thinking will go a long way to temper futuristic talk.

But ultimately, I believe the difference between Macs and Windows is one of workflow and lifestyle. And both workflow and lifestyle must be respected, especially when the ultimate reason for the tech in the first place is education. 

1 to 1 Disruption

Many times, the traditional IT questions being asked are not the ones that capitalize on the power and opportunity of a modern 1:1 program. And in many cases, the measurement of gains--or lack of-- is based on inappropriate evaluations. 

We are seeing much the same with the iPads today in that traditional computing models, IT considerations and assessment measures pretty quickly doom many efforts at immersive integration. The iPads are a completely different "space" and fail miserably when the well-rounded application of iPads are stuffed into square computing boxes of office utilities, if you catch my drift. 

Curriculum should not be a response to technology, but rather the exact opposite. The tech is used to support and amplify the curriculum allowing the teacher and student to be more efficient and effective. The diversity of today's tech in both its scope and its depth vastly changes the teaching/learning dynamic. Unfortunately, however, many of the integration models have not been updated in a long time and are thus vulnerable to archaic, even dysfunctional application of the tech essentially ensuring that the project will be sabotaged from the inside-out.

I'd suggest that until the initial scope and dreams (for lack of a better word) of your 1:1 can be conceptualized, considering the IT aspects and opinions is counter productive and even detrimental. The reason is that the conventional IT questions and perspectives will alter the trajectory of a 1:1 converting it into a traditional and dated integration design complete with obsolete measures of success. And as we read here on the list, will certainly begin the downward trend of any chance of demonstrable successes even before the project is launched.

Oddly, it should be the tech folks who are on the sharp end of the spear with 21st century 1:1 models, but instead there seems to be a thread of obstructionism woven into the IT fabric of many school districts. Which is why many of the forward-thinking or progressive tech programs come from outside the system. But, of course, that is exactly what is to be expected when one subscribes to the implications of "disruptive technology." 

Literally stated, it cannot come from those within the system because often they are the very ones who are trying to avoid the so-called "disruptions." Obviously we learn from the past, but we also need the wisdom to know when the environmental conditions have changed enough that our existing understandings are no longer generalizable to the current landscape. And I'll be first in line to admit that instructional technology, educational computing, and digital learning are not what they were even three years ago, let alone ten when many of our 1:1 attitudes began to crystalize.