Data, Data, Data... and the associated pressures

Just a quick thought or two on some recent conversations I had related to data quality in our student information systems. Working around K-12 education, I reflect at times on how different things are - or how different they seem - since I was in school. There's data on everything and there's a well-intentioned desire to use that data to improve learning, assess better teaching, have a healthier school environment and things of that sort.

As that data gets analyzed, we see examples all around where the knowledge that this data exists causes changes in behavior. This school security site discusses school crime reporting... and under-reporting. As the link points out, what is my incentive to report every violent incident? Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of incentive to under-report and show that violent incidents are decreasing. No one wants to look like their school is a war zone; consequently, there are whispers that violent incidents should not be reported. That can lead to teachers having their hands full in the worst of cases with students who need to be reported and know that they will not be reported.

Another example I've heard about is the confusion around "in-school suspension". I've been told that districts are to track these suspensions in their student information tool. However, I've also talked to a couple of contacts who gave me an example where a student might have been pulled out of class... not for a 'suspension', but because they're behind in another subject and need additional time for homework or tutoring. That sounds noble, but I was hearing from a teacher who pointed out that she had good students asking her why they should do their homework. Apparently, these students saw that others were - in their eyes - simply being given more time or another chance to complete an assignment. In this case, the school didn't want to flag the students as a 'suspension', nor did they want to give the child a zero on a homework assignment.

I suppose my question is 'how do we get truly accurate and useful data when the overriding concern by some is that the data simply look good'? Perhaps if we weren't so punitive in our discourse and were simply concerned with accuracy, we could get some data that could be relied upon more often.
[Image: http://teflbootcamp.com/tefl-skills/student-discipline-efl-classroom/]

Managing hype as technology gets more affordable

I was thinking about dusting off the blog and making and entry and, lo and behold, one of my co-workers just posted a great blog entry about managing the hype in education technology. He makes several points that are worth stressing.

He references Moore's Law, which originally dealt with transistors on a circuit. Over time, it's been slightly altered to include power and price. The basic point is that we're regularly seeing the computing power double and the price points for technology of that power getting cut in half. Don't believe me? As of this writing, netbooks with 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD are under $300 and closer to $200-250 in some cases. Depending on how much processing power you need, a laptop with more RAM, disk space and screen size can be had for $500 (more or less, as I said, depending on processing power and some other factors).

As a matter of comparison, I found an old contract update from one of our state technology vendors. KY school districts, from state contract, could buy a Dell Latitude C840 in April, 2003. It had a P4 1.8Ghz processor and a 15" UXGA display (and also a 56k modem included, BTW). We got VERY good discounts from these contracts and this device, with 256MB RAM and a massive 30GB HDD, could be had for about $1600. Think about that for a minute.

Technology is getting more portable, more affordable and more capable. Not that many years ago, tech leaders were fretting that the device would have to have the right capabilities at the right price point before we would ever see a scenario where every student have a device for their own use. We are there.

So what do we do about it? As the originally linked article indicates, we manage the hype in a constructive fashion. We should be passionate about the possibilities and excited about what the technology can do. Rightfully so, we have to aware of the challenges and continue to lead in conversations about TCO and the need for proper staffing, professional development, infrastructure and management policies regarding the technology.

Thinking Outside the Box

I suppose it's helpful to occasionally have your paradigms challenged. In that spirit, I would submit this Forbes blog from several months ago that discusses the CIO role being 'under fire.' There are several good points brought up in the posting and I thought I'd mention a few and tie them to thoughts I'm having... I know, dangerous, right?

* Consumer technology "out-innovating" enterprise technology - This has become increasingly evident in the adoption of smartphones and consumer-designed tablet-style devices. No brand names mentioned, nor do they need to be. For that matter, students and staff are no longer impressed with that full-featured desktop or laptop computer. They go to any electronics store and get technology thahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gift has comparable specifications or, at minimum, can do what they want to do.

* Technology is advancing faster than we can adopt it - We've mounted projectors and televisions in classroom, installed document cameras, installed wireless infrastructure and made other countless investments. Some, like structured cabling, could definitely be considered a long-term investment. Others... like the A/B/G wireless we had to have, is quickly replaced with N-series wireless and, soon enough, will be replaced with gigabit or multi-gigabit WiFi.

* Several shifts in thinking need to occur - Rattling through them quickly... the pace of change is accelerating. That means that expectations need to change. Lengthy technology plans are disrupted by this change. Replacing technology simply because it's dated may not be the smart move.

The success criteria should be the business value and not the adoption rate. We've fought for years to make sure that every classroom has the same tools, every teacher is trained to the same level and that we're all moving in lock-step in the same direction. Yet we teach to students of different ages about any number of different subjects and interests. Is the 'business value' the same in the high school history class as it is in a primary-grade class? Probably not, but the technology is often similar for both rooms.

We should try to move technology acquisitions from capex to opex. Some have done this via leasing of hardware and infrastructure. For districts that have convinced their boards to do this, things have seemingly gone well. The infrastructure does not have the glitz of the user device and is often tougher to get funded. Infrastructure purchases should perhaps be thought of like a utility and paid for in that fashion.

* "Learn to fail fast and move on" - Good quote from that blog post. One of our biggest struggles is to evaluate the success of an initiative. Often, we're asked to move on to the next project without really evaluating the previous one. That said, though, the changing technology landscape is forcing us to be willing to try different things. That will be an adjustment, but an equally difficult adjustment will be the discipline to jettison an initiative as it is made irrelevant by little business impact.

Pew researches "Generations and Their Gadgets"

The Pew Internet and American Life Project recently released a study regarding "Generations and Their Gadgets." Let's take a quick look at the overall findings and trends. They surveyed about 3,000 adults 18+ about the 'gadgets' they own:

* 85% own cell phones. It was 95% in the 18-34 demographic. For the K-12 crowd in favor of classroom cell phone usage, this echoes what you see every day, which is that nearly everyone has a phone, can we leverage it, etc. For the K-12 crowd against phone usage, I suppose we could argue that many aren't full-blown computers and that simply having an item isn't reason enough to mandate its usage as part of the educational process.

* 59% own desktops and 52% own laptops. As expected, the numbers are higher for the younger and, for the 18-34 group, we see more laptops than desktops. This could spark a discussion about desktop vs laptop deployments. If you're a 1:1 district, I could see doing away with labs. However, in the more 'traditional' setting, desktop-based labs still make sense as long as our teaching styles involve students sitting in rows and performing similar tasks. I know that we can argue that the room design is driving the instruction rather than the other way around, but most schools are wired for this setup and I don't see it changing across the board in the near future. You could use this to argue that teachers should use laptops rather than desktops. Some districts are looking into this and I do think the topic is worthy of discussion within your district.

* 74% of the 18-34 group own an iPod or MP3 player. Are we recording lectures and archiving them for download? Should we be? Would it help? I see this as one area where could really make some improvements. The ability to easily record audio and video is there. Anyone can do it. This data shows that many have devices that could be used to listen to a recording. The cost point on these is such that these could be provided to those who do not have them. I suppose loading up an MP3 player with hours of instruction (or posting it online) and having the homebound student download and listen sounds boring and tedious. It is an option, though, and I could probably find some kids who would argue that it's no less boring than their typical school day. :)

* The e-Book and iPad/tablet figures are at about 5% each. This would explain why I'm getting asked about these quite a bit. They are the latest things and bring the potential of electronic textbooks and, for the iPad/tablet category, thousands of apps for educational usage. Each have their downside as well, but the fact that these are even being included on the survey should tell you something.

To me, the generation gap is most telling when you look at the percentage surveyed who state that they have none of these devices. Overall, it was 9%. However, 43% of the age 75+ responders and only 1% of the age 18-34 responders were in this group.

It's an interesting report from an organization that has done some really good surveys over the years. Give it a look and think about what the results might mean for your district.

National Education Technology Plan - A Quick Look at Changing Infrastructure

I'll dust off the blog for a moment to reflect on one section of the National Education Technology Plan (linking the Executive Summary). It's an interesting document and worth more time than I'm giving it. This morning, I'm reflecting on the recommendations in the 'infrastructure' section and comparing it to past standards we've had in Kentucky over the years. The goal in the infrastructure section of the NETP is stated simply enough:

All students and educators will have access to a comprehensive infrastructure for learning when and where they need it.

One shift we can see over the years is the emphasis on access anywhere and anytime. Our devices are smaller in size and more powerful than those of a few short years ago. Remember when we had processor wars and a race to a higher and higher gigahertz rating? What processor is in your iPhone or Droid? Do you know? Do you care? Our older state technology plans called for standards on student-to-computer ratios, number of data drops and phones in the classrooms. Since that original plan - a visionary document back in 1992, by the way - we've seen wireless access grow, devices change immensely and we're surrounded by projectors, IWBs, document cameras and other teaching tools.

For the sake of time, let's skip to the recommended actions. First:

Ensure students and educators have broadband access to the Internet and adequate wireless connectivity both in and out of school.

Broadband and wireless are the words I'll key on. With "broadband", what does that mean? How fast must it be? The plan goes on to use the word 'adequate' and stresses the need for that speed in the community and at home. What the CIO can fix is the school, so let's focus there. It sounds simple, but one call to action should be that your technical staff should try to do some basic research from a few random workstations and make sure that the performance is adequate. If it isn't, that's a problem. With the word "wireless", my thinking has come around over the past few years. Originally, I would have said to hold off on wireless implementation and invest when you foresee wireless devices that would actually take advantage of the wireless infrastructure. At this point, it seems that virtually all of the growth and development surrounds wireless connectivity. If your school district doesn't have adequate wireless connectivity within its schools, now is the time to act. With the changes that need to take place in education, the mobility of the learner is key and our schools need the wireless infrastructure to support that mobility.

Ensure that every student and educator has at least one Internet access device and appropriate software and resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and collaboration for use in and out of school

This one is certain to generate discussion. Years ago, the talk was to get to a 6:1 student-to-computer ratio. In most area schools, we're probably in the neighborhood of 2.5:1. Statewide, we've seen a bit of movement as it pertains to 1:1 initiatives but, even in those districts, it's usually limited to high school students. I've heard nobody speak of a device for EVERY student and I think we can agree that the reasons tend to center around lack of funding, inability to support the environment and, at this point, a teaching environment that isn't ready to take advantage of a device in every K-12 student's hand. In fact, if you'll permit one more copy/paste, I like the follow-up statements to this goal, as they reference several concerns that we rightly recognize and need to address:

Only with 24/7 access to the Internet via devices and technology-based software and resources can we achieve the kind of engagement, student-centered learning, and assessments that can improve learning in the ways this plan proposes. The form of these devices, software, and resources may or may not be standardized and will evolve over time. In addition, these devices may be owned by the student or family, owned by the school, or some combination of the two. The use of devices owned by students will require advances in network filtering and improved support systems.

This paragraph hits several key points. Why a device for all? Engagement, student-centered learning, and online assessments. What type of device? It may not be standard. Who pays? It could be a mix of district-owned and personally-owned. Of course, no standardization of the device and the mention of 24/7 access causes concerns about filtering and network security, and those are mentioned as well.

Maybe I'll come back and address the others, as I'm short on time at the moment.