Two blog followers are featured in this Network World article on CIO's who Twitter. John McMillen and John David Son were featured in that article and it makes me feel like I'm a bit behind the times. If they can tweet about their blogs, at least I can blog about Twitter.
I've also learned that a South Henderson Middle School teacher is using a blog and Twitter to share with others as her students attend the upcoming Presidential inauguration. Apparently, they have also web-conferenced with the BBC and will be sharing their videos and photos with the BBC to (hopefully) be used on UK news stories related to the event. Obviously, parents can also use the site to keep up with their child's progress on the project and see the experience "in their eyes". Good stuff!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
ISTE draft NETS for Administrators
I got this email recently, which gives districts the chance to comment on the proposed NETS standards for administrators:
ISTE released the draft NETS for Administrators 2009 in early January and is seeking comment from you to strengthen and improve them before publishing them in June. We are welcoming feedback until the end of March. Please consider participating in the online survey:
www.iste.org/nets-survey; or
leading a NETS Refresh Forum for colleagues at meetings or conferences. Use the NETS Refresh toolkit, which comes with instructions and forum materials:
www.iste.org/nets-toolkit
ISTE wants to hear from you!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama stimulus plan and 21st-century classrooms
From the second page of this eSchoolNews article:
$11,695 seems like a great deal of money per classroom. I'm thinking some of our folks have outfitted a room for a fraction of this cost. The article mentions content, software, PD and IT support. I'm not sure how much all of that adds to the cost and it would be tough to quantify on a per-classroom basis. I think some of my districts were wondering if this might mean computer hardware and wireless network implementations. This article would suggest that it may be focused on other things, though I suppose one could argue that a notebook/tablet and wireless access are critical parts of a 21st-century classroom.
In a letter sent to its members after Obama's speech, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) said it has been "working closely with the Obama-Biden transition team and responding to many questions regarding costs of implementing technology-rich classrooms, including the hardware, software, content, professional development, and IT support."
The letter continued: "We have also been able to share data and research on why this will [not only] stimulate the economy, but also accelerate transformation in schools."
According to SETDA's calculations, it would cost about $11,695 to equip a single classroom with 21st-century technology. With an estimated 844,409 Title I-eligible classrooms that haven't been fully equipped, that works out to a cost of about $9.9 billion to outfit all of the nation's K-12 classrooms--or less than 2 percent of a stimulus package worth a total of $800 billion.
$11,695 seems like a great deal of money per classroom. I'm thinking some of our folks have outfitted a room for a fraction of this cost. The article mentions content, software, PD and IT support. I'm not sure how much all of that adds to the cost and it would be tough to quantify on a per-classroom basis. I think some of my districts were wondering if this might mean computer hardware and wireless network implementations. This article would suggest that it may be focused on other things, though I suppose one could argue that a notebook/tablet and wireless access are critical parts of a 21st-century classroom.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wireless needs and learning from others...
It's always interesting when you get into a technology-related conversation and realize just how little you know. It's even more humbling when that conversation occurs with someone working outside of the technology business.
I got into a conversation with my preacher after church last night. A member was donating a few computers from his business and wanted to make me aware. I assumed that this might lead to me needing to get these machines networked together. I talk to the preacher to ascertain his plans for these donated machines.
Ten minutes later, my jaw is on the ground as he is talking to me about the Lifehacker website, third-party firmware such as Tomato and a discussion of parabolic directional antennas - even cantennas made from Pringles cans for WarDriving, all of which he had naturally heard of before. I was floored to say the least.
I get the feeling I'm headed down this road, but I bet he's done this as well:
I got into a conversation with my preacher after church last night. A member was donating a few computers from his business and wanted to make me aware. I assumed that this might lead to me needing to get these machines networked together. I talk to the preacher to ascertain his plans for these donated machines.
Ten minutes later, my jaw is on the ground as he is talking to me about the Lifehacker website, third-party firmware such as Tomato and a discussion of parabolic directional antennas - even cantennas made from Pringles cans for WarDriving, all of which he had naturally heard of before. I was floored to say the least.
I get the feeling I'm headed down this road, but I bet he's done this as well:
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Kentucky K-12 and Internet 'filtering' (Part 2)
Years ago, Microsoft Proxy 2.0 was the state standard product purchased to comply with Senate Bill 230. It was really known more for its ability to cache content, which was a definite requirement at the time due to the slow WAN links we had at the time (many 56Kb point-to-point and/or similar speed frame-relay links). As far as blocking inappropriate content, the solution was to add pages to a black-list. This is how the ISA product functions today. Third-party add-ons were available then (and are today) that categorize web sites in popular categories and allowed for easier blocking and reporting, particularly related to sexually explicit content, which was certainly the focus at the time.
Some districts in this area were using a product called i-Gear. This was third-party software that was installed on each of the proxy servers in the schools. It did a good job of allowing districts to block various categories. There was a separate browser-type window that remained open on each desktop that let users know they were logged in to the i-Gear solution. This window included a button to log out. One of the primary features I remember districts liking was that window, which was an easy way of knowing whether your browsing session was still logged in. Operating systems at the time were Netware or perhaps Windows NT 4.0 and the concept of a single domain for an entire school district had not become uniform.
I don’t even recall what caused the original concerns with i-Gear. Personally, I think it was a combination of factors: Proxy servers were getting older, there were more and more Internet sites being created, i-Gear subscription costs were increasing and there was some change in this particular market sector. I-Gear was manufactured by URLabs, which was purchased by Symantec in 1999. I'm not sure if Symantec even offers a specific Internet filtering solution today. Their focus seems to be on antivirus, email filtering and endpoint security.
IPrism is a product manufactured by St. Bernard. It’s a hardware-based web filter that nearly all of our area school districts purchased in late 2003 or early 2004. Districts combined node counts and were given a discount on their subscription pricing. Most seem to be happy with the product. Several districts upgraded their iPrism hardware after moving to a high-speed (10Mb or 100Mb) connection to the Internet.
Some districts in this area were using a product called i-Gear. This was third-party software that was installed on each of the proxy servers in the schools. It did a good job of allowing districts to block various categories. There was a separate browser-type window that remained open on each desktop that let users know they were logged in to the i-Gear solution. This window included a button to log out. One of the primary features I remember districts liking was that window, which was an easy way of knowing whether your browsing session was still logged in. Operating systems at the time were Netware or perhaps Windows NT 4.0 and the concept of a single domain for an entire school district had not become uniform.
I don’t even recall what caused the original concerns with i-Gear. Personally, I think it was a combination of factors: Proxy servers were getting older, there were more and more Internet sites being created, i-Gear subscription costs were increasing and there was some change in this particular market sector. I-Gear was manufactured by URLabs, which was purchased by Symantec in 1999. I'm not sure if Symantec even offers a specific Internet filtering solution today. Their focus seems to be on antivirus, email filtering and endpoint security.
IPrism is a product manufactured by St. Bernard. It’s a hardware-based web filter that nearly all of our area school districts purchased in late 2003 or early 2004. Districts combined node counts and were given a discount on their subscription pricing. Most seem to be happy with the product. Several districts upgraded their iPrism hardware after moving to a high-speed (10Mb or 100Mb) connection to the Internet.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Kentucky K-12 and Internet 'filtering' (maybe Part 1 of...?)
I thought I’d take a few minutes to discuss Internet filtering. In actuality, this will likely result in several posts. Right now, I’m thinking I’ll split it into “why we do it”, “what we do” and “what do I think of it?”
With that in mind, I'll start with the "why". In Kentucky K-12, the first mention of Internet “filtering” usually results in a response involving Senate Bill 230. What is that? This was a state law passed in 1998 that was focused on the prevention of sexually explicit material being transmitted to school districts.
As an aside, it’s worth noting how the legal process works in a case like this. The legislature passes the law – this is a Kentucky Revised Statute. The “law” surrounding “Senate Bill 230” is actually KRS 156.675, which is the Kentucky Revised Statute. For those who recall past debates with Jeff Nelson over the “at no cost” phrase for a solution, this is where you’ll find it.
The law tasks the state’s Board of Education with the creation of administrative regulations to enforce the law. This led to 701 KAR 5:120 (KAR being the acronym for Kentucky Administrative Regulation). This regulation led to several things, including mandatory acceptable use policies and standards for filtering technology (ours was originally Microsoft Proxy 2.0).
As a Kentucky school district, which do I have to follow? I’ve been asked this before and you could ask the same thing about other topics such as adherence to the KETS Master Plan. The state Board of Education is one of the entities given the authority to promulgate (basically ‘proclaim’ or put a law into action) administrative regulations. You see references to the authority given in the first lines of the regulation. Once the regulation is adopted, it (the KAR) essentially becomes the law.
There’s the “state law” lesson for the day. There’s also the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act that’s often referenced when discussing Internet filtering. Most of the federal requirements are encompassed in our state’s legal requirements.
We have a page on the KDE web site that discusses our implementation of Senate Bill 230. It provides some of the links noted above as well. In future posts, maybe I can explore some of the specific language and the challenges it brings as technology has changed during the past ten years...
With that in mind, I'll start with the "why". In Kentucky K-12, the first mention of Internet “filtering” usually results in a response involving Senate Bill 230. What is that? This was a state law passed in 1998 that was focused on the prevention of sexually explicit material being transmitted to school districts.
As an aside, it’s worth noting how the legal process works in a case like this. The legislature passes the law – this is a Kentucky Revised Statute. The “law” surrounding “Senate Bill 230” is actually KRS 156.675, which is the Kentucky Revised Statute. For those who recall past debates with Jeff Nelson over the “at no cost” phrase for a solution, this is where you’ll find it.
The law tasks the state’s Board of Education with the creation of administrative regulations to enforce the law. This led to 701 KAR 5:120 (KAR being the acronym for Kentucky Administrative Regulation). This regulation led to several things, including mandatory acceptable use policies and standards for filtering technology (ours was originally Microsoft Proxy 2.0).
As a Kentucky school district, which do I have to follow? I’ve been asked this before and you could ask the same thing about other topics such as adherence to the KETS Master Plan. The state Board of Education is one of the entities given the authority to promulgate (basically ‘proclaim’ or put a law into action) administrative regulations. You see references to the authority given in the first lines of the regulation. Once the regulation is adopted, it (the KAR) essentially becomes the law.
There’s the “state law” lesson for the day. There’s also the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act that’s often referenced when discussing Internet filtering. Most of the federal requirements are encompassed in our state’s legal requirements.
We have a page on the KDE web site that discusses our implementation of Senate Bill 230. It provides some of the links noted above as well. In future posts, maybe I can explore some of the specific language and the challenges it brings as technology has changed during the past ten years...
Friday, December 19, 2008
Merry Christmas!
I want to take a moment to wish any readers a Merry Christmas. I was asked a favor by a former co-worker who recently gave birth. She noted that she didn't have enough Christmas cards to send to all of the districts I work with and wanted me to share a Christmas card. I'll try to remember to bring it to our next regular meeting, but I couldn't resist scanning in a couple of images for those who want to see the recent arrival:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
