Policy
Defining Software Realistically
Jan 15, 2012
It is no secret that technology brings about paradigm shifts and tends to be disruptive. It often demands that we rethink policy and project planning. The following was my contribution to a conversation taking place amongst Apple Distinguished Educators, but the opinions expressed below are solely my opinions and ‘thinking out loud’ about technology implementation in an education setting.
Note that this discussion is peculiar to some of the issues brought about by how Apple has built what was originally an iPhone software distribution system for individual consumers (not enterprise deployment). However, with the changes being made by the Apple MacOS X App store, it may be worth thinking differently about MacOS applications as well.
Another key observation to begin this discussion about software is the notion of Ownership. Although we talk about buying software as though we ‘own’ it, we don’t actually ‘own’ software, we purchase a license for the right to use it. As a property manager for our school system, this has caused us a lot of headaches as our institution has become more accountable for things that we have purchased. The idea of software being a physical asset that can be ’seen’ is becoming less and less common. It is delivered already installed on another physical item of significant cost, may or may not be transferrable, or may delivered by downloading. There is no physical asset to ‘tag’.
I would title this response:
"Making the Case for Personal Apple ID's for the Teacher"
A fellow ADE posted a iPad App Management scenario that was summarized as follows:
My thoughts:
While this may be a workable solution, the additional issue is that any programs that the teacher purchased with their own $$ or giftcards also would get transferred to the new teacher's account. I think this would impede adoption of the iPad as a personal lifestyle learning tool.
This is a matter of policy, inventory, and professional development policy. Unless there are funding restrictions (stipulations in a grant on how money is to be spent and items tracked), I would like to move schools and school systems that I work with into a new view of software. You are actually purchasing the 'right' to use intellectual property (code) as opposed to owning a physical object. Let's classify it as like we do consumables - unless it exceeds a relatively high price tag, we are giving teachers a somewhat temporal tool to improve the efficacy of their job function.
Apps for iOS:
iOS is such a personal tool by design that we really need to move beyond the MS enterprise deployment model of micromanaging our factory workers. Changes in pedagogy are recommending differentiated, personalized learning. We need to be consistent with our teaching staff and empower them to differentiate their instruction and personalize their learning. Giving teachers a tool like a digital camera to use in their classroom is enhanced when we encourage them to become familiar with that tool by pursuing (ethically appropriate) personal interests / hobbies with that tool. Educational implementation increases with the passion derived from personal learning. Professional use of the iPad will be enhanced as the teacher uses it to buy, read, annotate books, magazines as well as use programs like iMovie to video and edit their daughter's dance rehearsal. That teacher will then have the confidence and the passion to use iMovie in the classroom with their students. They will understand the methods and advantages of eBook reading.
Most teachers will be happy to spend $1 here or there to test a new app for teaching the Periodic Table of the Elements, or Digital Storytelling. They will be even more likely to do so if they know that what they purchase with their own money will be their's to deploy on their own iDevices and to use for personal interests, etc. Furthermore, anything that they purchase will be available to them after they retire or if they move to a new school system.
So this disruptive technology really should cause us to rethink how we stage the software and media purchase for professional use. My argument is that teachers should use their own accounts that they take with them where ever they go. We can't treat software like we treat hardware for accounting definitions. Consider also that we are primarily purchasing a dozen or so general tools for teachers to use- things like the iWork trio, iMovie, Garageband, a Graphic Organizer App, etc. If we purchase bulk codes for equipping our teachers, this amounts to a one-time investment of around $50 per teacher. That investment may last a year, several years or more. It is not a lot of money to provide as a benefit of employment. I think there should be a cost threshold established, and perhaps purchase unique expensive apps such as Proloquo 2Go under a district controlled Apple ID.
So in summary, in an ideal deployment, the individual establishes their own personal Apple ID as the primary one on the device. Most of the district-purchased apps will be associated with the teacher's personal Apple ID. The teacher will be able to populate their iOS device with anything that is ethically appropriate and not used for a profit-making endeavor. They will be responsible for their own updates and backups. The district will provide core Apps through volume discount purchase voucher codes associated with the teacher's personal Apple ID as a non-recurring, expendable item expense. The district will use their own school/district account to install very expensive apps or apps that have been acquired through a grant or funding source that limits personal ownership. These apps will be regularly updated by the district or school tech specialist with the special account password, then device will be logged out of the school/district account and logged back in to the teacher's personal account. I think this method is also ultimately desirable for student issued iOS devices, but that is another topic entirely.
Note that this discussion is peculiar to some of the issues brought about by how Apple has built what was originally an iPhone software distribution system for individual consumers (not enterprise deployment). However, with the changes being made by the Apple MacOS X App store, it may be worth thinking differently about MacOS applications as well.
Another key observation to begin this discussion about software is the notion of Ownership. Although we talk about buying software as though we ‘own’ it, we don’t actually ‘own’ software, we purchase a license for the right to use it. As a property manager for our school system, this has caused us a lot of headaches as our institution has become more accountable for things that we have purchased. The idea of software being a physical asset that can be ’seen’ is becoming less and less common. It is delivered already installed on another physical item of significant cost, may or may not be transferrable, or may delivered by downloading. There is no physical asset to ‘tag’.
I would title this response:
"Making the Case for Personal Apple ID's for the Teacher"
A fellow ADE posted a iPad App Management scenario that was summarized as follows:
- The staff member will create the account with district email address. The staff will be told that if they are to leave the district or move to another position where their iPad is not needed that their Apple ID will be transferred to a new teacher. Staff will be encouraged to download free apps with this ID and when purchased apps are needed, they will put in a request through our district's VPP process (we're creating a Google Form to expedite this process). Therefore, apps that are collected under this account will all be district apps which leads to my next point...
- Apple IDs can be edited/changed using the Apple ID website: https://appleid.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MyAppleId.woa/ When logged in, you can EDIT your email address and change it to another one.
My thoughts:
While this may be a workable solution, the additional issue is that any programs that the teacher purchased with their own $$ or giftcards also would get transferred to the new teacher's account. I think this would impede adoption of the iPad as a personal lifestyle learning tool.
This is a matter of policy, inventory, and professional development policy. Unless there are funding restrictions (stipulations in a grant on how money is to be spent and items tracked), I would like to move schools and school systems that I work with into a new view of software. You are actually purchasing the 'right' to use intellectual property (code) as opposed to owning a physical object. Let's classify it as like we do consumables - unless it exceeds a relatively high price tag, we are giving teachers a somewhat temporal tool to improve the efficacy of their job function.
Apps for iOS:
- are typically very low cost or free (I know some are very expensive)
- fluctuate in price
- dynamically change in their usefulness (alternatives suddenly appear that are low cost or free that are better or more appropriate)
- are typically targeted to a very focused use or product
- may have version changes that make them obsolete unless repurchased or replaced with another app
- may involve in-App purchases that may not transfer cleanly with a changed Apple ID (has anyone experimented with this?)
To equip our teachers and students, we often invest in training that empowers them to be more effective on their job. Training always includes strategies or process tools. They take this training with them where ever they go. In many ways, a small focused-purpose app is a process tool more than a physical piece of hardware. Hardware is more tangible– and physically audit-able..
iOS is such a personal tool by design that we really need to move beyond the MS enterprise deployment model of micromanaging our factory workers. Changes in pedagogy are recommending differentiated, personalized learning. We need to be consistent with our teaching staff and empower them to differentiate their instruction and personalize their learning. Giving teachers a tool like a digital camera to use in their classroom is enhanced when we encourage them to become familiar with that tool by pursuing (ethically appropriate) personal interests / hobbies with that tool. Educational implementation increases with the passion derived from personal learning. Professional use of the iPad will be enhanced as the teacher uses it to buy, read, annotate books, magazines as well as use programs like iMovie to video and edit their daughter's dance rehearsal. That teacher will then have the confidence and the passion to use iMovie in the classroom with their students. They will understand the methods and advantages of eBook reading.
Most teachers will be happy to spend $1 here or there to test a new app for teaching the Periodic Table of the Elements, or Digital Storytelling. They will be even more likely to do so if they know that what they purchase with their own money will be their's to deploy on their own iDevices and to use for personal interests, etc. Furthermore, anything that they purchase will be available to them after they retire or if they move to a new school system.
So this disruptive technology really should cause us to rethink how we stage the software and media purchase for professional use. My argument is that teachers should use their own accounts that they take with them where ever they go. We can't treat software like we treat hardware for accounting definitions. Consider also that we are primarily purchasing a dozen or so general tools for teachers to use- things like the iWork trio, iMovie, Garageband, a Graphic Organizer App, etc. If we purchase bulk codes for equipping our teachers, this amounts to a one-time investment of around $50 per teacher. That investment may last a year, several years or more. It is not a lot of money to provide as a benefit of employment. I think there should be a cost threshold established, and perhaps purchase unique expensive apps such as Proloquo 2Go under a district controlled Apple ID.
So in summary, in an ideal deployment, the individual establishes their own personal Apple ID as the primary one on the device. Most of the district-purchased apps will be associated with the teacher's personal Apple ID. The teacher will be able to populate their iOS device with anything that is ethically appropriate and not used for a profit-making endeavor. They will be responsible for their own updates and backups. The district will provide core Apps through volume discount purchase voucher codes associated with the teacher's personal Apple ID as a non-recurring, expendable item expense. The district will use their own school/district account to install very expensive apps or apps that have been acquired through a grant or funding source that limits personal ownership. These apps will be regularly updated by the district or school tech specialist with the special account password, then device will be logged out of the school/district account and logged back in to the teacher's personal account. I think this method is also ultimately desirable for student issued iOS devices, but that is another topic entirely.
Comments
How Thoroughly Has Our Legislature Thought This Through?!
Mar 21, 2011
Unfortunately, the legislators themselves have estimated that this Race to the Top prize will not be not be enough to cover the additional expenses of creating new tests, training, deploying, grading and reporting the results of the tests that SB 736 requires. There is immense cost in creating fair standardized tests specific to every course’s curriculum. SB 736 doesn’t provide any additional funding and most citizens are unaware that the additional burden of creating these tests will come out of the local school district’s shrinking budget. It is another case of legislate something new but providing the money to make it happen.
Many of my colleagues believe that SB 736 (and last year’s SB 6) is all about publishers making money from standardized tests and the grading of those tests. A well-placed team of lobbyists can be very influential.
What is happening to curiosity-driven inquiry? With all the stress of testing, are children going lose yet more of their childhood? One question teachers and parents are asking is Do we really want instructional time devoted to more standardized style testing?; but I think the real question is What does all this testing tell us?
Concern #1 What are we testing?!Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Albert Einstein
When we begin to look at assessment, one of the first thoughts that come to my mind is a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. However, it is probably better to credit sociologist William Bruce Cameron who wrote something very similar in his 1963 book: Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963). It appears to have made some impression on Albert Einstein who apparently quoted it and became associated with this thought. But I digress...
Concern #2 What do the test numbers really mean?!
Education is not as simple as manufacturing widgets in a factory. Most public school teachers cannot determine the type of student that crosses their threshold each August. Unlike other vocations, educators have very little control on the raw goods they are given and the events of any given household, community or school are not consistent year to year. Measuring the success of a teacher following a year of instruction is much more complex than developing a quality product in a factory assembly line.
I am trained as a scientist. Science relies on numbers to prove or disprove a hypothesis. An experiment may provide results that are different from a control group but not statistically significant. The term Statistically Significant is used when the results are unlikely to have occurred by chance alone. Cause and Effect is very difficult to establish, because observed results are not always a direct result of the treatment.
In the physical sciences, cause and effect is easier to establish because physical science subjects “behave” consistently according to the laws of energy, principles of mass, etc. Sciences that deal with living things introduce much more complex systems. There are so many variables (many hard to quantify) i.e., internal vigor, hormone levels, diet, previous experience. The complexity of living things make it very difficult to establish cause and effect, and this complexity is even greater with human subjects. When we say a teacher should not return to their job next fall because their students didn’t make significant improvement on their standardized test scores, we are implying a cause and effect relationship that doesn’t necessarily exist.
Let’s suppose that we know that the end of year test is good. The student did learn something. The test measures (correctly) that gains were made. Does this mean that the teacher was successful. Not unless there are significant numbers and significant gains and repeated success with a wide variety of students. It is a very large leap from the test correctly evaluating the student to the test evaluating the teacher in a cause and effect relationship.
I am not a statistician, and I don’t play one on TV, but I really question the validity of relying on test score improvement each year as the primary measure of how effective a teacher is. Here are some points to ponder:
- Currently, teachers have about 50 hours (per subject) to ‘move the needle’ before the FCAT is taken. Subtract classroom management, unavoidable student absences, and various interruptions, the actual time that teachers have to ‘produce learning’ is not as great as ‘a year of instruction’ might indicate.
- Although teachers are very important, the range and potential effect of other variables in the learning styles, foundational experiences, home, and emotional environment can overwhelm the effect of a charismatic, logical, knowledgeable, and talented learning facilitator. The total time students are ‘exposed’ to other stimuli far outweighs the time they are exposed to the teacher’s instruction.
- Because students have different learning styles, our very best teachers are most successful when using a specific teaching style to teach them. The factory model of education that standardized testing assumes and reinforces makes it much more difficult for them to operate in the range of learning styles. If our teachers are supposed to deliver ‘differentiated instruction’ then assessment must be differentiated as well. This is at odds with the idea of standardized testing which says that success is measured by one standard applied to all in the same way.
- In statistical language, I wonder about sample size, the randomness of selection of subjects (sampling distribution), disqualification of outlier results, standard deviation, significance of small gains or small losses (effect size). Human learning research is confounded by many more variables and measurement issues than other sciences. That is why behavioral and social sciences are called a ‘soft science’ and human learning is at the farthest end of the soft science <–> hard science continuum. Are true social science statisticians going to review this process to determine if there is statistically sound reason to award, penalize, or fire teachers based on their class’s scores on one test??!!
- My final concern has to do with the internal reliability of the instrument. SB 736 (if signed and not blocked by courts) starts July 1st. End of course testing has begun and judgements will be made next year on the results of these tests. Assuming each teacher will be giving a pre-test for their course and post-test, someone has a lot of work to do (with no money) prior to the start of school in August. What is kind of quality are we to expect of these tests? This bill is intended to be used for hiring and firing decisions next year. It is unrealistic that these tests will be an equitable, fair assessment for such huge consequences.
When SB 736 ties a teacher’s pay (or even more seriously, the teacher’s employment) to their students’ test grades we need to be absolutely certain that cause and effect can be proven in a statistically significant fashion. We are talking about a teacher’s livelihood, their future; these are real people with families they are supporting. Personally, I am not confident that our legislators have taken these validity concerns into consideration. When we make a law, it must be fair to all people under all conditions. All courses, all teachers, all grade levels in an equitable, humane, fair fashion.
I understand the frustration of the public. There are bad educators that we need to be able to get out of the classroom. It would be nice to reward the efforts of excellent educators. However, annual test gains are not the answer to a very, very complex problem.
I have thoroughly enjoyed over 25 years as a career educator. I love being with students, watching them learn and learning with them. I have been honored several times on local regional and national scale as an educator. My students have achieved great things. Even though it has been difficult financially to support my family solely on my public school salary, I feel fulfilled through my career.
However, I am very reluctant to recommend education as a career to my brightest students– given this obsession with test scores. And I doubt they would be persuaded any way.
Another: What's Wrong With This Picture? Obama & The Space Program
Jul 08, 2010
I just watched a June 30th, 2010 Al Jazeera (Arabic World’s News Agency) interview with Charles Bolden- President Obama’s appointee in charge of our nation’s National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). In this video interview, NASA Director Bolden says “...before I became the NASA administrator, he (President Obama) charged me with three things, one- he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, (two) he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering.”
I understand that this might be a message specifically designed for the Muslim interviewer and his Muslim audience, but even if it is a ‘people pleaser’ statement, it causes me to question our elected and appointed leaders. I have previously blogged concerns about closing down manned space flight, and I wonder why the person in charge of our government’s space agency doesn’t have any immediate direction or goal to explore space. The idea of moving forward with space exploration and science is not even on his radar apparently – the ’Next Big Thing in Science’ doesn’t make his top three goals in any clear formulation.
All of this administraton’s goals are ‘feel good type goals’, although feeling good about things is important, how about some immediate, technology outcomes? Beyond the affective domain, where will human space flight be when you leave office, Mr. President? Are we moving forward or backward?
I guess that covers the 2nd goal that Director Bolden stated - the Obama plan is definitely expanding our international relationships!
So that leaves me to comment on the third goal. Yes, our numaric system is Aramaic. But should our once proud Space Exploration Agency hold up it’s foremost goal to “make them (Muslims) feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering”??!! Please!!!!“”and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering.””
NASA Director Charles Bolden
Talk about taking your eye off the ball! The agency that was once the embodiment of the modern American pioneering spirit, the international expert of technological innovation and application, the epitome of scientific endeavor now (under President Obama’s mandate) has as it’s foremost goal to try and make Muslims feel good about their contributions...
I did listen to the rest of the interview, but honestly feel a great deal of cynicsm based on the opening statements. I would probably not have been as upset if even one of the 3 goals that Director Bolden had provided had something to do with the United States showing some immediate leadership in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) instead of just trying to make people feel good.
How different this President is compared to the President that kicked off this national endeavor...
“The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.
Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.”
“We Choose to Go to the Moon”
President John F. Kennedy, 1962
What do you think?
(comment system requires the browser to have Javascript turned on).
An Open Letter to Florida Governor Charlie Crist
May 11, 2010
Once again, it is time to make our collective voice heard.
A notice came from friend today:
I am sure than many who read this blog already realize this, but for many decades, the textbook industry has fought furiously through their lobbyists to maintain their exclusive budget line in the state education budgets of the nation. Our world has changed tremendously since the internet revolution began just over 16 years ago... it it time that our classrooms changed as well.
I am proud that a friend, State Senator Thad Altman from Melbourne, Florida introduced this bill. Now it is our turn to let the governor know how important this is!
Please consider emailing our governor in support of this bill, we need his signature!
Send to: Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
Mail to:
The Honorable Charlie Crist
Governor, State of Florida
PL05 The Capitol
400 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Here is the letter I sent:
Dear Governor Crist,
I am a native Floridian and a career educator (28 years) in Florida's public schools and private college system. I have been nationally recognized as an educator several times and enjoy the privilege of traveling around our nation providing professional development for educators when I am not in the classroom in Melbourne, FL.
First I want to thank you for your veto of the SB6 last month. It was very gratifying see our state governor was willing to apply common sense to a very complicated issue. I was glad to hear that you recognized that there is a real problem, but the solution is not as simple as that bill made it seem.
Now I would like to call on you to provide school systems with the flexibility to move on to keep up the modern world with respect to learning tools. For years, our state and others, have been held financially hostage to state textbook adoption budgets, purchasing books that were outdated the day they were printed. With changes brought on largely by computer technology, our world is changing in many respects faster than new textbooks can be authored, typeset and printed, much less adopted, purchased, shipped and distributed.
I wouldn't suggest that textbooks are obsolete, or that there is no place for printed resources in our schools, but they no longer are the only way or always the best way to communicate and teach our children. eBooks can be instantly updated over the internet and they can contain multimedia such as 3D objects and movies as well as interactive exercises and self-grading quizzes and tests.
The fact is our schools have often felt obligated to purchase books that were really not needed since the previous adoption was in good shape. They felt obligated to purchase books because if they didn't, they would lose that money that was solely budgeted for textbook purchases. This is poor stewardship.
Please give your approval to CS/HB 5101which contains a proposal that will allow districts the flexibility to spend a portion of their educational materials budget to purchase technology for delivering digital content for classroom instruction.
This legislation will help establish Florida as a progressive, forward-thinking, fiscally responsible state that recognizes that the world is changing– and the way that we prepare our students for their future is changing as well.
cordially,
Gordon Shupe
A notice came from friend today:
“GREAT NEWS!!
After years of effort the Florida Legislature has passed landmark legislation allowing traditional textbook dollars to be used for innovation and technology in the classroom! Tremendous thanks go to the hundreds and hundreds of supporters in and beyond the Sunshine State to make this happen. However, the legislation won't become law unless Florida Governor Charlie Crist approves it, and that remains uncertain at best.THE CLOCK IS TICKING! We have until Friday, May 14 to make the case to Gov. Crist, so act now on behalf of students everywhere who will reap the benefits of this landmark bill.”
I am sure than many who read this blog already realize this, but for many decades, the textbook industry has fought furiously through their lobbyists to maintain their exclusive budget line in the state education budgets of the nation. Our world has changed tremendously since the internet revolution began just over 16 years ago... it it time that our classrooms changed as well.
I am proud that a friend, State Senator Thad Altman from Melbourne, Florida introduced this bill. Now it is our turn to let the governor know how important this is!
Please consider emailing our governor in support of this bill, we need his signature!
Send to: Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
Mail to:
The Honorable Charlie Crist
Governor, State of Florida
PL05 The Capitol
400 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Here is the letter I sent:
Dear Governor Crist,
I am a native Floridian and a career educator (28 years) in Florida's public schools and private college system. I have been nationally recognized as an educator several times and enjoy the privilege of traveling around our nation providing professional development for educators when I am not in the classroom in Melbourne, FL.
First I want to thank you for your veto of the SB6 last month. It was very gratifying see our state governor was willing to apply common sense to a very complicated issue. I was glad to hear that you recognized that there is a real problem, but the solution is not as simple as that bill made it seem.
Now I would like to call on you to provide school systems with the flexibility to move on to keep up the modern world with respect to learning tools. For years, our state and others, have been held financially hostage to state textbook adoption budgets, purchasing books that were outdated the day they were printed. With changes brought on largely by computer technology, our world is changing in many respects faster than new textbooks can be authored, typeset and printed, much less adopted, purchased, shipped and distributed.
I wouldn't suggest that textbooks are obsolete, or that there is no place for printed resources in our schools, but they no longer are the only way or always the best way to communicate and teach our children. eBooks can be instantly updated over the internet and they can contain multimedia such as 3D objects and movies as well as interactive exercises and self-grading quizzes and tests.
The fact is our schools have often felt obligated to purchase books that were really not needed since the previous adoption was in good shape. They felt obligated to purchase books because if they didn't, they would lose that money that was solely budgeted for textbook purchases. This is poor stewardship.
Please give your approval to CS/HB 5101which contains a proposal that will allow districts the flexibility to spend a portion of their educational materials budget to purchase technology for delivering digital content for classroom instruction.
This legislation will help establish Florida as a progressive, forward-thinking, fiscally responsible state that recognizes that the world is changing– and the way that we prepare our students for their future is changing as well.
cordially,
Gordon Shupe