LA Unified School District's defunct 'iPad-for-all' plan botched from start, federal report says
According to a federal study, the Los Angeles Unified School District's $1.3 billion push to bring tech into the classroom was crippled early on by inadequate planning and over-reliance on Apple's iPad.
A U.S. Education Department review found the LAUSD iPad in education initiative, first announced last June, to be fraught with financial and administrative problems from its inception, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Headed by Richard Culatta, director of the Office of Educational Technology, the review found "iPad-for-all" put too strong an emphasis on Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, distracting from less-expensive options that could have saved money. In July, it was reported the L.A. Unified would move away from an iPad-only rollout to include Google's Chromebook and Windows devices, including Microsoft's Surface 2.
LAUSD officials formally axed the iPad program in December, with blowback from the decision playing a part in the resignation of former Superintendent John Deasy and former head of technology Ronald Chandler.
Aside from an overwhelming financial burden, the erstwhile project also failed to properly educate teachers on how to best implement Apple's tablets into classroom curricula, the report said. Senior management involved in the program also failed to pass along concerns and issues in a timely manner, allowing them to grow into larger problems, according to the publication.
"Among the most significant gaps we identified was the absence of district-wide instructional technology leadership," the report said. On the point of relying on Apple's iPad, the review said LAUSD was too "heavily dependent on a single commercial product for providing digital learning resources, which has plagued the project since the initial rollout."
Another sticking point is the apparent lack of an evaluation framework. The federal report notes the problem is ongoing, saying some schools "have not developed plans for how the devices will be used to support learning [...] As a result, there is no common vision for how devices should be shifting learning and teaching within schools, making measuring impact difficult, if even possible."
The district used voter-approved bonds to fund "iPad-for-all," initially seeding 47 schools with $30 million worth of Apple hardware. An aggressive rollout timeline saw an additional $115 million spent on expansions to other campuses, but questions soon arose as the district fought to manage a critical budget crunch over the program. It was later discovered that LAUSD misunderstood Apple's bulk purchase discount terms, which held that the district would become eligible for special pricing only after $400 million worth of iPads were purchased.
A U.S. Education Department review found the LAUSD iPad in education initiative, first announced last June, to be fraught with financial and administrative problems from its inception, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Headed by Richard Culatta, director of the Office of Educational Technology, the review found "iPad-for-all" put too strong an emphasis on Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, distracting from less-expensive options that could have saved money. In July, it was reported the L.A. Unified would move away from an iPad-only rollout to include Google's Chromebook and Windows devices, including Microsoft's Surface 2.
LAUSD officials formally axed the iPad program in December, with blowback from the decision playing a part in the resignation of former Superintendent John Deasy and former head of technology Ronald Chandler.
Aside from an overwhelming financial burden, the erstwhile project also failed to properly educate teachers on how to best implement Apple's tablets into classroom curricula, the report said. Senior management involved in the program also failed to pass along concerns and issues in a timely manner, allowing them to grow into larger problems, according to the publication.
"Among the most significant gaps we identified was the absence of district-wide instructional technology leadership," the report said. On the point of relying on Apple's iPad, the review said LAUSD was too "heavily dependent on a single commercial product for providing digital learning resources, which has plagued the project since the initial rollout."
Another sticking point is the apparent lack of an evaluation framework. The federal report notes the problem is ongoing, saying some schools "have not developed plans for how the devices will be used to support learning [...] As a result, there is no common vision for how devices should be shifting learning and teaching within schools, making measuring impact difficult, if even possible."
The district used voter-approved bonds to fund "iPad-for-all," initially seeding 47 schools with $30 million worth of Apple hardware. An aggressive rollout timeline saw an additional $115 million spent on expansions to other campuses, but questions soon arose as the district fought to manage a critical budget crunch over the program. It was later discovered that LAUSD misunderstood Apple's bulk purchase discount terms, which held that the district would become eligible for special pricing only after $400 million worth of iPads were purchased.
Comments
Sounds dumb from both sides.
How on earth is that Apple's fault. They didn't have the competence to use Ipads... So, how on earth will they have the competence to use any other platform. If those doufus think using chromebooks will save them money, or technical expertise, they will be in for some major awakening. This "report" is very weak in actual explanations beyond the fact politics played a big role in the reversal.
It was called after-sales service.
THAT WAS A HUGE ORDER.
JUST WHAT COACHING DID APPLE INCLUDE OR OFFER... IF AT ALL?
Aside from an overwhelming financial burden, the erstwhile project also failed to properly educate teachers on how to best implement Apple's tablets into classroom curricula, the report said.
It seems like a case of "Here's this amazing new tech, lets try and find an application for it!" That seems backwards to me. You should start with the individual subjects and figure out how to delivery the best outcome in each case. Maybe for maths there is a really excellent iPad-only maths program, so you buy iPads for the math classroom. But maybe for history the best source is a particular academically acknowledged textbook, so for that class you just use books. Maybe for writing class, the best result is from talking to actual writers, and so on...
You don't start with the tech and then find a way to use it, you start with the outcomes you want and then find the tools.
This is precisely what happens when you have a bunch of monkeys making decisions. The administrators put politics ahead of sound planning. Whether it be iPads, Chromebooks, or PC's, if the training and in-house expertise is not there, IT'S GOING TO FAIL!
They just figured they drop a bunch of shiny, futuristic iPads in there and it would just "magically" work for everyone. I'd located everyone involved in making the purchase and fire their useless, overpaid a$$es and demand their salary be returned to the people.
Stupidity on an epic level. Just goes to show that money can't buy the people in management any brains.
For an educational institutional, a multi-platform approach should've always been in play. Selecting one platform for all is as bad as them choosing Windows only for the purpose of streamlining the IT management. Now to drop iPads and only use Google and Microsoft platforms.... I fail to see how that will correct any mistakes. The problem was never with the devices, it's with the people managing the implementation of the devices. The people in charge should've been replaced, not the iPads.
Now, as for $400 million being required _before_ special discount pricing becomes available... that's insanity. Apple should know better.
All gigahertz's are the same, so why not buy from the lowest bidder?
It's not like any of these public school victims have a future. /s
They received a discount from the first unit. As is common in volume purchase contracts done over time, you have to actually reach a certain purchase level to obtain the best price.
The most important and timeless educational lessons in primary education have no dependency on technology. Perhaps they can use some well directed and carefully applied technology to reinforce and accelerate the learning process for some students who don't respond to traditional means. But blanket rollouts without a plan is insane. The other problem is that no matter what devices or tools they purchase the clock of obsolescence starts ticking from day one as does the lifecycle support and maintenance costs for the equipment and infrastructure. I'd bet that the basic facilities and transportation infrastructure for these same school districts are struggling to keep up yet they want to buy a bunch of technology products that will be obsolete in 5 years or less.
With the mass ineptitude of these people who call themselves educators they'd be better off bulk purchasing commercial grade restaurant equipment and janitorial tools because those are the tools that these students are going to be applying in their daily lives once they graduate from the fine educational system they are lucky enough to be a part of.
To end this on a positive note, there are some excellent technology focused educational programs already in place like First Robotics Competition (FRC) and industry/education collaboration around STEM focused education. These collaborative programs offer a lot more potential than any school district bulk purchasing devices for all students without a plan in place to apply the devices. Once proper programs are in place there will obviously be a need for devices and tools that apply technology to a purpose driven endeavor. This requires time, effort, and focus by the educators, which is why I see the bulk iPad purchase plan as an act of laziness. The educators want all the benefits that these devices are capable of providing without doing any of the work required to use the devices effectively.
A significant part of the funding was going to technology infrastructure improvements at LAUSD, so realistically many of the schools didn't really have the capability to make full use of the hardware regardless of whether it was in the form of an iPad or Chromebook/Surface. Building that out isn't going to happen overnight.
With the mass ineptitude of these people who call themselves educators they'd be better off bulk purchasing commercial grade restaurant equipment and janitorial tools because those are the tools that these students are going to be applying in their daily lives once they graduate from the fine educational system they are lucky enough to be a part of.
The hardware being purchased is mainly for test taking, and the tests themselves (and likely the curriculum for them) are created by private for-profit companies. In other words, even though people like to complain about the quality of "public" schools, the current reality is that they're largely controlled by private enterprise.
Not to say the school did not screw up, but notice the only fault they fund with the Apple only solution is the cost. As a tax payer I would not want the school spending too much money. However, like most of these analyses they usually do not factor in the gifts that keep giving so support non apple products, like all the licensing fees from MS and IT support to keep these products running. Then factory the lack or no support for google products.
In the end any solution they provide will cost more than they think.
LAUSD Motto: "Nothing Is Too Good for Our Children...Except the Best!".
dismal
I guess they don't put a dollar amount on user experience, tech support, security breaches, and down time. As an earlier poster said, there is dumbness on both sides.
You have an unqualified person making decisions with a side of nepotism. Then you have auditors looking at spreadsheets and making judgements based on numbers that don't take into account the things all of us Apple users know make a difference.
I am shocked that this program is considered a failure. iPads are so educational! I'm not saying that the teachers and administrators did something wrong, but it is hard to see how this initiative wouldn't motivate kids and slowly streamline things.
Mismanagement is why LAUSD can't have nice things.
I don't think it's the problem you imagine it to be.
http://www.google.com/edu/products/devices/chromebooks.html