One of the more memorable scenes in that iconic 1967 movie, “The Graduate,” involves a brief, profoundly superficial conversation between protagonist Benjamin Braddock and one of his parents’ friends, in which the latter imparts a one-word career revelation to the newly-minted grad:
“Plastics.”
In a life-imitates-art sort of way, the “educators” at Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64 have come up with their own one-word revelation for ostensibly improving academic performance of D-64 students:
“Chromebooks.”
That was the watchword at the June 10th D-64 School Board meeting at which that Board voted 6-1 (Board pres. Tony Borrelli dissenting) to purchase 675 Chromebooks for $190,000 as part of a yearlong test of whether D-64 should purchase Chromebooks for every student. Borrelli wanted to perform this test by purchasing only 157 Chromebooks, which would have replaced that same number of outdated Macbooks. Borrelli’s more measured test reportedly would have saved the District $145,000.
But anybody who has observed the workings of D-64 over the past several years can read the handwriting on the Smartboards: this “test” stage is just a charade for those taxpaying suckers gullible enough to believe that it’s actually some kind of due diligence evaluation. In reality, Chromebooks for every student (other than Grades K-2, for which iPads are the device of choice) is virtually a done deal.
Interestingly enough, we could find no mention of any clear, objective metrics by which the D-64 Board and Administration intend to determine the success or failure of this yearlong Chromebook experiment. Then again, done deals don’t need metrics.
But given the chronic lackluster performance by D-64 students on the ISAT standardized examinations over the past several years, Chromebook-generated improvement measured by higher ISAT scores would have been a welcome, albeit novel, concept. Or perhaps those two well-paid “tech coaches” D-64 hired a couple of years ago could come up with some other kind of measurement standard.
As “education” continues to be transformed into an alternate universe where customary measures of achievement are being supplanted by a culture of lowered standards, faux self-esteem, and a lack of accountability – by teachers and by the elected and appointed officials charged with directing and managing that process – Chromebooks are seemingly being touted as the latest “silver bullet” cure for whatever may be ailing our kids’ academic performances.
Not surprisingly, the folks at D-64 are carefully maintaining the charade that the Chromebooks are less about the technology and more about the learning. For example, an April 22, 2013 story in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“District 64 eyes iPads, Chromebooks for every kid”) describes how D-64 director of technology Terri Bresnahan extolled the Chromebook’s web-based platform, how inappropriate material can be easily filtered out, how it has a full keyboard, and how it is fully integrated with Google educational applications – all without mentioning any academic goals or standards for Chromebook-based learning.
Meanwhile, that same article reported that Board members John Heyde and Scott Zimmerman praised the District – and, by implication, themselves – for focusing on student learning and not technology for technology’s sake, also without mentioning any measurable Chromebook-related performance goals or standards.
Yet according to a more recent article in the Park Ridge Journal (“Dist. 64 Schools Go With Chromebooks,” June 13), Bresnahan proclaimed “the mission of the district is to advance the use of technology.” And Board member Terry Cameron echoed Bresnahan with: “If we’re truly committed to technology we have to be willing to spend the money to [bring Chromebooks to the classrooms].”
That sure sounds like technology for technology’s sake to us. Probably because it is.
We’re big fans of technology. But as best we can tell, technology still hasn’t found a way to transcend GIGO: garbage in = garbage out. And it doesn’t appear that D-64 has come up with adequate standards or an exacting protocol for making a sound decision on Chromebooks, much less a persuasive case for such a significant commitment of time and money to such a Chromebook test.
But in the words of the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland”: “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.”
And for the folks running D-64, that one-word sentence is…“Chromebooks.”
To read or post comments, click on title.
23 comments so far
D64 hired 4 tech coaches two years ago, not 2,and 3 more last year. 7 full time coaches for a yearly cost of about $450,000.00 plus benefits.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks, Taxpayer: for the time being, at least, we’ll take your word for it.
Gee, that’s almost the size of the Maine South football team coaching staff!
Just another example of how the more hammers you have, the more nails that need to be found and whacked.
Thanks for another D-64 post. I hope more people read and comment on this one more than they do on most D-64 posts. For a taxing body that takes over 1/3 of our property taxes to continue to fly under the radar as well as D-64 does is as puzzling as it is troubling. It’s a Teflon government.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe even greased Teflon…and employing “stealth” technology.
That’s an awfully large amount of money to spend for a test without explaining what applications will be used to aid learning in specific subjects and how much they will cost in addition to the Chromebook. There should be a side by side comparison of these programs per operating system. The platform and hardware sound like they are being picked more for ease of administration than the learning content they will provide. Surely this shouldn’t be that difficult if tech staff is indeed that large.
Talk about flying under the radar….you do not even mention your pick Paterno. If Borrelli was the only no vote that would mean that Paterno voted yes. You single out Zimmerman and Hyde but this is what you would expect from them, right??? But the guy you endorsed does not even get a mention.
Here is one even better. There was a vote back in May related to bonus for administration (about 20K worth I believe). There is a spread sheet out there I am guessing you have seen listing the person, bonus and reason for the bonus. As a guy who loves performance measurement, you had to find the reasons hysterical. “$2,500 for work on the D64 negotiating team working through a wide array of financial issues.”
Paterno voted to pay these bonuses (as did the Doctor by the way)but you did not even mention it.
I have to guess this is not the start you were hoping for.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We took most of our information about the Chromebooks’ meetings from the two stories that appeared in our two local newspapers; and neither of those stories mentioned Paterno…or Collins or Lee…so we had no comments from them like the ones we had from Heyde, Zimmerman and Cameron.
We have another post in the works regarding D-64’s (incl. Borrelli’s and Paterno’s) dealing with compensation matters, which will point out those two gentlemen’s foibles in that regard. But we doubt you’ll like the main messages of that post, so don’t start panting or drooling.
And, no, this is not the “start [we] were hoping for.” Whether that “start” becomes SOP or is just a stumble out of the gate will be interesting to see. But if the issue of D-64 employee compensation or spending money frivolously truly is a concern of yours, then we assume you would agree that Paterno’s vanquished election opponent, Rick Van Roeyen, would have voted no differently than Paterno and Borrelli did – or than former Boad members Pat Fioretto, Sharon Lawson and Eric Uhlig used to do.
But we don’t
I will stipulate that they probably (almost certainly) would not have voted any different but I have to ask why does that matter??? (kind of like you referencing Hock to defend Hamilton). That is not a defense in fact it is just the opposite…..an indictment. You endorsed this guy as different compared to the “go along to get along” D64 board and yet his vote was the same as theirs would have been.
I look forward to your upcoming post about D64 compensation and I hope it references the recent vote. I am sure you will find a way to make it appear to be better that it was.
Lastly, you wrote that Borrelli voted no and you knew Paterno voted yes. You chose to hammer Zimmerman and Hyde and not to even mention Paterno, who one might argue voted in a way that was much more unexpected. So how to you explain it?? It was the local rags fault!!!! Perfect….blame the “lame stream media”. So you have on many occasions basically said that the local papers suck but your defense for not mentioning Paterno is you took your information from the local paper and they never mentioned him?!?!?!?!
EDITOR’S NOTE: It matters because one can only be “better” (or worse) in relation to someone else. Hence, our endorsement of Paterno over Van Roeyen, Lee and Zimmerman – and our continuing endorsement of Hamilton over Hock and Schuenke.
If you re-read the post, you might see that we “chose to hammer Zimmerman and Heyde [and Cameron] and not to even mention Paterno” because the hammering was not related to the vote itself but, instead, to the claim that the Chromebook decision was education-based rather than “technology of technology’s sake.” The local press chose to report what those gentlemen said and nothing about what Paterno, Lee, Collins or Borrelli on that point.
If you think similar quotes were uttered by the other four, feel free to watch the entire meeting video and provide those quotes (with hour/minute signatures so we can verify them) and we will most certainly print them.
But please don’t be offended if we don’t hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen.
Technology does not substititue for good teaching. If members of the school board think that technology will resolve underperforming students, they are 100% wrong (in my opinion).
On the other hand, I am in the minority on this issue, but I have no problem with D64 purchasing Chromebooks. For many students getting use to the functionality of computers and the internet is a positive.
From a budget perspective, get rid of 1.5 administrators to offset the cost of the computers. Not that they will do that, but that is how I would recommend paying for them.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have no inherent objection to Chromebooks…or iPads, etc. for that matter. Our objection lies with: (a) buying so many for the “test” phase; (b) the lack of any objective testing protocol and benchmarks; (c) the disingenuousness of D-64’s description of the process and its learning focus; and (d) the sense that this really is already a done deal.
We also must disagree, however, with your suggestion that: “[f]or many students getting use to the functionality of computers and the internet is a positive.” We’d be shocked to learn that even a small handful of D-64 students don’t already have regular access to computers, if not have their own computers.
When discussing the Chromebook issue I don’t think you can leave D207 out of it. I believe they’re the one driving this. D64 is responding so that the kids will be able to make the transition to high school more smoothly from a technological standpoint.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If/when D-207 wants to use part of its huge surplus to cover the cost of D-64’s Chromebooks, only then should it be entitled to be “the one driving this.” And if the D-64 Board and administration is letting that happen, they should be tarred and feathered.
As for “kids…mak[ing] the transition to high school more smoothly from a technological standpoint,” from what we’ve seen of Park Ridge 13-year olds, he/she could go from an iPhone to a Cray XC30 easier than his/her parents can go from a 2010 Ford to a 2013 Audi.
If I may offer a correction: I did NOT vote for the 20k in bonuses. If I’m not mistaken, I was the lone dissent on that. I was decidedly against it, in fact. My reason: I did not (and do not) believe that these bonuses provide an essential benefit to the students or to student learning. That is the standard I am trying to employ in my votes on anything re: expenditures.
My vote for the Chromebooks is more complicated. First, I DO believe that increasing access to technology provides an essential benefit to students. I heard convincing evidence that the number of computer-like devices–particularly in the middle schools–has been WOEFULLY insufficient. Second, I was convinced that a larger number of units would be necessary for a trial. A small number would be useless (one primary principle of metrics is that one must have a large enough N to achieve meaningful findings). Third, I trusted–perhaps naively–that appropriate metrics would be developed to measure whether the Chromebooks were beneficial and worth the increased cost. I am committed to hold the administration accountable to develop and follow appropriately significant metrics. I know others on the Board feel similarly. Fourth, I understand that the upcoming avalanche of curriculum change called the Common Core Standards REQUIRES that technology be a much larger part of the children’s day. This isn’t simply a wish for more cool technology–technology for technology’s sake (it would not have garnered my vote in that case). Multimedia is required for math, reading, writing to a much greater degree under the CC Standards. The pressure from the state for D64 to provide for increased technology will be matched by the pressure from parents to increase the number of similar devices in the classroom. Finally, other districts are increasing their reliance on technology similar to Chromebooks; parents, teachers, administrators, and students expect it, just as much as they expect adequate school lunches, adequate teachers, and adequate air quality. I believe our district needs to catch up in this arena.
Now, I am open to WD’s and anyone else’s criticism about my vote on this. It makes little difference, but my vote was offered with some hesitation. I realize it is a big ticket item, but I offered my vote in good faith.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, Dr. P., but “good faith” isn’t some sort of talisman that magically excuses bad decisions by public officials.
Your ipse dixit “I DO believe that increasing access to technology provides an essential benefit to students” – when D-64 has yet to demonstrate any objectively measurable data to support that position – suggests that you may have already made a few trips to D-64’s Kool-Aid machine. And your “I trusted…that appropriate metrics would be developed to measure whether the Chromebooks were beneficial and worth the increased cost” is oddly reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
We also expected more out of you than the halt-and-lame “other districts are increasing their reliance on technology similar to Chromebooks.” So what? What other districts are doing should never – EVER – be a justification for any decision made by this Board, as it virtually concedes both intellectual laziness and a lemming-like mentality.
But what may be the most problematic of your comments is your seeming pre-occupation with the fact(?) that “parents, teachers, administrators, and students expect…[technology], just as much as they expect adequate school lunches, adequate teachers, and adequate air quality.” Chromebooks = “adequate air quality”? Really?
Wow!
What about the expectations of all the taxpayers who aren’t any of those four special interest groups, but who have been paying a full 1/3+ of their property tax dollars for mediocre performance since D-64 got those other “silver bullets” – the “middle school concept” and the “new” Emerson – around 16 years ago?
it IS being driven by D-207. For proof just watch D-64’s video, Part 2, of the Regular Board meeting from May 20th. Minutes 35 to 54.
http://www.d64.org/subsite/dist/page/boe-video-5-20-13-77072
EDITOR’S NOTE: Looks and sounds more like a conspiracy to us, but if you want to make D-207 the driver we won’t argue that point too strenuously.
I think new technology like Chromebooks, is a great way to shift more costs to the…..USER. The only way to control costs is to let the parents understand the true cost that their little prince/princess education. Let’s bet if parents started feeling the costs instead of the taxpayers…changes would happen.
I would like to see modest yearly increases to students then that corresponding number credited to the property taxpayers.
Unions love saying taxpayers always put pressure on teachers, well I’d be more than happy to cost shift the cost directly to the users of school resources. Crazy idea?
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Shift more costs to the …USER”? As in making parents pay for their kid’s Chromebook?
The line to sign your commitment papers forms on the left.
Maybe I’m old “school,” but the overuse of technology in schools worries me. Part of the process of education is learning how to problem solve and develop critical thinking skills. Handing a kid a calculator to get the answer to a math problem does little to develop those skills.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You are “old school” – and probably also hopelessly uneducated because you went to school before Chromebooks, SmartBoards and the Internet led the post-boomer generations out of the Dark Ages.
So I got my HA in the ole’ mailbox today and read an interesting quote.
“…….it’s going to take a lot more money that we have to solve this problem”.
Ta da!!!!!! After all the flowery promises to accelerate things and the indicting of his predecessors for not doing anything, and five years of doing virtually nothing……the Mayor finally tells the truth about the flooding issue!!!!!
The interesting thing is that the above quote from the Mayor DID NOT come from his flood committee or from Burke. It came from common sense.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Boy, you were so intent on getting this comment up that you stuck it on a D-64/Chromebooks post. And not surprisingly, Anon, you’re wrong.
The mayor’s conclusion about the arguably unaffordable cost of solving the flooding problem DID come from information provided by the Flood Control Task Force AND Burke…as well as from City staff and from the many residents who have shown up at meetings to relate their own flooding experiences.
GIGO it is. Many parents have chuckled sadly together about the numerous grammatical and typographical mistakes in communiques coming from the schools, including in those specifically addressing the lack of careful work on the part of students. But to those who want to pass more costs of the latest fads onto parents, the D207 books fee is already about $800 without extra bells and whistles such as music or sports fees. And the concept that the next generation of citizens/taxpayers is worth our country’s investment, not just a personal hobby of those whose name they share, is one you might consider.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re always wary of “investments” of taxpayer dollars where there are no identified, specific and measurable goals and objectives, or where such goals and objectives can’t be measured with any certainty for 5-10-20 years.
Like, oh, say…the academic achievements of the “middle school concept” and the “new” Emerson Middle School.
If D64 is following the lead of D207 then the parents should be paying for the Chromebooks for the students. D207 is requiring all freshman and sophomore students to purchase a Chromebook at a cost of about $330-insurance each year is another $20. (Many students at ME and MW (as much as 35% according to recent newspaper articles) will get the Chromebooks for free as they qualify for financial aid).
However, only 16 textbooks will be available via a user fee ($20-$25 per book) on Chromebook for the 2013-2014 school year. And once the school year is over, electronic access to that textbook is gone. In addition, we will have to buy for our D207 students the books that are not on Chromebook-which will likely be all the books your freshman or sophomore will need. It is unacceptable to require the purchase of this technology when most-or all-of the books your student will need are not even available on the Chromebook.
D207 is pitching this move to Chromebooks as a cost saver to the parents with a 2 year payback. But the payback assumes that a student gets their books from the d207 bookstore and not on the internet where books can be acquired much more cost effectively than from the district. So it will be interesting to see if any money is saved at all on textbooks for D207 parents-which as a previous poster commented are quite high given the amount of property taxes that go to the schools.
Perhaps D64 should wait a few years before making this investment to see how the Chromebooks transition goes over at D207.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Silver bullets can’t wait for “a few years.” Without Chromebooks – NOW – D-64 will need to come up with some new explanation for what it is doing to deal wtih test scores that don’t rank anywhere close to the level of teacher and administrator compensation.
Parents will have to pay for the student’s Chromebook, at least in 207. They’re charging $300 for it. And I assume once it goes beyond the test phase and rolls out in 64, parents will be asked to pay. We do pay a decent hundred of dollars in fees already, fyi, for those who think everything we get from the schools is free.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Parents pay “a decent hundred dollars in fees already” for an education that now costs taxpayers over $13,000/year? Cue violins.
@1:08. I don’t know if you have kids in D64, but I don’t think technology is overused. The majority of learning is still very much of the old school kind. I think technology can enhance certain aspects of learning but it definitely does not replace old methods and the teachers/administrators clearly realize that.
The Chromebooks, at least for D207, however do represent the most radical change in the realm of technology so far, I think. They are replacing textbooks, which to me is huge. I’m not sure how many kids are ready for that. My own middle school kids prefer their “real” textbooks over the online versions because they are frankly easier to navigate. And they love their technology in other forms.
I’m all for making sure kids have equal access to the Internet but I’m not convinced that actual books are obsolete.
“…………is oddly reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Man o man!!!! Having his vote logic compared to something stated by Nancy Pelosi….and about Obamacare!!!!! If word of this gets out it will ruin his over the edge right wack job street cred!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Which “cred” Dr. Paterno appears to have only with those who can’t – or won’t – differentiate between partisan national political issues and non-partisan local governmental issues.
Anon 5:37…sorry but that’s just an empty slogan.
Creating competition for your kids education would the best service to the next generation. We have a structure here that serves the unions and the administrators not students.
Special interests would never let parents actually write the check for their little ones education because real accountability would happen once people have ownership. Ever see a parent when their little princess drops their $500 IPAD or tears their North Face coat??? Wow, it gets ugly. Imagine if their princess had crappy or average teachers after they just floated $13000 for!
I urge D64 to start the cost-shift to the parents then the real discussion about the “next generation” can begin.
They should proceed with this very cautiously. Given the relative newness of this technology, they better find out what textbooks and learning materials are readily available for immediate use. What could happen is a real nightmare, which is rumored to be occuring with the early tablet technology. Basically, all the really valauable text books and learning materials are coming out on the latest platforms (newer versions) Guess what ? The new text books and learning materials don’t work on the earlier tablets.Parents then must buy the new tablets for the newer text books all over again.
5:37 here; 12:10, you have a very solid point. If we had more direct control, it would get really interesting! Whether it’s a $75 gazallion-dollar corporation or a $75K teacher who can’t spell, accountability is in real short supply. The only place we seem to be serious about accountability is in punishing girls and women in the red states for getting knocked up. Many of us in D64 have tried to hold the schools accountable, if only by answering their “what can we do better” surveys with “abolish tenure.” That goes over well, as you can imagine. But PubDog, you are naiive or pretending to be if you think one’s overarching political view doesn’t impact local decisions. There’s no Chinese wall between “national” and “local” when it comes to partisanship. What there is is a lot more common ground than you hear in crazoid media. Locally, the gap is bridged every day. Locally, conservatives and progressives work and play well together. but that doesn’t mean Paterno won’t vote against science, females and a whole bunch of other things if he gets the chance. Don’t kid yourself.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Your reference in a purportedly local-government discussion to “red states” and Dr. Paterno being “against science, females and a whole bunch of other things” is, in a word, stupid.
We live in arguably the most corrupt state in the union, yet it’s been a “blue state” for at least the last 30 years. We live in the most bankrupt state in the union, yet it’s been a “blue state” for at least the last 30 years. So don’t think you’re going to get away with that “red state”/”blue state” nonsense here.
As for Dr. Paterno, the only thing he’s been “against” so far – as we see it – is fiscal responsibility.
I appreciate the reminder that each D64 student gets an education that costs $13,000 per year, but let’s also remember that most households with kids pay $10,000 to $15,000 per year in real estate taxes, so if they have the average 2.5 kids, families with kids are paying for at 1/2 to 1/3 of the cost themselves, plus fees others don’t have to pay. And this is where I again try to bring up the idea that the next gen is not just chattel, but all of our future, in a pretty literal sense.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This comment isn’t any better than your previous one: a household that pays $15,000 a year in real estate taxes pays $5,000 of that to D-64, so a household with 2 kids in D-64 isn’t paying even 20% of those tuition costs.
And your comment “the next gen is not just chattel” is even stupider than your “red state” and Paterno comments.
Ahh yes, someone must have found my secret Doctoral thesis: “Why I Am Against Science, Women, And a Whole Bunch of Other Things”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You can only keep Amazon.com best sellers under the radar for so long, Dr. P. But if you send us the Cliff’s Notes version with the authorization to publish them, we will embed them in an Update of our post in the interest of as much full-disclosure as our limited format allows.
It isn’t a Doctoral thesis….it is just your twitter account.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>