Goldilocks numbers and changing role of techs

Last month, Steve Taffee at Blogg-Ed Indermination wrote a series of interesting and useful posts on factors determining technology department staffing. (If Steve is not in your RSS aggregator, add him today.)

1. The Goldilocks Number: Tech Department Staffing

2. The Goldilocks Number: Support Staff Competence and Automated Systems

3. The Goldilocks Number: Core Competencies of Users

4. The Goldilocks Number: Service Expectations

5. The Goldilocks Number: Systems Complexity

6. The Goldilocks Number: Academic and Operational Goals

7. The Goldilocks Number: Seasonality

8. The Goldilocks Number: Funding

It must be the weather, full-moon, or boredom, but I've been asked several times by folks from other districts over the past few weeks about how we "staff" our technology department. First, I steer them to Steve's posts above (just like I've done here). I then readily admit that I don't really know a "recommended" level or type of staffing for a school's tech support.

Most district's tech departments have grown organically rather than by deliberated planning. I suspect that no two districts share identical job descriptions, identical levels of responsibility, or identical levels of staffing. Besides the organic nature of department growth, no two schools have deployed technology in the same way - resulting in every school district in the world creating its own technology plan and re-inventing the wheel. While good arguments can be made both for and against uniformity in any educational practice, this makes recommending a model for tech staffing pretty difficult.

Trying to "plan" for technology staffing is also frustrating since technology changes quickly along with the tasks associated with it. Less than a month ago, I suggested some ways the role of the CTO in schools is changing. Just as quickly, the role of the building, front-line technician is changing. As schools move from banks of wired student workstations in labs and classrooms running hard drive-based software to ubiquitous computing environments comprised of individual computing devices wirelessly accessing cloud-base applications, for the technician there will need to be:

• Less attention to unique school machines; more lab-wide reimaging of fewer stationary devices with a standard, minimal configuration of applications.
• Less trouble shooting of wired networks; more work with wireless networks.
• Less in-depth knowledge needed of operating systems; more practical knowledge of a wide variety of OSs including cellphones, tablets, and who knows what - especially as they have problems accessing online resources.
• Less involvement with stand-alone software applications; more involvement with systems integration and support, including cloud-based apps.
• Less in-person, hands-on work; more remote support.
• Very limited need for programming; greater need for designing custom reports, importing exporting data, maintaining user groups and user rights.

If I were a good manager, you'd think that I could strategically shrink the number of technicians I need in the district. But demand for these folks seems to be growing, not decreasing.

But growing are the systems and equipment they are charged with supporting. Each year a new system-wide program is added, a new device is adopted, a greater number of classrooms employ more technologies. (What did techs do with their time before we installed 500 Smartboards and projectors, 1200 VOIP telephones, GoogleApps for Education, etc.?)

I've long known the value of a good technician. And have tried to keep the good ones I have. But like the rest of us, they will need to adapt, grow and change to stay relevant.

How have you planned for tech staffing? How do help your staff retool, stay relevant?

OK, the picture below adds nothing to this post except that it is just too cute...

 

How wide does the digital divide need to be?

An expected response to my last post about putting student connectivity devices on the school supply list was "But what about the kids whose families can't afford them?"

It's an important question that I should have addressed in the earlier post. Some thoughts...

1. My specs for the devices were set deliberately modest. A netbook, a web-enabled cell phone or an old laptop - all available for under a couple hundred dollars would meet the requirements. (My inner conservative often asks if families who can afford cable television, cigarettes, and McDonalds may have a priority problem, not a cash flow problem.*)

2. Since MN's constitution requires that all its citizens get a free education, we do have to be careful about what is actually reqquired. I don't really know how school supply lists get past this constitutional mandate. I do know that the district helps families that qualify for free and reduced price meals with things like supplies, activity fees, etc. I'd think we could do this as well when it comes to these devices.

3. One excuse that has long troubled me for not integrating technology into the classroom has been "...but not all children have a computer at home and these children would be at a disadvantage if we required the use of technology on an assignment." So, shades of Harrison Bergeron, we don't have kids who DO have access use it either. I can understand this when 80%, 50%, or even 30% of kids don't have access to a resource, but the numbers around our community show that over 90% of our households have Internet access. Does every last kid have to have a computer before the gap is sufficiently narrow that we don't feel we are treating anyone unfairly? What about those families who are ideologically opposed to having home Internet access?

Ironically, a student owned communication may well serve students living in poverty even more than those who are more affluent. Let's not use the "some kids can't afford a device" as a reason for not pursuing getting them in all kids' hands. The digital divide should recognized as a problem to be solved; not as barrier to progress.

Oh, I took the photo above in Jerash, Jordan in 2008. This young man, who did not look in the least affluent, was showing me his cellphone that was capable of showing Chuck Norris martial arts movies he'd pulled from YouTube. Jordan's GDP is $5,100 per person; the U.S. is $46,000. Humans find ways to acquire the things they find important.

*Bill Storm addresses this issue far more intelligently and compassionately than I do:

For some families you might as well list "Escalade" for all the good it will do to simply add a digital device to the supply list. It's not just a matter of money, but of culture. While the cost of a good netbook can be less than that of a decent pair of basketball shoes, to shift family priorities such that it makes sense to supply their students with digital devices there needs to be a compelling argument for making that shift in the face of desperate financial constraints for many if not most American families right now. Broad community and media exposure for that vision, coupled with partnerships with local ISPs, and some sort of subsidy program would be very helpful. Even with that preparation, school districts will need to be prepared to supply some students with devices and school-based wireless connections. Promotions that promise student backpacks will no longer weigh 23 pounds thanks to digital books might be an effective start.

Specs for student devices

I would argue that 1:1 means immediate, constantly available Internet access for all. I don’t particularly care if that comes from a smartphone, a tablet, an iPod Touch, or a Nook. The major consideration in this is whether your learning platform of choice can be accessed with high fidelity on whatever devices you either choose or allow. Blackboard, for example, offers full-featured apps for Android and iOS, as well as the standard Web interface. Christopher Dawson

In the near future, I believe our district will put a SCD on the school supply list. SCD? Student Connectivity Device. My acroymn - sounds better than IED - Individual Educational Device. As much as I have longed for our district to initiate a 1:1 laptop project, I just don't think it is either feasible budget-wise or maybe even the right thing to do given state educational funding realities. Instead, let's find ways to promote, even require, SCDs.

What schools can do is clearly outline the capacities SCDs need to have in order for students to participate fully in instructional activities and use school-provided instructional materials. Here might be a start on a short list of those capabilities.

The device your child needs to access and use district resources must:

Required:

• an 802.11x wireless networking access
• a virus protection program
• a color screen
• an onscreen or external keyboard or other means of entering text
• an audio port for earbuds or headphones
• 4 hour battery life
• have a full functioning, recent web browser (Firefox, Explorer, Chrome, Safari) that will allow it to access GoogleApps for Education tools and documents, the Infinite Campus student portal, Moodle2.0, the state of Minnesota's ELM content databases, and the Destiny library catalog

Recommended

• either internal or external data storage capabilities (USB port for flash drive or an internal storage)
• ability to run Flash
• machine-based productivity software (Office, Open Office, iWork) for off-line use

This should give families a lot of flexibility - smartphones with about any OS, netbooks, iPods/iPads, e-books, or a full-sized laptop (new or dad's old one), should do the job.

How would you feel if this showed up on your child's student supply list?

And what, my expert friends, should be added or can be dropped from my specs???

And how do homes and schools divide the responsibility for teaching the use of and technical support for SCDs?

 

Oh, I, along with I am sure a billion others, just applied to be a beta tester (with 19 other "volunteers" in my district) for the Chrome netbook. I am pretty excited since this ought to be a real contender for the inexpensive but functional dream device I've been pining for for years. See Disappointed Again from 2006