Not surprised at all.

be gouged without their permission. Why the hay does every student have to have a school-supplied tablet???

Not sure I see the benefit of having one of the most expensive ones, when a simple $150 tablet would perform well for their purposes.

Remember these Ipads are to be used in SCHOOLS to replace BOOKS and TABLETS. You can load the data needed on the laptops using USB or SD cards (Most laptops sold today can use either), you can get a bigger screen and a built in keyboard. If you do NOT want the Students surfing the net, just do NOT opt for a laptop with a modem.

The Down side is you lose the Touch Scream capacities of the Ipad (Through some higher price laptops have such screens), Laptops tend to be heavier then Ipads (Mostly do to the LARGER screens and having a KEYBOARD, which if added to an Ipad would increase its weight) and Laptops are now almost "old hat", i.e. out of style, but so will these Ipads be in 3-4 years.

Sorry, I obtained my first laptop in 1988 and have been using them ever since. Over that 15 year period, laptops have become faster, lighter, and as good if not better then conventional PCs. Ipads have the same INTERNAL capabilities, but are weak in input devices (lack of a Keyboard to typed in data). Ipads have their place, but in the class room what you can do with an Ipad, you can do with a Laptop, but the reverse is NOT true, for the Laptops keyboard provides one of the best way to input data into the computer (Thus the comment that the School was waiting for the key pad addition to the Ipad to get the Ipad up to the level of a laptop).

In high school I do not see any class that can not be done as well, if not better with a laptop then with an Ipad, thus why go with the Ipad?

I suspect this is another case of Management deciding Computer needs when the people who actually are using the computer needs something else but do not get it for Management refuses to ask them what they really need (Better companies leave their EMPLOYEES obtain what they need, and only retain control over all but making sure what is obtain is compatible with each other, I am old enough to remember the PC jr Debacle).

The PC jr debacle is almost forgotten today, but it is one of the best example of having the people who do NOT use something, have the sole power to buy what others will be using WITHOUT asking the users for input as to what to buy. Sellers of computers have to be careful when it comes to large organizations, so that the people who will be using what is being sold has input into what is being purchased. Many large organization has central buying sections, or worse it is management that decides what is to be purchased, management who almost never uses what is being purchased. In the case of the PC jr, management, then mostly men who did not type, decided to buy the PC jr for use by their secretaries, mostly women, who did NOT have a voice in what is being purchased, they were told to use it.

Now, Students are teenagers or pre-teens, the most fashion conscience section of the Nation. Thus the input should have been from the teachers who are teaching the students not so much the students themselves (to minimize the influence of Style, through even adults are influence by the latest fashion). You do NOT want fashion to set up what is being purchased (Through some input from students should be part of the decision to buy, but the teachers hopefully have the experience to buy what works NOT what is being advertised on Television). On the other hand users of the device should have input AND ALSO BE HEARD (i.e. see what the Students say, take it into consideration and give it some weight, but more weight should be put on what the Teacher's think is needed NOT the students and NOT the sellers of the computers).


Side note: The PC jr Debacle is a name for IBM's first attempt to enter the personal computer market in the 1980s. The PC jr was for the "Home Market" with the original IBM PC was for traditional IBM customers, i.e. big businesses. At the same time IBM did market the PC jr to small businesses, thus it was many office worker's first introduction into the world of computers. Among the PC Jr's problem was its Keyboard, IBM decided to opt for a new keyboard instead of the traditional QWERT keyboard. The people they normally dealt with agreed with the change, but no one even through of asking the Secretaries who had to use the new Keyboards. The PC jr went into production, purchased by big business for use by their secretaries, who promptly refused to use the PC jrs, for they had been trained on the QWERT keyboard (and still used QWERT keyboards for other purposes, in the 1980s Typewriters were still the king of the Office). The problem was changing from the QWERT keyboard to the new PC jr Keyboard and then back again. This lead to a mini revolt by secretaries who refused to use the then new PC Jr computers for do to the different keyboard, they kept on making typing mistakes (Secretaries had been taught for over 100 years NOT to look at their keyboard but at what they are typing from (in fact the first Remington Typewriters of the 1870s, the typist could NOT even see what was being typed until she was finished with the page and pulled it from the rear of the typewriter). Secretaries thus learned to work a keyboard by touch not sight and the PC jr new keyboard undermined that whole concept, thus the secretaries rejected the PC jr. After a long while IBM acknowledged the problem and reverted to a traditional keyboard for the PC jr, but by then other makers of Personal computers had come to dominate the market.

The above was so bad, at least one writer (in a computer magazine, last page which was reserved for article of jest) made it part of an "International Conspiracy" to keep women out of computers. The conspiracy was since the vast majority of secretaries were women, who use to use typewriters the real reason for the new PC Jr keyboard was to make women frustrated about computers do to the huge number of errors they were making do to the change in keyboards that such women would come to hate Computers and thus men could continue to dominate the computer industry.

You only need a network interface (such as wi-fi or ethernet).

A laptop lacking network connectivity is all but useless for most classroom purposes.

Maybe I am old fashion, but people TALKING with the teachers and giving the teachers WRITTEN interface is effective. That is how it was done in the days of books, and there is no real reason NOT to do that in today's classrooms.

As to Wi-Fi, ethernet or the internet, all requires the COMPUTER to have that capacity. If the school opts for laptops without them, the laptops may be no more the books but books is how people learned for centuries. Collecting papers and grading them is still the most secure way to make sure no one changes his or her answers on a test AFTER the test is handed in. No connectivity, also means it is hard for the student to use the computer to Cheat, by connecting with friends for answers.

Accountants have had a problem with computers and calculators for years when it comes to tests, they have NOT been able to find a more secure method then just banning them when it comes to the CPA exams. If the school is handing out the laptops, the same level of security can be achieved.

I am sorry, but reading a book, doing math work, reading and translating another language in your head as you read it, can all be done with a computer without connectivity. With the huge gigabytes modern computers have, no reason to have connectivity except to set up what is one the computer. Once you have the subject matter on the computer, everything else can be done by paper or USB cards. It is more secure and usable even in places with no service of any kind is available,

If you want to teach children to function in a modern society, computers are mandatory.

What you are proposing is merely a way of keeping children behind the times in terms of computer skills.

This may come as a shock to you, but it would be difficult if not impossible for a student to alter an answer once submitted to the teacher with a computer, since the teacher already has it in their possession at that point.

For instance, if I e-mail you a document, I can no longer edit the version of the document you have in your inbox. I could send you a new copy, but that wouldn't work now would it?

You have an apparent lack of understanding as to how simple it is control such things if you know how.

Not allowing someone who is taking a CPA exam to use a calculator is ludicrous, as there is no accountant practicing today who does not use calculators or computers for every function of their job.

Little tip - if you want to test someone, test them on the knowledge and skills they will actually be using, not on skills they won't be using.

Hell, testing a CPA without a calculator is like testing a bus driver without a bus.

I'm 55. I never learned computers in school and neither did anybody else my age. Yet I am perfectly able to function in the current moment - using computers. (See, I figured out the Internet all by myself.) If a school district has money to burn, sure, so out and buy each student a fancy tablet. But when money is short, buy them the tools they need to learn what they need to know. Figuring out how to use a touch screen will take care of itself.

Be honest.

As to Human Relations Departments, the issue is less to do with people knowledge of computers, but do they know the underlying job. I have known several people who do manual labor, they do NOT need computer skills, neither do Janitors. In higher tech work, you can run into situation where a person will have to be trained on THAT EMPLOYERS computers, and what knowledge he had previously to computers is unimportant.

The US Army did a study many years ago, it took 1000 repetitions to learn to do something, and 1300 repetitions to unlearn one way and learn a new way. In such situations where you have to unteach someone and teach that person how that employer wants it done, the HR Department may opt to go with someone without computer training for he or she will be quicker to learn how that employer wants something done.

As to actual computer knowledge, knowledge of various programs is more important access to the net, thus if a person knows a word processing program, a data base program or similar computer driven data system is more important then connectivity. Thus a student who goes through high school without access to a WI-FI network, the internet or even an Ethernet system, but learned word progressing, data base management, basic math, advance math, basic and advance English will be the first choice of most HR departments over someone who took none of those courses, but has extensive known ledge on how to surf the net. In fact more and more employers are cracking down on surfing the net while working,

Thus, basic knowledge on how a Computer works is all want most employers want of employees as to computer knowledge itself (and most of that can be taught in less then 30 days). What employers want is does the potential employee has the background to grasp what is needed by someone doing the underlying job. In the vast majority of cases that is more important then computer knowledge for most HR departments have the attitude that computer knowledge can be quickly learned if the employee is other wised capable of doing the job. A Laptop with access to WI-Fi, the internet or other connections can provide the student with the background he or she will need in most employment situations.

a misbelief that employers won't ask people to have a full working knowledge of computers and the internet?

Let me tell you, in over 20 years of working in law firms, pharmaceutical companies, ad agencies and many other industries, unless you want people only working manual labor, we don't hire people who can't use a computer without asking for help every five minutes.

If I ask an employee to research a product, a client, a new software program or anything else, guess what they have to use to do that. Go ahead, let me know.

Most employers don't have the time to train people how to do the fundamental aspects of their job, sorry. That's why they hire people who already have skills and training.

What you're describing is training people to the lowest common denominator. Do you know what that does? That makes employers look past those people and hire the skills elsewhere, such as H1B visa holders, etc.

This may come as a shock to you, but in the 21st century, using a computer IS the job in most situations.

For instance, if we're looking for an analytical chemist, that person doesn't just need to know chemistry, they need to know how to use HPLC devices connected to computers running specialized software that in turn exports data to be used in Excel and other programs to generate reports, supporting documentation and other forms of data required for our records.

Do you think our company would hire someone who was merely a chemist with no background using the same or similar software?

If we were looking for an ad exec/graphic design person, do you think we'd hire someone who had no experience using page layout software, graphic design software, etc?

Here's another hint for you - both of those jobs require frequent use of the internet to do research, analyze the competition, etc.

You're stuck in decades old thinking and working in a mindset that keeps the US behind in education, etc.

If we use your criteria, you're not just setting students up for substandard education, but setting them up for difficulty even getting into college which also requires use of computers, internet research, etc.

Those two books were the ones most schools had in the 19th century. Every family had a Bible and Sears catalogs were free.

We are discussing the need for connectivity in a computer in school, then you bring out 19th century education. By the time Sears catalogs the one room school house, while still strong in rural areas, had been replaced in urban areas by large schools with many teachers (In rural areas one room school houses survived for many decades, but were NOT preferred, only kept for such schools could be put within walking distances of most students, a big issue in the days where walking was the main source of transportation).

Pulp paper had been invented in 1801, but came into full use in the 1850s. Pulp paper permitted the printing of massive numbers of books, including school books. McGuffey readers were one such series of books. It contain quotes from the bible, but also other sources. The Sears Catalog came out of this same pulp paper revolution but only in the 1880s by then every school in America had embraced what we know call "School Books" and issued them to students.

To give you an idea of the drop in price in books due to the switch from linen paper to pulp paper, lets look at what was called "Dime Novels". "Dime Novels" were invented in the 1860s (10 Cents in 1869 can be the same of about $2.50 today), very inexpensive and very popular, but it shows that books could be inexpensive in the late 1800s. Today linen sells for about $15 a square yard, or about $.93 per page (assuming each page is 10x8 inches). Thus if a book had 100 pages, if printed on Linen paper that comes to $93 just for the paper, printing was extra (Please this would be the price today). Most "Dime Novels" were under 100 pages, thus you are looking at the difference between $93 a book to $2.50 a book in today's prices. $93 is doable if you have no other choice and needed the book, but it also would turn off a lot of customers.

Please note, the above calculations as to the price of linen books has some problems. First the price I am using is for linen intended for clothing or other material use (bedsheets etc). Linen for books could be cheaper if someone would buy it wholesale for production of books, but even if the price for linen used in books would be a quarter of the price I am using, you have to add the cost of printing which I ignored. I can see people paying $100 for a book, but how many books will one buy if the price was 20 cents a page? 10 pages would be $2,00, 100 page $20,00, 1000 pages $200? This is why people tended to buy just the bible.

Pulp paper made books cheap enough to be produced en masse, thus while most people only had a family bible prior to 1800 and few other books (For one book was what most people could afford), most people had more then the bible by 1900 (do to the price of books dropping that much since 1800).

I bring this up, for by the time Sears Catalog came out, most people had more books then the bible. When people only had the bible, paper was to expensive to waste on something like a Sears Catalog (Even Newspapers printed prior to about 1850 were intended to be kept for months at a time and read, mostly in public by people paid to read them). Thus you are mixing metaphors, that are at least 50 years apart.

Worse, we are talking about how and what should be taught in schools. When Public Schools started in the 1830s in the US (in many ways, the result that you could have public schools, given the steady drop in the price of books with more and more people opting for cheaper pulp paper books over more expensive linen paper books), books were part of the trend (That included the bible, but also other texts, as such text became less and less expensive from the 1820s onward).

In those early days, history was taught, but mostly by the teacher reading from a book and the students writing notes down on pieces of slate (It took a while for what we called paper tablets to be adopted by schools, slate and chalk were reusable and the pencil sharper not invented till 1900 and no one used pens outside of offices till the ball point pen took off after WWII).

Yes, the pencil, invented around 1850 was a huge advancement in writing, it replaced the quill pen and the ink well that went with it and the desk both had to be on (Steel pointed pens were used, but do to the fact most leaked never popular, but would provide a permanent signature, something the pencil could not).

All of this gets to my question as to your comment, we are talking about HOW things were taught in the past. Since 1850 books have been the preferred way to obtain knowledge. Prior to 1800 (1800-1850 is transitional period), most people learn by using chalk (Cheap but not permanent). Some calculations were done in stone (we have such drawings from Ancient Rome that are clearly calculations and drawing in regards to a building project the etcher in the stone were working one), bark (This is very old, used by the Romans, but again not permanent) etc. Paper was to expensive for such calculations (Parchment was the preferred writing material prior to about 1350 in Europe, linen replaced it starting in the 1300s for linen was that much cheaper).

On the other hand math were taught, learning to read and write was taught. This was done by many people who knew the advantage of being educated. The Bible was one source, but most educated people spend the money and obtain other sources of knowledge. Prior to 1800 something like the Sears Catalog was NOT possible, but learning advance forms of math was. Learning to read books was possible, even if expensive. People did these things and all I am saying is what computers can be used for today is to replace all the pulp paper books that replaced the older linen texts as Linen had replaced parchment. While the text became cheaper with each change in paper technology, the underlying concept taught did not change. It is these underlying educational concepts, math and reading that are the most important things taught in school, not how to open a book or start up a computer.

and by gum, they were good enough for my great grandparents.

One of these days, they better catch that kickback guy.

especially if they are anything close to engineering/math/software oriented. Why start out behind. My wife's iphone is completely useless except for playing mp3s, games and facebook (oh yeah, and a phone)

I'm not an iPhone user or fanboi, but I don't get that criticism... You use your phone for making phone calls, checking email, playing music/movies, surfing the nets and playing the occasional game. What else is there for a phone to do? I occasionally throw my android HTC phone at people, but I don't think that's a recommended usage for it.

transferring files, pictures, music, etc with the iphone. Plus, there is the ability to 'root' an Android, gain access to hidden files, and run apps that would otherwise be not available under google play. Not seemingly important for most people, but good stuff kids should learn to keep from being complacent with technology getting the better of them. I have a friend who just sold his iphone 4, he got an iphone 5 plus cash, i'm guessing a contract too, but I wonder how much of his personal information was stolen from being stored in hidden logs on the old iphone: gps logs, website history, banking info, contacts, whatever...

However, I'm not sure if it's just because of my limited understanding of how the iOS works (my usage has been with work phones that I just used for email and phone calls) I do know that iPhones can be jail broke, which I always assumed was analogous to rooting an android device.

Doesn't mean they're that much better than the others...

That's why I was using a lab full of Apple IIe's in a poor, rural elementary school ... of course, the model had been discontinued for 15 years by the time I got there, but they still had to buy them at one point, and institutional buyers never buy used.

In college, we had labs go from iMac G4 stations, eMacs, G5 iMacs, and then Intel iMacs... that was in four semesters in the same labs. No, no private school, I went to a state school.

One school in my area bought iPads for the kids. Another school bought some in-room iPads for the little kids, but got industrial-grade netbooks for the older ones on a 2- or 4-year replacement cycle. The reason? To quote a teacher, "iPads are better for consuming information -- we want the kids to create information."

They should be looking to see how many school district officials own stock in Apple, Inc. - and the company charging considerably more than retail - even "including" cases, a warranty, and tech support that should be tossed in for free, considering how much even the original contract was worth - is shameful.

But then, Apple has no shame.

and bought a decent case with keyboard for $30. It's ridiculous they're paying so much over market value.

I do agree with the idea of giving the tablets to the students. I've heard about classrooms that use it and a student that is at home sick can still participate in class via Face Time, which is pretty cool.

...or give existing teachers a much needed raise.

It was a disaster.

We hired a lot more teachers. Except that there wasn't a huge surplus of unemployed highly qualified teachers. So we got a lot of underqualified teachers.

So we had more scripted lessons imposed, and since there were so many underqualified teachers the impetus for more and more and more testing and more scrutiny and closer monitoring grew. We got more testing and closer monitoring.

And then the requirement that all teachers be "highly qualified" according to some rather arbitrary standards. Of course, no regulation ever gets rolled back, even if the original reason for it ceases to exist--somebody will come up with a new original reason. Retcon was a standard feature of bureaucracies before it became the province of bad prequels and sequels constrained by the original story.


Let's not do that again, shall we? We're still suffering from the "cure" for that wonderful night of binging.

You can get a new iPad 4 for $450 to $500 at your local retailer. Heck, you can buy a Google Nexus 10 tablet for $100 less than that.

This is one reason Apple dominates in schools.

If you want to throw cheap off-brand tablets at them with no support, be my guest.

From the article:

The price per device, higher than retail, includes a protective case, a limited three-year warranty, technical assistance and training, and one Apple TV setup per 20 students. The cost also includes curriculum from Pearson Education Inc. that is still being developed.

Now, such educational packages (use to be called "Texts" when we had books) may cost more then the tablets themselves. My problem why can't the school do that themselves? i.e. have the teachers decide what is needed, put it on the PC is and teach the course.

Now, a lot of what is being done in schools today is being driven by the Federal "No child left behind" act, which requires testing and grading of the school based on that testing. Thus a movement to teaching the test as oppose to the subject. This sounds like the major reason for the excess costs, obtaining software that teachers what the school will be tested on. To a degree teachers can do that, in high school you have mostly reading when it comes to English, thus you could opt to install all of Shakespeare's play into the Tablet for students to read, and many other "Classics" that are out of copywriter. Books still under copywriter would be harder, but such books can be obtained with payment of the copywriter fees.

Math in high school (and that includes Statistic, Trigonometry and calculus) have been taught for centuries. Yes, the newer books are geared to calculators and computers as opposed to old fashion graph paper, but that adjustment is NOT that hard to do.

History is a little harder, for most Schools what books that are somewhat up to date, but a good teacher can still teach the subject based on public records. Hard but not impossible,

Languages are another area that has not changed over the last couple of hundred years. Books out of copywriter can be as good as anything more modern

Side note: Any teacher would have to take any book out of copywriter and adjust it to make the school look good under today;s testing rules, but a good group of teachers can do that.

Sorry, the more I read of this project, the more it comes back to the School Board wanting to adopt the latest fad (Ipads) AND maximize the school scores on the various testing system that are in style today. I see little input from teachers and even less from students (Except when such input is in favor of what the administration wants in the first place).

The conversation is the ridiculous amount being mooted - $400 million.

Apple's package deal for the schools is no great shakes, since I'm sure they're not talking about the newest version of the device, nor devices with more than 16GB memory. You could realistically purchase a similar package, retail, for essentially the same amount (leaving out Apple TV, a useless feature - and the Pearson product that is currently not available), so the company is not offering any fantastic discount.

The district is getting hosed and apparently asking for another dose - "Please, Mr. Apple, sir - hit me again". Is it Apple's fault that the district is apparently awash in idiots? No, but neither does the company deserve anything philanthropic award.

$400 million, taken from capital construction funding, could do a lot more good if spent for its intended use rather than supplying students with devices that will be stolen, broken, and hacked.

The point of this thread is to 1) bash Apple and 2) show you're holier than thou for not buying their products, not to come up with a reasonable explanation for the cost.

heh...

that you are wrong.

The points - more than one - of the thread are:

1. To point out the LA school district is spending millions to give tablets to students and teachers despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence that this will help students learn (OK, this was a subtle point).

2. That whoever sourced the tablets was either stupid or lied to about the cost.

3. That even if the tablets were available at cheaper cost, the districts had not factored in other costs - the security/charging carts and the keyboards, for example.

4. That parents have no idea what their responsibility is for the tablets, which translates to the fact that if the tablets are damaged, lost, stolen, pawned (as they were in Las Vegas), or otherwise no longer available to the schools, the school district (i.e. the taxpayers) will be responsible for replacements.

Paranoid Apple fans didn't enter into my decision to post, but hey, I'll keep it in mind for the next article.

unless there is some kind of buyback deal from Apple when the iPad is supplanted by the next big "must-have" technology...

...along with iPhones.

Educators love Apple. The whiners are probably people who see that you can get a 'tablet' for $49 bucks at Walmart and think that is that's good enough for teachers and students. They have no idea how difficult it is to maintain technology in schools.

Do you work for Apple? You can answer in a PM if you like...

I need a change of workplace scenery...

I have never heard of any useful curriculum. Everyone place that I am aware of takes a "if you build it, they will come" approach. This includes every presentation at "Educause" that I attended in Fall of 2012.

In other words, not only ware they expensive, no one has a clue about how to make them useful in a classroom environment.

Setting up wireless for an entire school and insuring adequate bandwidth is a big expense if the infrastructure isn't there.

The cost of the locking charging carts is outrageous. It's cabinet with a lock and power strips that costs a couple of thousand dollars. Probably costs a tenth that to manufacture.

For education, Apple is a huge pain to deal with. The Volume Purchase Plan for applications is a bizarre system.

You have to have your teachers trained.

You need to train your administrators.

You need to train your students.

You need to
have good filters to block unacceptable Internet, with a strong database
have good mechanisms for monitoring and controlling student use, including
devices such as flash drives and wi-fi hotspots
have too procedures in place for monitoring and limiting interstudent communication
have robust software for uploading and organizing student submissions as well as
providing feedback to students for this purpose
have nearly ironclad mechanisms, software and real-world, for ensuring test security
and you have to have nearly real-time updating of all databases used for security,
testing, and student monitoring to accommodate the changes to class rosters that
are constantly happening.

There's nothing like having a test review from one class turned in by students from another class, the teacher's handwriting morphed into typed text.

There's nothing like having a student leave a test room to go pee, only to text a friend, have the friend log in using the student's username/password, and take the test while reviewing notes and the textbook.

You can't beat having a teacher walk away from an unsecured teacher computer, only to have a student use the teacher's username and the password the computer stored to access the online gradebook. Just takes a minute for a lot of failing grades to become solid Cs.

It's great to be giving a test or monitoring students, only to find that the three students who arrived in your class in the last 2 days don't have privileges for your class or can't be monitored because nobody's updated the appropriate file. Even worse, you find that the students who, in the last 10 days, *left* you class are still monitored by you even if they're in another class.

Then there's my favorite: You're mid-class and wifi fails. Suddenly your paperless campus needs to be paperful, but you neither make all the copies you need "just in case" because it's a giant waste of resources, nor can you leave your class to go and get the copies you suddenly need. And the perfect storm is when it happens during the last test before the end of a marking period.

Just like textbook, test, and tech vendors.
It's so fucking corrupt.