Well, you didn’t say that.:-) That’s more than I have. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t a computer site; you, of all people, should know that when you’re not among nerds technology invariably needs to be explained.:-)

Oh, the examples were actually a mix of administration and education. Labs are education, but things like attendance reporting are mostly administrative. Probably should have been more focused.

One of the really amusing things about the difference between teaching and business is that in business, they worry about people stealing office supplies from the office and bringing them home, but in teaching, you bring your supplies from home into the “office.”

Thirty years ago, how many schools needed to pay for computer labs…

My observation is that, in the administrative area, especially at the district level, the use of technology has made significant inroads although much later then in industry.

In the educational area, I stand by my observation about the treatment of technology. That it’s less about improving educational efficacy then it is about grabbing available grant money. That sort of action precludes cost/benefit analysis since the benefit’s the grant and the only question is whether it can be bagged.

In my opinion, Allen, I think smaller schools work better for the children and staff for many reasons.

I agree but given the district-based structure that the vast majority of public schools operate under, the preferences, needs, desires, prejudices and opinions of the district administrative personnel take precedence. And those district administrative personnel are, unsuprisingly, not too likely to find themselves to be superfluous.

I gave you specific examples of specific jobs that need to be done in any American high school.

Sorry. I should have given you the short answer: shut ‘em down.

An improperly sized school, like an improperly sized organization of any kind is a constant headache, inefficient and can’t be fixed. The size alone results in widening ripples of problems who’s solution kicks off more problems. It’s a well-understood problem in business but there are still oversized monuments to egos being erected all the time and it’s only the ruthless discipline of the marketplace that ultimately puts an end to these mistakes.

Where’s the analogous displine in public education? What puts an end to misguided monuments to stupendous egos? What determines when a school is so big that it’s unmanageable? And in the unlikely event such a determination is made, what’s done about it?

You know the answer. No school is ever too big. It just doesn’t have a large enough maintenance, security and administrative staff. And since no school is ever too big, there’s no need to consider what needs to be done about that over-sized school.

In my experience, technology tends to increase budgets, not decrease them.

Keep in mind that you’re coming at this from the prespective of public school teacher.

In business the money’s spent if there’s a clear likelihood of enhanced profitability or reduced costs. In public education the spending of money is contigent on its availability not the likelihood of reduced costs or whatever’s comparable to increased profits. You spend the money because you can, not because some clearly defined goal will be achieved.

andyo wrote:

It doesn’t cost much to set up and maintain a small network.

Right you are but don’t assume the cost of the hardware, and even the cost of the technical expertise required to install/configure/run the a system, is in any way related to the project budget. That’s strictly a function of funding availability and the project can be stretched or shrunk to fit the grant size without any consideration given to the effect on educational efficacy.

I think Allen was speaking of efficiency increases in administration. It doesn’t cost much to set up and maintain a small network. The required equipment is cheap: some old P3 systems, wireless routers, copies of Win2K & Office and you’re set. I can see one sysadmin being able to handle the whole thing. You don’t even need internet access.

In my experience, technology tends to increase budgets, not decrease them. Thirty years ago, how many schools needed to pay for computer labs (new every few years), wiring (now obsolete), T1 connections, lab staff, and system administrators?

Actually, Allen, most schools — especially the large ones so in vogue these days — need an administrative team to back up the principal.

“Need” is kind of a slippery word in this context. It encompasses a large number of unspoken, and usually unquestioned, assumptions.

First, what’s the right size for a high school? An elementry school? If the school is too big then the size becomes a justification for administrative overhead that deals with nothing but the size of the school.

You can see the “bigger is better” assumption play out in the consolidation of school districts that’s always preceeded by assurances that the resultant efficiencies will pay for the costs of consolidation and more. Yet the promised savings never appear as evidenced by the uninterrupted budget increases.

One certainly doesn’t need a bloated administrative team, but you need the proper number of good people in place for everything to run smoothly — not unlike a business.

But unlike business, where a bloated administrative team inevitably leads to the dissolution of the organization, in public education a bloated administrative team leads to demands for expanded funding. And, also unlike business where any administrative overhead is seen clearly as a drag, albiet a necessary drag one hopes, on the organization in public education the percentage of budget that goes to pay for administration is a largely invisible number. Once the size of that percentage starts to appear out of the fog that surrounds public education the reason for maintaining the low profile becomes understandable.

In business cutting administrative expenses is an on-going process and a valued skill. Could the same be said of the public education system?

You don’t cure excess by running to the other extreme.

Would that we could run to the other extreme but I’m afraid it’s just not politically feasible. We do seem to be ambling to the other extreme which is gratifying. And, I believe that the right combination and availability of technology might precipitate some running to the other extreme. But my crystal ball is clouded on the details so I’ll just have to plug along on faith for a while.

Mike in Texas wrote:

That’s me Allen, I develop multi-million dollar reading programs and sell them to the schools, with a nice little kickback to ensure teachers don’t use anything but my system.

Hey, if you’re going to use my term you’re going to use it properly.

Educrap is the umbrella term for all the here-today-gone-tomorrow fads, all the rationalizations, all the circumlocutions, all the dreary, insulting, meaningless excuses for why education can’t be accomplished.

Parents don’t read enough to their kids. Their kids watch too much television. The parents are poor. The parents are rich. The kids are on drugs. The kids aren’t on drugs. The kids are absorbing higher-order thinking skills in a nurturing, child-centered, non-judgemental learning environment. Students internalize scientific ways of knowing through active participation in knowledge construction strategies.

Educrap.