Re: State approved technology plans

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Brenda Williams: "Re: Re: Professional Development - comments on comments"
• Previous message: Dennis Small: "Re: Required technology plans?"
• In reply to: Jan Bolluyt: "State approved technology plans"
• Next in thread: Sally Hawkes: "Re: State approved technology plans"

> 
> The plan is not for the state, but for the library or district.

Agree.  And in parallel, the state and feds should not be attaching
strings to the Universal Service $ pots either... for the same reasons.


  Many of us
> do not have the expertise to know what is available, and will naturally look
> at other plans to copy, but is that so bad? 

I've seen some of the 'technology plans' in the K12 schools around here.
Calling them 'plans' is using the term extremely generously.   ... ok,
I'll grant that a couple of them looked pretty, done up on colored
paper and put in a nice binder.  

But they lack:
	1.  A coherent notion of what a complete system looks like.
Akin to specifying the hubcaps and saying nothing about the drive
train on a car.
	2.  There's no sense of life cycle costs.  The most egregious
habitual omission is:
		a.  tech training
		b.  general literacy training.
These two items make up about 2/3 of the life cycle costs
of a typical network.
	3.  If this stuff is so expensive, then why are we doing it?
(I think the Ca K12 tech plans are mandated by the state, but that's
not the right reason to plan;-).

b

• Next message: Brenda Williams: "Re: Re: Professional Development - comments on comments"
• Previous message: Dennis Small: "Re: Required technology plans?"
• In reply to: Jan Bolluyt: "State approved technology plans"
• Next in thread: Sally Hawkes: "Re: State approved technology plans"