Active forum topics
CLUE's investigation of Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Information Technology
The story in ITBusiness.ca gave a good overview of a problem experienced by one of the teachers in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). News stories have tight deadlines, and there is much more that we have learned since the deadline for that story. As the policy coordinator for CLUE I have received multiple replies to questions from Jill Worthy, the superintendent for the district that includes Monarch Park Collegiate.
This afternoon I also had an hour-long phone call with Jacob Chan, General Manager of IT for the board, who also had Jay with him on a speaker phone.
First thing to note is that the board has been quite helpful in discussing the situation with us. While individual members of the community may not agree with all the decisions being made, we need to acknowledge that the board is being fairly open. I would have appreciated more documentation on CTMI and other board technology issues being on their website, but this is hopefully an oversight that can be fixed over time.
Some point-form notes on the technology policy of the board.
There was some additional information from a specific problem experienced at Monarch Park.
Parents with children at Monarch Park may wish to talk to Mr. Montgomery about some of the other issues within the school. I do not believe that CLUE should become too involved in the school politics within a specific school, as we have a mission that is Canada-wide in scope.
Some suggestions for moving forward with our community and the TDSB
I believe that the best place to introduce FLOSS alternatives into the classroom will still be with individual teachers. The IT department is not able to set policy or grow their budgets, and any changes to the services offered from them will have to come from teaching staff and from the policy part of the board.
The policy-setting part of the board are not going to be well versed in the ongoing changes that are happening in the computing marketplace. To most people, a computer and software is like a toaster: it just does a job, and all the options are thought to be basically the same. They do not separate hardware from software, with software being the set of rules that the hardware obeys. They are not going to be aware of peer production, peer distribution, or the various social-sciences (political, ethical, human rights, etc) implications of software. To them buying hardware and software is going to be no different than buying blackboards.
It is going to take the very friendly help of concerned citizens giving presentations to the board to introduce them to the ways in which purchasing software is not at all like purchasing a blackboard. I do not believe that accusing them of making mistakes in the past is going to be helpful, but gently introducing them to the wider issues. People may wish to write their MPP, given much of the policy push towards amalgamation and reduced educational budgets comes from the provinces.
We also have to be clear in what we say, and what we prioritize. Many people in the FLOSS community concentrate on the royalties that our competitors charge. For all but the most expensive software, royalty fees are not the largest costs associated with the end-use of software. There are also deals being struck between software vendors and provincial education ministries to reduce these fees, in some cases with the province paying the fees entirely such that these costs do not show up in a school board budget at all.
The lack of royalty fee to the educational institution are also not the greatest benefit of FLOSS in the classroom, and I believe there is a need to emphasize some of the curriculum and other non-monetary benefits to FLOSS to the school boards. The ability to study and improve upon existing software is critically important to computer science students. Where monetary issues should continue to be raised is with the home, where parents are being pushed to purchase the same software at home as being used in the classroom. Ideal is if students are supplied with CDs which they can install on their home computers, where the software is multi-platform (at least Microsoft Windows, Apple Macintosh and various flavours of Linux) and available at no additional cost.
Individual teachers need our support. An example is the problem that Mr. Ed Montgomery had with network drops failing in his classroom. An adequately recognized third-party consultant from our community, likely acting as a volunteer (at least not costing the TDSB any money), could have helped diagnose the problem. This could have included putting monitoring equipment between the desktop and the network drop to monitor any traffic over the link, so that there would be no speculation about what the source of the problem was.
There is also only so much time that teachers can spend, as much of their work would be outside of regular paid time. We need to be available to supplement the technical support, and assist in curriculum development and training of the teachers where appropriate. Teachers are not going to want to take the personal risk and initiative of offering their students alternatives in the classroom unless they know that there are people there they can call upon for extra support. Anything that the board is not willing to offer as it relates to FLOSS alternatives, we should figure out some way to offer.
A suggestion I made is the possibility of magnet schools. While a full set of alternatives may not be possible at all schools, it may be possible to designate certain schools to be a magnet for both the teaching staff and students who wish to explore specific options. While a single teacher in a school can only do so much to maintain an alternative lab, a group of teachers, with the support of a department head and principal, will have no problem keeping specialized labs running.
Part of the letter I received from Laura McAlister, Superintendent of Curriculum, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, included a mention of the Ontario Software Acquisition Program Advisory Committee. I sent messages to the contact address for the committee to learn more. While I don't yet know any details, they have given me an account on their internal communication system. I will learn more over the summer, but this might be a foot in the door to be able to offer additional support at the Ontario provincial level to software used within the school.
How is my driving?
CLUE is a member-driven organization, and as the policy coordinator I need feedback from members to set priorities. Please join the discuss mailing list and let us know your thoughts. If you are not yet a member, please join as we are a member financed and directed association.
Be part of Canada's open source community
Support the use of open source in the private and public sector
Help to balance the power grabs of the content industry
Canadian LUG News
Open Source in Canada News
Open Source Blogs