Tag Archives: cloud computing

2020, February: Jupiter, Saturn and Mars in a Morning Planet Parade

February Highlights:

  • Jupiter and Mars in the morning sky during early February 2020
  • Moon Eclipses Mars on February 18
  • Saturn joins Jupiter and Mars later in the month
  • Moon passes Jupiter (Feb 19) and Saturn (Feb 20)

 

Mars and Jupiter in morning sky

As Jupiter and Saturn head toward their once every generation Great Conjunction on December 21, 2020, they appear higher in the morning sky during February.

During February 2020, Jupiter becomes easier to see in the morning sky with dimmer Mars.  The Red Planet is to the lower left of the star Antares.  The chart above shows the sky on February 5.  A more detailed note for the morning:

  • February 5: Saturn rises at Nautical Twilight. One hour before sunrise, Mars, over 17° up in the southeast, is 0.9° to the upper left of 44 Ophiuchi (44 Oph, m = 4.2).  Look for Jupiter low in the southeast, about 5° up in the sky.

Moon occults Mars

The moon moves close to the planets after mid-month.  As sunrise approaches in the Central Time Zone, the moon moves near Mars.  Just after sunrise from the Chicago area, the moon covers (occults) Mars.  An occultation is a type of eclipse that does not involve the sun.  Here’s the detailed note:

  • February 18: One hour before sunrise, the crescent moon (24.6 days past the New phase, 24% illuminated), about 17° up in the southeast, is 0.4° to the right of Mars. If you look earlier, when the moon is lower in the darker sky, the lunar crescent is between M8 and M20. This is clearly a bit of a stretch to have a good view of the nebulae, the moon, and Mars. The objects’ low altitudes and the approaching twilight make this a challenge. Notice that Mars is 1.5° to the upper right of 1 Sagittarii (1 Sgr, m =4.9). Watch it approach and pass the star during the next few mornings. Jupiter is to the lower left of the Moon – Mars pair, nearly 11° up in the southeast. Saturn is to the lower left of Jupiter, likely lost behind terrestrial obstructions. As sunrise approaches, the crescent moon inches toward Mars. If you can track Mars into a brighter sky, the moon occults it a few minutes after 6 a.m. CST. Observers in the Western U.S. see the moon occult Mars in a darker sky.

As the mornings progress Saturn appears higher in the sky and easier to see.

Jupiter, moon, and Saturn

The moon passes Jupiter on February 19 and Saturn the following morning.  Find a location with a clear horizon to the southeast.  On February 19, the moon is to the right of Jupiter.  The next morning the lunar crescent to the lower right of Saturn Here are detailed notes for those mornings:

  • February 19: One hour before sunrise, the old moon (25.6d, 16%) is 10° up in the southeast. It is 4.0° to the right of bright Jupiter. The planet is 1.7° to the lower left of Pi Sagittarii. Saturn is over 9° to the lower left of Jupiter. Dimmer Mars, over 16° up in the south-southeast, is nearly 12° to the upper right of the thin lunar crescent. The planet is 0.8° to the upper right of 1 Sagittarii. Watch Mars approach Kaus Borealis (λ Sgr, m =2.8), the star at the top of the lid of the Teapot of Sagittarius. This morning Mars is nearly 5° to the upper right of the star.
  • February 20: One hour before sunrise, Mars is over 16° in altitude in the south-southeast. With a binocular observe that it is 0.2° to the upper right of 1 Sagittarii. This morning Mars is 4.2° to the upper right of Kaus Borealis. Bright Jupiter, 10° up in the southeast, is nearly 15° to the lower left of the Red Planet. The Giant Planet is 1.9° to the lower left of Pi Sagittarii. About fifteen minutes later, the moon (26.6d, 9%) is 2.6° to the right of Saturn and 9.0° to the lower left of Jupiter. Saturn is over 7° up in the southeast.

For those wanting to read the detailed notes for each day, here is my summary for February 2020.

Happy Observing

Digital Learning is About Flipping the Teacher

design

Image Credit

Much has been written about Jon Bergmann’s movement around flipping the classroom.  Digital learning is more about flipping the teacher.  As illustrated above, traditional education is centered around the expert delivering information to a large group.  In this setting, the teacher speaks to large groups up to 80-90% of the time and less than 20% of the time working with small groups.  In digital settings, the teacher becomes small group focused, working with individuals  and small groups 80-90% of the time and in large group settings for the balance.  This is more than being a “guide on the side.”  The digital teacher provides detailed focused instruction to help students with basics, for clarity, and for extension of the fundamental learning.  The teacher’s role becomes flipped.   So the forecasts and calls for competency based instruction and personalized learning need to focus on flipping the instructional perspectives and roles of the teachers.  This is more than flipping any classroom; it is flipping the teacher.

Technology Integration: Stuck in an Infinite Loop

IMG_20130807_124657_093

Recently, the advertisement above appeared in a national educational technology magazine.  I sent out a tweet, asking “Why would I want do this in my classroom?”  One response was, “You’re looking to create ICE in the classroom! Independence, Challenge, Engagement! Differentiated classroom with open objectives.”  I replied that I could do that with a book.

This is what “technology integration” looks like.  Doing the same activities with new objects.  Further why are we asking the student to convert digital content to analog content?  My guess is the student is completing a worksheet or “taking notes,” moving information from one place to another (Jamie McKenzie).

How did this hardware get there?  My standing hypothesis is that it’s not curriculum-related.  Some “influencer” attended a conference or other presentation, returned, and stated that “we have to do that.”  “Our students will be behind if we do not do that.” Peer pressure from other districts forced action.  The equipment was purchased, teachers were shown the switches, buttons and a few “apps.”  They were asked to brainstorm how to use the gear, asked to make a lesson, and sent back to their classrooms to “integrate the technology into their classrooms.”  There will be little results related to student learning.  There will be an assorted discussion about student “engagement” and “use of technology.”  Little or nothing about student performance and achievement.

The hardware and software are the fourth most important feature with classrooms and learning:

  1. What should students know and do?
  2. How will we know they understand and can do?
  3. What instructional strategies will we use?
  4. What hardware and software will we use to support the strategies, student learning, and student assessment?

Any framework for technology integration has levels of integration and districts attempt to move teacher practices to “higher levels.”

Starting with student learning and assessment, districts can determine their direction and their practices.  This will transform learning, by unleashing the promise of hardware and software.  Teachers are not left to figure it out themselves by “integrating technology.”

So until we get thoughtful leadership in our schools that quits talking about “technology as a tool” or “technology integration,” learning in school with hardware and software will be stuck in an infinite loop!

Notes From Techcon 2012

Techcon 2012

Techcon occurred October 26, 2012 at the Naperville Campus of Northern Illinois University. Over 160 local school administrators, technology leaders, and classroom teachers convened for the one-day session.

Google’s Jaime Casap (Twitter: @jcasap) was the keynote speaker. His presentation focused on the crisis of low expectations and that even though the jobs that will exist in 2037 are not known today, several skills exists today that are fundamental to success years away: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, analyzing information, and problem solving.

He noted that we learn and solve problems in different ways so we should have different types of assessment. Further students today have new capabilities to learn differently and that education is beginning to take advantage of new learning models.

With one of the themes of the conference was about cloud resources, sessions addressed the Illinicloud, and Google, Apple, and Microsoft cloud offerings. Other sessions outlined digital learning opportunities, a 1:1 implementation, digital mapping, Open Education Resources, and social networking applications in schools.

Apple’s Patrick Beedles (Twitter: @beedles_apple) closed the day with a summary of the day’s key points.

This day-long program is a strong collaboration of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials , the Illinois Computing Educators, and the Illinois Chief Technology Officers.

Next year’s conference is at the same location on October 18, 2013.

Virtual School’s Symposium 2012 Summary

The student panel at the Virtual Schools Symposium 2012

 Over 2,000 conferees assembled in New Orleans, Louisiana for iNACOL’s edition of its Virtual Schools Symposium held October 21-24, 2012. Across the program, presentations looked at research in the field, instructional models, administrative successes, and policy proposals.

This year’s conference focused on the trends in the field that includes blended (hybrid) learning.  In their session iNACOL’s Rob Darrow and Innosight Institute’s Michael Horn clarified that in blended learning models, teachers have the ability to look at student achievement data daily, a feature not available in traditional classrooms.  Blended learning is a mix between traditional instruction and student control and self-pacing.

In the opening general session, iNACOL CEO Susan Patrick and Gates Foundation Stacey Childress discussed the trends in non-traditional learning:

  • Student-centered personalized learning.  In this view, students have the ability to learn at their own rates and choose their own learning paths.
  • Students will receive credit when they learn a major concept, not at the end of the course or semester.
  • Smart learning systems will be developed that learn as students use them.

During his presentation, John White (twitter: @Louisianasupe), Louisiana Superintendent of Education described the tension between traditionalists and reformers.  He asked that both sides come togther and develop a system that meets today’s needs.  The workplace and the family have changed so schools should follow.  He cautioned technologists that schools are not ready to implement technology.  Infrastructure is not ready in many parts of his state and  across the country.  White thinks that control needs to be local, that other forms of schools can be successful (vouchers and charters), and certification stops innovation.

In research provided by the Marzano Research Laboratory and Plato Learning students in online courses have greater success the more time that teachers are in the courses interacting with students and their work.  For teachers who are logged in for over 530 hours, students’ end of semester score averaged 81% compared to 62% for teachers who logged in less than 39 hours.

In a session about quality, Susan Patrick and Evergreen Education Group’s  John Watson outlined the issues.  Quality has been defined as course inputs; that is, quality courses have certain features.  Patrick and Watson described the move to performance metrics, such as portfolios, individual growth, college readiness, career readiness, and others.  They called for pilot programs to test these ideas, and to influence policy and legislation.

In another general session, Karen Cator  of the U.S. Department of Education described the need for high end assessments, multiple measures for success, and multiple proof points specifically calling for policy makers to focus on educational issues that is about individual student learning.

The student panel always highlights valuable statements from students about how they are learning in online and blended models.    In these settings, it appears that nobody speaks for them.  The discussions are usually around adult perceptions and views.

In my all-day preconference session, Judy Bauernschmidt (Colorado Department of Education), John Canuel (Blackboard), Holly Bryzcki (CAIU), and Phil Lacey joined me in taking participants through the process of starting an online program.  Our slides follow.

The field is beginning to mature in its thinking.  Policies, practices, and results will determine the success of this innovative movement.

Next year’s VSS is in Orlando, Florida.

Where’s the Education Leadership on Technology in Schools?

design

Image Credit

In 1988, Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported the “most promising current uses  and demonstrations” (pp.12-13) for computers:

  • Drill and practice to master basic skills.
  • Development of writing skills.
  • Problem solving
  • Understanding abstract mathematics and science concepts.
  • Simulation in science, mathematics and social studies.
  • Manipulation of data.
  • Acquisition of computer skills for general purposes, and for business and vocational training.
  • Access and communication traditionally unserved populations of students
  • Access and communications for teachers and students in remote locations
  • Individualized learning
  • Cooperative Learning
  • Management of classroom activities and record keeping (pp. 12-14)

Looking at the list, the last — Record keeping:  student information systems, payroll systems, business functions, human resources systems, and the like have been implemented in many schools.  We have implemented technology to handle the mundane.  The other applications have spotty implementation and without significant transformation.

In Technopoly, technology and cultural critic Neil Postman states that

“[T]he main characteristic of all tool-using cultures is that their  tools were largely invented to do two things:  To solve specific and urgent problems of physical life, such as water power, wind mills, and the heavy wheeled plow; or to serve the symbolic world of art politics, ritual, and religion, as the construction of castles and cathedrals. . .” (p. 23).

Considering this view with schools, school leaders are largely tool thinkers:  “Technology is a tool.”  So the focus becomes those  issues not directly related to teaching learning:  mundane management things (recording keeping, paying bills).  Yes, states are requiring data and so school leaders respond to the “urgent” demands of regulators.

Further some school leaders contend that their teachers “integrate” technology.  This is not much beyond the tool user.  Hardware and software are purchased independently of their curricular design and use.  Teachers are herded into a room shown the new gizmo and told to “integrate” it into their curriculum.   This is a recipe for failure.  Teachers have no direction, support, or encouragement to succeed.  It’s up to them to find ways to use stuff with their kids.  Just another thing to do.

School transformation occurs when school leaders insist that hardware and software are part of the curricular design and focuses on learning.  It’s time school leaders realize the potential and implement it in their classrooms.  Otherwise the other ideas that OTA identified in 1988 will continue to be on somebody’s list of promising practices.

Innovation and Democracy

design

Image Credit

Is innovation a democratic process?

Innovate:  to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. (reference)

In Disrupting Class, author Clayton Christen informs school boards that introducing digital learning into schools may be hampered by purposeful democratic processes that are part of schools’ cultures.  Cooperative tools like “financial incentives, negotiations, vision statements, training, performance metrics, and even litigation . . . don’t work most of the time. . . . [L]eaders often waste their credibility, energy, and resources when implementing change.  The efficacy of any tools in eliciting the cooperation needed to march in a new direction depends in two variables:  the extent to which the concerned parties agree on what they want, and the extent of their agreement on how to get it.  We have concluded from examining school through this lens that democracy itself — as practiced in most school boards — is a fundamental barrier that will block implementation of many of the changes [needed for successful digital learning] unless leaders deal with it correctly (p. 227).

Reflect on this question:  When was the last time  innovative emerged from a school committee?  I am referencing issues that really improved (changed) learning for kids?  Never seen it happen in a curriculum committee and certainly never in a “technology committee.”  Legislative mandates force certain changes upon schools.  Innovation in schools does not happen from within the established system.

Real innovation occurs with through a visionary leader who gathers like minded supporters that are committed to helping the vision become reality.  Look at the picture at the top of this posting.  Was the light bulb developed by a committee?

Many of us can name innovators  of goods and services from the past two decades.  Can you name a educational leader who really changed learning in schools in the past two decades?   Not one.  Most are historic figures from the early 20th century.  (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have not innovated education.  They provided “tools” that allow teachers to do the same things electronically.  The delivery, the context, and the result are from the early 20th Century.)

As schools consider new ways to bring digital learning opportunities to their students, they need strong leadership and perhaps undemocratic methods to make this a reality.  Otherwise are kids will remain early 20th Century learners.

Good Advice for School Technology Leaders

Image Credit

In the May 21 issue of Forbes, the article “Thrifty Does It,” describes how Christian Gheorghe Hates started a billion dollar company with a shoestring budget.  School leaders tell their communities that they must do more with less.

Hates’ strategies show how he cut costs nearly 90% while he was able to deliver quality technical services.  Here’s what he did:

  • Replaced server purchases with leased server space in the cloud.
  • Replaced licensed email products with Gmail.
  • Replaced productivity software with google docs.
  • Replaced database software with databases purchased in the cloud.
  • Replaced telco services with VOIP services for phones.
  • Replaced internal file sharing hardware with box.com.
  • Replaced system testing software with open source.

While school technology departments may not be considering using alternative services and may be against specific brand names that Hates uses, he is successful at dumping expensive licensing and using free or inexpensive services to run the technical services of his company.  There’s a lesson here for school technology leaders.

With Technology in Schools Nothing Has Changed

design

Image Credit

With technology in schools nothing has changed.  Several years ago, I performed some original research about technology in schools (reference).

While this study occurred in a limited scope with a few school districts and I stated it could not be generalized, the results appear to be similar to what is appearing in popular media today.  The results:

(a) educational technology policy formulation focused on collecting the objects of technology, such as computers, modems, networks, and the like, rather than viewing educational technology as a systematic process of achieving goals;

(b) active leadership from a superintendent was essential in each school district, formulation of the plans was more than an empowered committee or executive blessing, and it required active participation by a superintendent;

(c) school districts developed educational technology policies regardless of their financial state;

(d) educational technology policy formulation occurred without regard for student demographics;

(e) applied technology or technology education–including electronics, robotics, video production, industrial technology, and metals technology–was part of educational technology policy formulation in two of the three school districts;

(f) while planning focused on the objects of educational technology, planners took little action on other elements of educational technology planning, such as staff development, finance, evaluation, and school cultural issues;

(g) technology planners did little to communicate aspects of their educational technology plan to their school communities;

(h) educational technology policy was a political process. Whether it was a new superintendent pushing his technology agenda or a teacher influencing a computer purchase, politics were part of the process; and

(i) the planning committees were not representative of the school community.

Looking at today’s social media posts in a very unscientific fashion, nothing has changed:

(a)  Today’s social media postings are about buying tablets and the “top 10 apps.”  Little in the social media is about students learning and focusing on students.  It’s about “buying” and “integrating” — a lost cause.

(b)  Leadership is always essential;  today it appears to be driven by peer pressure.  An executive administrator or a board member attends a conference where a school district reports on an effort of a presenting district and “tada” technology is purchased and expected to be used.  Many times the initiatives are way out of context.  Yes, leadership is essential, but is largely misplaced.

(c) They continue to plan, but with dwindling funds.

(d)  It still happens everywhere.  Wish lists are developed, regardless of the school district.

(e)  Still part of planning.

(f)  Professional development continues to be a challenge as teachers are taught skills, told to integrate, and left to go their way.  Usually not successful and not worth the results.

(g)  Communication about technology is swamped by NCLB and budget reductions.

(h)  It’s one of the most dynamic political processes as teachers and groups work to get the latest techno gizmos.

(i)  Planning committees still are composed of techno geeks and not representative of the larger community.

So the cycle continues.  Purchasing new hardware and then professional development is focused on integration – not transformation.  Teachers continue to teach the same old ways except with new technologies.  They no longer focus on “computers, modems, networks, and the like,” but it’s tablets, apps, wifi, white boards, and web 2.0.”  Their attitudes and practices around technology in schools remain the same.  Nothing has changed.  I did not expect that my research was a “game changer,” (another overused word choice to accent the insanity of technology in schools) but I was hoping that a new group of school leaders would emerge that would transform teaching and learning.  Well, with technology in schools, nothing has changed.

Moving to the Cloud

 

Cloud Computing
Image source: http://blogs.channelinsider.com/cloud_computing/cloud.jpg

Schools should consider moving their networked resources to the “cloud.”  In cloud computing networked software programs and stores of data files, such as word processing, spreadsheets, and the like, exist in a data center or multiple data centers outside the organization.  The district’s financial system may reside in one data center, student information system in a second, email in a third, and file storage in a fourth.  The most important component of this idea is that the end customer does not know the difference.  The data centers are better equipped than schools to manage equipment, back it up, and prevent fires.  Yes, the unknown and unspoken issue among school CTOs is that school district data centers are high risk operations because of their lack of redundancies, under capacity cooling, and stretched electrical capacities.  Simply stated, school district data centers are fire hazards.

Further schools cannot keep up with the upgrade paths required of newer technologies, especially in an era of reduced budgets.  School districts are pulling back rather than focusing forward.  The paths are unsustainable to meet recommended upgrade cycles, and impossible for those on shoe-string budgets.  New servers and new operating systems push limited human resources beyond their capacities.

Further school districts’ technology staffs will be concerned about jobs.  New servers and new software require new learning by the technical staffs to meet the upgrade cycles.  Formal training is expensive.  It’s difficult for staff to learn new systems while they are implementing them.

Further technical staff will be need to maintain the data in the systems, to create reports, and serve as the link to the data center for various purposes.

So schools should move their operations to the cloud and let the data center providers worry about the upgrade paths.  The technology staff can be put to higher value operations, such as assisting trainers and directly assisting teachers to make technology work in schools.

Such a move will require a policy creation and a sense of confidence in the move.  Data centers are likely more “secure” than local school data centers.  Afterall what’s there to steal from a school data center?  Schools do not have nuclear secrets and what would the headline read, “Data Center Hacked, School’s Powerpoints Revealed” or “Data Center Hacked, Exams Posted Online?”  Who would want the files schools have on their servers?  Schools are low-yield hacks.

Moving to the cloud is more an emotional consideration than a technical, budgetary, or staffing initiative.  The leaders of the school district need confidence and assurance that the data and operations are better in the data centers than in the school district’s data center.   As a strategic leader, the CTO can address issues that executive administration and the board of education have.  Additionally, the CTO can develop a plan to put bring the technical staff into a higher yielding support system rather than chasing upgrades of hardware and software.