Slashdot Mirror


FBI Seizes Los Angeles Schools' iPad Documents

An anonymous reader writes: The Los Angeles Unified School District had a bold (and expensive) plan to outfit its students with top-of-the-line technology: its 650,000 students will be given Apple iPads to use for school work. The cost? $1 billion. Unfortunately for them, the project has been plagued with problems. Now, the FBI has seized 20 boxes of documents regarding the district's procurement practices and confirmed an investigation. "Hundreds of students initially given the iPads last school year found ways to bypass security installations, downloading games and freely surfing the Web. Teachers complained they were not properly trained to instruct students with the new technology. And questions were raised after emails were disclosed showing that then-Superintendent John Deasy had been in communication with vendors Apple and Pearson before the contracts were put to bid."

23 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. When we give money to the schools ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Schools often tell us that they are lack of fund to give our children top flight education, so we give money and more money and some more money to the schools hoping that they will have enough $$$ to properly educating the children

    But when schools get the money, where do they spend it on?

    On iPADs !

    Instead of spending more money paying high salaries to much better quality teachers, teachers who are more resourceful, more dedicated teachers, and so on, the schools waste money on iPADs !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:When we give money to the schools ... by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they hired better teachers, what would the teachers' unions do with the worthless teachers?
      In this case I'd like to know what the FBI is investigating. Graft? Or are they investigating the students' "cybercrime" of unlocking the iPads?

    2. Re:When we give money to the schools ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The schools do not need more money, they need parents to be parents, and teachers to teach (instead of being cattle drivers and nursery attendants)

      Kids need to be instructed in the basics first, then add other things on. Read, write, respect & social values (by community not state and absolutely not federal), maths. Then move on to rhetoric, arts, sciences, trades, music etc.

    3. Re:When we give money to the schools ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they are looking into how badly the students were ripped off by forcing ipads on them.

    4. Re:When we give money to the schools ... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they are looking into how badly the students were ripped off by forcing ipads on them.

      No joke, there's only the vast majority of alternative products that provide the same benefits at a lower cost. I guess they may lack the fruity logo on the back...

    5. Re:When we give money to the schools ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's actually not that hard to figure out where the costs of educating our students go (buildings, transportation, fuel, energy, maintenance, books, supplies, etc.), but you have to actually be willing to *look* instead of just blowing a fuse about some imagined problem.

      Yes, there are bad teachers. Yes that sucks. But teachers, in general, don't get paid what they would if they were in *any* related industry. As a result, most of the people you get who teach do so because they *want* to be teachers.

      Your own math shows the problem with teachers' wages. You have (well paid) teachers being paid $2333.33 per student per *year*. That's just $1.08 per student per hour, assuming (falsely) that teachers don't actually work outside of school hours. You can't get a *babysitter* for $1.08/hour (it's actually illegal to pay them that little), much less someone who is expected to *teach* the kids something useful. When you account for the time teachers *actually* spend working, it's closer to $0.65 per student per hour.

      That also doesn't account for what many teachers (especially those in poorer districts) actually have to pay in order to actually do their jobs. I grew up in a thoroughly middle-class district, and at least *two* teachers I knew of spent roughly a quarter of their take-home pay on supplies students needed that the school didn't provide, and they couldn't afford. As I understand it, that's not atypical for teachers in poor districts, so you're now looking (using your own numbers) at a teacher who is earning $0.50 per student per hour of actual work.

      The best part about your bitchy, self-entitled rant about how coddled teachers are? You're not even responsible for a whole $0.01 per student per hour. You just have a bug up your ass about how expensive it is, even though you don't realize how *cheap* it actually is.

      Teachers want the technology to be able to prepare their students for a world in which technology is the *life blood* of the economy and the labor force. You want students who can enter college, trade schools, or even the work force who are *already* familiar with computers and technology, because if they're not they'll be behind the curve, and very likely stay that way.

    6. Re: When we give money to the schools ... by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You aren't really paying for other peoples kids to get an education, you're paying back for yours.
      Besides, would you rather have other peoples kids in school learning enough so they might qualify for a job, or running around the neighborhood finding "alternate means of obtaining funds"?

    7. Re: When we give money to the schools ... by pnutjam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only android allows you to maintain your own app store and properly lock down a device (in theory). Ipads require every parent to put a cc into apple's system or do some sort of gift card work around. This alone should make them untenable in a school or corporate setting.

  2. Duh. What did you expect? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at the premise:

    1. Students usually know WAY more about technology than their teachers.
    2. Students also have usually WAY more interest in it than their teachers.
    3. They also know WAY better how to use the internet than their teachers.
    4. Students have WAY more time to spend on breaking security than their teachers have time (and money) to spend on security.
    5. Information flows VERY freely on the schoolyard, especially when being able to transmit that information ups your social status.

    Am I really the only one who is not only not surprised that this happens, but who would have been SEVERELY disappointed if it hadn't?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. I just don't get it by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't understand why schools are in such a massive rush to buy iPads before they've even figured out how to use them, and where they fit into the curriculum.
    They all chase after the "new-shiny" and plop down a bucket of money before considering or testing the impact, much less training teachers. ...and the fact they were hacked... but yeah. We all had fun doing that on the Apple IIs educational software and with game disks we brought to school back in the 80s. Probably more valuable education looking back. It was fun to strip the "mathbooster" mathematics space-invader game of the actual maths and then play it as Taito originally intended ;)

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:I just don't get it by JThundley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you answered your own question there, people want new shiny. Advertising is waaaaaay too effective on some people.

      I think it's good that students got around the restrictions and are doing things they weren't intended to do. As the old saying goes, you don't learn to hack, you hack to learn.

    2. Re:I just don't get it by saccade.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +1. Our kids' middle school also jumped on the iPad bandwagon. For the most part, the kids hated it. The iPads didn't displace any textbooks, so it was 2 lbs of extra deadweight in their backpacks (tablet+mandatory case & keyboard). It was a source of stress, because on the rare occasions they were actually used in class, you got marked down if your iPad wasn't charged. Assignments still had be printed out and turned in on paper, so a separate PC/Mac was still required. The tablets were supposedly locked down to prevent loading games, etc. but tech-savvy students usually found work-arounds. And some of the edu-ware screw-ups were truly appalling - like the "spelling test" app that didn't disable the iOS dictionary feature. Fortunately, the high-school principals are saner. Quote one: "No, I won't bring tech like tablets into the school just because it's new shiny. It really has to fulfill a serious purpose or solve real problems". Amen.

    3. Re:I just don't get it by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. Around here, school districts have to get their constituents to pass budget override bonds at election-time in order to get the money to do this sort of thing. Many have succeeded, but several have failed.

      What we're seeing is a lack of killer-application to justify these tablet devices over traditional computers. We're not seeing textbooks that are cached in their entirety on the devices and can function without an Internet connection, we're not seeing educational software that gives the students extra assistance or heuristically learns the students' weaknesses to address them. We're seeing the pencil and paper skills simply be transferred to a much more expensive medium with little tangible benefit and a lot of opportunity for loss.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Re:IPad is an insult to technology by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An iPad is a more power computer than any I had access to all through school. It's also a more capable general-purpose computer than those Apple II-series computers and early MacOS 6/7/8 machines that we had use of, and can do more than those MS-DOS-based computers that we had.

    It's all about the software and the peripherals. And the kids appear to have figured out the software part on their own, even though the intent was that they couldn't, let alone wouldn't.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. A Plan without a Plan by DERoss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The iPads were distributed without any planning about accountability. No one knew who would be responsible if an iPad were lost. (Without a parent's approval, the minor student could not be held legally responsible.) No one knew who paid for repairs. No one knew what was to happen to the iPad when the student moved to a different school district. No one even knew how the iPads would be used within the curricula.

    For 8 years, I was an elected school board member in a quite small but high-performing school district. At the closest, we are about 1 mile from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Ours is a rather affluent community. We do not give our students personal electronics. We make PCs available in our high school library, which also serves as a public library where adults can also use PCs.

    1. Re:A Plan without a Plan by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good points. I'm a former classroom teacher whose job now is to help integrate technology into the classroom. We do it slowly, deliberately and with a lot of thinking and planning. We never roll out anything to every kid at once. We study, pilot, review, pilot again if needed and then implement. When I first heard about LA's plan, I was horrified. It was too big, too fast, and not well planned. It was doomed to fail, and at the time, I figured that the fix was in, probably with Pearson. They scare me. Technology in the classroom should be used to create, to collaborate, to innovate. Instead, Pearson and other companies like them want to use it to drill and kill while making a mint off of taxpayer dollars.

  6. Investigation a Crapshoot by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Informative

    We may never know what they're investigating, or who, or why, or how it will cause or affect any criminal prosecution. There's certainly no integrity to the process.

    Remember when a school was caught installing malware on students' macbooks that covertly took pictures of the children in their bedrooms, almost certainly producing child porn? And we even had correspondence that showed faculty used this capability for entertainment?

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

    The feds investigated but simply decided not to file charges against the school for illegal surveillance, hacking, peeping at kids, etc. I guess that would have set a nasty precedent for the NSA activities that were going on, but only discovered a few years later.

  7. Nonfungible budgets by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But we don't just give them money, we give them money dedicated to specific items. If there is grant money available for computer equipment then you have to write a proposal for computing equipment and you can't spend it on ordinary teachers salaries. If you turn down a grant because it is too specific then you get your budget cut because you obviously have enough already.

  8. Better Teachers... by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We lost most of the great teachers in the United States when we embraced gender equality. It was definitely the right move, but it cost our country untold billions in terms of the price to education.

    Not many decades ago, women could not go into most high-earning-potential fields. Teacher was one of the few fields of instruction open to them, and as a result, a LOT of the smartest women in the country went into teaching. And there are a *lot* of smart women in the country.

    You still have smart women teaching, but not nearly as many.

  9. Re:Think of the (poor) children by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they meant the Fashion Industry, not the IT Industry. Their hardware sales far exceeds the revenue from, for instance, Coach handbag sales.

  10. Re:IPad is an insult to technology by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An iPad is a more power computer than any I had access to all through school

    Yep, if you're talking about the innards.

    It's also a more capable general-purpose computer than those Apple II-series computers and early MacOS 6/7/8 machines

    Nope.

    An iPad is an appliance for running apps, not a general-purpose computer. Go ahead, just try to program on it, or hook it up to manipulate some random gizmo.

    Sure, it can be done -- by someone with the right development tools (which wont run on the iPad) and skills. A far cry from what school kids could teach themselves to do with Apple Basic or Hypercard.

    --
    -- Alastair
  11. Re:Modern Problems by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It was a great idea"

    Why and how?

    "Organized Labor always wants training and work studies to be completed and approved before anything gets rolled out."

    You prefer your children to be taught by untrained people using untested methods?

    "I've dealt with this working with Airlines and trust me, you don't change work rules or add tools to the environment without Union buy-in. "

    In other words, you don't get to change work rules on heavier-that-air flying machines without buy-in from those that operate said machines into the air? Nonsense, I claim, great nonsense!

    "You've now given 10s of thousands of tablets to kids so they can watch youporn all day. Congratulations LA Unified School District."

    And then again, how and why was this a great idea?

  12. govt procurement processes by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Government purchase procedures for purchases over a small amount typically require large amounts of paperwork from vendors, submitted in various stages to ensure transparency and fairness. "Run down to Walmart and get it for one-third the price" isn't an option specified in the procurement process.

    The idea is to make sure they don't just run down to their brother's shop and pay five times the going rate. Unfortunately, it means buying mainly from middleman companies who are in the business of getting government contracts. It can be REAL lucrative to contract for computers - you put in a bid for to top of the line computers at $3500 each, installed. The process takes 18 months before you win the bid. You meet with the government agency and the start planning their migration process. Eventually delivery is scheduled, around six months after you won the bid. At that point you buy some computers that meet the specs you bid two years ago, paying $600 each. Six months after that you collect the $3500 each from the government.