Teacher Magazine: Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards

Teacher Magazine: Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards

...I’d go even farther, though. I’m willing to argue that even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase. They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning...

...I’m also peeved because schools rarely have any kind of system in place to evaluate the impact that whiteboards are having on instruction. We spend
heaping piles of cash collecting whiz-bang gadgets and then completely fail to reflect on whether or not they have helped us achieve the outcomes we most
desire. Isn’t that called hoarding?

...Most of the time, interactive whiteboard programs are, in fact, nothing more than vain attempts to buy change. Rarely paired with a clear vision of the
classrooms we’d like to see, a set of tangible objectives that can be measured, or any systematic attempts to evaluate outcomes, these high-priced contraptions
are sad examples of the careless decision-making and waste that are crippling some of our schools and systems.

Frankly, it seems like most school leaders don’t really care whether IWBs change instruction in meaningful ways in their school’s classrooms. Why? Because whiteboards aren’t an instructional tool in their eyes. They’re a PR tool—a tangible representation of innovation that can be shown off to supervisors and parents alike. Heaven forbid that you run a school without whiteboards if your colleagues down the street have taken a big bite of this 21st century fruit. You’ll look like a hayseed at the next PTA meeting, won’t you?

Superintendent Shows Up: Surprises "Seminal" Committee

On the agenda for the 3/17/09 Board of Education Fiscal Management Committee meeting was a review of the Maryland Office of Legislative Audits Report on MCPS. This would be the first time that this 91 page State Audit of MCPS would be addressed by members of the Board of Education since it was released in January.

Ten minutes into the beginning of the committee meeting Superintendent Weast walked into the room and sat down at the table. The Chair, BoE member Chris Barclay, completed his statement about being clear on the MCPS procurement process, and then noted that it was rare to have Superintendent Weast attend a Board committee meeting. He then turned the meeting over to Superintendent Weast and the agenda for the meeting was set aside.

Superintendent Weast spoke for about half an hour on his prediction that 2011 will be a worse budget year than 2010. He discussed the waiver of the maintenance of effort and whether that waiver request would come from the County Executive as a blanket waiver. He said that an individual waiver was preferable. He said that the Fiscal Management Committee "was now the seminal committee" because of budget concerns for FY 2011. Superintendent Weast then left the room and the committee returned to their original agenda.

The discussion of the State Audit of MCPS was abbreviated to say the least. There was little time for Board member questions as MCPS COO Larry Bowers read through the list of State Auditor recommendations and reiterated the MCPS position on each, as already stated in the Appendix to the Audit. While the surprise visit by Superintendent Weast was no doubt illuminating, a detailed discussion and implementation of some of the recommendations in the State Audit could go a long way to alleviating a financial crisis for MCPS.

Of note, was the fact that when Superintendent Weast spoke he mentioned sums of $24 million here and $80 million there as potential gaps in the MCPS budget. All the while ignoring that MCPS no longer brings major procurements to the Board of Education table for approval and, as an example, last summer went out and purchased over $13 million worth of Promethean Boards without so much as a hint of this expenditure at the Board table. How much of this type of unmonitored purchasing goes on in MCPS is not clear. But certainly bringing major procurements to the Board table for a vote would go a long way to regulating the spending of this $2.1 +/- billion school system and averting crisis.

Specifically, recommendation 18 in the Audit was that "MCPS should adopt formal policies governing long-term obligations and cash management". The Fiscal Management Committee did not discuss this recommendation. COO Bowers simply stated that they "are looking at a cash management policy". He also said with regard to long term obligations, they "need to formalize practices in place and bring them to the Board". There was no Board committee action on this recommendation. The committee then moved on to the next recommendation.

Some recommendations in the Audit will be brought back to the Fiscal Management Committee at a later meeting.

Four words not heard at Board table

The following is testimony delivered in Annapolis on proposed legislation MC 930-09. What documents do exist on these procurements seem to indicate that all four of these contracts were entered into by MCPS during the last two years, during the time that the MCPS Board of Education President was Nancy Navarro.

Montgomery County Delegation

January 30, 2009

Re: MD 930-09 Montgomery County Public Schools - Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2009

Good morning Chairs Madaleno and Feldman and the members of the Montgomery Delegation.

I am Janis Zink Sartucci. I grew up in Montgomery County and I am raising my children in Montgomery County. I attended Montgomery Knolls Elementary School, Eastern Junior High and graduated from Montgomery Blair High School. I am here as a member of Parents Coalition to support Louis Wilen and the Parents Coalition's request that you pass MD 930-09.

In my time before you today, I have four words for you. The four words are:

IQinVision

Promethean

EasyLobby

SmartBoard

These are four words that you will not find in Board of Education minutes approving procurements of the products from these companies. In total, I would estimate that these four words represent contracts of over $30 million in procurements. That’s over $30 million in procurements that are not reflected in MCPS Board of Education minutes. Each of these procurements represents a commitment of taxpayer dollars of well beyond $10,000.

Briefly, let me start with IQinVision. How did Montgomery County citizens discover that MCPS has contracted with this company? In a press release from IQinVision. The contract with this company is not mentioned in Board of Education minutes. Neither is their product IQEye or the consultant that obtained this contract. Rumor has this procurement cost at $9 million. Attachment A

Promethean: How did citizens discover this contract? A press release from MCPS announcing the placement of these products in classrooms. Repeated Maryland Public Information Act requests disclosed that 3,300 Promethean Boards had been purchased for MCPS classrooms, in total a commitment of over $20 million in taxpayer funds without Board of Education review. In support of this purchase, the Superintendent has produced two different versions of a June 9, 2008 memorandum to the Board of Education, purportedly to justify this purchase. Both versions of the June 9, 2008 memorandum are attached. Attachment B

EasyLobby: Citizens discovered this procurement through an article in the Gazette newspaper. This procurement is also not mentioned in Board of Education minutes. Unknown contract cost. Attachment C

SmartBoard: SmartBoards are present in schools and in MCPS headquarters. We simply see them in use but again, can not find any mention of a contract to purchase these items in Board of Education minutes. Unknown contract cost. Attachment D

Does Montgomery County need the Montgomery County Public Schools - Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2009?

Absolutely.

We don’t know what we don’t know.

With regard to funding of this Act, I will reference the recently released State Legislative Audit of Montgomery County Public Schools. In order to fund a searchable website of MCPS procurements, MCPS can cut up the 1,400 credit cards whose use is not being monitored.

From the State Audit:

"Our tests of 32 calendar year 2007 travel expenditures
charged to credit cards totaling $19,028 disclosed 30 expenditures
totaling $17,930 that were not recorded on monthly activity logs and,
therefore, were never approved."

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

(Attachments available upon request. For each word I searched in the Board of Education minutes on their website and copied the results page. For all of the words except "Promethean" the search yielded "no results". For the Promethean search the only results were references to demonstrations, updates or curriculum but no reference to purchasing 3,300 units.)

UPDATE: EasyLobby procurement was made without a contract and without Board of Education approval.

UPDATE: IQinVision procurement was made without a contract and without Board of Education approval.


UPDATE December 2010: The legislation to create a MCPS database of vendors receiving payments over a specific amount was enacted and the database has now been posted on the MCPS website.