GPPSS Technology Bond: Why We Can Wait Until 2014

Through my different efforts to secure a seat on the GPPSS School Board, my message has stayed consistent on two issues: STEM education, and education technology.  We need improved STEM education to ensure our society is prepared for the challenges ahead in the global job market.  We must also ensure K-12 technology infrastructure is capable of handling new technologies that teachers wish to use in their classroom.  Even as a proponent of new technology, the ballot measure being prepared by Grosse Pointe Public Schools to raise money for new technology through bonds should not be pursued as it is currently.  

There is one public meeting of the Technology Steering Committee every month.  The questions raised during this committee meeting are not adding the value one would expect from a once a month meeting.  I have been apart of organizations that meet once a month, once every two weeks, once a week, and every day.  In the most organizations, the frequency of meetings corresponded to the expected productiveness, as well as the urgency with which matters needed to be discussed.  An organization that meets once a month typically handles non-urgent business, and is quite productive.  The Technology Steering Committee is handling very urgent business, and was not as productive as expected.  

First, Grosse Pointe voters should be presented with the calculations used to determine the line items in the bond proposal.  This should be a very easy thing for the District to present, as these calculations have already been done by someone.  Second, the Board should be voting on the specific items of technology to be purchased.  It has not been determined if the bond money will be used to rollout a 1:1 program with tablets, laptops, or both, or a program different than 1:1 altogether.  Further, it has not been decided that the District will purchase any particular make or model of the aforementioned devices.  It has not presented to voters whether our district possesses the network capabilities to handle such a program.  Voters have also not seen documentation of the District doing their due diligence to calculate the network requirements, or the cost associated with improving those requirements.   

It is true that for a 10-year technology bond, it might be unrealistic to determine what specific technology will be purchased in 2020, because we don’t even know what will be available.  A three-year projection of what will be purchased, and what constraints will be placed on District infrastructure is very realistic, and should be expected by voters.  I am not an opponent to the notion that GPPSS needs new technology.  I am an opponent of asking voters to approve ballot proposals to spend money when the research hasn’t been done.  It appears the District is prepared to move forward with new technology.  District administration and Board members should keep the energy flowing, but direct it toward research for a 2014 ballot measure.

Follow Me on Twitter: @bromanw
Like My Facebook Page: William Broman