Lincoln Public Schools

Lincoln Public Schools Technology Advisory Committee FINAL REPORT

Originally published on: January 28, 2009

Report available as a PDF document here

November 18, 2008

The LPS Technology Advisory Committee, established by the Superintendent’s Office, was charged with answering three basic questions that would guide the Superintendent in making recommendations related to future technology purchases for the District. The LPS General Fund budget for 2008-9 includes nearly $1,000,000 for student computers and approximately $700,000 for computers for teachers. Recommendations on these purchases have been deferred awaiting the input of this Committee.

Walter Weir (CIO, University of Nebraska) and Don Mayhew (LPS Board of Education) co-chaired the Committee. Members included: citizens Scott Baird, Lanny Boswell, Nick Cusick, Nancy Dalessio, and Steve Kennedy; and Board of Education members Richard Meginnis and Ed Zimmer. Associate Superintendents Marilyn Moore and Mark Shepard provided staff assistance to the Committee, along with Kirk Langer, Director of Computing Services.

Terminology:

Platforms: The Committee used “platforms” to refer to configurations of computer hardware and the software that operates them (operating systems or OS). Much of the Committee’s analysis compared the following two platforms.

Macintosh/Mac OS: Computers produced by Apple (formerly Apple Computer) and Apple’s proprietary OS. Some newer Macs may also operate “natively” in either Mac OS or Microsoft’s Windows OS.

PC/Windows OS: In the Committee’s discussions, this platform included computers by various manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard (HP) that utilize the Microsoft Windows OS.

Total Cost of Ownership/TCO: TCO considers not just the costs of acquisition of hardware and software but also maintenance, repair costs, and updates for the duration of the use of the equipment.

The Questions:

The exact questions examined by the Committee are detailed below. In broad terms, the Committee examined whether LPS is using prudent selection criteria in its computer purchases, the implications of moving to a single platform for instructional computers, and how LPS should treat emerging computer technologies.

Question 1

As the District updates computers for teachers and increases the number of computers for students to provide for online testing, are the following selection criteria adequate? This question was examined in several parts.

Question 1 - Criteria 1

Total cost of ownership (TCO) was the focus of Question 1 - Criteria 1. The Committee was asked to look at procurement cost, support costs, manageability, and security. The Committee believes that the criteria are appropriate and spent a significant amount of time discussing the various components of TCO. After the Committee reviewed the data presented it was agreed that the actual cost differential between an exclusively Macintosh/Mac OS platform or an exclusively PC/Windows OS platform was not significant. Based upon this analysis the Committee proceeded to consider issues of functionality and educational appropriateness.

Question 1 - Criteria 2

Question 1 - Criteria 2 addressed the functional requirements associated with a hardware platform decision in the educational environment. The Committee was asked to look at several components related to functionality at various grade levels and subject matters. The functional requirements currently utilized include:

• Basic knowledge/research work (data retrieval/storage and office document creation)
• Desktop layout and graphic design
• Photo editing, video editing, animation, and compositing
• Music composition and/or audio editing
• CAD and 3-D rendering
• Flexibility
• Curriculum specific/enhanced software It should be noted that not all instructional computers need, nor have, these capabilities.

The Committee spent considerable time analyzing and discussing these requirements. LPS faculty and instructional support personnel were invited to present to the Committee their thoughts and concerns. Faculty presentations were insightful as the Committee gained an understanding of the issues faced by end users. The dedication of the faculty and their desire to prepare students in their classes was both impressive and inspiring.

It became clear through the presenters that the K-8 environment has a strong preference for the Macintosh platform in all areas. A lot of time and effort has been spent developing the environment and it has proven to be effective. At the high school level there is a requirement for a mixed platform which includes the Macintosh and PC environments. The delivery of the curriculum and the software environment is driving the need for multiple platforms. This is true in specialized areas such as computer- aided design (CAD) and 3-D rendering.

Currently, 70 percent of all machines at LPS are Macintosh and 30 percent are PCs. This represents a clear focus on technology being utilized to support teaching and learning rather than on the nature of the technology itself (the best tool for the specific job).

Question 1 - Criteria 3

The issue of mobility was the focus of Question 1 - Criteria 3. It was obvious to the Committee that limited financial resources require the prioritization of needs as it relates to computer equipment in general. The Committee determined that utilizing mobile labs that contain several laptop computers should continue to be supported as they allow the schools to have flexibility in using the technology for multiple purposes. In addition, the presence of wireless access in all buildings allows any classroom to become a computer lab for any period of time without the need for additional wiring, electrical work, or remodeling.

Question 1 - Criteria 4

The Committee also discussed the upcoming computer-based statewide assessment system and what influence it might have on selection criteria for computers. Very few specifics are available at this time about the mandated testing. The Committee concluded that it is not possible or prudent to attempt to tailor this year’s purchases to unknown specifications, especially considering that instructional computer resources should be used year-round, not just for the annual statewide assessment.

Recommendation on Question 1

The Committee found that the current configuration of computer equipment has been selected to match the “best tool for the specific job.” The Committee supports the “right- sizing” of computer equipment, recognizing that elementary students and teachers have different needs from those of high school computer-aided-design (CAD) students or graphic design classes. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that neither cost nor functionality support LPS purchasing exclusively either Macintosh or PC/Windows computers.

Question 2

In Question 2, the Committee focused on the platform question.

Question 2a

Could the District expect to realize long-term cost savings by moving to a single-OS/platform for instructional delivery?

Key points: The Committee found that the cost of both acquisition and TCO of either platform is closely comparable. This was not the Committee's expectation and is contrary to the typical consumer experience. An explanation is warranted since consumers may expect to pay 50-100 percent more for a Macintosh than a Windows/PC with comparable features. Apple prices equipment for the education market well below consumer costs. LPS's eligibility to benefit by purchase contracts negotiated by K-12 and government consortia also reduces prices. In addition, LPS standardizes Windows/PC purchases to a few major brands and specifies business- grade equipment with standardized components. This increases the price for Windows/PC above widely advertised consumer-grade computers, but reduces costs for support and maintenance and maximizes functionality for users, producing a favorable TCO. In LPS's experience, the cost for acquisition of hardware and operating system for a typical Mac purchased by the District is $958 and for a Windows/PC is $989. TCO over the life of the equipment is probably even closer.

Discussion

When considering whether the District could expect to realize cost savings by moving to a single platform, the following two variables were discussed by the Committee:

1. The perceived/real differences in the TCO between the Macintosh platform and the Personal Computer running the Windows platform.
2. The hard and soft costs associated with moving to a single platform.

Consideration was also given to the formal/informal training associated with changes in software programs which would be required in moving to a single platform.

TCO includes the purchase price, application costs, training costs, maintenance and support costs, security, and communication (networking) costs. Based on information provided to the Committee relative to the TCO of comparable computers operating in the LPS networking environment for typical student and staff use, there was not a significant cost difference between the two platforms. However, the Committee also acknowledged that there were and will likely continue to be certain applications that required specific platforms and configurations to meet the functional requirements.

Question 2b

Considering a single operating system/platform for instructional delivery, what timeframe would be necessary to make the conversion, given available budgetary resources?

Discussion

LPS currently utilizes approximately 11,500 computers for instruction, including about 9,000 Macintosh computers and 2,500 Windows/PC machines. (The terminology is increasingly imprecise in the rapidly evolving world of “personal” computers since newer Macs can operate “natively” in both operating systems.) Hardware replacement of Macintosh computers is approximately $798 per unit, compared to $809 for functionally comparable Windows computers. (These are desktop prices.) Operating software costs $160 per Macintosh and $180 per Windows machine.

Replacing the 2,500 Windows machines to create an exclusively Macintosh system would cost $798 + $160 x 2,500 machines ($958 x 2,500) = $2,395,000.

Replacing the 9,000 Macintosh machines to create an exclusively Windows system would cost $809 + $180 x 9,000 machines ($989 x 9,000) = $8,901,000.

This year's budget includes approximately $1,000,000 for technology replacement and upgrades. At this funding level it would take three years to move to an exclusively Macintosh environment and nine years to move to an exclusively Windows environment. However, neither timeframe takes into account on-going replacement of existing, aging equipment.

Software considerations: The following software programs currently utilized by the District are available on both platforms:

• MS Office
  
• Adobe Suite
  
• Inspiration/Kidspiration
  
• Open Office
  
• Mozilla Firefox

The following software titles utilized by the District are only available for the Macintosh platform:

• Mac Notebook, iMovie (Digital Video Editing software)
  
• iPhoto (Photo cataloguing and image retouching software)
  
• iDVD (DVD authoring software)
  
• Garage Band (music composition, podcasting, audio editing software)
  
• Notebook (Note taking, HTML publishing, Outlining software)
  
• Apple Remote Desktop (Macintosh workstation lab management software)
  
• KidPix (elementary multimedia authoring software)

The following software titles utilized by the District are only available for the Windows platform:

• AutoCAD Suite (AutoCAD Architecture, Civil 3D, Inventor Professional, MEP, Viz Revit Architecture, Pro Landscape)
  
• School Vue (Windows workstation lab management software)
  
• Ghost Client (imaging software)
  
• UIU (imaging software)

The District would incur costs to transition to a single platform for software purchases. Some licenses would be transferable from their current platform to a new platform. The total software costs associated with this transition would depend on the software chosen, when it is purchased, and the volume purchased.

Support considerations: Due to the cross platform training of current support personnel, additional training for support personnel would not be necessary. The District might eventually incur some net savings for training by moving to a single platform. Such savings would depend on the actual platform and software chosen. In moving completely to either platform, some additional “software specific” training would be necessary due to the differences between platform-specific versions of the software.

The cost of informal support/training among staff would also be a consideration when moving to a single platform. The District would temporarily anticipate additional Help Desk calls and/or demands on in-building technicians (available in secondary schools only) to meet this need.

End-user considerations: Operating system specific and application specific training would be required when moving to a single platform. The training requirement would be magnified in cases of application software that is platform specific as mentioned above. There would also be costs, especially in end-user time and effort, to transfer or recreate templates, examples, lessons, etc., from one platform to the other. This would create a burden on the teachers and other educators and might cause some disruption in the day-to-day delivery of the curriculum.

Recommendation: LPS should continue to operate a mix of platforms (Mac OS and PC/Windows) due to the cost of moving exclusively to either platform and the loss of functionality based on both user familiarity and greater suitability of each platform for certain students and software applications.

Question 3

What emerging technologies should the District be considering (e.g., Web 2.0, thin-client, application/server/storage virtualization, personal communications devices, etc.)?

Lincoln Public Schools is currently aggressively piloting a number of hardware and software solutions that are considered emerging technologies. These technologies fall into several categories: server virtualization, application virtualization, thin client, and open source productivity software/operating systems.

Server Virtualization

The performance increases in relatively low-cost central processing units have significantly outpaced basic computing performance requirements. This has led to the creation of software/hardware configurations that allow for virtual server environments. One physical server can perform the function of five or more virtual servers in this environment. Server virtualization utilizes the available processing/memory resources of the central processor to deliver services to multiple networks simultaneously. This process utilizes the available resources and reduces the number of devices necessary resulting in lower procurement, maintenance, and utility costs.

LPS has adopted the Citrix XenServer server virtualization solution and is in the process of deploying this technology. A server consolidation survey was conducted by an outside consultant in 2008 that led to LPS implementing the HP Blade technology, allowing the District to further consolidate server resources and provide for a more efficient server environment.

Application Virtualization/Thin Client Technologies

LPS is currently piloting desktop virtualization in the Library Media Center at Southeast High School. This technology allows the resources of a single desktop PC to support several users simultaneously. The NComputing solution utilizes one desktop unit to support up to six additional “thin-client” workstations. The total cost for all seven devices is approximately $2,450. This environment is well suited for Web-based research and basic document creation. This configuration does not support desktop video editing, graphic intensive computing, and other CPU intensive applications due to the sharing of computing resources; therefore, it is not as well suited for a classroom or computer lab setting.

LPS is currently reviewing application virtualization solutions provided by VMWare and Citrix along with thin-client solutions from HP, Dell, Sun, and Devon IT. It is likely that LPS will deploy one or more of these solutions in an effort to maximize available resources.

LPS continues to research and has begun to pilot the use of “ultra-mobile” PCs. These “XO” computers, along with their HP and Dell counterparts, operate in a Linux environment. This technology currently has limitations in available hardware and application software. The District intends to continue to monitor and deploy this technology when advantageous.

Open Source Software

In 2008 the District completed an internal study of the feasibility of implementing Open Office as an alternative to Microsoft Office. The Open Office suite is available at no charge and would reduce the District’s annual software licensing costs. However, it would increase the need for District support. LPS will continue to study and consider this option along with other Linux and other open source applications as they are available.

Recommendation:

LPS should continue to monitor and evaluate emerging technologies for instructional and enterprise use and should pilot new technologies that show particular promise, either in functional effectiveness or cost efficiency.

Finally, it should be noted that the Committee observed during the period of review the dedication and willingness of the Computing Services staff to provide their faculty and administrators with the very best possible computing environment they can in light of budgetary constraints. They are to be commended for the fine work and level of outstanding support they provide.