Only recently found out how to do this however it makes a significant difference allowing me to now create PowerAutomate (previously Flow) automations but based on a Form created by someone else but shared with me.
To do this you need to first identify the FormID for the form. To do this, just look at the sharing link for the form. This is the link which someone looking to complete the form would fill out, not the link which may have been shared with you to edit the form.
The FormID is the characters following the ID= part of the URL, the section redacted below:
Now in Power Automate, create a new flow with a Form submission as a trigger.
Using the FormID combo list, you will see all of your forms but not those shared with you. As such select the option at the bottom for Enter Custom Value.
Now paste the FormID characters from earlier into the FormID box.
You can now build the rest of your PowerAutomate as required, based on the responses to the Form which has been shared with you.
At the start of the week an issue arose which appeared to impact on a number of schools, in relation to syncing of OneNote on iPads or where using the Win 10 OneNote app. This got me to thinking, should we be concerned where we are increasingly having all our technology eggs in one basket, being either the Microsoft Office 365 or Google Workspace for Education baskets.
Benefits
First, I think it’s important to acknowledge the benefits of having your eggs in one basket. Taking Office 365, which is the solution my school uses, one of the key benefits is integration. Each of the apps integrates well with the others, be this using Outlook to setup Teams meetings or setting up a Microsoft Form based quiz, as an assignment in Teams. As each of the apps are part of the same wider platform, they generally play well together. As soon as you start to look at number of different apps from different vendors, integration and interoperability very quickly become problems.
User interface is another significant benefit. Each of the Office 365 apps, as part of the wider platform, has a reasonably common user interface. This makes it that bit easier for users, both staff and students, to gain familiarity and confidence in using each app and the overall platform. Again, as soon as we look to different vendors, we find ourselves with different user interfaces across different apps, and therefore an increased learning curve for staff and students.
Security is also worth remembering. As a single unified platform, I consider it easier, but not necessarily easy, to secure Office 365 versus similarly securing a number of platforms from different vendors, with integrations and potentially third party integrators involved.
Drawbacks
The key draw back is the single point of failure. When it doesn’t work the impact is huge. Now in the recent case it was only OneNote which experienced an issue so staff and students could still make use of Teams, OneDrive, email, etc. This is a lesser issue. Had the issue related to the Office 365 platform as a whole then all apps within the platform would therefore be affected. Thankfully, given the size of Microsoft, they have backups and resiliencies in place to reduce the likelihood of such an issue, however statistically over a longitudinal period the likelihood of such an incident eventually reaches 100%. I would however suggest the exact same is the case where using multiple vendors to supply your solutions, however given the complexity of different systems and the resultant integrations required I would suggest the time period in this case before probability reaches 100% is much less, therefore representing a more significant risk.
It is also worth noting that where we are referring to SaaS (Software as a Service) there is also a risk that the vendor might choose to change the service such that it no longer meets our needs or may even discontinue the service. In both these cases we find ourselves in the difficult situation of needing to find an alternative and needing to migrate potentially massive amounts of data. With Google and Microsofts productivity suites I would say the risk here is minor, however the possibility that an individual app within the wider platform may change or be discontinued is a more likely occurrence.
Conclusion
I don’t believe there is a perfect solution. If you wanted to protect against a single point of failure, and having all your eggs in one basket, you would use more than one system, possibly using Microsoft as primary with Google as a secondary solution. The issue here is that of resources and that of users. Managing two platforms, keeping one ready to use if needed, and ensuring staff are ready to use the alternative platform will take at least twice as much in the way of IT support resources. I would also suggest it is highly unlikely you could train users up to be able to be capable across two platforms. I think even trying to do this would impact on users confidence across both platforms. And this is without mentioning potential cost and financial implications.
Alternatively using different vendors for your video calls, emails, collaboration, etc and splitting up the functionality of your solutions is equally unlikely to work due to usability but also due to complexity and resultant fragility of combined systems, with each vendor focussed on their platform and not on others, or on the integrations you may have between platforms.
In Microsoft we trust
This brings me back to an acceptance that the benefits of having all my eggs in one basket, a Microsoft basket in this case, provides more benefits than risks. It offers easier management, usability and security.
That said, it doesn’t hurt to have a little bit of insurance and to have the basics of Google in place just in case; Yes it may not be ready to go, so may take some time to setup, but at least having it around means it is there should the worst ever happen.
I have previously shared a couple of post discussing an EdTech model I shared at the GESS conference back in 2013, now being up to the third of four layers within the model. The third layer assumes you have already decided the key reasons why you want to invest in and use Technology in your school, this being layer 1. I note that Technology is my preferred term to EdTech. Layer 3 also assumes you have put the relevant fundamental building blocks in place as part of layer 2. So, what is the third layer about?
Layer 3
The third layer focusses on what I considered to be the three dimensions of technology use within a school, and the need for relevant training in these areas. These areas being:
IT Skills
This is the basics of using IT and using tools so includes understanding file types, sizes, sharing files, using email, etc. It is being able to log in, connect peripherals and change your password. All staff need to have a basic understanding of the technology they are using, as without this it is unlikely, they will ever reach a point of confidence and then mastery of using technology in school. I often described this as Teaching of IT as the focus is on developing IT Skills. We need to ensure staff are supported in this area. Thinking about it further, I believe this area would include cyber security and data protection although back in 2013 I am not sure I had included these areas.
IT for Management
There will also be some administrative work in teaching with IT generally being part of this, whether it is writing student reports, gathering performance data, following up on behaviour issues or many other issues. Technology can allow us to streamline processes to make these tasks quicker or simpler. I am often surprised how often staff don’t know about simply email rules in outlook or how they can use categories to help manage emails. Note: I mention emails as so much of the administrative load seems to revolve around reading and responding to emails, or to messages now in Teams or other platforms. At a more advanced level we can then move on to the use of solutions such a PowerAutomate to try to automate more and more of the administrative workflows however I will admit there is much more work that can be done in this area.
I also think we need to continue to examine the administrative side to teaching and identify where it adds value, for if a task doesn’t add value, I would suggest it isnt worth doing. There is also an opportunity to make use of technology to do things differently such as replacing termly reports with more live, but automatically generated, performance data derived through the use of machine learning and AI based platforms.
IT for Teaching and Learning
This is the likely most important element in this layer, that of using technology in the classroom. It is about ensuring teaching staff have the ability to use technology effectively in their classroom, their lessons and the learning activities they create. I suppose on reflection this particular layer could be sub-divided further. Thinking about the TPACK model, this section could include Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) and Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). Looking at it a different way it could include teaching using technology, where technology enhances or redefines a learning activity or process, plus teaching through technology, where the technology is an essential vehicle for the learning. Now I admit I find these two categories sometime difficult to separate however I will try to clarify. Teaching using technology might be the use of OneNote to allow students to collaborate on a project so technology is just another tool in the learning experience, whereas teaching through technology might be using VR or Minecraft, in which case the technology becomes central to the learning experience. Am hoping the above clarifies this however please forgive me if it does not.
Looking back, I would also suggest that my focus was very much the bricks and mortar school and classroom and I underplayed the potential for technology to allow for learning beyond the physical confines of a school and also beyond the confines of the curriculum. The potential for online learning has certainly been highlighted over the last year and a half during the pandemic, something I don’t think I fully considered back in 2013.
Conclusion/Reflections
Looking back on the third layer I feel the balance implied by the three triangles of equal size suggested an equal value to the three strands I proposed. This clearly isnt the case. If anything, the teaching and learning section should likely be the largest, and further subdivided, while the IT for Management section should likely be the smallest, as we should be trying to reduce the administrative burden on teachers, to allow them to focus on teaching and learning.
That said, the final peak of my model, layer 4, was always about staff being confident enough to use technology or to be more exact, to experiment and try different tools and technology solutions. Only through experimentation will teachers find the tools that work best for themselves and their students, and they will only do this if they feel safe and confident enough to do so. For this confidence to occur we need the basic skills, the ability to do the management side of education using the technology tools provided, and most importantly the skills to use technology in teaching and learning itself. So maybe this layer could be more nuanced, however at a basic level it may still be correct.
Do we see EdTech failures more easily than the corresponding successes?
In the past I have found it easy to quote some key EdTech failures. Examples include the general deployment of Interactive Whiteboards without any training as to their use, a similar issue where iPads were broadly deployed across a district in the US and the limited funding for laptops for teachers in UK schools without plans for an eventual refresh cycle. These and many other examples come quite easily to mind, yet similar stories of success don’t come as easily. This introduces the availability bias as we start to perceive the events which come more readily to mind are therefore more likely to occur: That technology implementations therefore are more likely to fail.
Given we are often looking for proof of the impact or value in EdTech the fact that successes don’t come easily to mind is of concern. This makes me wonder about the potential for the availability bias to impact on technology decisions and in particularly in some reluctance to embrace technology use. If it is the failures of technology implementations which come easy to mind, is it any wonder why there is reluctance in investing in technology solutions. Combined with the overall cost of technology, which is generally one of the three most expensive items on a school budget, it seems predictable that, without an outside stimulus, technology adoption will be slow.
Added to the above you also have the complexity of technology use in schools, requiring skills and understanding in relation to the technology itself, but also subject content and pedagogical knowledge, combined with the interrelationship between each. This therefore requires a team of staff to be involved, which brings with it the usual social dilemmas associated with teamwork. In turn this may increase the likelihood of failure or may at least encourage a sub-optimum solution to be accepted as team members each have to make compromises, finally arriving at an acceptable, but less than best, solution.
And where we do see successes, most often in a conference presentation or a case study, they seldom outline the difficulties which occurred during their relevant project lifespan. I think any significant IT project which went perfectly as planned lacks credibility in my eyes. I put the probability of such an occurrence within a busy operating school, where the project was significant enough to take months or years of work, to be low to nil. This might help explain why the successes don’t come mind, as they lack the believability or the detail to make them memorable, whereas the failures each have a clear cause and effect.
This leaves us with limited options for the implementation of technology projects. As I see it the options are the small pilot project, which is grown, a significant external stimulus or some heroic leadership forcing implementation. The pandemic has certainly been an external stimulus however isnt something we would want to repeat. For now, we simply need to try and use this stimulus to drive forward with appropriate technology projects, while the impetus still exists, for I don’t see this will continue for more than 6 to 12 months. Heroic leadership as a solution, isnt something I would advocate given risk of going down a rabbit hole and/or negatively impacting on organisational culture. As such the best option appears to be to continue with pilot projects and growing those which appear to have a positive impact, but the issue here is that this approach is slow and not particularly agile.
So what is the solution?
I don’t think I have one, other than to be aware that what we perceive is likely influenced by bias. As such, although we can learn, more often, from the failures, and only occasionally, from the successes of others, we might simply need to get on and try things, success or fail, then iterate from there. We need to find our one solution, that which what works for our own school, its context, staff, students, parents and wider community.
EdTech or Technology use in education, which is my preferred term, relies on some foundational elements. Understanding why we seek to use technology is the first thing we need to achieve (see my post EdTech: Start with the why? ). After this we can then seek to put technology to use, but again before we can make much progress there need to be some key items in place. It’s all well knowing why you want to use technology and knowing how to use technology, but you also need the relevant technology itself along with the infrastructure and other support resources to make it work. It is worth noting, from my own experience, if the technology doesn’t work due to not having the relevant plan, infrastructure, setup or support, it will be very difficult to recover from, as once the technology appears unreliable it will be almost impossible to reconvince people of its value.
Back in 2013 at the GESS conference, I sought to try and suggest what the foundational elements might be, in the 2nd layer of the framework I proposed. The elements I proposed were as below:
Resources
This is very much about the required infrastructure, devices, software, etc. It is also about making sure that the items chosen are reliable and sustainable. Having poor Wi-Fi or internet bandwidth which doesn’t support your use of technology is only going to turn users off quickly resulting in them choosing not to use available technology. Within this area I would consider things such as your internet bandwidth, firewall, core and edge switching, wireless access points and overall wi-fi system. I would consider the devices being used, classroom display technology, the apps and software, device peripherals and printing/scanning resources. I would also consider the long-term sustainability of everything, avoiding seeing each item as a one-off cost, but instead considering the long term replacement and disposal costs, maintenance, licensing, etc; Basically the total cost of ownership rather than just the initial purchase cost.
Now, on reflection I listed this on my framework on the left which given an expectation of reading left to right, means it comes first, where clearly shouldn’t. If there was one thing I was going to change about the 2nd layer of the framework I proposed, it would be to put Strategy first, on the left, followed by Culture then Resources. It is important to have a strategy and plan before having investing in what can often be costly infrastructure or support.
IT Support
Users will always need some support whether it is to resolve technical issues, to help them get initially set up or to migrate devices for example. It is important users feel supported and have somewhere to go where they need help. There is also the requirement for the maintenance and operation of the infrastructure including making network changes in response to changing needs of teachers, students and other users, plus responding to changes in software, cyber risk, etc. As such some form of IT support is key. I feel one key feature of successful IT support is for them to be seen as a partner in the processes of learning rather than simply the people that need to make it work. I have long heard about the importance of not allowing the technology and the IT team to decide what can and cannot be done within teaching and learning, however we also need to be aware that sometimes there are things which may be appropriate from a teaching and learning point of view however would be extremely costly, difficult to support or introduce significant IT risk. As such we also need to be wary of teaching and learning dictating to IT services what must be done. The ideal situation therefore needs to be a partnership. In considering this partnership and resultant balance, I will however always lean slightly towards supporting the teaching and learning side over the IT technical side given this is what schools are all about, but it still needs to be a more balanced and partner based decision making process over a hierarchical, teachers over IT support staff, process.
Strategy
At a virtual event regarding EdTech during the pandemic an attendee stated that the key feature of those schools particularly successful in their use of technology during the pandemic was simply having had an established plan as to technology use in their school. I think the need for a plan, the need for a strategy, which is both shared but also lived is key. How can we seek to decide what technology to use, how to set this technology up, how to deploy technology and how to support and train staff if we don’t have at least some sort of plan? For me the first step is having a strategic overview of the schools direction in relation to technology, where the stated aims should align and ideally enable the schools overall strategic aims. It should be written in a way to be easily accessible and understandable, and therefore should be at an outline level, with more specific plans regarding projects or specific technologies then springing out from here. It should include both content looking at the here and now but also towards the future. I also believe it is important to get a strategy in place, without too much time spent on wordsmithing it and making it perfect. Instead we need to accept it may evolve and change with time.
Ethos (Culture)
I have always felt that culture plays such a significant part in the life of schools and other educational establishments. Technology requires a little bit of experimentation to find what is right, it requires us to step out of our comfort zone, it requires acceptance that sometimes things will go wrong or not as planned and it requires an embracing of change and the challenges which accompany it. There also needs to be a culture which supports an open sharing of ideas and experiences, both those which work and also those that have not worked. The culture and climate of the school should therefore be open and positive or warm, such that this will then support the use of technology, enabling it to be as effective as possible. I am not going to discuss here how such a culture can be developed; There are plenty of educational books which focus solely on this.
Time
I listed time as a fundamental resource given I know how busy schools can be. Creating a strategy, identifying and purchasing technology, setting up and deploying technology, supporting and training users, etc, all take time. If we are to be successful in the use of technology within schools we need to have time. This will always be a significant challenge as in order to provide more time for one thing, such as for staff to become skilled in using technology, we need to reduce the time given to something else. Technology can help here by either automating or making processes easier however I also believe we need to regularly look at processes, which often become complicated over time and in attempts to improve and try to simplify these where possible. We need to constantly ask ourselves where is the value in what we are doing and can we achieve similar value but with reduced resource cost, often in time.
Conclusion
Looking back to my conference presentation, I think some of the details may need to be changed, but the first two layers were correct in their overall theme. We need to first know why we are seeking to use technology, then have the foundational items in place, including a strategy followed by the necessary time, hardware, software and support.
Microsoft, Google and Apple are the big guns when it comes to EdTech however each of their offerings is somewhat different. As such I thought I would share some of my personal thoughts as to the big three.
Apple
For me, Apple has always been about the hardware and the ecosystem. Apple were first to the market with an excellent tablet device, in the iPad, which fitted the educational space, being reliable, usable and flexible albeit not cheap. The reliability was largely built on the fact that Apple operate a closed eco-system and therefore control the software including OS and the hardware. This also has helped in terms of usability as they can enforce standards for the apps available on their platform. As to the eco-system itself, having been in play the longest, Apple has built up a comprehensive collection of apps in their store which can be used in schools and colleges with an equally comprehensive number of videos and other online resources to support teachers in using iPads in lessons. The eco-system includes Augmented Reality apps which are often shown on video case studies from schools due to looking particularly flash and impressive albeit I suspect the longer term usable and impact of such apps across a full school year may not be quite as impressive. With the addition of pen support in 2015/16 allowing digital inking, plus with the availability of cases, complete with a keyboard, the iPad still continues to present as a great device for use in a school context. If there was one thing Apple lacks, it is a single productivity suite to pull the educational resources together and to provide the collaboration and communication space needed in schools. I know they have iTunesU but I just don’t feel that fills the space which Google Workspaces or Office 365 fill. That said Apple devices can gain this functionality via the use of the Google or Microsoft platforms, but on the Apple device.
Google
Googles main contribution in my eyes is Google Suite for Education, now titled Google Workspace for Education. This provided a productivity suite in Docs, Sheets, etc but also Google Classroom to pull the whole education experience together. Accessible on any device either via native apps or via a browser, I have long been a fan of Googles offering and have used it in schools where Windows PCs were the standard hardware. Adding to this Google then introduced their own hardware in Chromebooks to go with their productivity suite, with this hardware available from several hardware manufacturers. This hardware quickly became popular due to the lower unit cost when compared with the alternatives plus the overall cloud-based nature making them easier to manage and support, again impacting the cost, but this time in terms of the total cost of ownership. You could also use the Chromium OS on old PC/Laptop kit to rejuvenate it and get a couple more years use out of it where funds may be limited. One of the limitations with Google is the eco system which is growing but obviously lags behind that of Apple, however given we tend towards using core apps such as Docs, Sheets, etc, significantly more than other apps, this doesn’t pose much of a problem. The other limitation I have found is the minor differences between Docs, Sheets, etc and the more commonly used Microsoft equivalent in Word, Excel, etc. When working with a brand new school this hasn’t been too much of a problem but I have found it to be a more significant challenge where trying to change setup from Microsoft to Google due to familiarity which users build up in prolonged use of a given platform. This familiarity builds attachment in users.
Microsoft
Windows continues to be the most common OS in use in the world as a whole. It also continues to be the most common solution in place in school IT labs the world over. In the productivity world, MS Office is almost equally popular with the move to Office 365 allowing the apps to be accessed on any device, either via native apps or via a browser, in much the same was as you can with Googles solution. The benefit for Microsoft here, is the familiarity which the Microsoft Office 365 solution presents with its natively installed Office counterpart, plus the logical progression it provides students where a Windows environment is likely to be encountered in higher education and beyond. I also like the extended range of Office 365 apps which allow those who are more adventurous to dig into automation via Power Automate, or data analysis through PowerBI. From an eco-system point of view Microsoft windows has access to a large number of apps, but managing them isnt as easy as it is for Apple users. The Microsoft store should help to address this going forward but for now I find this to be rather limited. Microsoft have also now been in the business of producing hardware for a while now, with the Surface range the most notable from an education point of view, not mentioning laptops from other vendors where Windows is the standard OS. I myself currently use a Pro 7 however have previously dabbled with the Surface Go as a main device. The advantage in the Surface range is the full desktop operating system experience but with the added ability to use digital inking and the device in a tablet format. Cost is a factor here, in that the surface devices come in more expensive than the iPad range, but for the price you are getting a full desktop operating system so I believe this is understandable. The Surface Go and Go 2 as cheaper devices aim to help to address this, and I suspect would make for a more than adequate student device,
Conclusion
In my current school we have settled with the iPad hardware with the Microsoft Office 365 productivity suite for now, although I see possible benefits in use of something like the Surface or a device with a full desktop OS for older students studying their A-Levels or Level 3 vocational qualifications. That said, different schools are using different solutions. This shouldn’t be a surprise given each school is different in terms of its staff, students, parents, community, etc. Equally the options are complex in terms of hardware, operating system, cloud productivity suite, third party apps, managing devices, ownership of devices, 1:1 or shared, teacher confidence, student confidence and many other aspects.
For me there is no one solution which would fit all schools, just the one solution for each individual school. Each schools solution should be based on their own needs and wants. If I do have a concern, it is that moving from one platform to another is becoming increasing difficult in terms of staff training and confidence in schools forming silos around a given solution. As mentioned earlier, the familiarity builds attachment which in turn shows as a reluctance to change. This to me is a concern as it might prevent schools which could benefit from moving, from making such a move. Thankfully, the increasing ability to mix and match using Microsoft, Google and Apple solutions together, to form an overall solution maximising the benefits of each solution, is only a good one and should therefore make change, if there is a need to do so, more palatable albeit still not particularly easy.
I recently read Microsoft’s announcement regarding the launch of Windows 365. Now the launch is focussed on Enterprise customers but I can see so much potential within the education space, especially after the last year and the pandemic.
Win 365 basically is a virtual computer in the cloud running Windows. You can watch the launch video above. From an education standpoint I can see a couple of significant benefits both from a teacher and student point of view:
Consistency and personalisation across devices
School hardware purchasing
Data Protection.
Lets deal with each of the above one by one.
Consistency and personalisation
Students are likely to have to access learning content plus to create portfolios and evidence learning using different devices. They might use school PCs while in school computer labs, access materials via a laptop, desktop or tablet when at home, and even use a laptop or tablet in general lessons where shared or 1:1 devices are available. The challenge for this has always been the different operating systems and the resultant differences in apps across platforms. Where apps have different user interfaces or functionality across platforms, this puts a cognitive load on students, which takes away from their capacity to focus on the learning content itself. Providing students a consistent interface across devices therefore allows students to focus more of their thinking capacity on the content at hand rather than the tool to access it. Additionally, students can jump between devices, picking up exactly where they left off. So a student might be working on a presentation on a desktop PC with a nice large screen in a lab, but then jump back into the same piece of work later in the day, from their tablet, at exactly the point they left the work when they left the lab.
Another issue with the current multi-device setup is personalisation. Students may setup their tablet, but then have to do the same on their laptop and school computer, assuming the school allows for some personalisation. Using a virtual computer, students can setup their preferences once and then will see these no matter what device they access.
School hardware Purchasing
Purchasing of client devices for schools has proven problematic as schools havent been able to establish appropriate replacement plans plus have to wrestle with different subjects having different requirements in relation to the specification of computers. A media studies class working on video editing is likely to need more than an English class doing some simple word processing. This then leads to a variety of different kit in different locations in a school. A move to a virtual computer approach simplifies the hardware, as the main requirement is simply to be able to handle the streamed content from the virtual computer. As such this may mean the hardware can be cheaper and hopefully from this effective replacement cycles can be established. It also means that we no longer have the complexity of different hardware in different subject areas. Where we need better resources, we simply provision a better virtual computer, but all accessible from whatever device the teacher/student has in front of them. I will however note that this will obviously depend on the cost associated with the virtual computers themselves; We havent yet seen the pricing for Win 365 from Microsoft with this likely to be key in education.
Data Protection
The last year has required staff and students to make use of personal devices at times. This brings with it the risk of data being stored on personal devices where it may remain even when the device is disposed of, leading to the data being leaked. A switch to virtual computers would address this as the data wouldn’t be stored on the local computer, but instead on the virtual computer which can be accessed from any device.
Conclusion
Win365 just reminds me so much of Thin client computing and the potential it promised when I looked at it back in 2015/16. At the time I couldn’t make Thin client work for my schools’ needs possibly due to the technology and flexibility not quite being there at the time. Maybe with Win365 and Azure this may now have changed. Maybe we can finally have a solution which allows the students to access their digital learning space from anywhere, anytime and on any device, but with a consistent and persistent interface. Obviously the pricing will be key here, however I note that the cost of storage and of computer power is only coming down, so even if not viable now I see this as the direction of travel.
If G-Suite and Office 365 represented the big jump over the last 5 years, putting students files, conversations and meetings in the cloud, it may be that Win365, and putting their very computer in the cloud, is the next big thing.
We have just been through a period in history where the technology in our schools has suddenly became critical to continuing teaching and learning. And yet, we now are once again contemplating banning some personal technology, in the form of students phones, in schools. How can this be the case?
Before I go any further let me acknowledge that schools operate in vastly different contexts across the world and even within the UK. As such all I can offer is a general viewpoint based on the schools I have worked upon. I will therefore accept that there are contexts where it is totally appropriate and advisable to ban student mobile phones. I suspect the most common reasoning is likely to be due to challenging student behaviour. I do not however accept that banning mobile phones is the correct approach for all or even most schools.
So, what are my reasons for this view:
Digital Citizenship
We wish to develop our students as digital citizens ready to live in an increasingly digital world. In our digital world the mobile phone and other mobile devices, plus the apps that run on them are becoming more important. As such we need to work with students to understand how to best use mobile phones and also how to use them safely and responsibly. If we don’t tackle this in schools then we leave it to chance that students will be able to manage their mobile technology use themselves.
Digital skills and familiarity
The pandemic required us to quickly pivot to online teaching and learning. For those schools which were already using technology widely in face to face lessons, this was easier than it was for those schools who were teaching in a more “traditional” and technology-less manner. If we accept that online teaching and learning may happen in future, whether due to a pandemic or maybe just a snow day, then we need to get students used to using technology across the curriculum and their studies. Using mobile phones constructively in lessons helps towards this, whereas banning mobile phones removes a potentially beneficial technology from the classroom.
Cyber Security
One of the key security features to keep online services safe is the use of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). This is something we need to be applying to our school services including student accounts, plus something we need to encourage students to enable for their personal accounts. Mobile phones as the second factor are key to this. Banning mobile phones means we cannot enforce and encourage MFA use, thereby making our school systems and our students less secure.
Conclusion
As I said, I understand that contexts exist where banning mobile phones might be acceptable and even the best solution. I don’t however believe this to be an approach which should be applied to all. I very much believe that school leaders are the best people to judge their own schools context and the approach they wish to take towards technology use and the use or not of student mobile phones within school.
My view is that student mobile phones are a technological swiss army knife of tools. With them students can search for information, record key learning from lessons, explore new worlds and many other things. They are also likely to play a key part in students lives beyond school and therefore it is important we start developing the relevant skills and understanding as to their positive use, starting in schools, starting now. Mobile phones, with their biometric authentication, combined with MFA, also help to make students digital existence more secure.
Given all that has happened over the last year or so, and the critical part that technology played plus the issues around access to appropriate student devices, I find it strange that we are still discussing a blanket ban of mobile phones, a technology device, from schools. We should be seeking to make more and better use of technology in schools not banning it.
In schools your IT costs are one of the biggest and the pandemic has highlighted the need for investment. But should this investment be a capital, outright purchase or are leasing options better?
I was always told that the three biggest costs for a school are staff, buildings/estates, and your IT/technology costs. The last year and a half, and the pandemic have shown us that some schools weren’t ready in terms of technology, in terms of their infrastructure and the client end devices or at least there was a need for improvement. I have already posted on several occasions that there is a clear need for investment. The issue though is should this investment be in the form of outright capital-based purchasing or leasing revenue-based purchasing?
Capital
I used to believe, for big spends such as device replacement or significant infrastructure upgrades, the only way was capital. If you own the equipment you might be able to squeeze extra years out of the kit plus a capital purchase has no leasing charges associated. Capital purchasing was simply cheaper in the longer term, but painful in the short term due to the upfront costs.
I came to learn though that its not quite that simple. All too often I have seen capital purchases for devices or infrastructure approved but without thinking longer term about future replacement costs. In other words, the immediate cost was approved but without planning a replacement cycle, leading to difficult questions in the future. Additionally, capital purchases lend themselves to scope creep. So, the school has replaced 25 PCs; Someone will ask to keep 5, of the old machines being replaced, at the back of the maths class or 5 for English and suddenly you now have 35 PCs. That’s 10 additional PCs which will require software and licensing costs, which will require support, and which will require eventual replacement. The quiet years, maybe 3 or 4 years after you have replaced most of your PC fleet, are also an opportunity for spending on other projects, etc, without considered the high capital replacement cost which will recur when the fleet once again needs replacement. This can then lead to overspend. Now this can be avoided if you are disciplined in your capital purchasing and in your approval processes, but this requires care and discipline.
Leasing
Leasing shifts the costs to a revenue model and a “cost of doing business”. The costs associated with your technology are therefore much more visible as these costs are spread equally across the leasing cycle. It is therefore easier to avoid scope creep or overspending, as the technology costs are clear to see. Sadly though, like everything, leasing does have its downsides. These are the leasing costs, which I note continue to decline, and also the fixed nature of the cycle. This means the option of squeezing an extra couple of years out of your devices, etc, isnt available as once the lease finishes you need to enter a new lease. I am becoming less and less concerned by this. Technology usage is on the increase, which increases wear are tear, plus cyber security is requiring more frequent updates leading to quicker device obsolesce. As such I feel the days of managing to squeeze a couple of extra years out of things are quickly disappearing meaning fixed replacement cycles such as that enforced through leasing are becoming more acceptable.
Leasing is also often seen as less flexible than capital purchases as you are locking in for the lease period whereas capital spends feel more “one-off” and individual allowing for change in a year or so’s time. This might be true up to a point, but once your requirements are beyond a significant cost level, you must be considering the hardware as being usable for 4 or more years at which point even with capital spends, once the money is spent, you need to make the purchase work and therefore don’t have the flexibility you might feel you do.
Given the long term nature of a leasing arrangement and the resultant long term nature of the relationship with the leasing vendor, it is also important to find the right company for your leasing requirements. That said, this is likewise important with a capital purchase, at least during any warranty and support period, albeit these periods may be less than your leasing period.
Lease-Purchase
Now there are other options in terms of leasing, such as lease-purchase whereby you pay the leasing costs spread across the period of the lease, but with a final option to purchase at the end. I havent covered this in any detail as for me it brings the worst of both worlds. Leasing costs and the opportunity for scope creep, etc, once the devices or hardware have been bought out at the end of the lease.
Conclusion
I don’t think there is a perfect solution. It will depend on the items being purchased, the anticipated lifespan, school finances, organisational risk assessment and several other factors. Sometimes you will want to purchase outright and sometimes I suspect leasing will be better. All I can say for sure is that I am now much more likely to at least consider leasing and an opex spend.
Was doing a bit more playing with Power Automate again recently and thought I would share.
This time I was looking at finding a way where staff could book on an internal training course but where there would be a maximum number of places available.
My solution involves a Form to submit requests, a PowerAutomate to manage the requests and check if a given session has capacity and a SharePoint list to store the submitted request details for those people who successfully book a place.
So the steps:
Create a form for your staff to make their training request
Create a SharePoint list which will store the accepted requests; The list should contain fields matching the questions within you form.
Create the PowerAutomate to manage the submitted requests including emailing confirmations and apologies dependent on if the course is full or not.
Now I am going to detail point 3 above, as the other points are reasonably straight forward to achieve.
One of the first things we need to do is to Initialise a new variable which will be used to store the count of the number of people already booked on a course. This should be an integer variable and set initially to 0. Within the PowerAutomate we will change the value later based on the number of records in the SharePoint list.
Next I am using a Get Items action to get all of the items from the SharePoint list. This will get you all the records submitted so far which is basically a list and count of the number of people already booked on the course.
We now need to set the variable so that it stores the count of the number of records already in the SharePoint list. To do this use a Set Variable action. Within the value of this action we want to use an expression using the expression below:
length(body(‘GetItems‘)?[‘value’])
Note GetItems should be the name of the Get Items action mentioned earlier. This expression will basically count the number of records in the SharePoint list as accessed via the earlier Get Items action.
From here it is simply a case of using a Condition to check if the variable is less than or equal to you maximum number of attendees, and then send out appropriate emails either acknowledging acceptance on the course or indicated that the course is currently full.
And so, we have a basic little CPD course booking process complete with maximum number of attendees and confirmation emails.
Technology and Learning