Tag: EdTech

A bit more VR

Once again decided to experiment with the VR this week, this time trying two new apps although both this time were paid apps.   The apps in question were Gravity Sketch and Masterpiece VR.    In both cases I didn’t have too long to experiment with them so the below are just my initial impressions.

Starting with gravity sketch, the first thing I found was that the app seems to be very powerful and with that comes a complex set of controls.  This is an app you would need to spend some time with to properly get to grips with it before being able to confidently use it.    I found myself quickly able to draw various shapes and models reasonably easily however I think trying to make a larger product from these shapes would take me a greater among of time.   I particularly like the tool that allowed me to extrude a shape.   I found myself quickly making the body for chess pieces, something which isn’t quite as easy to do when you are limited to primitive shapes as you are in some other apps I have tried.   I can see this app having great potential in Design Technology lessons in particular.

Masterpiece VR, I felt, wasn’t quite as powerful in terms of the tools available when compared with Gravity sketch however as a result it has an easier user interface to get to grips with.   I was quickly working with virtual clay and making a sculpture.  I could easily edit my sculpture cutting sections away or moulding areas to suit my needs much in the same way I would envisage you would work with real clay.  Note: I have little experience of working with clay sculptures so I may be totally wrong on that point.     Now I do not attest to being an artist in any shape or form, however I was easily able to create the start of a basic sculpture.  As such I believe this app could easily be used by students in art lessons to develop much more impressive creations than anything I might be able to achieve.   This is definitely an app where experimentation could be encouraged without the need for significant training in advance.

In both of the above apps the tools are provided to help students get to grips with the ability to create within a 3D virtual space.   As this kind of working becomes more common within the creative, the design and the entertainment industries I think it is useful to introduce students during their format education.

 

 

“More” edTech anyone?

What are the barriers to “more use of edtech” in schools?   A recent British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) survey, as recently reported in the TES, suggested that budgets and “teachers’ unwillingness” were two of the main barriers identified by the survey.   But was the right question being asked?

Firstly, looking at barriers to using “more” EdTech suggests that we don’t have enough and therefore should use more.    This is a rather simplistic viewpoint as it suggests that the volume of EdTech in use is the key factor we should be seeking to address.   In my view it isn’t.   We should be seeking to use technology effectively and where appropriate.    As Mike Sharples (@sharplm)  recently commented, “technology alone will not transform education.   Focus on pedagogy with new technology, not just the technology.”

The wide scale deployment of interactive whiteboards to schools can be considered as having increased the EdTech in education however I would challenge anyone to prove that it was effective.   It didn’t improve outcomes.   It didn’t support students in learning in new ways or improve their access to learning materials.  It didn’t empower teachers to re-imagine the learning experience.   In my view it simply allowed teachers to do what they always had been doing with a whiteboard/blackboard but using a digital surface instead, and at significant cost.

Taking the issue of budget into consideration, is it any wonder that school leaders would choose not to invest in EdTech where they can see limited added value from significant investment and where investment in other areas may show more reliable predictors of effectiveness or return on investment.    If budgets were less strained maybe the situation would be different.   As a result of this is it also therefore any small wonder that they would report that lack of budget as a reason for not investing, having themselves had to prioritise their spending.

Sticking with interactive whiteboards, the deployment of them was often to whole schools or departments.   This approach to “more” is better fails to take into account different subject, teacher, student, topic, lesson, etc needs.   It is a one shape fits all approach.     What motivation does a teacher have to learn how best to use this new classroom technology given it has been foisted upon them.     Teachers, due to not understanding the technology or having time to experiment, may also be unable to identify appropriate uses within their classroom and teaching for this new device.    Given the lack of intrinsic motivation and perceived appropriateness of the technology is it any wonder that “teachers’ unwillingness” to make use of more EdTech might be perceived and reported by schools. 

In looking at EdTech use in schools we need to adopt a more nuanced approach.  It isn’t about using more Edtech.   It should be about considering the different needs of teachers and students and allowing them to experiment and use solutions which fit these needs.    From this, best practice can be identified and shared, and approaches can be regularly reviewed and revised to maximise their impact.   I should note that an open, supportive culture and warm, friendly organisational climate is key to enabling this.

I also wonder about some teacher’s perception of what “good” use of EdTech looks like.   Social media gives us plenty of examples of exemplary teaching using EdTech however this often comes from teachers who have got to this point from long periods of trial, error and practice which isn’t evident from social media postings.    Also, the posts generally focus on the good, may be staged for marketing purposes for the school, or may be biased or divorced from the real world in other ways.   EdTech doesn’t necessarily have to be a complex all singing and dancing affair or something worthy of a photo shoot and full page spread in an educational magazine.   Good initial use of EdTech might be a simple and limited action relating to a specific part of a lesson.   It could be simply to make use of an application such as Microsoft Teams or Showbie.  From here it can built upon.      Additionally, good use of EdTech seldom comes about without significant time, effort and experimentation.   It is also worth noting that technology is always changing and new uses for existing technologies can always be found and therefore the seeking of improvement is never ending.    This is a bit like teaching in general where there is always room to build upon practice with each new lesson, topic, class or academic year.

I think back to a presentation I gave in Dubai some years ago in which I identified what I believed at the time to be the factors I thought were key to Technology use in schools.   Teacher motivation, confidence and training were some of the factors I listed and I continue to believe these are key although I think my view as to training is now broader than it was then.   Training in my eyes now includes using social media, such as twitter, peer discussion and planning, experimenting and traditional training sessions.    A key issue supporting these three factors is the culture and climate within a school.   Open and supportive school cultures promote sharing of ideas and allow for trial and error to occur.

It is with this in mind I wonder whether a better question would have been: What are the barriers to supporting teachers to use Edtech in my school?

 

BETT 2019

Am sat on the train as I write this returning home from BETT 2019.   Last year I didn’t manage to attend however this year I made an effort and decided to make my way down to the London ExCel on the Saturday.   So what were my impressions and thoughts?

Firstly, I must note it was a bit of a whistle stop tour due to a cancelled train which apparently had sustained damage to its windscreen leading to it being cancelled.   As such I had to wait for a later train and re-plan my journey.   Secondly, I was on this occasion travelling directly to the event via train, the underground and the DLR.   This was the first time I had taken this travel route to BETT and I sadly underestimated the amount of time it would take to make my way from Paddington station over to the Excel, leading to things being a bit rushed as I tried to make my way back for my return train ride home.

As to the conference itself the highlight was a discussion with people at Microsoft in relation to the Surface line of devices.    It was good to sit down and chat about the products and their potential for use in education.    The device I write this post on is my Surface Go which I continue to use as my main device in testing how it might stand up in prolonged use.   So far so good is my view but I hope to know more as we trial with a number of enthusiastic teachers as part of a pilot.    During the meeting with Microsoft I was introduced to their new stylus which is designed specifically for education, apparently being more robust as well as cheaper.    The reduction in cost when compared with the main stylus is a welcome one as it will make the overall Surface Go platform including keyboard and stylus more affordable for schools.   Personally, I think you need the full package of stylus and keyboard/case to make best use of the device.   This new stylus comes with a loop attachment at the end so it can be hung from your neck to prevent loss.   The loop means the eraser option is no longer at the back of the stylus but is now a button on the body.    I liked having erase as a button on the back of the stylus as it fitted my mental model of HB pencils with an eraser on the end, however I am unsure the children we currently teach have the same exposure to HB pencils and therefore although this worked well for me the change to a button on the body may make no difference to them.   I didn’t ask if it was still magnetic like its more expensive brother, however I suspect the answer will be no.  That said I don’t think this would be a deal breaker.     Overall it was a useful meeting to discuss thoughts around Microsoft, the surface and office 365 in particular.

It was nice upon arriving to bump briefly into Mark Anderson just outside the ExCel along with Al Kinglsey.    Due to being in a bit of rush to make my Microsoft meeting I was unable to spend any real time with Mark and Al, which is a pity given I hadn’t actually met Al previously in real life, knowing him only via twitter.    Hopefully I will have time to catch up with both of them properly in the near future.

I am going to jump once more on the number of interactive panel vendors again as again there were lots of them.   Now I know someone previously commented that BETT is an educational technology show so it should be expected to see panels on show, however given the increasing pace of technology I just keep hoping to see more new and interesting technologies and less IWBs or equivalents.     I will however acknowledge that I found myself looking at interactive panels on this occasion as we seek to review our classroom technologies, so if I was looking at IWB equivalents, others must be doing the same so there clearly is a market and therefore an opportunity for those vendors showing of interactive projectors and panels.  I will also acknowledge I continue to have a bit of an issue with IWBs and therefore I am primed and more sensitive to spotting them wherever they are.    I will this time say I did see some interesting stands, beyond IWBs however with the rushed nature of things I didn’t have sufficient time to really explore them.   Will need to bear this in mind for next year.

Cyber security was a little bit of a discussion I had with a school management system vendor which plan to move towards forcing Multi-Factor Authentication on their users.   On one hand this will be a bit of a shock for some and will be met with cries of inconvenience however on another hand I can see exactly where they are coming from.   Schools are being actively targeted due to the large amounts of student and parent data they hold, combined with the busy nature of teachers daily lives, which often lead to simple passwords.     In addition, we have breaches of the likes of Edmodo resulting in significant sets of teacher credentials being available online.   I myself tried a schools name against the HaveIBeenPwned password checker and found hundreds of instances of the use of this as a password, which was subsequently involved in a data breach.   I suspect similarly easily predicted passwords will be in use in schools the world over.

My visit to Bett also saw me visit the ANME stand and catch up with Rick who I had worked with some years ago.    It was good to catch up and I will definitely be getting my team involved in ANME.   I was particularly interested by the start up of a group focusing on the data management side of things.   This fits with our current exploration of PowerBI as a solution to making data more accessible and easily analysed and presented such that school leaders and teachers can make informed and data driven decisions.   As such we will definitely looking to get involved in discussion and sharing of ideas around data management.

I also had a brief discussion with Adobe in relation to licensing following some worried posts I picked up on an Educational IT forum.    The worries lay around a move by Adobe from device licensing towards user based licensing.   This would for some result in significant cost implications.   Thankfully the rep I spoke to told me that licensing would remain the same, but would be a shared device licensing scheme meaning login details would need to be set up for all students using the Adobe applications.    Apparently Adobe are looking at the provisioning side of this including single sign on to try and make the end user experience in this changed model work more seamlessly with this due to be addressed around April this year.   We also had some discussion as to how schools might be offered more flexibility to have some shared device licensing and some user based licensing.   This might be useful for students studying A-Level or BTec Art subjects in that the license would allow the students to install the software on home machines.

And so BETT 2019 has come and gone.    It was an early start to get to BETT by train but worthwhile.    Here’s looking forward to BETT 2020 and hopefully making it a less rushed experience.

See you all in a years time!!!

Progression of classroom tech: Remembering the OHP

When I first trained as a teacher the main teaching aid was either an overhead projector or more commonly a roller blackboard.    I remember taking an LCD Panel to a school during school placement visits as a trainee teacher.   This device sat on top of a OHP and was connected to a laptop, allowing me to project whatever I had on my laptop screen.  The staff loved this new piece of tech as did the students.  This device was the precursor to the now common data projector which combines the OHP, and its light source, with the LCD Panel, into a single device.

So why the reminiscing?   A recent article in the TES titled “The pedagogic perfection of the overhead projector – and why interactive whiteboards alone wont ever match it” got me thinking back.

The article highlights the importance of facing a class when interacting with them and how the Interactive Whiteboard isn’t supportive of this.    I agree with this point which is no surprise given my general dislike for the interactive whiteboard as a classroom technology.   I have always found the whiteboard as a fixed focal point at the “front” of the class to be limiting.   I also find the fact it is stuck in place as a restriction.    My preference for some time has been towards mobile devices, such as the iPad, a data projector, a screen sharing setup and a writeable board surface.    With this you can accomplish everything you can with an interactive whiteboard and more, at less cost, assuming we are only first looking at issuing a teacher device.  It is also a portable solution which can be taken around the class as a tool to work with individual students as well as being taken to the staff room and home to prepare lessons.    It’s also a method of recording student progress and building a portfolio through taking photographs…..and that’s before we look at its benefit as a productivity tool in helping teachers in managing tasks, calendars, email, etc.      Student devices, either BYOD or school issued add further to this setup and even more so where a 1:1 student:device ration is achieved.

The author of the article goes on to identify digital ink as the next progression in the technology and I have to agree.    With digital ink we have the ability to annotate, draw, sketch, highlight, etc. all with a high degree of accuracy, with students instantly having the resulting resources at their fingertips, with the ability for them to add their own contributions.    You may be thinking you can do the same with an IWB but the accuracy with inking is higher as has been attested by students.   Also you retain the ability to face the class as opposed to having your back to them, plus you can take it with you to a students desk as opposed to it being bolted to the wall at the front.

In thinking back I can now see the evolution of the central classroom tech during the period I have been teaching.   Chalk boards then OHPs, Whiteboards, LCD Panels, Data Projectors, IWBs, iPads and Digital Inking bring us to where we are now.    Each step has seen improvements, new facilities and developments however often supporting old approaches.   Digital inking seems a lot like the annotations I used to draw on my OHPs during lessons, something also identified by the writer of the TES article.   The question I now wonder is what the next evolution will be?

 

 

image from wiki commons by mailer diablo (Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0)

Improving education through EdTech?

I recently read a post in the Telegraph entitled “To raise teaching standards we must first improve the use of technology in the classroom”.    As soon as I read the title I had mixed reactions.    On one hand I almost instantly wanted to agree.   As a firm supporter of Educational Technology and its potential within teaching and learning this seemed almost natural as the post outlined the importance of developing teacher educational technology and digital skills which they could then embed within their teaching practice.

I then however had a little bit of a double take as I re-examined the first part of the statement.   “To raise teaching stands we must first….”.    On second glance I thought things were not so simple.   Although I am a firm supporter of EdTech I also believe that it is a tool and vehicle for learning and therefore is not necessarily an essential.   Good or even outstanding, if I am using OFSTED speak, learning may be evident without the use of technology.  In fact, poor use of technology in a lesson may result in learning being adversely impacted upon.  Looking at the comments section following the article I wasn’t the only one thinking like this.    The first (and albeit only) comment outlined how Finland does well in standardized test despite a low technology investment whereas the US and UK do less well in spite of a high investment in EdTech.   This seems to agree with the perception that teaching is what matters and not technology use, although I will draw attention to the narrowness of standardized testing such as PISA as a measure of the success of educational efforts.    I also raise the issue that we now live in a technological world and therefore surely it must be a duty of educators to prepare students for this world by teaching about but also with technology, and by modelling how it can and should be used.   If teachers opt to avoid technology what does this model for our students?

The Telegraph article goes on to cite a lack of confidence in using technology as a key factor impacting technology use.   I can see how this might either stop teachers from using technology or might have a negative impact where they do use it.     As a teacher myself I have often been using new technology, such as new software in a lesson where the technology has gone wrong or not worked as expected.   The key here is confidence to work around this and model dealing with such issues for our students.    Where a lack of confidence exists this isn’t as easy to achieve plus may result in the modelling of the wrong attitudes and approaches such as avoidance of technology or a “it doesn’t work” as opposed to a problem solving approach.

I also wonder about wider society.   I have previous written about addiction to mobile phones as something not just affecting children but adults as well.    The Telegraph picks out the confidence of teachers in using EdTech however could it be that this is just a small part of a wider issue.   Could it be that teachers are just a sub-set of the adult population and therefore the issue with technology confidence lies not just with teachers but with adults in general?    Does this signal an issue in terms of use of technology without confidence or understanding in relation to the implications of its use?    I have written on this also in the past in terms of the terms and conditions attached to social media sites we all use;  we use the technology but don’t understand the implications and rules of their use.

My thoughts on the article have left me with more questions than answers.   Going back to the title of the telegraph article, “To raise teaching standards we must first improve the use of technology in the classroom” I have one closing thought.   We are using technology in our classrooms either to a lesser or greater extent.   Finland may be spending less but they are still spending.    Surely we want to “improve” current practice in using technology?    By doing so we are doing things better than before which surely is a more acceptable option than doing it the same or doing it worse.  So really my initial reaction to the articles was correct as improving technology skills and confidence can only end with a positive outcome.   What we want anything less?

 

G-suite, MS or Apple: Consistency or Variety?

At my school we have recently been working towards the implementation and roll out of Office 365 across the school and in doing so it has raised some interesting questions in relation to the various platforms and solutions which are available for use in the classroom.

Take for example this post, “Battle of the classrooms” which focuses on the Google, Apple and Microsoft Classroom solutions.    Each does something different although there are also similarities with quite clear similarities existing between Google and Microsoft’s offering.

Teachers may have a preference for one or other based on their previous experience or skills.   As such it seems sensible to allow them to make use of this experience and their associated skills in their teaching.    Some teachers may be adventurous, innovative and striving to try new things and therefore may identify new solutions and apps outside of the more common ones, then wanting to make use of these in their lessons.     The above is critical in terms of seeking innovative practice and learning experiences as it taps into teacher motivation, existing experience and skills.   This works from a micro, individual teacher and lesson viewpoint.

Taking the macro viewpoint however the above is problematic.    The students, who we are here to serve, experience the lessons from a number of different teachers and subjects during the week as they move around the school following their timetable.   They therefore expect to experience consistency as they move from lesson to lesson.   Thinking about it the education system is awash with requests for consistency including standardized testing and inspections.   The idea of different teachers using different technology solutions in their lessons seems to be at odds with this need for consistency.    Should individual teachers all be using differing platforms this could lead to confusion among students and could negatively impact on learning.

Compromise seems to be the only solution.   To adopt a core set of apps such as solutions for sharing revision content, which are consistently used by teachers across the school, while allowing teachers to experiment with different apps within their teaching.     Considering the compromise as a point on a continuum between a totally standardized environment, where a strict set of apps are allowed, and an environment where anything goes and any app can be used, I think I lean to the right of centre, towards encouraging and allowing flexibility in trying new apps.

Relecting on the above I realise that my starting point was that of the teacher and teaching.   I wonder if my end point may have been different if I had started by looking at the student side of things.   I will however leave that for a future post.

For now my belief in relation to edTech use continues to be in the need for flexibility and innovation albeit with some aspects of consistency if that contradiction is even possible?

EdTech and Brexit: some thoughts.

It has been reported that IT budgets will be subject to a squeeze resulting from the Brexit decision and for those who have bought IT items recently this has already become evident.   Prices of Apple devices for example have already seen an increase.   I count myself lucky that we updated our iPad fleet just before the Brexit vote as had we delayed we might now see a bill thousands of pounds more expensive than the cost we actually paid.

Revenue costs will be an issues as we may see some service costs increase during the year ahead.   An example of this might be Microsoft licensing costs.   This will be difficult to deal with as it represents a revenue item with increasing cost.   It may require an assessment of the value of services being used with services of a lesser value being abandoned in order to afford those services which are critical or of a higher value.    If Microsoft licensing costs go up which other licensed products might we no longer be able to afford?

Capital projects are likely to take a significant hit as projects may no longer fall within the originally allotted budgets.   As such some projects may now be cancelled and not progress.    This may also result in some projects which previously may have been considered no longer being considered due to cost or potential future costs.

So what can we do?

The key is that of value.    We need to ensure that all that we do has the highest possible value and return on investment.

This is easier to do where planning is for a new project, new software or new hardware.   Here, if due to the financial situation, the decision is taken to not proceed with a purchase the net effect is zero;  we don’t have the item now so not purchasing it results in no change.     The more difficult situation to manage is where we want to bring about efficiencies by looking at what we have and by removing some items.     This may be removing items to replace them with something else, such as moving from desk based printers to centralised Multi-Function Devices or it might be removing something due to the fact that the cost vs benefit does not represent sufficient benefit given the tightening financial situation.    Any removal or ceasing of support is likely to meet with a negative response from users.

The coming year is likely to be more difficult that the year that has past, a year largely prior the Brexit decision.   Overall in terms of educational technology, the recent Brexit decision will not have impacted on the impact and potential impact on technology, however the cost of this technology has almost certainly seen an increase.    As such when taking a cost vs impact viewpoint, technology may now require a greater level of justification in order to counterbalance the increased cost.

 

 

Smartphones in the class

There have been lots of discussions about the pros and cons of using technology in lessons each looking at the issue for a different perspective.   Some people are positive about how technology can benefit students and their learning while others cite detrimental impact to student writing ability or concentration.

A recent post in the TES presented the issue of how smart phones in particular were contributing to sexual harassment incidents in schools.   You can read the full post here.   Within the post the general secretary of the ATL explains that she feels that in too many places, sexual harassment has become acceptable.   The author of the post goes on to raise how sexual harassment has always existed however it is the impact of technology and social media which has greatly increased the scale of the problem.

I fully agree with the authors comments with regards the importance of staffs well being and dignity however I disagree with the suggestion that the solution is for schools to “insist that pupils’ phones be left at the door”.      This would remove many learning opportunities which arise where students have access to a mobile device in lessons.   In addition by removing the phone it removes the opportunity for students to learn about what is right and appropriate when it comes to using mobile devices including the cameras which they come with.    Where students previously might have drawn inappropriate sketches of their teacher, did we ban the pencil?

I also disagree with the authors comment regarding how “schools cannot cure the ills of society”.    Schools are part of society and cannot operate independently of it.     Therefore I feel we as educators have a responsibility to make sure students learn about the appropriate use of technology, the risks and challenges so that they are equipped to be better members of society.    Stopping student smart phones at the school doors either prevents or at least limits the potential for this learning.   Students will still have smart phones so if they are inclined to take inappropriate photos they are still likely to do it, albeit being more creative about how they sneak their smart phone into class.     As such we have gained little but lost the opportunity to have a discussion with pupils about how they should use their smart phones in class, in school and in society as a whole.

We need to take care in where we arrive at decisions to try and block or ban certain technologies.    Technology is now pervasive throughout society.    The issue is whether technology is put to good or ill, and working with students so that they learn to be respectful and responsible users of the power put in their hands through technology.

 

 

 

 

Would we ban the pencil had it been a sketch.

Was going to tweet this however decided not as 140char not enough to fully elaborate on my thoughts on this.

Skype

Started experimenting during the last couple of weeks with Skype for Business.   On Friday for example I had a meeting with a colleague to discuss some ideas he had.   As we both work on different sites and I knew my colleague was eager to get things moving and have a meeting at the earliest opportunity I suggested a Skype session to allow for discussion.    Midway through the discussion he asked if I had another computer to look at as he was going to send me a link for a web page to look at.    At this point Skype for business came into its own as I suggested he should use the “present” option.

A few minutes later and the Skype call continued, however with me now able to see my colleagues screen via screen sharing while also still able to see and hear him via picture in picture.   My colleague was able to walk me around the site and how he felt this idea of his would work and how it would benefit the school.

With Skype for business it is possible for a number of people to come together in a single meeting, sharing screens and discussing the issues in hand.    As such I can see opportunities for student group work across schools geographically separated.   This might be a nice preparation for the world beyond school where increasingly we are having to work remotely or across borders.    It would also allow for master teaching or lecturing events where a single teacher can deliver to both students in the same room and also students in other schools and locations.   Again this could add an interesting global aspect to lessons.

I see quite a bit of potential in Skype for Business and its use within school so my intention going forward is to have a number of virtual meetings using it.   I am also hoping my colleague and also those he shares meetings with will also go forth and share as well as identifying creative and innovative ways Skype for business to be used within the school.

 

 

Mobile devices

I have recently posted a couple of times with regards the iPad in classrooms however I want to make it clear that I am not an Apple only person.   In fact I spend most of my time working within a windows environment including actually typing this piece up on a Samsung ultrabook running Windows 10.

As part of my role as Director of IT I have recently been involved in re-examining the platform which we use as part of our mobile learning scheme.   This is due to the current devices reaching that age where the need replacing.      As I said I am not an Apple only person and therefore as part of this review myself and colleagues took on a review of the various options which were available to us at the time, some 6 months ago.     You can see a summary of our findings here.

To us it was clear that the iPad represented our best option, made easier still by the fact that the new iPad rollout would be replacing our current fleet of aging iPads thereby reducing the difficulties associated with any change in devices.

Since our review the iPad Pro has became available which addresses one of the weaknesses which we did identified for the iPad in the lack of a keyboard.   Personally in the 9.7” version I don’t actually like the keyboard finding the keys a little cramped so I am not sure I would actually go out and buy this direct connection keyboard option.    The 9.7” version also brings with it the new Apple Pencil which from testing I found to be excellent for taking notes and also for sketch noting.   My concern here is the cost of the pencil and the likelihood of loss especially where lots of users have one.  Again I am not sure I would go out and buy one so overall these two new items would be unlikely to be purchased as part of the schools rollout meaning the initial review findings would still stand.

The question in hand at the moment is now iPad Air 2 versus iPad Pro 9.7”.    The cost difference isn’t an awful lot however the two critical factors are life expectancy and memory.   Taking memory first the Air 2 would be purchased with 64Gb, up from the 32Gb units currently in the school.   The iPad Pro however, for a similar but slightly higher price would only have 32Gb, with the next option being the 128Gb unit as no 64Gb option exists.   This would mean if we go with more memory we also have to pay significantly more.        As to life expectancy, this relates to the iPad Air 2 which was launched in 2014.   This makes it already a 2 year old device, and aside from the iPad 2, Apple iPad devices have only usually being manufactured for a period of 2 ½ years meaning the iPad Air 2 may become a discontinued device in around 6 months to a year.    If we are investing on devices we hope to have for the next 3 to 4 years, it would be of concern if they were discontinued within the first ¼ of their intended lifespan.   That said, we know that iOS is designed to keep working for a significant period even after the discontinuing of the device itself.   Also, unless an Air 3 makes an appearance, which I doubt, the Air 2 would represent the end of the Air and traditional iPad lines so it may possibly have a life of longer than 2 ½ years like the iPad 2.

The overall question for myself and the school currently therefore is do we invest in the iPad Air 2 or in the new iPad Pro 9.7”.    I liked the Pro 9.7” I tried although I think I have leanings towards the Air 2.   A decision will need to be reached soon however for now further discussion is still required.