KLA = Key Learning Area ("faculty")
IT = Information Technology
Mbs  = megabits per second
McKSC = McKinnon Secondary college
NIC = network interface card
EEPROM = Electronically erasable programmable read-only memory
HDD = Hard disk drive
CAT = Common Assessment Task (year 12 assessment tasks)
IR = infra-red
FO  =  fibre optic

1.  Outright purchasing or leasing of computer hardware

Most schools to this point have not thought or behaved like the medium-sized businesses they really are.  McKSC has about 100 employees, over 1000 "clients", around 160 workstations, four file servers (including CD-ROM towers and an internet server with our own domain), extensive network cabling, extensive in-house computer expertise, a full-time computer technician, and top-of-the-line software.  To most commercial business managers, that would add up to a sizeable organisation.

Lacking convincing statistics, I venture to propose that more businesses would be leasing rather than buying hardware and software outright.  After a three-year lease, computer hardware's real-life residual value is just about zero: computers depreciate faster than a bucket of prawns in the sun.  Outright purchasing, after 3 years, leaves you with virtually-obsolete hardware that must be disposed of. 

Try to hang onto your hardware and you start suffering upgrade problems. 
 

• Your old motherboards only accept 1M SIMMS, and you can't buy any.
• Your hard disks are too small and need replacing to put the latest incarnation of Office onto them.
• Your UARTs need replacing to get the modem to go past 9600bps.
• Your software is now assuming SVGA/16 bit graphics ability, and you only have 512K, 256 colour VGA cards.
• Your trusty old printer no longer has drivers available for the latest version of your operating system.  Anyway, you can't buy toner for it any more.
• Your floppy drives are still 5.25" (maybe even 360K!) and no-one else in the known world has used them for the past three years.
• Your once-zippy 486 SX-25 is now staggering even to load an outdated version of your internet Browser.
• You can't load Win95 because the machine doesn't have enough RAM, CPU grunt or HDD space and it's getting increasing difficult to find 16-bit versions of new programs.
• Bits are falling off the computer (or getting wrenched off by bored year 8 students).
• You wish could install CD-ROM based programs but you have no CD-ROM drives.
• You'd love to use infra-red printing but neither your computers or printers have IR support... or USB ports... or PCI slots... or even PS-2 ports!


Leasing has a few advantages. 
 

• Spreading outlay over (say) 3 years lets you get much more equipment in the first year.  Rather than having to find $120,000 as a lump sum for a major overhaul you only need to find $40,000 in the first year but you have immediate access to the hardware and software.  Moreover, the hardware is consistent across all your rooms, so software can be installed consistently across all rooms.

 

• Buying "a new room each year" means that while one room is state-of-the-art, the second room is getting a bit stale, the third is pretty old and no-one wants to use the nasty old computers in the oldest room.  At McKinnon we had machines ranging from 486SX-25 in the oldest room to Pentium 90 in the youngest.  As a result, we simply could not run the same programs in all rooms and students' IT opportunities are effectively determined by "luck of the draw" depending on what room the timetable puts them in!  Hardly a satisfactory situation.  As of July 1999, we finally have machines of similar processing ability throughout the college for the first time in at least 3 years.  Ah, luxury!
   
• Because the machines are younger, they will usually be more reliable.  Less down-time through mechanical failure means smoother classroom management.  Staff will not be happy using computers if they are scared they may not be working properly.  The machines will probably be under continuous warranty while you have them and leasing arrangements also usually have service contracts available.

 
• Predictable financing over a given period makes bursars happy.  It's better for them to know they have a certain expenditure over 3 years rather than spasmodic huge cash injections when a room is to be replaced.

 
• At the end of the leasing period you usually have the option of buying the equipment (sometimes at nominal amounts).  If you don't want to keep the old gear, you don't have to worry about either storing the carcasses or having to throw them out.  ("See that skip out the front?  That contains $37,500 worth of junk.")

 
• 8 August 1998: Adding "unsexy" items to the budget can really make a difference!  Having finally added chairs, tables, mains electricity work, whiteboards, security etc my original rough pricing has inflated alarmingly!



The subject of leasing is further complicated by the inclusion of thin-client technology.  Whereas hardware could normally be written off after 3 years under a fat-client scheme, hardware is now intended to last twice as long.  We intend to get a roomful of super-hot machines specifically for heavy-duty multimedia use (a job at which Citrix is relatively weak: the computers' internal power would be used instead of narrow-band networked resources).  These machines will be in the order of Pentium II/400Mhz.

These brand new machines, in a Citrix environment, now will outlast the average 3 year lease so its residual value after the leasing period must be predicted in order to see if leasing is still beneficial.  If the residual "buy-out" value of the hardware after 3 years was about zero, the computers could be bought from the lessor for a pittance, kept in service and perhaps replaced with new leased machines. 

On the other hand, if the leasing rates were non-trivial at the end of the lease period, it would be relatively expensive to buy them or keep them under lease.

I have heard several people from several places discussing the merits or otherwise of organised programs where classes of students use laptops for their school work.  You may have heard or read a representative from Frankston High School on the subject.  I remain equivocal on the subject in spite of its obvious theoretical advantages. 
• All students in the class have equal access to computing resources
• Curriculum can be made far more interesting and efficient if designed with continuous computer access in mind
• Students' computer skill levels would develop far more quickly with continuous exercise
• Schools are forced to radically re-evaluate and update the content of their courses as they develop suitable units of work
• Students can use their laptops to gain remote access to college resources for homework
I'm sure schools with laptop programs could (and probably will) energetically add many other points to that list. 

The nagging concerns I have about laptop programs include: 

Equity: if students are selected to join a "laptop class" based on parents' willingness and ability to finance a $2000-$3000 laptop, does that exclude students whose access to such resources is already limited?  Will (for example) a struggling single mother with three children be given credit by the finance company to lease a laptop or two (or three?) even if she is keen to join the program?  Would the college assume financial responsibility and act as guarantor for her lease?  Can a college subsidise EMA students so everyone has equal access to computer resources and enhanced curricula?  Does a discriminatory program lead to an "advantaged" and a "disadvantaged" division in the school population? 

Security: students lose pencil cases and jumpers at an alarming rate.  Leaving a $3000 laptop in the playground or on the bus is a different matter.  Is any locker secure enough to protect such valuable and tempting equipment? 

Comfort: laptops may be getting lighter but they still are quite a weight to carry around for long periods, especially if one is in year 7.  Add a few books, computer accessories (mouse, removable CD-ROM/floppy drives, spare battery) and there will be quite a heavy and bulky load to carry.  I still haven't seen any "backpack" type laptop bags: students would have the weight over one shoulder or hanging from their hand. 

Power: a laptop battery in mid-life will give full use for an hour or so with full CPU speed, frequent floppy/CD-ROM/HDD access and backlit colour screens.  Will all classrooms have enough power points for students to recharge?  Will students need spare batteries? 

Backups: if all (or most) of a student's work (perhaps even CATs) are on a single hard disk and it goes bad, is it the student's responsibility to have kept backups?  Will computer failure deserve special consideration?  If a student's laptop dies and needs to be sent for repairs, what do they do in the meantime?  The college might have spare machines for loan, but what about the student's work stored on their hard disk? 

Software: assuming the college dictates what software a student must use on their laptop (as they probably would have to do for ease of instruction), are students allowed to install other software of their own choice?  Who would be responsible for possible infringements of copyright?  Are laptops to be inspected regularly for illegal software or pornography?  Who has the unenviable job of installing new software or new versions of software onto every student's laptop?  Would this cause huge administrative workloads?

Laptops programs or not, I foresee portable computers going the same way as calculators did: students will start bringing them to school whether the college tells them to or not.  Their use will proliferate rapidly once other students, especially seniors, see the advantage of having a computer in class.  Can an average classroom accommodate large numbers of computers?  If students want to connect to the college network will you provide wall plates everywhere or offer wireless networking?  I predict that within 3 years most VCE students will be starting to bring their own computers to school.  Are we ready for this?

Note: May 2001: no student at McKinnon has yet appeared in class with a laptop. Damn this prognostication business! 

August 8, 1998:  We surveyed parents on the idea of laptop programs at McKinnon.  42% said they'd be willing to buy a laptop for their child.  Over 90% of families had at least one computer at home.  66% were connected to the internet.  It will help us decide how much we need to cater for students with poor levels of resources at home.  The college is currently not viewing the prospect of a laptop programme as a strong possibility, especially for juniors.  It may be the seniors would benefit more, if any group were to be encouraged to bring laptops.

Related to the point above.  Fixed network cabling is expensive and immobile.  Get its positioning wrong and you've wasted a lot of money (especially with UTP - at least coaxial can be easily and cheaply daisychained from a single incoming cable).  I have now investigated the strengths and weaknesses of radio networking and have built it into the planned infrastructure.  Radio networking transceivers cost about $2500 each (we'd need about four to saturate the college and provide decent bandwidth.  Radio NICs are approximately $540 each. 

A 2Mbit radio link saturating the campus would allow numerous roaming users to sit in the middle of the oval writing poetry about seagulls while ambulatory teachers could browse the internet with a class without the need of any network cabling. 

March 2001: the 2M radio bandwidth is now 11M and I have a couple of wireless nodes in place. Tell you what: they're very nice to use!

Radio networking is really only feasible with thin-client networking.  I can see companies such as Citrix and Aironet (a radio networking manufacturer) becoming very chummy indeed in the future! 

An option I plan for classroom network points is the use of small protable hubs.  Simply put, a portable hub is an 8-port hub mounted in a small wooden box with 8 powerpoints attached to it.  The hub requires only one network outlet and one mains plug to let 7 laptop or desktop computers jack into the network.  The portable hubs can be simply carried around to wherever they are required.  By only having to provide one network point in each room we will be spared the anguish of predicting how many points each room will need in the near and distant future, and powerpoints won't have to be added because the portable hub will power them.
 

5.  The distribution of computers around the college

Which is best: concentrated computer labs; "clusters" of computers (maybe 6 in one place); single computers in each room; combinations of some or all of those configurations?

• Labs are more cost-efficient because printers, scanners, plotters etc can be shared.  Decent air conditioning becomes cost-effective.  Anti-static carpeting can be installed.  Security is tighter.  Labs let every student work simultaneously.  Unfortunately, access to labs tends to be difficult.
• Clusters have some of the cost-effectiveness of labs, but air-conditioning and good printers (for example) will be more expensive per machine.  Students will need to leave their classroom to visit cluster sites.  Who supervises them? Nevertheless, DE&T seems to love the idea of computer pods, and they are financing them (2003) so that's the way we shall go.
• Single computers in rooms can be accessed easily without students needing to travel.  How many schools, however, especially in older schools with smallish rooms, have room for a computer desk as well as the required 26 chairs/13 tables plus other usual furniture?  How will the computer be secured against student vandalism or break-in?  A dedicated printer would be required for each computer unless you are willing to have students leave the room to collect print jobs from remote networked printers.  Protective measures such as air conditioning and anti-static carpeting are unlikely to be affordable.  Your network would need long arms to reach every room.  UTP outlets would have to be cunningly located to foresee future rearrangements of classroom usage or furniture orientation.

IT gets a lot of flak for dominating computer room time.  We have four rooms and there are only about 18 periods a week across all four rooms where they are free for visits from classes.  The limited gaps in the booking sheets are usually filled by visiting classes.  Because of the structure of the timetable, some teachers can't get certain classes into computer rooms unless they persuade a timetabled class to move out for a while.  Staff often cannot even send a single student to a computer room to use a computer because our rooms cannot fit more than 26 computers in them and the occupying class often uses every machine.

The point above often raises the question of what role IT should play in the curriculum nowadays.  It's tempting to say, "IT hogs the computer rooms.  Remove IT classes and the rest of the KLAs' access would be far easier.  Besides, we are being told to incorporate IT into the curricula of each KLA so the IT faculty is not needed: we'll teach students to use the necessary software for our subjects.  English will teach keyboarding, word processing and desktop publishing.  Maths and accounting will teach spreadsheets.   Various subjects will use and teach databases.  Problem solved. 

Unfortunately, this assumes that: 

• staff have the necessary skills to teach efficient and advanced software use (some do, most don't);
• learning areas have the time to add such lessons to their already-crowded curricula (most subject want more class time) and the government keeps mandating more topics to incorporate into the curriculum, such as compulsory sport and drug education;
• the staging of such education is planned between KLAs.  Will it be safe for Accounting to assume that Maths will have taught spreadsheets by year 11 so they can structure their courses appropriately?  What if no learning area gets around to teaching databases properly but all assume that the others will?
• there are no topics that cannot be farmed out to other learning areas.  What about programming languages?  Multimedia authoring?  Which learning areas have the expertise or inclination to teach those?

As a network grows, your problems as a network administrator grow.  In the good old days with no hard disks and boot ROMS on your network cards all of your network setup was centralised on the server.  Students could not hack that.  Life was good.  Then Windows came along.  Running Windows from a server was an exercise in pure torture.  The work-arounds, tweaks, dirty tricks and trial-and-error required to get a workable system was frightening.  So we went out and bought hard disks for our workstations.  We put Windows onto the hard disks.  We put the multi-megabyte applications on the hard disks.  Life was good again - for a few minutes.  Students fiddled with the desktop settings.  They set up obscene screen saver messages.  They deleted system files.  They installed Doom onto the hard disk. They accidentally saved their work onto the hard disk rather than their home directories on the network and couldn't find it again.  They copied software from the hard disks.  They changed program options to suit themselves. 

So you started getting annoyed.  You tried PC-Lockout or similar software to protect your hard disks, but found it made life so awkward and inconvenient for the "good guys" that you ended up forgetting about it.  You investigated obscure and undocumented Windows INI file settings to restrict access to File menus, Run commands, Save Settings On Exit, file managers; you deleted dangerous commands from the DOS directory; to keep students from attacking the INI files you had to remove or hide other commands such as ATTRIB and EDIT; you had to disable access to DOS.  You ended up with a system that was locked down so tight it took an hour just to add a new icon to the desktop.  Then you went to Windows 95: you started joyously playing with User Profiles and the Policy Editor.  You realised its level of security was about as good as Microsoft's other attempts at security.  Maybe you screamed and replaced Win95 with Windows NT for Workstations instead because it at least offers local hard disk security (which neither DOS nor Windows 3.x did, though they should have).  Of course you needed 32M RAM in each workstation to run NT... 

At that point you became well known for sitting quietly in corners muttering odd curses at Microsoft and drooling slightly. 

Then there was the issue of your workstations getting "past it" after just 3 years or so.  You'd have to front up, again, to the finance committee and argue for another $37,000 for a new room next year.  They started looking at you strangely as if you were some devil sent to try them. 

I've been there.  That's why my ears pricked up somewhat when I first heard of "thin client" networking and Citrix Winframe.  This is it in a nutshell... 

You have an application server.  Unlike a file server which only distributes files like a glorified shared hard disk, the application server actually runs the programs on the user's behalf.  The user's machine is little more than a monitor, keyboard and mouse with very long cords stretching to the application server.  The server does the processing and sends screen images to the workstation.  With the ICA protocol of Winframe (which, incidentally, Hydra does not have), the actual bandwidth required between server and workstation is very small: typically 20Kbs.  That means an old 10Mbs coax cable could support 500 simultaneous users hammering at full capacity.  The server is very powerful: we're talking dual Pentium 200 processors, 512M RAM, 8G HDD for every 25 concurrent users.  To support more concurrent users you add extra servers (with load-balancing software) as required. 

What are the benefits?
 

• Since the workstation is basically a dumb terminal connected to a "mainframe", the workstation could be a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or Macintosh.  It doesn't matter.  Regardless of the CPU in the workstation, its apparent power would be approximately a Pentium 200 or higher (depending on the power of the server).  Your roomful of decaying 286's could be running Office 97 at top speed.  An awesome concept.  This means your old workstations could last 6 years - or until they physically fell apart.  If a workstation died, you could buy a second-hand 486 system for $300 rather than a $1500 Pentium.  To set up a roomful of Pentium200-class machines would cost 26 x $300 rather than 26 x $1500.
• All network configuration is done centrally.  Security will protect all settings.  To install (for example) Front Page onto 200 workstations would take 15 minutes because you'd install it once - onto the server.  If you have multiple servers, they appear as a single massive server.  The only software on workstations is the basic Winframe client software (about 1 meg's worth).  If it got deleted you could replace it in 2 minutes with a single floppy disk.  Workstations wouldn't need a HDD at all, in fact.  The workstation could boot from a floppy containing the Winframe client software or (as is planned), you could get the boot software burned into an EEPROM.  Apparently one company plans to build such an EEPROM into a keyboard so a workstation could be completely diskless.
• Because the ICA bandwidth is so narrow, radio networking becomes viable.  Many simultaneous users can hit a 2M bandwidth radio channel at full speed.  Dual-campus colleges linked by radio could become functional and cheap WANs.
• If a user's machine dies in mid-session, they don't lose work.  Because the processing is occurring on the server, a dead workstation cannot lose a document.  The next time the user reconnects, their work in progress is still there.
• Staff and students can be offered remote access over a narrow 28.8K dialin connection and run (for example) Office 97 on a home computer that does not have Office 97 installed on it!  Again, the server is doing the processing on behalf of the client and merely sending screen information to the client's computer.
• Packet sniffers and similar network intruders cannot steal data since no actual data passes down a network cable.  It's just screen images.
• Upgrading hardware is significantly cheaper than with traditional workstations.  It's far cheaper, for example, to buy 500M of extra RAM for a server than it is to add an extra 16M RAM to 200 workstations.  Similarly, an extra HDD for your server will cost much less than 200 HDD upgrades for workstations.


No, I don't own shares in Citrix, but the concept of thin client is exciting. 

What are the drawbacks of Winframe? 

Sound is currently not supported by Winframe.  Apparently Metaframe will carry multimedia sound from the server to a workstation (at the cost of slightly increased bandwidth requirements).   Currenly, bandwidth is capped at about 20K, so even if large bandwidth were available for special needs, Citrix would not be able to use the extra channel width.  The owner of Citrix at a recent seminar in Melbourne hinted that this limitation may be addressed in future, 

Remote printing is apparently a problem where print jobs are large because of the large bursts of bandwidth required to sent printjobs over a network.

Cost: the software is expensive and the server power is high.  For 150 concurrent users you'd want 3 dual-CPU Pentium II servers with a total of 1500M of RAM and 24G HDD.   The servers would total about $33,000.  The software (server software, load balancers, add-on packs) would cost about $72,000.  This is big money indeed.  But... you can keep your old workstations.  Adding another room would cost about $7800 rather than $35000.  You would not need to replace your 10M cable, hubs and NICs with 100M because your bandwidth requirements would actually fall.  You could use radio networking rather than cabled networking.  Maintenance and network management costs would fall.  Your hardware replacement cycles would double in length while your software update cycle could accelerate.  You could easily install the latest software and every workstation could handle it.  Cheap and nasty workstations are less attractive to thieves.  Students will be unlikely to want to "souvenir" RAM or CPUs from an old 386 workstation. 

Citrix trials are currently underway in several Victorian secondary colleges.  It will be interesting to see their reports, which are due before the end of August, 1998.  I have heard that several of them have increased their investment in Winframe even before the trial finished.

July 1999: Thin Client Conclusion
After waiting breathlessly for the DoE's Thin Client trial results, we have made our decision.  Thin Client is not for us, at least for the moment.  We have gone down the expensive fat-client path with the lease of 96 workstations.  Why?  The DoE's conclusions were too qualified to make an easy decision.  It boiled down to what we already suspected:  thin client (we are talking Citrix Metaframe/Winframe) is good within sharply delineated roles.  Straying beyond those roles, into part-time multimedia machines for example, shows the weaknesses of thin client.  Since all of our machines would be expected to use multimedia at least occasionally, we erred on the conservative side and leased traditional computers.  Who knows?  In three years the weaknesses of Citrix may have been ironed out and our current workstations may be jolly good candidates for thin client networking?  We will have to see...

Whenever I mention we are looking into network backbones, people ask if we're going to get fibre optic.  I don't think so.  FO cable is not too dear but FO NICs, adaptors and hubs are very expensive. But, got no choice with segments more than 100m (UTP) or 200m (thin coax) without using repeaters (yuck).

We've seen a lot of fly-by-night fads in education.  The flavour of the month philosophy often soon becomes an embarrassing footnote in history.  The internet, I feel, is currently 70% hype and fad and 30% really useful tool (mainly email and the occasional productive search for a useful fact).  I can see its usefulness increasing steadily as the technology matures.  Whatever happens to it, we have to treat it with respect, like a sharp knife.  Used poorly, it would have negligible educational value at immense cost.  Used well and sensibly incorporated into curricula, it could be a gold mine.

March 2001: I've gotta say that the internet has solidified its claim to permanence. I and many others now rely on email and prefer to use the internet for research. Yep. It's here to stay. (Well, now I've said that I bet the NASDAQ will soar and poor worried chappies like Bill Gates and the Chairman of Cisco will sleep easier.)

It is easy to assume that students entering year 7 each year will have steadily increasing computer expertise. While this is largely true, it is a dangerous assumption that IT at year 7 will soon be as relevant as teaching students how to tie their shoelaces.  The range of skill levels and primary school computer experience is vast: some students have had little or no computer experience in primary school while others have had challenging and enriched computer-related study.  To assume that all new year sevens are computer literate and independent is wrong.

One of the most exciting things to have come out of the Victorian Education Department in many years is the Vic-One project.  They are linking all government branches, including all state schools, to a broadband (minimum 64Kbps, McKinnon has opted for 128Kbps and now has 320Kbps - soon to be about 2Mbps with ADSL) wide area network with ISDN internet access, a central digital library, email accounts for all Victorian teachers and provision for remote access by staff and the community.  The implementation is happening as I speak: Edumail is up (and actually working, after a molasses-like fashion) and Schoolsnet is playing the part of our ISP.  Their administration suite is SINA 3 (we were one of the ten trial schools) and it makes administration a relative breeze. 

Frustrations have been simmering about internet down-time through failure at Vic-ONE, Telstra or Schoolsnet.  The reliability of the system leaves a bit to be desired.

But sometimes I really wish I'd become a woodwork teacher instead.