• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Moving Forward, Looking Back

Posted on: Sunday, 19 February 2006, 03:03 CST

By Bdard, Diane

PART A: MOVING FORWARD

Responding to student requests for computer help and trying to track why some software misbehaves can eat up an extraordinary amount of valuable time in the school library day. Within the Learning Commons area (the core library, seminar rooms, and attached computer labs) our staff members routinely spend time dealing with the technology-assisting the students with the use of standard educational software, searching strategies for online databases, and demonstrating the operation and use of peripheral equipment. When technology problems arise, they perform checks of the software and hardware, reporting the noted problems to HELPDESK-our IT department's online reporting and support request application.

With the proliferation of computers in the Learning Commons area, it often seemed that a cheat sheet was needed, detailing specifics like which workstations had certain software titles installed or which computers did not handle multimedia. A lot of staff time was being wasted. In an effort to improve the learning environment for the students and lessen the level of technical support requests, we held several discussion groups and identified the key changes needed.

Life is becoming a little saner for the school library staff and the IT support technicians. The Learning Commons and lab computers have all been moved to be a common computer model; all computers are being loaded with a standard image and software; and computers are secured against tampering and change. Though these three changes sound simple enough, they actually took a fair amount of work. The pay off has been more than worth it.

What Did We Do?

First, of course, we talked about it. Discussion groups included a good mix of viewpoints-principals, early literacy staff, curriculum consultants, library staff, IT support technicians, and classroom teachers. We talked about what was working and what was not, what was core technology to support student learning, what needed more in-service, and what we had the dollars to do-and we came up with a plan.

Step One: Computer Labs Have All Been Moved to a Common Model We have a minimum computer standard, reviewed annually, which identifies equipment that can still run the provided educational software. Additionally, the IT department identifies equipment that needs a high level of repairs or software support. Based on this, we have a regular replacement of the older equipment with newer models; this year, for example, we removed all the PIs (Pentium One chip equipment) and a lot of P2s from our schools.

Because we have standardized all computer purchases centrally and have maintained an inventory database of hardware across our school board, we could identify with fairly good accuracy which make and model we could assume as a base model. What we found, however, was that, as new equipment was rolled out to the schools, it was not always being deployed in a consistent manner, leading to some labs containing a real mix of equipment. With some creative switching and trading around, all the computers (library pods and labs) were grouped in common.

Step Two: All Computers Have Been Loaded With a Standard Image and Software

Discussions identified the key software needed to support student learning. Our board's curriculum ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) document clearly identifies the progressive learning scope and sequence and lists the appropriate software to teach these skills. School IT technicians organized these software titles according to ones that could run from an academic server, and ones that needed to be installed on each computer. Software testing identified that, as we moved up in operating systems, a few of the familiar older titles did not run well with the expanded color or screen resolution-a rationale for dropping them and finding alternative titles.

A common desktop wallpaper, a common folder setup, a standard lock-down style, and a standard log-on format helped to form a consistent look and to facilitate teaching.

The next step was to pull all of this into a standard elementary software image, designed to run on the common computer model in all labs. This makes the deployment easier. Using Ghostcast, the IT technicians transport the master "ghost" image and set up one machine in the lab to be the temp "server" for the lab to push the image out to all computers. Because all computers are the same make and model, this image "fits" them with little if any additional tweaking.

Step Three: The Computers Are secured Against Tampering and Change

We use Deepfreeze, a product that secures each computer against accidental changes or deliberate tampering. Simply restart the computer and it is back to the standard image, no matter what changes the student made. This, of course, means that students (and staff!) need to log on correctly so that the work they create is saved to their documents server space-not left on the desktop to disappear at reboot!

What Are Some

Issues With This Approach?

Getting agreement of which software titles to include can almost lead to fisticuffs! If you had to choose to support Appleworks or Corel Wordperfect Suite or Star Office (all education-licensed "office" suites), which one would you pick? Would the teacher in the next classroom agree with you? Would the school across the county agree with you? We finally agreed that with a minimum 6 GB hard drive in our base computer, all of these could be included. This means our curriculum inservice staff still have to decide whether to teach several packages or choose to only teach one and let the others slowly die out-a future discussion!

Clear language on donated equipment is needed. We love our parents clubs and community support and know they have the best intentions when they find real computer bargains to buy or have hardware to donate, but from a teaching and support viewpoint, we cannot face such a mishmash of makes and models. The cost of purchasing a computer is only a fraction of its overall cost. The technical and staff development support necessary to maintain the computer over its 3- to 5-year life cycle generally costs more than the computer itself. Unfortunately, at a time when schools are struggling with the challenges of integrating technology in the curriculum and maintaining their large technology investments, the reality is that accepting donated computers can be a significant cost and liability for our schools. Thus, we have clear language in place, which explains our board's approach and defines the minimum standards and specifications we accept.

Stand-alone printers are another high-level support issue. These low-cost inkjets are cheap to buy and seem to be easy to plug right in. The support costs are high, however, as they eat ink cartridges, are easy to break, and generate frequent support requests for print drivers that were not part of the standard image. One of our larger elementary schools (900-plus students) has standardized on network printers with centralized access. Each school section (primary, junior, and intermediate) and the library have a networked printer in place. It is working well, and we are exploring it as a model to follow systemwide. Eliminating the inkjets (which have a high cost in ink and maintenance) is looking to be a viable cost- and time- saving option.

PART B: LOOKING BACK

The Hidden Monster

Sounds wonderful, does it not? Happy staff, smooth-running technology-we seem to be really moving forward. 1 was smiling, and then 1 came across a disturbing sight. 1 came across a storeroom full of all the technology we had happily discarded. 1 am sure you can picture this: stacks of old 486 and Pl computer carcasses, rows of 1 5-inch monitors, piles of dot matrix printers-truly a technology graveyard. What happens to all of this waste, 1 wondered.

It is great to see the technology being upgraded and replaced regularly but disturbing to explore what really happens to the discarded items-the "techno-trash." Our schools and our homes are creating an incredible volume of technology trash. The volume of obsolete computers, cell phones, and electronic equipment thrown out or temporarily stored for later disposal is already a serious problem, and it is escalating at a rapid rate. According to the Basel Action Network and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2002),

E-waste is generated at alarming rates due to obsolescence. Due to the extreme rates of obsolescence, E-waste produces much higher volumes of waste in comparison to other consumer goods. The increasingly rapid evolution of technology combined with rapid product obsolescence has effectively rendered everything disposable. Consumers now rarely take broken electronics to a repair shop as replacement is now often easier and cheaper than repair, (p. 5)

Right across North America most of this techno-trash ends up in landfills. A 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report [Markoff, 2002] cited more than 3.2 million tons of e-waste that had ended up in U.S. landfills. Agency analysts estimated that the amount of e-waste in U.S. landfills would grow fourfold in the next few years. In hindsight this was far too low; the number of obsolete computers in the United States is now as high as 315 million to 680 million units annually, with one computer becoming obsolete for every new computer placed on the ma\rket. In Canada, Environment Canada (Johnson, 2002) reported that for 2005, the amount of disposed electronic junk from computers and peripherals doubled to more than 67,000 tons.

Why Is This a Problem?

The composition of a personal computer and monitor includes the following:

This means that discarded PCs, CRT monitors (cathode ray tube), and televisions thrown away each year contain tons of lead, cadmium, and mercury. According to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2004),

When these components are illegally disposed and crushed in landfills, the lead is released into the environment, posing a hazardous legacy for current and future generations. Consumer electronics already constitute 40% of lead found in landfills. About 70% of the heavy metals, including mercury and other hazardous substances found in electronics, can contaminate groundwater and pose other environmental and public health risks, (p. 3)

Some communities have efforts to divert this e-waste from the waste stream, but this is not happening reliably and is often sidestepped by the end consumers who do not want to make the extra effort to separate it and turn in their old electronics.

Even when items are turned in for recycling or refurbishing, the result is not good. It is estimated that 80% of North American electronics listed as being recycled are actually exported, mainly to Asia [Basel Action Network ft Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002]. Once there, the recycling of electronics is not what one would expect. Exported electronics are often smashed, not refurbished, and the object is to recover as much steel, plastic, copper, and gold as possible. There is a booming market for metals and plenty of cheap labor to recover it. Circuit boards are heated by hand to recover the gold, and the molten lead residue is simply poured onto the ground. Wires are burned at low temperatures to burn off the plastic so that the metal can be recovered. Leftover parts and plastics are just dumped. Surplus toner is collected out of cartridges, often by smashing open the cartridge by hand and working in clouds of toner dust.

If you have never had the time or inclination to explore this dark underbelly of our high-tech society, now is the time to spend a few minutes and visit just this one web site: www.crra.com/ewaste/ ttrash2/ ttrash2/index.html.

An international treaty known as the Basel Convention was created in 1989 to counter these unsustainable and unjust effects of free trade in toxic e-wastes. The Basel Convention calls on all countries to reduce their exports of hazardous wastes to a minimum and, to the extent possible, deal with their waste problems within national borders. In 1994 the Basel Convention agreed to adopt a total ban on the export of all hazardous wastes from rich countries to poor countries for any reason, including recycling.

The Basel Convention does not work well within North America, unfortunately, because although Canada signed on, the United States has not ratified it and has intentionally exempted e-wastes within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. And because many Canadian recycling companies have U.S. branches, materials can still end up being exported from anywhere in North America.

When exploring what would happen with our old computers, 1 was happy to discover that my local Solid Waste Authority has an e- waste diversion program in place and is taking great care to ensure that their downstream recyclers follow the Basel Convention. They certify that they do not export and that they use environmentally sound reclamation methods. This program has been made free to all residential households in the county, in an effort to get the material diverted from the curbside garbage. Boxes of electronics are diverted from the landfill for ethical recycling weekly. Companies have to pay a small fee, but it is based on cost recovery; the Solid Waste Authority is a not-for-profit organization.

Many companies still find it cheaper, however, to let a noncompliant refurbisher/recycler haul the techno-waste away without questioning the downstream handling. Even when handled inside North America, the demanufacturing, dismantling, shredding, and incinerating are often unregulated and create additional hazards. Recycling of hazardous wastes, even under the best of circumstances, has limited environmental benefit-it simply moves the hazards into secondary products that eventually have to be disposed of.

The final solution will be to have the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) bear the responsibility for the materials they select to use and for designing construction methods that allow easy dismantling. We are not there yet, although there is political action to require an OEM takeback clause or to build a recycling fee into the initial purchase cost.

Some states have already enacted legislation to force OEM inclusion in the waste management issue-Maine's e-waste law is an example. Beginning January 1, 2006, it will be illegal to dispose of computer monitors and televisions generated as waste by households in Maine. Instead, all waste computer monitors and televisions must be recycled. Maine has a system of shared responsibility for the recycling of computer monitors and televisions. This shared responsibility system requires the consumers, their municipality, and manufacturers to all have a role in making sure computer monitors and televisions get recycled in an environmentally sound way.

What can you do to help? Be proactive:

* Verify that your local solid waste authority contracts the recycling of the technowaste stream with a North American recycler who follows the Basel Convention and health and safety regulations.

* Ask questions of your school board or organization about how they handle the large-scale techno-trash and if they require a takeback clause.

* Recycle your home computer "basement dinosaurs," dead cell phones, and old electronic equipment with your local recycler and pay the fee if you must.

* Support OEMs that are moving to less toxic products, even if the products cost a bit more.

As you move forward with new technology, make certain you can look back with a clear conscience.

Teacher Librarian gratefully acknowledges The Teaching Librarian, a publication of the Ontario Library Association, for granting its permission to reprint this article. This article originally appeared in The Teaching Librarian, Volume 12, No. 1, 2004 Ontario Library Association.

In an effort to improve the learning environment for the students and lessen the level of technical support requests, we held several discussion groups and identified the key changes needed.

Clear language on donated equipment is needed, We love our parents clubs and community support and know they have the best intentions when they find real computer bargains to buy or have hardware to donate, but from a teaching and support viewpoint, we cannot face such a mishmash of makes and models.

Great web sites to explore if you want to know more:

BAN-Basel Action Network

www.ban.org/

Computer Recycling

www.infoweblinks.com/content/computer recycling.htm

Computer Recycling and Reuse FAQ

www.techsoup.org/howto/articlepage.cfm ?Arrideld=537

E-WASTE . . . Electronics Take It Back!

www.crra.com/ewaste/index.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's eCycling HomePage

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ ecyding/index.htm

REFERENCES

Basel Action Network ft Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. (2002). Exporting harm: The high-tech trashing of Asia. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from www.crra.com/ ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority. (2005). The composition of a personal computer and monitor. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from www.ewswa.org/pages/home.html

Johnson, E. (2002, October 22). Tossing your computer? Read this first. CBC Marketplace: Environment High-Tech Trash. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from www.cbc.ca/consumers/tnarket/files/ environ/ hitech_trash/

[Markoff, J. (2002, February 25). Technology's toxic trash is sent to poor nations. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from www.sutc.org/ media/articles/2002/markoff_nytimes.htm]

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. (2004). Poison PCs and toxic TVs: California's biggest environmental crisis that you've never heard of. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from www.svtc.org/cleancc/ pubs/ poisonpc2004.htm

Diane Bdard is supervisor of the Learning Commons and webmaster for the WindsorEssex Catholic District School Board, Windsor, ON, which is made up of 41 elementary schools and 10 secondary schools having a student population of 30,000. Diane's multiple roles include providing support, training, and functional supervision for all library staff, elementary and secondary; being the systems administrator and software trainer for the library network and client-server library; and being the designer and webmaster for the school webpage teams. She is past president of the Ontario Information Technologies Association.

Copyright Ken Haycock & Associates Feb 2006

Source: Teacher Librarian

More News in this Category