Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

Keep in mind site licenses are negotiated understanding that adoption may be limited. A la carte and school-based licenses would be much expensive.

Maybe they could license it just for secondary schools' use but not elementary?

Anonymous wrote:They said 6,000 teachers have used it this year, with 3,000 using it in the last month (I'm wondering if that time period includes the holidays and snow days). And they said that most of the use is concentrated at a handful of secondary schools. They propose replacing it with training on better classroom management strategies so that teachers can "monitor technology without the use of technology".

They did not elaborate on that, but I would love to know how you can monitor technology without technology. Do they mean walking around the classrooms? You can close tab super quick as soon as you see the teacher moving.

They said 6,000 teachers have used it this year, with 3,000 using it in the last month (I'm wondering if that time period includes the holidays and snow days). And they said that most of the use is concentrated at a handful of secondary schools. They propose replacing it with training on better classroom management strategies so that teachers can "monitor technology without the use of technology".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

3000 out of 14000 is a really low percentage when you could install something less expensive just for site blocking and let it be done by the enterprise system in IT.

If teachers need or want it to remain for certain grades now is the time to notify the BOE and their Admin to speak up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

Keep in mind site licenses are negotiated understanding that adoption may be limited. A la carte and school-based licenses would be much expensive.

I told my 8th and 10th graders this morning that GoGuardian might go away and they were incredulous. They said that it's not needed all the time, but teachers definitely use it when they are doing online tests (e.g., in Spanish class to make sure that nobody has Google Translate open) or other online work, and that some teachers use it a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

+1 why the heck are only 3000 out of 14K using it?

DD, sophomore, told me that their chromebooks have it.

Yes, they have it. But it isn't doing anything if the teachers aren't using it.

Start watching at 1:45
https://www.youtube.com/live/EFV2jibPVyE?si=4oLQHhUwKlw5uEWu

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

+1 why the heck are only 3000 out of 14K using it?

DD, sophomore, told me that their chromebooks have it.

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Yeah. That 3,000 out of 14,000 stat is pretty hard to justify paying for the full license for all teachers.

It doesn’t speak to how MCPS rolled it out tho, which likely led to those low adoption numbers.

GG is active and automatically blocks problematic sites. Also, you can see all student screens at once on your teacher screen, making it easy to see who is looking at what.

Anonymous wrote:It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Is GG active or passive?

Passively blocking garbage sites is good even if individual teachers don't actively use the controls.

Also 3/14 is large fraction.

OTOH, kids can always find non-blocked garbage sites for playing games during work time.

There's still time to contact board members about getting this at least partially restored.

It was included as a cut in the superintendent's recommended operating budget. MCPS said only 3000 out of 14000 teachers used it at least once recently.

Middle school teacher here that relies on GoGuardian to monitor Chromebook use here. Is it being replaced with another program? This must be a joke.