Threat springs cemgmteir report

Press, 14 May 1984, Page 9

Threat springs cemgmteir report

PA Wellington Threat of legal action by the Coalition for Open Government has resulted in release of the Education Department’s evaluation of computers in schools. Release of the evaluation, at one time recommended by the Ombudsman, had been vetoed by the Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, who has now decided to withdraw his veto and make the report public. Keith Johnston of the coalition said in a statement released today that C.O.G. welcomed release of the report. But, he said: “We cannot see why it could not have been released when completed in November, 1982, or at least when people asked for it under the Official Information Act in July, 1983.

“Why do we have to threaten legal action to get a Cabinet Minister to use the Official Information Act properly?” Mr Johnston said it was not until Mr Wellington discovered that C.O.G. was planning to go to court to challenge his veto that he changed his mind.

Fifteen concerns, including makers of the local Poly system, were given a first appraisal by the department’s evaluation team in 1982,. and eight computers were short-listed. After further examination, the team concluded that while none of the systems offered met all requirements, five approached the criteria. These were Apple, BBC Micro, BMC 800, NEC and Poly. The report now released, nearly two years after it was prepared, carries a disclaimer signed by the Assistant Director-General of Education, Mr J. Yuill. He says that the evaluation “was not prepared for general release” and points out that information in it should not now be relied on for buying computers for schools.

In notes to the five systems named, the appraisal team said of each:

Apple.— “Poor in some aspects.”

BBC Micro.— “Difficulty in obtaining the correct version of the software, but it is believed to exist in England.”

BMC 800.— “This is a proposal to tailor existing proven commercial equipment to educational needs, and the team could only evaluate the component parts. If the development is completed satisfactorily, this would be the best of the five.” NEC.—“Showed a software problem which the Japanese software manager claimed would be easily corrected.”

Poly.—“The version 1.8 was the basis of the evaluation and version 2.0 is expected to resolve the problems with the networking deficiencies.” C.O.G. said that after the Development Finance Corporation became involved in development of the Poly system, Mr Wellington was “very optimistic about the possibilities.”

C.O.G. said he told the “P.P.T.A. News” in August, 1981, that he would be taking a paper to the Cabinet that month seeking approval for the Poly system for all secondary schools within five years at a cost of $lO million.

In July, 1983, when a copy of this Cabinet paper was

sought, it was revealed that no paper had been prepared by the Minister or, for that matter, by the Education Department, recommending introduction of the Poly computer. It was partly through a Christchurch computer programmer’s efforts that the Coalition for Open Government obtained the school computer evaluation report, writes Warren Marett, computer reporter for “The Press.”

Mr Bill Rosenberg, who works at the computer centre at the University of Canterbury, had been seeking the release of the report since the passing of the Official Information Act in July, 1983. When Mr Wellington refused to release the report Mr Rosenberg got legal advice which indicated that the Minister’s refusal could be challenged. He then called C.O.G. with this advice.

Mr Rosenberg had first pressed for the release of the report “to make the information available to the people who need it,” he said yesterday.

He also was concerned

that commercial pressure was going to override the national interest. “It seemed to me initially that the Poly proposals were an ideal opportunity to have a well thought out system for New Zealand schools and would be the basis of a New Zealand industry,” he said.

“Pressure such as the Apple offer seemed to me that the multinationals were bringing strong pressures to bear and that the Minister was trying to slide out of the Poly commitment.” (While the department was evaluating school computers, Apple’s distributors in New Zealand sold a large number of Apple computers in schools at a heavily discounted price.) Now that he has helped get the release of the report, Mr Rosenberg cannot understand why the report was not released earlier. “There have been so many twists and turns that it is difficult to see whether the Minister has gone into the matter with any clear view of the education priorities,” he said. Mr Rosenberg commented that the report did not go into a largejnumber

of topics that were originally detailed in the specification to suppliers from which the report arose.

“It doesn’t look at what software, other than Pascal and BASIC, was available on the machines. Hardware is not the critical factor, it is the software that is critical.”

Mr Gerrit Bahlman, a master at Christ’s College and editor and treasurer for the Canterbury Computer Education Society, yesterday described the report as “a document that is only of historical interest.

“At best it is a snapshot of the state of the industry then,” he said.

Mr Bahlman complimented the evaluation report in recognising that there was a need for school computers to use a standard language.

“The main lesson that we can get out of it is that it tells us, in hindsight, of the importance of survivability. The hardware isn’t so important as it is going to be around for a while."

Of eight machines shortlisted in the report, four have not been successful in the school market.