Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops
PC Guy
No surprise Jim is wrong again.
Tim Murray
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
> oref=slogin
>
> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
Good. Not that Jim is wrong, but that that some schools have the balls to
phase out the one-for-one. God forbid kids should actually learn some basics,
and learn some human interaction skills.
John
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2nbp331tjbp4jomfl...@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
>
> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
I notice the laptops being used are PC with Win XP.
PC Guy
Yes, because we all know that students using Macs can't be used to:
- exchange answers on tests
- download pornography
- hack into local businesses
- cause network inevitably freezes
Or that they never have any problems:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/03/apple_grilled_over_ibook_g4_logicboard_deaths.html
Lawson English
One advantage to using a Mac in school is that there are fewer games
available so there are fewer potential distractions.
whjones
And
>
you didn't even speak about the (lack of) IT administrators. For
example, all they need to do is create an Active Directory domain and
then remove internet access. It's fairly simple to do. It's even
easier on on a Mac :D I dare say that it's much harder to circumvent
any protective measures on a Mac as well. of course, school
administrations will have to "Think Different" and not like the
sheeeple that constitute their makeup. The network problem, once
internet access has been denied, can also be addressed by the use of
proper networking devices, such as switches and routers instead of
hubs, as well as the addition of an additional server or two. Of
course, these things should have been considered during the design
process - ie, BEFORE the network was implemented. This particular
school's problems speak to a severe lack of proper planning and
implementation. Even if they HAVE to use PCs, it could very well have
been done properly, with few problems and expected growth built in.
Even if internet access was desired, it's fairly simple, even on a PC
network, to limit the particular sites to which the users are allowed
access. I work at the Battle Command Training Center here in Hawaii,
on Schofield Barracks, and DOIM (the Signal Company that handle our
Information Management) has locked down quite a few sites - YouTube,
for example. We are on an Active Directory network as well. Actually,
it's easier on an Active Directory network to lock it down than on a
simple workgroup. While I advocate Macintosh vice PC, this type of
"issue" really gets my goat. The school fails to get the knowledge, or
personnel, necessary to accomplish their goals, then simply throws up
their hands and reverses their earlier decision. I also agree that
high school students should develop inter-personal skills, but if the
school wishes to implement a network of some sort, they should do it
properly, even if it's on PCs.
PC Guy
>On 2007-05-05 07:03:54 -1000, PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:51:31 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2nbp331tjbp4jomfl...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
>
>No
>>>>
>>>> surprise Jim is wrong again.
>>>
>>>
>>> I notice the laptops being used are PC with Win XP.
>>
>> Yes, because we all know that students using Macs can't be used to:
>>
>> - exchange answers on tests
>> - download pornography
>> - hack into local businesses
>> - cause network inevitably freezes
>>
>> Or that they never have any problems:
>>
>> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/03/apple_grilled_over_ibook_g4_logicboard_deaths.html
>
>And
>>
>you didn't even speak about the (lack of) IT administrators. For
>example, all they need to do is create an Active Directory domain and
>then remove internet access. It's fairly simple to do. It's even
>easier on on a Mac :D I dare say that it's much harder to circumvent
>any protective measures on a Mac as well.
So we keep hearing. But never do we see any support.
>of course, school administrations will have to "Think Different" and not like the
>sheeeple that constitute their makeup. The network problem, once
>internet access has been denied, can also be addressed by the use of
>proper networking devices, such as switches and routers instead of
>hubs, as well as the addition of an additional server or two. Of
>course, these things should have been considered during the design
>process - ie, BEFORE the network was implemented. This particular
>school's problems speak to a severe lack of proper planning and
>implementation. Even if they HAVE to use PCs, it could very well have
>been done properly, with few problems and expected growth built in.
>
>Even if internet access was desired, it's fairly simple, even on a PC
>network, to limit the particular sites to which the users are allowed
>access. I work at the Battle Command Training Center here in Hawaii,
>on Schofield Barracks, and DOIM (the Signal Company that handle our
>Information Management) has locked down quite a few sites - YouTube,
>for example. We are on an Active Directory network as well. Actually,
>it's easier on an Active Directory network to lock it down than on a
>simple workgroup. While I advocate Macintosh vice PC, this type of
>"issue" really gets my goat. The school fails to get the knowledge, or
>personnel, necessary to accomplish their goals, then simply throws up
>their hands and reverses their earlier decision. I also agree that
>high school students should develop inter-personal skills, but if the
>school wishes to implement a network of some sort, they should do it
>properly, even if it's on PCs.
Did you read the article? It was more than just internet access.
Jim
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
So, what you're talking about is the teachers, not the tool, which is
technology.
Technology fails when not used properly. Schools don't train teachers
after they've bought the technology, then wonder why there is no
improvement. This however, doesn't also mean there is automatic
success(improvement) if you have the technology and train the teachers
as there can be a zillion other things that go wrong so what's also
important is to have a technology plan.
What about all these schools what did they do?
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
> oref=slogin
>
> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
LIVERPOOL, N.Y. -- The students at Liverpool High have used their
school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography
and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network
security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted
step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they
did).
Scores of the leased laptops break down each month, and every other
morning, when the entire school has study hall, the network inevitably
freezes because of the sheer number of students roaming the Internet
instead of getting help from teachers.
So the Liverpool Central School District, just outside Syracuse, has
decided to phase out laptops starting this fall, joining a handful of
other schools around the country that adopted one-to-one computing
programs and are now abandoning them as educationally empty -- and worse.
(So, the SCHOOL managed technology more than poorly, in fact it looks
like not at all, then it fails. That's not the fault of the technology
but the blame is on the administration who let the kids run willy-nilly
within what was set up and of course if failed. I wouldn't have expected
any different.
Oh, and before you get all frisky, I'm not wrong, I was right in fact
since the administration is to blame here with no effective technology
plan and implementation.)
PC Guy
Did you even bother to read the article Jim? Didn't think so. Here's a
quote from close to the top:
"After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact
on student achievement — none,” said Mark Lawson, the school board
president"
That's SEVEN years Jim. How long does it take to train and itegrate
computers properly?
Go read the entire article and you'll see it's not just about
training.
>What about all these schools what did they do?
Give it a rest Jim. The evidence is clear: One on one computers aren't
helpful. Better to put the resources to areas that are.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
Maybe if they implemented them 'correctly' they'd only have 1/3 of
their students performing below standards.
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
PC Guy
If this were an isolated case then you may have some standing. As it
is it's not. It's just another of many. Had you read the article you
would know that more than this one school was mentioned.
>Oh, and before you get all frisky, I'm not wrong, I was right in fact
>since the administration is to blame here with no effective technology
>plan and implementation.)
How many administrations "not getting it right" will it take before
you realize the problem is not the administration but the tool? You
are wrong. Not that I expect you to admit to it. You never have in the
past and I see no reason for you to start now.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:41:03 -0500, Jim <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
Even assuming that Jim is right, is a tool that is this difficult,
costly and time consuming to 'get right' worth it considering that
there's no real reson to believe that it will actually improve things?
Jim keeps assuring us that his school district has implemeneted
technology 'correctly' yet 1/3 of its students are performing below
state standards and the percentage goes up the lower in grade level
you go.
Timberwoof
I'm with you on this: Too many people, it seems to me, use computers as
a crutch for thinking. I think people should learn basic research and
analysis skills without using computers.
I once had a conversation with a kid who did not want to learn algebra.
I asked him how he calculates what size tires fit on his car. He
replied, "Oh, I just use the plus-one method." (A system for calculating
the aspect ratio for tires when you increase the rim size by one inch.)
I asked him a more complicated question, and his reply was that he'd use
a calculator. "But," I asked, "How do you know what numbers and
operations to punch into it?"
As far as that goes, I'd even go so far as to teach concepts of
precision and accuracy using slide rules, which display graphically[1]
why a calculation with sqrt(2) = 1.41421356237 is a waste of time and
1.414 is, for most purposes, good enough.
In any course that requires writing (which should be all of them except
algebra), computers have been known to cause problems in that kids focus
on formatting and layout instead of writing copy. I'd get around that
desire requiring the papers to be written in plain ASCII. I'd insist on
kids using spelling-checkers[3]. I'd count points off for words
misspelled and double points off for wrong words correctly spelled.
While I'm at it I'd revise the entire curriculum so that world history
provides the organizing structure for all the subjects. In school I had
music, art, history, literature, science, math as separate, unrelated
subjects. They could all benefit from being tied together: parallels
between Martin Luther and Galileo; the Reformation and Bach's music;
connections between the American and French Revolutions and the music of
Beethoven. Most of what people do only makes sense in the context of
their time.
And computers aren't necessary to teach any of this. (I'd ban PowerPoint
as a presentation medium.)
[1] which I mean literally[2], not figuratively.
[2] which I mean literally[1], not figuratively.
[3] Spell-checkers are forbidden by the Ministry of Magic.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
Jim <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
How are computers properly used in schools, and how does that help the
educational process?
PC Guy
I asked him something similar the last time this discussion came up.
He didn't answer me then so I don't expect an answer this time either.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Um, nope. Lots of schools approached technology this way. I've seen
schoops put in technology, then think that sending teachers to a
"computer class" at the local community college is training the teachers
in using technology in the classroom.
>
> >Oh, and before you get all frisky, I'm not wrong, I was right in fact
> >since the administration is to blame here with no effective technology
> >plan and implementation.)
>
> How many administrations "not getting it right" will it take before
> you realize the problem is not the administration but the tool? You
> are wrong. Not that I expect you to admit to it. You never have in the
> past and I see no reason for you to start now.
Oh, so if the nail bends it's always the nail being a bad or ineffective
nail and not the hammer or the user swinging the hammer.
You're just fitting the failure to your conclusion and if you go re-read
your own article and see what the admin let the kids do with the
technology, it's more than plain it's not technology that's at fault,
it's the administration but that's way lost on you since you, like the
mayor klyde nutball, don't understand how to do technology in the
classroom right.
Of course the mayor will now chime in about my district saying 33% are
doing poorly, which is his glass half-emopty song, but 66% are doing
well which is higher and it means my own schools can do better too.
Jim
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
Any good tool is not brainless to use and implement. Reading the article
they even show that the administrations let the kids run wild with using
the technology. Of course it was going to fail.
Timberwoof
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This isn't even a Mac/Windows question.
Computers have their place in a library as an additional research tool,
and there I'd recommend Macs, but I don't see the use in a classroom.
The money is much better spent on things such as chemistry or physics
lab supplies.
Snit
timberwoof.spam-FE...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 5/5/07
3:13 PM:
>> Give it a rest Jim. The evidence is clear: One on one computers aren't
>> helpful. Better to put the resources to areas that are.
>
> This isn't even a Mac/Windows question.
>
> Computers have their place in a library as an additional research tool,
> and there I'd recommend Macs, but I don't see the use in a classroom.
> The money is much better spent on things such as chemistry or physics
> lab supplies.
Exactly. Even if they were worthwhile you would need to tie them to
teachers with the training and aptitude to work with them. Many teachers
have no desire - or need - to have students with laptops. This whole
laptop-for-every-child trend seems silly to me... and I say that as a
computer teacher!
Classrooms need books and chemicals and general office supplies... things
teachers often have to pay for out of their own pockets!
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
PC Guy
Did I say or indicate that it was?
PC Guy
No Jim, they did not let them run wild. The article clearly states:
PC Guy
What you see doesn't match reality.
>> >Oh, and before you get all frisky, I'm not wrong, I was right in fact
>> >since the administration is to blame here with no effective technology
>> >plan and implementation.)
>>
>> How many administrations "not getting it right" will it take before
>> you realize the problem is not the administration but the tool? You
>> are wrong. Not that I expect you to admit to it. You never have in the
>> past and I see no reason for you to start now.
>
>Oh, so if the nail bends it's always the nail being a bad or ineffective
>nail and not the hammer or the user swinging the hammer.
Sometimes the nail really is the problem.
>You're just fitting the failure to your conclusion and if you go re-read
>your own article and see what the admin let the kids do with the
>technology, it's more than plain it's not technology that's at fault,
>it's the administration but that's way lost on you since you, like the
>mayor klyde nutball, don't understand how to do technology in the
>classroom right.
Yes Jim. It's all the administrations fault. In every single instance.
LOL! You're a hoot.
Craig Koller
<timberwoof.spam-FE...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
[cut]
> This isn't even a Mac/Windows question.
>
> Computers have their place in a library as an additional research tool,
> and there I'd recommend Macs, but I don't see the use in a classroom.
> The money is much better spent on things such as chemistry or physics
> lab supplies.
I agree to a point. Where there's no plan, no limitations, no control,
it's a bad idea.
Heck, even at work, nothing's worse than being in a meeting with people
reading their email and doing other things than concentrating on the
task at hand. But laptops are great for taking notes, gathering relevant
information on the web, crunching numbers, viewing images, etc.
I guess the bottom line is its all about the application. For people to
blindly shove a bunch of computers into a school and expect that to
boost test scores is nuts. But I feel sorry for those kids who've made
good use of these machines and will suffer by their global removal. For
as most college-bound students know, laptops are critical for some
classes and waiting until you're in college to be able to use them may
put you at a disadvantage to those for whom laptop use is second nature.
IOW, "one size fits all" never fits all, laptop or no laptop.
Steve de Mena
> On 2007-05-05 07:03:54 -1000, PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:51:31 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2nbp331tjbp4jomfl...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
>>>>
>
> No
>>>>
>>>> surprise Jim is wrong again.
>>>
>>>
>>> I notice the laptops being used are PC with Win XP.
>>
>> Yes, because we all know that students using Macs can't be used to:
>>
>> - exchange answers on tests
>> - download pornography
>> - hack into local businesses
>> - cause network inevitably freezes
>>
>> Or that they never have any problems:
>>
>> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/03/apple_grilled_over_ibook_g4_logicboard_deaths.html
>>
>
> And
>>
> you didn't even speak about the (lack of) IT administrators. For
> example, all they need to do is create an Active Directory domain and
> then remove internet access. It's fairly simple to do.
Tell us how you would do that?
> Even if internet access was desired, it's fairly simple, even on a PC
> network, to limit the particular sites to which the users are allowed
> access. I work at the Battle Command Training Center here in Hawaii, on
> Schofield Barracks, and DOIM (the Signal Company that handle our
> Information Management) has locked down quite a few sites - YouTube, for
> example. We are on an Active Directory network as well.
> Actually, it's
> easier on an Active Directory network to lock it down than on a simple
> workgroup.
How exactly? If I were running Firefox, for
example, what interaction would Firefox have with
Active Directory?
Steve
Mayor of R'lyeh
Perhaps you missed the part where they tried to lock it down and some
kid posted instructions on how to get around it. And the argument that
no one in the 20 years computers have been in school has done it right
is wearing a bit thin. Look at your own school district. You assure us
that computers are done right there and it isn't exactly a high point
in education history.
Bruce Grubb
Jim <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
As a substitute I have seen this poor use of technology before and so am
not surprised of the project's failure. Regardless of the lab being Apple,
PC, or Macintosh the administration seemed to think simply setting up
computers and throwing 'educational' software (which tended to be horrid)
on them that somehow the kids would magically improve.
With such a mindset is any wonder big plans like this fail?
Bruce Grubb
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes by posting it to comp.sys.mac.advocacy. Are we going a little too fast
for you PC Guy?
Jim
The operative word is "Tried". They just didn't know what they were
doing and/or had unskilled advice, or lack of good IT. Other schools
don't have these kinds of problems.
> And the argument that
> no one in the 20 years computers have been in school has done it right
> is wearing a bit thin. Look at your own school district. You assure us
> that computers are done right there and it isn't exactly a high point
> in education history.
Where did I say there isn't room for improvement? I didn't. However
you're the naysayer when at my school(k-8) 66% are doing well and of
course the school district has identified the problem, but you don't
like that they have and if they don't, there isn't anyway to solve the
problem, but you're hung up on prejudice labels.
Jim
<timberwoof.spam-EB...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
Perhaps you're right, however as I read your musings, it just seems like
the issues are what teachers are doing(or not doing for that matter)
with the tools, and we're blaming the tool rather than the teachers.
Education today is certainly not what it once was, especially the
basics. Teachers just let things slide. Take handwriting(a poor thing on
a computer too isn't it?). Penmanship isn't taught/emphasized as it once
was so it's sorta glossed over. Then later when a kid writes poorly, in
the manner of a drunk chicken scratching, it's the kids fault when it
really falls to what the kid is learning under the structure of
education.
We don't teach "Geography" per se any more, but have "Social Studies"
and the kids don't know the State Capitals much less where the
continents and countries of the world are, but how is that the fault of
technology and not the fault of the educational system? It's not.
So many are blaming technology because of a larger more fundamental
problem with education which is a problem harder and more costly to fix,
namely what our teachers and schools are using as methodoloty and
curriculum where the real problem lies. Instead, they pick on the easy
larger target which is the low-hanging fruit, namely technology.
PC Guy
wrote:
LOL!
>Are we going a little too fast for you PC Guy?
Yes, you are. Please slow it down for me and go into detail about how
what I posted makes this a Mac/Windows question.
PC Guy
Yes Jim, they do. This isn't an isolated case. The article mentions
more than just this one school. And another study, of 21 schools,
reach the same conclusion. This isn't a case of one school not getting
it right. The tool doesn't work.
PC Guy
wrote:
>In article <jpolaski-3C55AF...@netnews.comcast.net>,
Looks like you and Jim could make a highly successful business being
consultants to schools on this matter. How abuot putting your money
where your mouth is?
Jim
<timberwoof.spam-9A...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
Obviously that isn't being defined, but the technology should support a
good curriculum and good teachers. Now, I'm not saying all teachers are
bad, but teachers have less and less accountability for bad teaching. I
see bad teaching at our own k-8 and HS, and little is done about that,
but the kids get graded unmercifully. Then we blame the kid and
subsequently, technology. It takes more resources to deal with having
better teachers, even more costly than investing in technology.
Look at this report. From the account, the kids were allowed to pretty
much do as they wished, so they exchanged answers on tests, downloaded
porn and hacked stuff. That's certainly not education in the right
sense, yet it's a great example of what not to do isn't it? Maybe it's a
lesson to those implementing technology.
By comparison they don't have a !:1 laptop program at my local HS, but
systems in the school and they're locked down. In fact, the kids can't
use a lot of what is Google to research their papers as it isn't allowed
to work.
Of course then you might also say the kids can go home and do all the
stuff they can't do in a truly locked down system in the school since
most parents aren't technologically sophisticated to manage their own
computers and watch what their kids do on the computer, having it in
public place in the home rather than the kids room behind a closed door.
The point is while it's been some 20 years since computers appeared in
schools, they still aren't being managed right, and more importantly
integrated into curriculums. Schools get computers, don't train
teachers, don't manage the computers, allow the kids to rum willy-nilly
on them, and when the kids fail, blame the technology. That's
wrong-headed.
While computers have been in classrooms for that 20 years or so, it's
only in recent times we've begun to see teachers who have grown up with
the technology appear in the educational system. It was also during that
time that we had the influx of the "new methods" of teaching used on
these teachers when they were kids, and what if those methods didn't
work well back when there wasn't technology? We've still made less than
good teachers, so what if that's part of the problems? Tracing back to
when there wasn't technology, but rather an educational system that's
off the track?
The computer is a lot like a hammer. Used improperly, even a great,
well-balanced new hammer won't drive a nail straight if the blow isn't
struck well. EDucation isn't striking the blow very well.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Did you read the article? I didn't think so. Look at what the kids were
allowed to do,
"LIVERPOOL, N.Y. ‹ The students at Liverpool High have used their
school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography
and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network
security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted
step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they
did)."
This is a fault with administration who has let the kids go wild.
PC Guy
Yes Jim, unlike you.
>I didn't think so. Look at what the kids were allowed to do,
>
>"LIVERPOOL, N.Y. ‹ The students at Liverpool High have used their
>school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography
>and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network
>security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted
>step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they
>did)."
>
>This is a fault with administration who has let the kids go wild.
No Jim, they weren't allowed to do it. The article makes it clear that
they did it on their own.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Who said it was isolated? This is a problem facing lots of schools since
they've done a more than bad job of using the technology properly. It's
not the tool, it's the implementation of the tool that's the problem.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sure they did, but they were allowed to by systems that were not managed
properly by both administration of the school and parents.
PC Guy
You just keep thinking that despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
PC Guy
Why is the implementation so difficult Jim? What are successful (are
there any) schools doing? And why aren't these unsuccessful schools
learning from them?
And you're ignoring other important parts of the article. Things like
repair costs. Are high repair costs a result of poor implementation
too?
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is not the evidence your conclusion is trumpeting, and the answer
is in the first paragraph of the article...the admins let the kids run
wild and didn't manage what the kids did.
get over it.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You haven't looked into this issue much and are just reacting to the
article since it fits your pre-conceived notions.
Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
the seminars. Have you done that?
Schools don't want to spend money(fancy that huh?) so they often cheap
out on tech, purchasing computers and little proper software and of
course training costs money if you train the teachers. Then, if they
have computers, they really neeed support, but since they can't hire
enough teachers, they don't hire IT support, or have an outside vendor
and how long do things take to get done? If they're cheap on support,
training and so on, you can bet they don't do repairs and maintenance on
schedule either and what's set up is a house of cars doomed to fail as
these have or in a similar fashion all because there was no proper tech
plan and funding for same.
Are you getting the picture? Again, I've seen it happen. Just because
one school has done it right, doesn't mean others will follow. Locally,
I saw a parochial school go to another where things were reasonably well
managed, and the parochial school disregarded the advice they had
received, went off on their own plan and in the short term it failed
until they got some good people involved who wrote a good plan and
funded it. Things are better, but they had to undo what was done and
that's expensive too and adds to the costs.
These are some of the reasons schools fail with technology and don't
look to others for knowledge to avoid mistakes.
PC Guy
It's not MY conclusion but that of any 22+ schools and associated
school districts.
>and the answer is in the first paragraph of the article...the admins let the kids run
>wild and didn't manage what the kids did.
Please explain how, from the first paragraph, the following is "admins
let the kids run wild":
"When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not
only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions
on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."
Clearly they took efforts to prevent kids from running wild. Yet they
managed to bypass those efforts.
>get over it.
Yes Jim, get over it. There is a mountain of evidence against you.
PC Guy
*THE* article? Sorry Jim but it's more than just a single article.
There was a study of 21 schools that reached the same conclusion.
>Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
>little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
>and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
>talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
>the seminars. Have you done that?
I'll take the experience of 100's if not 1,000's (possibly 10,000's?)
of people in these school disctricts over your sorry ass any day. Once
again a Mactard thinks he knows better than everyone else despite the
evidence to the contrary.
Edwin
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>
> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
Is he?
PC Guy
>On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>>
>> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>
>Is he?
Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
the contrary.
>http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/06.03/03-study.html
This is an article about computers and college. It's certainly not the
same thing.
Edwin
> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>
> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>
> >Is he?
>
> Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
>
>
>
> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>
> This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
> that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
> the contrary.
You are greatly mistaken. I suggest that you read that site more
thoroughly.
> >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/06.03/03-study.html
>
> This is an article about computers and college. It's certainly not the
> same thing.
It's about the value of computers and technology to education.
PC Guy
>On May 7, 4:37 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>>
>> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>>
>> >Is he?
>>
>> Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>>
>> This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
>> that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
>You are greatly mistaken. I suggest that you read that site more
>thoroughly.
I read it. And I see no reason to change my mind. So far these
one-for-one laptop programs have been a failure.
>> >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/06.03/03-study.html
>>
>> This is an article about computers and college. It's certainly not the
>> same thing.
>
>It's about the value of computers and technology to education.
I think you're under the impression that I feel computers offer no
benefit to education. That's simply not the case. They do offer value.
But not the one-to-one "solutions' being offered to teenagers. Studies
have shown they're failures.
Edwin
> On 7 May 2007 14:51:43 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 7, 4:37 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>
> >> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>
> >> >Is he?
>
> >> Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
>
> >> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>
> >> This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
> >> that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
> >> the contrary.
>
> >You are greatly mistaken. I suggest that you read that site more
> >thoroughly.
>
> I read it. And I see no reason to change my mind. So far these
> one-for-one laptop programs have been a failure.
You should look more closely at the kind of computer that site is
promoting. Also, it's not simply one person's opinion.
> >> >http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/06.03/03-study.html
>
> >> This is an article about computers and college. It's certainly not the
> >> same thing.
>
> >It's about the value of computers and technology to education.
>
> I think you're under the impression that I feel computers offer no
> benefit to education. That's simply not the case. They do offer value.
> But not the one-to-one "solutions' being offered to teenagers. Studies
> have shown they're failures.
Okay, fair enough.
PC Guy
>On May 7, 4:57 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2007 14:51:43 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 7, 4:37 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>>
>> >> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>>
>> >> >Is he?
>>
>> >> Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
>>
>> >> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>>
>> >> This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
>> >> that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
>> >> the contrary.
>>
>> >You are greatly mistaken. I suggest that you read that site more
>> >thoroughly.
>>
>> I read it. And I see no reason to change my mind. So far these
>> one-for-one laptop programs have been a failure.
>
>You should look more closely at the kind of computer that site is
>promoting.
OLPC. Targetted towards a much different demographic than the article
I posted.
>Also, it's not simply one person's opinion.
Is there a specif part of the article you'd like me to look at more
closely?
Edwin
> On 7 May 2007 15:04:29 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 7, 4:57 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2007 14:51:43 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 7, 4:37 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>
> >> >> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>
> >> >> >Is he?
>
> >> >> Of course he is. After all it's Jim we're referring to.
>
> >> >> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>
> >> >> This appears to be nothing more than one persons opinion. Much like
> >> >> that of Polaski it doesn't carry much weight in lieu of evidence to
> >> >> the contrary.
>
> >> >You are greatly mistaken. I suggest that you read that site more
> >> >thoroughly.
>
> >> I read it. And I see no reason to change my mind. So far these
> >> one-for-one laptop programs have been a failure.
>
> >You should look more closely at the kind of computer that site is
> >promoting.
>
> OLPC. Targetted towards a much different demographic than the article
> I posted.
I think the machine they're promoting could be universally applied to
all schools.
> >Also, it's not simply one person's opinion.
>
> Is there a specif part of the article you'd like me to look at more
> closely?
It's not just an article. It's a whole Web site devoted to the
OTPC. There are many articles there, and they offer good reasons why
just looking for dramatic changes in test scores isn't the right thing
to do. It also tells why using computers in schools hasn't been as
successful as it should have been, and how to change this.
PC Guy
Aside from the durability I fail to see how this machine would be any
different than those already deployed.
>> >Also, it's not simply one person's opinion.
>>
>> Is there a specif part of the article you'd like me to look at more
>> closely?
>
>It's not just an article. It's a whole Web site devoted to the
>OTPC.
I noticed many articles but only read the first as I thought that's
what you were referencing.
>There are many articles there, and they offer good reasons why
>just looking for dramatic changes in test scores isn't the right thing
>to do. It also tells why using computers in schools hasn't been as
>successful as it should have been, and how to change this.
The reasons for failure are clear and have been articulated in the
studies and articles from those who have experienced it first hand.
OLPC is not going to change them.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Its always anything but the program's fault, isn't it, Jim?
>
>> And the argument that
>> no one in the 20 years computers have been in school has done it right
>> is wearing a bit thin. Look at your own school district. You assure us
>> that computers are done right there and it isn't exactly a high point
>> in education history.
>
>Where did I say there isn't room for improvement? I didn't. However
>you're the naysayer when at my school(k-8) 66% are doing well and of
>course the school district has identified the problem, but you don't
>like that they have and if they don't, there isn't anyway to solve the
>problem, but you're hung up on prejudice labels.
They've slapped a skin color on the problem and are going to 'remedy'
it by applying skin color. They aren't going to get anywhere as the
problem isn't skin color-centric, its cultural.
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
21 schools screwed up implementing technology and from the article
that's not too hard to imagine. ANY school that lets this stuff as in
the article happen, will fail with technology and for that matter, any
enterprise who would let rampant crap like this go on would have low
productivity. Why do you think many enterprises have restrictions on
what their employees can and cannot do on their 'puter?
>
> >Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
> >little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
> >and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
> >talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
> >the seminars. Have you done that?
>
> I'll take the experience of 100's if not 1,000's (possibly 10,000's?)
> of people in these school disctricts over your sorry ass any day. Once
> again a Mactard thinks he knows better than everyone else despite the
> evidence to the contrary.
yeah, you'll take what's mentioned in the article since it fits your
notions not what can and does work for other schools.
IOW, you're a biased, prejudiced wart, out to get things that don't
agree with your personal agenda.
Now we know, as if we didn't already.
PC Guy
22+ schools Jim. Why are these schools so inept? Why aren't they
taking lessons from schools that are doing it right? I've already
asked you these questions but no answer from you has been given.
>ANY school that lets this stuff as in the article happen, will fail with technology
>and for that matter, any enterprise who would let rampant crap like this go on would have low
>productivity. Why do you think many enterprises have restrictions on
>what their employees can and cannot do on their 'puter?
What is it with Mactards that they think repeating something often
enough will magically make it come true? Or is it your intent to just
solidify to the rest of us how stupid you are? I asked this of you
once, and again no answer. So I'll repeat it here:
Please explain how, from the first paragraph, the following is "admins
let the kids run wild":
"When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not
only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions
on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."
Clearly they took efforts to prevent kids from running wild. Yet they
managed to bypass those efforts.
>> >Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
>> >little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
>> >and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
>> >talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
>> >the seminars. Have you done that?
>>
>> I'll take the experience of 100's if not 1,000's (possibly 10,000's?)
>> of people in these school disctricts over your sorry ass any day. Once
>> again a Mactard thinks he knows better than everyone else despite the
>> evidence to the contrary.
>
>yeah, you'll take what's mentioned in the article since it fits your
>notions not what can and does work for other schools.
I have no preconceived notions about this. I have no interest in a
particular outcome. What I see are facts pointing to the conclusion
that one-on-one laptops in schools isn't working. Being a Mactard I
can see where using facts to reach a conclusion is inconceivable.
>IOW, you're a biased, prejudiced wart, out to get things that don't
>agree with your personal agenda.
What leads you to the conclusion that I have an agenda? I am merely
reviewing the facts and drawing the only reasonable conclusion. If
you've got facts to support your side of the argument I'll be happy to
review them.
>Now we know, as if we didn't already.
Yes, we've known for a long time that, being a Mactard, facts escape
you.
[ snip ]
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
>>
>> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
>
>Is he?
>
>http://www.olpcnews.com/
His main criticism seems to be that people teach to the tests. This is
easy to point at if you've forgotten why those tests were put in place
in the first place. The educational establishment was busy giving us
things like Outcome Based Education where the goal wasn't so much
about actually learning anything as it was about feeling really good
about being really stupid. They also gave us crap like Whole Language
which, again wasn't so much about teaching reading as it was teaching
kids how to feel good about being illiterate.
It was because of things like this that states starting initiating
standards and establishing tests to measure how well those standards
were being met.
And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
His next criticism is that textbooks are static and in alterable. This
is technically true but it can be overcome. I remember several
teachers in college, high and grade schools who changed the order we
went through chapters and who handed out worksheets and sections of
other texts that they felt better explained the topic.
His call for open sourcing educational software and allowing teachers
and students to upload their own versions is a call for unworkable
chaos. Who would have time to go through the thousands of versions
that would result?
His last criticism may be the most valid one and it seems to be the
basis of Mr. Mir's article - One Laptop per Child programs don't seem
to work in the US because American schools already have so many
informational resources especially when compared to most overseas
schools. Most American students already have computers and Internet
access at home. Adding a laptop at school in American schools is about
a big jump in informational access as it takes to clear a pebble. For
most overseas schools it would be like jumping over the moon.
>http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/06.03/03-study.html
This about college students for the most part. That's totally
different from grade school and high school kids. They're not learning
the basics anymore. The one mention it does give to high school kids
is to say that ambitious students were using technology to get ahead.
Ambitious students have always worked to get ahead, using whatever was
available.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Newton said he only did what he did because he "...stood on the
shoulders of those who came before him." To that point, I have no idea
why schools/districts don't learn from other's mistakes and problems,
but it's obvious they don't. Other than as I stated, I watched a school
go on it's own path after it was shown the way and I can only think it
was arrogance, that even not having written a tech plan, and having the
advice of a school successful in using them, the school went off on it's
own thinking it knew better when it didn't and it's program late failed
and had to be rebuilt. Obviously neither YOU nor I can be inside their
heads, so guessing isn't going to do it.
>
> >ANY school that lets this stuff as in the article happen, will fail with
> >technology
> >and for that matter, any enterprise who would let rampant crap like this go
> >on would have low
> >productivity. Why do you think many enterprises have restrictions on
> >what their employees can and cannot do on their 'puter?
>
> What is it with Mactards that they think repeating something often
> enough will magically make it come true? Or is it your intent to just
> solidify to the rest of us how stupid you are? I asked this of you
> once, and again no answer. So I'll repeat it here:
>
> Please explain how, from the first paragraph, the following is "admins
> let the kids run wild":
>
> "When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not
> only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions
> on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."
>
> Clearly they took efforts to prevent kids from running wild. Yet they
> managed to bypass those efforts.
They didn't do enough. If the IT folks aren't brighter than the kids,
there really is a problemo. You, apparently don't get that or don't know
what administration is available to schools.
>
> >> >Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
> >> >little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
> >> >and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
> >> >talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
> >> >the seminars. Have you done that?
> >>
> >> I'll take the experience of 100's if not 1,000's (possibly 10,000's?)
> >> of people in these school disctricts over your sorry ass any day. Once
> >> again a Mactard thinks he knows better than everyone else despite the
> >> evidence to the contrary.
> >
> >yeah, you'll take what's mentioned in the article since it fits your
> >notions not what can and does work for other schools.
>
> I have no preconceived notions about this. I have no interest in a
> particular outcome. What I see are facts pointing to the conclusion
> that one-on-one laptops in schools isn't working. Being a Mactard I
> can see where using facts to reach a conclusion is inconceivable.
Sure you do. You'll throw out the baby with the bath water just because
you see an article like this one and condem them all based on this
article.
It's a good thing you weren't on the Mayflower or one of the Conestoga
Wagons going out west, you would have bailed at the first difficulties.
>
> >IOW, you're a biased, prejudiced wart, out to get things that don't
> >agree with your personal agenda.
>
> What leads you to the conclusion that I have an agenda? I am merely
> reviewing the facts and drawing the only reasonable conclusion. If
> you've got facts to support your side of the argument I'll be happy to
> review them.
Hmpft. You're reviewing this article with a report on 22+schools and
you're incapable of reading what is actually there. Namely that
administration didn't know how to go far enough to lock down the
schools.
For example, here's what the locak k-8 uses and there are few problems.
http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/
>
> >Now we know, as if we didn't already.
>
> Yes, we've known for a long time that, being a Mactard, facts escape
> you.
You're the one missing it pal, I've been involved with a local district,
one private school and at educational conferences doing my part to give
back. What have you done with technology in education other than whine,
cry, moan like a widdle-kiddy throwing a tantrum?
PC Guy
Why not? You seem to be hell fire bent that they're doing something
wrong. In order to be this confident surely you have information not
mentioned in the article.
>Other than as I stated, I watched a school go on it's own path after it was
>shown the way and I can only think it was arrogance, that even not having written
>a tech plan, and having the advice of a school successful in using them, the
>school went off on it's own thinking it knew better when it didn't and it's program
>late failed and had to be rebuilt. Obviously neither YOU nor I can be inside their
>heads, so guessing isn't going to do it.
But that's EXACTLY what you're doing: Guessing. You have no idea if
they're doing it "right" or "wrong". You're just speculating because
you disagree with the conclusion.
>> >ANY school that lets this stuff as in the article happen, will fail with
>> >technology
>> >and for that matter, any enterprise who would let rampant crap like this go
>> >on would have low
>> >productivity. Why do you think many enterprises have restrictions on
>> >what their employees can and cannot do on their 'puter?
>>
>> What is it with Mactards that they think repeating something often
>> enough will magically make it come true? Or is it your intent to just
>> solidify to the rest of us how stupid you are? I asked this of you
>> once, and again no answer. So I'll repeat it here:
>>
>> Please explain how, from the first paragraph, the following is "admins
>> let the kids run wild":
>>
>> "When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not
>> only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions
>> on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."
>>
>> Clearly they took efforts to prevent kids from running wild. Yet they
>> managed to bypass those efforts.
>
>They didn't do enough. If the IT folks aren't brighter than the kids,
>there really is a problemo. You, apparently don't get that or don't know
>what administration is available to schools.
Are you really this ignorant Jim? Everyone knows it's damn near
impossible to secure a computer from someone who has physical access
to it.
>> >> >Schools, many of them, purchase or have purchased technology and gave
>> >> >little thought to 1) technology plan 2) teacher training 3) maintenance
>> >> >and a few other things and I've seen these very things happen and while
>> >> >talking at a few education conferences heard such accounts from folks at
>> >> >the seminars. Have you done that?
>> >>
>> >> I'll take the experience of 100's if not 1,000's (possibly 10,000's?)
>> >> of people in these school disctricts over your sorry ass any day. Once
>> >> again a Mactard thinks he knows better than everyone else despite the
>> >> evidence to the contrary.
>> >
>> >yeah, you'll take what's mentioned in the article since it fits your
>> >notions not what can and does work for other schools.
>>
>> I have no preconceived notions about this. I have no interest in a
>> particular outcome. What I see are facts pointing to the conclusion
>> that one-on-one laptops in schools isn't working. Being a Mactard I
>> can see where using facts to reach a conclusion is inconceivable.
>
>Sure you do. You'll throw out the baby with the bath water just because
>you see an article like this one and condem them all based on this
>article.
It's not "one article" Jim. It's an article that speaks about a number
of schools. Schools who reached the same conclusion as a STUDY on this
very topic. You act as if this is an isolated incident posted on some
blog somewhere. The article in "question" was from the N.Y. Times.
>It's a good thing you weren't on the Mayflower or one of the Conestoga
>Wagons going out west, you would have bailed at the first difficulties.
This isn't the first sign Jim. It's another in a long line. At some
time you've got to know when to throw in the towel and admit defeat.
>> >IOW, you're a biased, prejudiced wart, out to get things that don't
>> >agree with your personal agenda.
>>
>> What leads you to the conclusion that I have an agenda? I am merely
>> reviewing the facts and drawing the only reasonable conclusion. If
>> you've got facts to support your side of the argument I'll be happy to
>> review them.
>
>Hmpft. You're reviewing this article with a report on 22+schools and
>you're incapable of reading what is actually there. Namely that
>administration didn't know how to go far enough to lock down the
>schools.
>
>For example, here's what the locak k-8 uses and there are few problems.
>http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/
>>
>> >Now we know, as if we didn't already.
>>
>> Yes, we've known for a long time that, being a Mactard, facts escape
>> you.
>
>You're the one missing it pal, I've been involved with a local district,
>one private school and at educational conferences doing my part to give
>back. What have you done with technology in education other than whine,
>cry, moan like a widdle-kiddy throwing a tantrum?
What does it matter? My qualifications in this area are slim to none.
What's important are the qualifications of the 100's or 1,000'
(10,000's?) of people the article and study refers to. Sorry Jim but
I'll differ my opinion based on their feedback and not some snotty
Mactard in this forum who has demonstrated beyond any doubt their
inability to see facts clearly in evidence.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why would I have more info than is what is in the article, which btw is
enough to ascertain that the schools technology was very poorly
administered.
>
> >Other than as I stated, I watched a school go on it's own path after it was
> >shown the way and I can only think it was arrogance, that even not having
> >written
> >a tech plan, and having the advice of a school successful in using them, the
> >school went off on it's own thinking it knew better when it didn't and it's
> >program
> >late failed and had to be rebuilt. Obviously neither YOU nor I can be
> >inside their
> >heads, so guessing isn't going to do it.
>
> But that's EXACTLY what you're doing: Guessing. You have no idea if
> they're doing it "right" or "wrong". You're just speculating because
> you disagree with the conclusion.
You can't possibly be this much in the dark. When the kids hack the
system, there's something wrong and at the admin level. Get it? It's not
rocket science and nor is it a difficult concept to grasp.
>
> >> >ANY school that lets this stuff as in the article happen, will fail with
> >> >technology
> >> >and for that matter, any enterprise who would let rampant crap like this
> >> >go
> >> >on would have low
> >> >productivity. Why do you think many enterprises have restrictions on
> >> >what their employees can and cannot do on their 'puter?
> >>
> >> What is it with Mactards that they think repeating something often
> >> enough will magically make it come true? Or is it your intent to just
> >> solidify to the rest of us how stupid you are? I asked this of you
> >> once, and again no answer. So I'll repeat it here:
> >>
> >> Please explain how, from the first paragraph, the following is "admins
> >> let the kids run wild":
> >>
> >> "When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not
> >> only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions
> >> on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."
> >>
> >> Clearly they took efforts to prevent kids from running wild. Yet they
> >> managed to bypass those efforts.
> >
> >They didn't do enough. If the IT folks aren't brighter than the kids,
> >there really is a problemo. You, apparently don't get that or don't know
> >what administration is available to schools.
>
> Are you really this ignorant Jim? Everyone knows it's damn near
> impossible to secure a computer from someone who has physical access
> to it.
IT guys, good knowledgeable folks can secure systems from the kids, so
that stuff like what happens in the article posted here doesn't happen.
Does that mean the systems are perfect? No. But it does mean there
aren't rampant problems as was reported in the article.
I could even argue that because they had Wintel PC's it was easier to
hack, but that's another discussion.
If you re-read your own posted article there were no studies over the 21
schools. One study was about math and reading( hardly conclusive)
Another study, over 42 middle schools(Texas Center for Educational
Research) was only suggested high-achieving students may perform better
in math with laptops. Still another found (Laptops and Literacy) only
studied 10 schools in Maine and Ca. and that study was done by Mark
Warschauer who also stated of the Liverpool school, "...schools like
Liverpool might be giving up too soon because it takes time to train
teachers to use the new technology and integrate it into their classes."
which contradicts your conclusions.
How about the hardware failure rate? It's abysmal but then I'm sure they
bought cheap Wintel Laptops(the lowest bidder thing as schools often do)
and what happens? They break. Just like the cheapo desktops a school
here bought with nic's that didn't work or failed within 6 months and
stuff like that. How much do you think the hardware failure contributed
to the kids lack of achievement? It's hard to learn with your laptop
sitting in the repair center.
>
> >It's a good thing you weren't on the Mayflower or one of the Conestoga
> >Wagons going out west, you would have bailed at the first difficulties.
>
> This isn't the first sign Jim. It's another in a long line. At some
> time you've got to know when to throw in the towel and admit defeat.
>
> >> >IOW, you're a biased, prejudiced wart, out to get things that don't
> >> >agree with your personal agenda.
> >>
> >> What leads you to the conclusion that I have an agenda? I am merely
> >> reviewing the facts and drawing the only reasonable conclusion. If
> >> you've got facts to support your side of the argument I'll be happy to
> >> review them.
> >
> >Hmpft. You're reviewing this article with a report on 22+schools and
> >you're incapable of reading what is actually there. Namely that
> >administration didn't know how to go far enough to lock down the
> >schools.
> >
> >For example, here's what the locak k-8 uses and there are few problems.
> >http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/
> >>
> >> >Now we know, as if we didn't already.
> >>
> >> Yes, we've known for a long time that, being a Mactard, facts escape
> >> you.
> >
> >You're the one missing it pal, I've been involved with a local district,
> >one private school and at educational conferences doing my part to give
> >back. What have you done with technology in education other than whine,
> >cry, moan like a widdle-kiddy throwing a tantrum?
>
> What does it matter? My qualifications in this area are slim to none.
So, then you're automagically qualified to evaluate and pontificate.
Just like the other WinNuts here.
> What's important are the qualifications of the 100's or 1,000'
> (10,000's?) of people the article and study refers to.
As I've pointed out, all your "studies" do not cover the same things and
the article even contradicts what's seen happening as I've quoted above.
>
>Sorry Jim but
> I'll differ my opinion based on their feedback and not some snotty
> Mactard in this forum who has demonstrated beyond any doubt their
> inability to see facts clearly in evidence.
Sorry there rarefied PC, it's that Denver air getting to you again. I'll
stick with what I've found from experience while you pontificate based
on your not having any experience with technology in education.
PC Guy
You're hopeless.
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been involved with education, you haven't but you're here being the
critic...your picture is way out of focus.
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
>
> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=2&pagewa...
> >>
> >> No surprise Jim is wrong again.
> >
> >Is he?
> >
> >http://www.olpcnews.com/
>
> His main criticism seems to be that people teach to the tests. This is
> easy to point at if you've forgotten why those tests were put in place
> in the first place. The educational establishment was busy giving us
> things like Outcome Based Education where the goal wasn't so much
> about actually learning anything as it was about feeling really good
> about being really stupid. They also gave us crap like Whole Language
> which, again wasn't so much about teaching reading as it was teaching
> kids how to feel good about being illiterate.
>
> It was because of things like this that states starting initiating
> standards and establishing tests to measure how well those standards
> were being met.
>
> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
coaching services would make things worse.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Snit
znu-EC12F9.0...@individual.net on 5/10/07 11:44 PM:
>>> http://www.olpcnews.com/
>>
>> His main criticism seems to be that people teach to the tests. This is
>> easy to point at if you've forgotten why those tests were put in place
>> in the first place. The educational establishment was busy giving us
>> things like Outcome Based Education where the goal wasn't so much
>> about actually learning anything as it was about feeling really good
>> about being really stupid. They also gave us crap like Whole Language
>> which, again wasn't so much about teaching reading as it was teaching
>> kids how to feel good about being illiterate.
>>
>> It was because of things like this that states starting initiating
>> standards and establishing tests to measure how well those standards
>> were being met.
>>
>> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
>> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
>> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
>
> The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
> memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
> thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
> for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
> coaching services would make things worse.
I had a meeting with a school just the other day. They are looking at
bettering their technical / computer program and I was called in as a
consultant. One of the things I suggested was to teach both the kids *and*
the staff how to use MS Office (or similar) better - understand in Word how
to use tabs, footnotes, headers, footers, etc... understand in Excel at
least how to do basic math calculations and charting... understand in
PowerPoint the importance of notes and focus on how to give a presentation
and not all the bells and whistles. These things - based on the work they
showed me and my talk with staff and students - were severally lacking at
the school. No go. Those things are not tested on standardized tests and
thus are not considered important. Instead the school wants to focus on
AutoCad and Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Final Cut and other pro
applications because those things are more "showy" and impress parents more.
Now I have nothing against having such things in high schools - in fact I
think it is a great thing and have taught Photoshop and Dreamweaver in
schools - but to ignore the basics in favor of those is silly... and to do
so based on their reasons is even worse. They want two things: to do well
on standardized tests and to do showy things for parents.
No child left behind? Utter BS!
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> stated in post
> znu-EC12F9.0...@individual.net on 5/10/07 11:44 PM:
>
> >>> http://www.olpcnews.com/
> >>
> >> His main criticism seems to be that people teach to the tests. This is
> >> easy to point at if you've forgotten why those tests were put in place
> >> in the first place. The educational establishment was busy giving us
> >> things like Outcome Based Education where the goal wasn't so much
> >> about actually learning anything as it was about feeling really good
> >> about being really stupid. They also gave us crap like Whole Language
> >> which, again wasn't so much about teaching reading as it was teaching
> >> kids how to feel good about being illiterate.
> >>
> >> It was because of things like this that states starting initiating
> >> standards and establishing tests to measure how well those standards
> >> were being met.
> >>
> >> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
> >> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
> >> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
> >
> > The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
> > memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
> > thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
> > for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
> > coaching services would make things worse.
>
> I had a meeting with a school just the other day
Sigh... here we go again...
(snip Snit's delusions)
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Snit
noone-253187....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/11/07 12:19 PM:
> In article <C2696235.80B40%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> stated in post
>> znu-EC12F9.0...@individual.net on 5/10/07 11:44 PM:
>>
>>>>> http://www.olpcnews.com/
>>>>
>>>> His main criticism seems to be that people teach to the tests. This is
>>>> easy to point at if you've forgotten why those tests were put in place
>>>> in the first place. The educational establishment was busy giving us
>>>> things like Outcome Based Education where the goal wasn't so much
>>>> about actually learning anything as it was about feeling really good
>>>> about being really stupid. They also gave us crap like Whole Language
>>>> which, again wasn't so much about teaching reading as it was teaching
>>>> kids how to feel good about being illiterate.
>>>>
>>>> It was because of things like this that states starting initiating
>>>> standards and establishing tests to measure how well those standards
>>>> were being met.
>>>>
>>>> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
>>>> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
>>>> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
>>>
>>> The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
>>> memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
>>> thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
>>> for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
>>> coaching services would make things worse.
>>
>> I had a meeting with a school just the other day. They are looking at
>> bettering their technical / computer program and I was called in as a
>> consultant. One of the things I suggested was to teach both the kids *and*
>> the staff how to use MS Office (or similar) better - understand in Word how
>> to use tabs, footnotes, headers, footers, etc... understand in Excel at least
>> how to do basic math calculations and charting... understand in PowerPoint
>> the importance of notes and focus on how to give a presentation and not all
>> the bells and whistles. These things - based on the work they showed me and
>> my talk with staff and students - were severally lacking at the school. No
>> go. Those things are not tested on standardized tests and thus are not
>> considered important. Instead the school wants to focus on AutoCad and
>> Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Final Cut and other pro applications because
>> those things are more "showy" and impress parents more.
>>
>> Now I have nothing against having such things in high schools - in fact I
>> think it is a great thing and have taught Photoshop and Dreamweaver in
>> schools - but to ignore the basics in favor of those is silly... and to do so
>> based on their reasons is even worse. They want two things: to do well on
>> standardized tests and to do showy things for parents.
>>
>> No child left behind? Utter BS!
>
> Sigh... here we go again...
Yes... here we go again: in a thread where I do not even hint about you and
your lies you dive in and try to turn it into another of your circuses.
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
I returned what you snipped. Now, Steve, here is the challenge: what
comment of mine that you snipped do you think is a "delusion"? The answer
is clear: none - none at all. If you did you would have pointed it out
already. You merely are begging for my attention.
Please, Steve don't you ruin enough threads? Can't you leave this one
alone?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
C'mon, Snit... we all know that you never leave the house. How can you post 24/7
all damn week and do all this stuff you claim to do? Sorry, it's just not
selling.
Snit
>>>> I had a meeting with a school just the other day. They are looking at
>>>> bettering their technical / computer program and I was called in as a
>>>> consultant. One of the things I suggested was to teach both the kids *and*
>>>> the staff how to use MS Office (or similar) better - understand in Word how
>>>> to use tabs, footnotes, headers, footers, etc... understand in Excel at
>>>> least how to do basic math calculations and charting... understand in
>>>> PowerPoint the importance of notes and focus on how to give a presentation
>>>> and not all the bells and whistles. These things - based on the work they
>>>> showed me and my talk with staff and students - were severally lacking at
>>>> the school. No go. Those things are not tested on standardized tests and
>>>> thus are not considered important. Instead the school wants to focus on
>>>> AutoCad and Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Final Cut and other pro
>>>> applications because those things are more "showy" and impress parents
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Now I have nothing against having such things in high schools - in fact I
>>>> think it is a great thing and have taught Photoshop and Dreamweaver in
>>>> schools - but to ignore the basics in favor of those is silly... and to do
>>>> so based on their reasons is even worse. They want two things: to do well
>>>> on standardized tests and to do showy things for parents.
>>>>
>>>> No child left behind? Utter BS!
>>>>
>>> Sigh... here we go again...
>>>
>> Yes... here we go again: in a thread where I do not even hint about you and
>> your lies you dive in and try to turn it into another of your circuses.
>>
>>> (snip Snit's delusions)
>>>
>> I returned what you snipped. Now, Steve, here is the challenge: what comment
>> of mine that you snipped do you think is a "delusion"? The answer is clear:
>> none - none at all. If you did you would have pointed it out already. You
>> merely are begging for my attention.
>>
>> Please, Steve don't you ruin enough threads? Can't you leave this one alone?
>>
> C'mon, Snit... we all know that you never leave the house. How can you post
> 24/7 all damn week and do all this stuff you claim to do? Sorry, it's just not
> selling.
Your answer, clearly, is "no". You simply cannot leave this thread alone.
You are not able to control yourself from spewing your crap into every
thread I am in - no matter how innocuous my comments... even to the point
where you spew the lies you just did.
You are pathetic, Steve. Really.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Jim
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
They think they tightened their security, but it's obvious they didn't
when the kids hacked it. They need better IT.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Worse than being indoctrination centers into factless stupidity?
Critical thinking and meaningful understanding are things that really
can't be taught. People either develop it or they don't.
>
>[snip]
DCA
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:44:49 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <tit1431ddt4kfjc5b...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
> >> us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
> >> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
> >> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
Fact recall is one of the weakest, least retained, least applied methods
of learning.
> >The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
> >memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
> >thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
> >for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
> >coaching services would make things worse.
>
> Worse than being indoctrination centers into factless stupidity?
> Critical thinking and meaningful understanding are things that really
> can't be taught. People either develop it or they don't.
Good lord, that's the most ignorant post I've read in a while. You have
little to no connection with anything anywhere near an educational
field, do you? Hope to God you don't have any children.
DCA
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>In article <3on653h9279uksnia...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:44:49 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <tit1431ddt4kfjc5b...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
>> >> us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
>> >> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
>> >> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
>
>Fact recall is one of the weakest, least retained, least applied methods
>of learning.
And we're seeing the results of that.
>> >The easiest way to pass most standardized tests is to memorize facts and
>> >memorize sets of steps for solving certain types of problems. Critical
>> >thinking and meaningful understanding of subject matter are hard to test
>> >for. Schools are already weak in those areas. Turning schools into test
>> >coaching services would make things worse.
>>
>> Worse than being indoctrination centers into factless stupidity?
>> Critical thinking and meaningful understanding are things that really
>> can't be taught. People either develop it or they don't.
>
>Good lord, that's the most ignorant post I've read in a while.
You think being stupid and proud is an improvement? That's the most
ignorant thing I've ever heard.
> You have
>little to no connection with anything anywhere near an educational
>field, do you?
Probably a lot more than you ever will.
> Hope to God you don't have any children.
I hope that you don't have any. I already support too many welfare
cases as it is.
>DCA
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:52:10 -0400, DCA <d...@dcca.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <3on653h9279uksnia...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:44:49 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <tit1431ddt4kfjc5b...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
> >> >> us with the following wisdom:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
> >> >> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
> >> >> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
> >
> >Fact recall is one of the weakest, least retained, least applied methods
> >of learning.
>
> And we're seeing the results of that.
Are we? Do you really believe that the problem with the graduates the
American public education system is turing out is that students can't
answer trivia questions? These days, most simple facts can be discovered
with 10 a second web search.
To address what you said in your response to me... critical thinking and
meaningful comprehension *can* be taught. Most non-introductory level
college courses focus on these skills, rather than memorization. The
simplest method of teaching them is to have students do a lot of
reading, and have classroom discussions and essays that require an
understanding the material.
Of course, both of these things require small class sizes to work well,
which is why standardized testing has emerged as a supposed panacea in
the minds of those who have no real desire to properly fund education.
Mayor of R'lyeh
On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:02:58 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <5np6539t223t4hhf1...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:52:10 -0400, DCA <d...@dcca.com> chose to bless
>> us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <3on653h9279uksnia...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:44:49 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
>> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <tit1431ddt4kfjc5b...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 7 May 2007 14:17:23 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
>> >> >> us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On May 5, 11:21 am, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> And what's so bad about teaching to the test anyway? So long as the
>> >> >> test covers what children should be learning anyway its not going to
>> >> >> be any different from the lessons they should be getting taught.
>> >
>> >Fact recall is one of the weakest, least retained, least applied methods
>> >of learning.
>>
>> And we're seeing the results of that.
>
>Are we?
You haven't noticed that most kids today are morons and think that
they're entitled to the world?
> Do you really believe that the problem with the graduates the
>American public education system is turing out is that students can't
>answer trivia questions? These days, most simple facts can be discovered
>with 10 a second web search.
You need a certain base to build upon. You can dismiss it as trivia if
you want but any kind of education is going to impart facts that need
to be memorized.
>To address what you said in your response to me... critical thinking and
>meaningful comprehension *can* be taught. Most non-introductory level
>college courses focus on these skills, rather than memorization.
You're talking about college, I'm talking about elementary school. The
reason those college courses don't stress memorization is that you're
supposed to have them already memorized. How, for instance, are you
going to have a meaningful discussion on the effects of the Battle Of
Hastings if no one knows anything about it?
> The
>simplest method of teaching them is to have students do a lot of
>reading, and have classroom discussions and essays that require an
>understanding the material.
>
>Of course, both of these things require small class sizes to work well,
>which is why standardized testing has emerged as a supposed panacea in
>the minds of those who have no real desire to properly fund education.
I know educators won't be happy until teaching is a sure road to
riches but that's not what society has decided. And quite frankly why
should we pay more for the performance levels we're getting? If
someone in any other field performed as poorly as your average teacher
is right now they'd be out on their ass and no one would take their
whining seriously. The fact is that educations gets plenty of money
and that plenty of it gets wasted.
We had a couple of districts around here that whined and whined about
how they didn't have enough money for academics. Finally the people
approved substantial tax increases. Suddenly priorities changed. What
one district decided that they 'really' needed was a pool complex that
would do any Olympics proud and the other one decided 'really' needed
a football stadium that most mid-level colleges would drool over.
Guess what gets brought up every time some school district around here
whines about not having enough money? Guess how many tax increases
have been passed since then?
>[snip]
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:02:58 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
[snip]
> >To address what you said in your response to me... critical thinking and
> >meaningful comprehension *can* be taught. Most non-introductory level
> >college courses focus on these skills, rather than memorization.
>
> You're talking about college, I'm talking about elementary school. The
> reason those college courses don't stress memorization is that you're
> supposed to have them already memorized. How, for instance, are you
> going to have a meaningful discussion on the effects of the Battle Of
> Hastings if no one knows anything about it?
In my experience, most higher level college classes *don't* expect you
to already know all the facts going in. It's not as if they have
students memorize Aristotle in high school and then talk about Aristotle
in college.
But there's still a difference.
You can have students read something that says "The Second World War
started on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland", and then
give them a multiple choice test to determine whether they memorized
that information.
Or, and this is what would happen in any properly taught college course,
you can teach students about the social and political context that led
to the start of the war, and then have them answer essay questions like
"What role did the phenomenon of nationalism play in causing World War
II?"
The students who are taught this second way might not remember all the
names and dates on the day of the test. They will have some
understanding, however, of what WWII was actually about, and they'll
probably retain that information.
In contrast, students taught the first way won't really have much of an
idea of what WWII was about. Even if they can repeat whatever theory the
guy who wrote the textbook advanced on that subject, they won't really
understand what it means and they won't have gained any experience
thinking critically about such issues. They'll know more raw facts on
the day of the test, but odds are they'll forget them a couple of weeks
later.
It's pretty obvious which one of these approaches is going to lead to a
more usefully educated individual.
There is no reason why education focused on concepts and critical
thinking cannot start right at the beginning of the education process.
Good teachers already teach this way, even in the lowest grades.
Standardized testing actively discourages this, however. The teacher who
focuses on concepts and critical thinking is likely to produce students
who score lower on standardized tests than the teacher who exclusively
teaches facts likely to appear on the tests.
> > The
> >simplest method of teaching them is to have students do a lot of
> >reading, and have classroom discussions and essays that require an
> >understanding the material.
> >
> >Of course, both of these things require small class sizes to work well,
> >which is why standardized testing has emerged as a supposed panacea in
> >the minds of those who have no real desire to properly fund education.
>
> I know educators won't be happy until teaching is a sure road to
> riches but that's not what society has decided. And quite frankly why
> should we pay more for the performance levels we're getting?
You'll notice I was discussing smaller class sizes, not higher teacher
salaries.
Though I will note that in practically any other field, if an
organization wants better people, it offers more compensation. If you
want to attract the best people to the teaching profession, you're going
to have to pay them something like what they could get in other fields.
Higher teacher pay is probably a necessarily step in fixing the problem,
though certainly not by itself sufficient.