Slashdot Mirror

I find this portion of the resolution rather puzzling:

"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."

How will the district determine if student access/achievement is *not* predictable?

Oh wait...here's what's listed first under district goals:

Access & Equity - Make Social Justice a Reality.

Explains a lot.

Wow... I can't believe the ethnicity breakdown listed for that school... 74% of students are Asian, 12% Latino and only 3.4% Caucasian!
And from the Wikipedia article... "Math scores remain one of Galileo's best academic strengths"... Lol.

Well, among the kids in San Francisco, Galileo is known as a "fob" school. I haven't actually gone to verify it, but a lot of the students may not even speak English that well.

The socially adjusted kids want to go to Lincoln or Washington or Balboa. The smart kids' parents force them to go to Lowell. (64% Asian, 8% Latino, 14% Caucasian)

The ethnic breakdown is a little misleading. San Francisco has a lot of Asian immigrants, and immigrants have more children than native United States citizens, so there are way more Asian kids than normal. SFUSD as a whole is 35% Asian, 24% Latino, and 12% Caucasian.

Wow... I can't believe the ethnicity breakdown listed for that school... 74% of students are Asian, 12% Latino and only 3.4% Caucasian!
And from the Wikipedia article... "Math scores remain one of Galileo's best academic strengths"... Lol.

Well, among the kids in San Francisco, Galileo is known as a "fob" school. I haven't actually gone to verify it, but a lot of the students may not even speak English that well.

The socially adjusted kids want to go to Lincoln or Washington or Balboa. The smart kids' parents force them to go to Lowell. (64% Asian, 8% Latino, 14% Caucasian)

The ethnic breakdown is a little misleading. San Francisco has a lot of Asian immigrants, and immigrants have more children than native United States citizens, so there are way more Asian kids than normal. SFUSD as a whole is 35% Asian, 24% Latino, and 12% Caucasian.

1.), regarding the Church's response to the printing of books: It was the printing part which made books a threat; books themselves predated the printing press by centuries. And, of course, written records of knowledge pre-dated the "book" format by a lot more -- scrolls, tablets, and wall inscriptions are all forms of written communication. No, it was not the books that were threatening to the Church: it was the printing press, which made it a lot harder for the Church to control the dissemination of knowledge. It is not surprising that the Reformation was underway within 100 years of Gutenberg's printing press (invented 1436, completed 1440); the printing press made it possible to create and disseminate heretical works much more widely, presenting a great challenge to the Church's authority.

Oh, and I'll admit that it was a bit disingenuous to claim that they didn't have classrooms; that was a rather feeble attempt at humor. In future I shall keep my jokes strictly to myself, to avoid confusing people.

2.) I did not blame a technology (TV, in that case) for poor pedagogy. I merely observed that it can be used in one of two ways (well or poorly), and provided an example from my own experience of one poor application. Perhaps I should have included an example of a good application, for balance; but offhand I can't think of a time when I was particularly impressed by the use of a TV in the classroom.

3.) I don't quite understand your argument. Furthermore, I think we actually agree on this point. I was arguing, first, that technology is not strictly necessary; and second, that it can be immensely valuable when used properly. It isn't strictly necessary: you could get by without it, as evidenced by the fact that people did get by with out it until very recently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use technology in schools; just that we don't absolutely require it, as the original poster suggested.

In addition, I said that ". . . they [computers] should be a supplement, not a staple. There's plenty of time for more computer-centric education during the later years of education (eg ages 12 and up)." That would seem to be in line with your statement that ". . . a much more advanced set of problems can be solved and explained using technology AFTER basic fundamentals have been mastered." In brief, computers should be used in moderation, as a supplement to more basic skills, particularly in early education. How are we in disagreement here?

4.) I will concede you this point; I do not know enough about K-12 expenditures. As this guy pointed out already, with better data and much more politely.

I DO, however, know that the San Francisco Unified School District referred to in the article has recently experienced budget cuts because of the State of California's 1.7 billion dollar cut to the education budget, and that they are currently working on a "Master Technology Plan", which they hope ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They are planning public forums starting in February to get public input on ways to do that. At such a time, is it really unreasonable to suggest switching away from expensive proprietary solutions?

It may be that you're right, that Linux isn't ready for widespread desktop usage in K-12 schools. (Though this school and this one and this one an

1.), regarding the Church's response to the printing of books: It was the printing part which made books a threat; books themselves predated the printing press by centuries. And, of course, written records of knowledge pre-dated the "book" format by a lot more -- scrolls, tablets, and wall inscriptions are all forms of written communication. No, it was not the books that were threatening to the Church: it was the printing press, which made it a lot harder for the Church to control the dissemination of knowledge. It is not surprising that the Reformation was underway within 100 years of Gutenberg's printing press (invented 1436, completed 1440); the printing press made it possible to create and disseminate heretical works much more widely, presenting a great challenge to the Church's authority.

Oh, and I'll admit that it was a bit disingenuous to claim that they didn't have classrooms; that was a rather feeble attempt at humor. In future I shall keep my jokes strictly to myself, to avoid confusing people.

2.) I did not blame a technology (TV, in that case) for poor pedagogy. I merely observed that it can be used in one of two ways (well or poorly), and provided an example from my own experience of one poor application. Perhaps I should have included an example of a good application, for balance; but offhand I can't think of a time when I was particularly impressed by the use of a TV in the classroom.

3.) I don't quite understand your argument. Furthermore, I think we actually agree on this point. I was arguing, first, that technology is not strictly necessary; and second, that it can be immensely valuable when used properly. It isn't strictly necessary: you could get by without it, as evidenced by the fact that people did get by with out it until very recently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use technology in schools; just that we don't absolutely require it, as the original poster suggested.

In addition, I said that ". . . they [computers] should be a supplement, not a staple. There's plenty of time for more computer-centric education during the later years of education (eg ages 12 and up)." That would seem to be in line with your statement that ". . . a much more advanced set of problems can be solved and explained using technology AFTER basic fundamentals have been mastered." In brief, computers should be used in moderation, as a supplement to more basic skills, particularly in early education. How are we in disagreement here?

4.) I will concede you this point; I do not know enough about K-12 expenditures. As this guy pointed out already, with better data and much more politely.

I DO, however, know that the San Francisco Unified School District referred to in the article has recently experienced budget cuts because of the State of California's 1.7 billion dollar cut to the education budget, and that they are currently working on a "Master Technology Plan", which they hope ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They are planning public forums starting in February to get public input on ways to do that. At such a time, is it really unreasonable to suggest switching away from expensive proprietary solutions?

It may be that you're right, that Linux isn't ready for widespread desktop usage in K-12 schools. (Though this school and this one and this one an

1.), regarding the Church's response to the printing of books: It was the printing part which made books a threat; books themselves predated the printing press by centuries. And, of course, written records of knowledge pre-dated the "book" format by a lot more -- scrolls, tablets, and wall inscriptions are all forms of written communication. No, it was not the books that were threatening to the Church: it was the printing press, which made it a lot harder for the Church to control the dissemination of knowledge. It is not surprising that the Reformation was underway within 100 years of Gutenberg's printing press (invented 1436, completed 1440); the printing press made it possible to create and disseminate heretical works much more widely, presenting a great challenge to the Church's authority.

Oh, and I'll admit that it was a bit disingenuous to claim that they didn't have classrooms; that was a rather feeble attempt at humor. In future I shall keep my jokes strictly to myself, to avoid confusing people.

2.) I did not blame a technology (TV, in that case) for poor pedagogy. I merely observed that it can be used in one of two ways (well or poorly), and provided an example from my own experience of one poor application. Perhaps I should have included an example of a good application, for balance; but offhand I can't think of a time when I was particularly impressed by the use of a TV in the classroom.

3.) I don't quite understand your argument. Furthermore, I think we actually agree on this point. I was arguing, first, that technology is not strictly necessary; and second, that it can be immensely valuable when used properly. It isn't strictly necessary: you could get by without it, as evidenced by the fact that people did get by with out it until very recently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use technology in schools; just that we don't absolutely require it, as the original poster suggested.

In addition, I said that ". . . they [computers] should be a supplement, not a staple. There's plenty of time for more computer-centric education during the later years of education (eg ages 12 and up)." That would seem to be in line with your statement that ". . . a much more advanced set of problems can be solved and explained using technology AFTER basic fundamentals have been mastered." In brief, computers should be used in moderation, as a supplement to more basic skills, particularly in early education. How are we in disagreement here?

4.) I will concede you this point; I do not know enough about K-12 expenditures. As this guy pointed out already, with better data and much more politely.

I DO, however, know that the San Francisco Unified School District referred to in the article has recently experienced budget cuts because of the State of California's 1.7 billion dollar cut to the education budget, and that they are currently working on a "Master Technology Plan", which they hope ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They are planning public forums starting in February to get public input on ways to do that. At such a time, is it really unreasonable to suggest switching away from expensive proprietary solutions?

It may be that you're right, that Linux isn't ready for widespread desktop usage in K-12 schools. (Though this school and this one and this one an

Interesting.

I'd really like to see the breakdown of expenditures for that money, but the Budget Status reports for the San Francisco United School District don't seem to be available. The server that hosts them is down -- and anyway, based on the filenames in the URL, you need some sort of user account to access that information anyway.

I see that the SFUSD is developing a Master Technology Plan, with the avowed purpose of putting together a scheme that ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They also hope to qualify for technology grants, probably of the sort discussed in the article that started this whole discussion. They're holding public forums to discuss their technology plan, starting next February.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for some open source advocates in the area to attend some of these. Take along CDs full of open source software for Windows. Try The OpenCD. The schools are certain to have an existing investment in Windows, and would be highly suspicious of a switch to desktop Linux. But at the same time, they may be willing to experiment with OSS on an existing platform.

OpenOffice.org, for example, might be a good way of avoiding upgrade fees for MS Office. It would also open up the possibility of switching to Linux without losing a familiar app later on. Potential problems with this might include 1) distribution to students so they can use it at home (though I bet burning CDs in bulk is cheaper than buying MS Office); and 2) existing contractual obligations with MS or a reseller might make it unfeasible to switch at this time.

At any rate, it can't hurt to show up at a forum, say your piece, and give them a disc full of OSS to play with.

Interesting.

I'd really like to see the breakdown of expenditures for that money, but the Budget Status reports for the San Francisco United School District don't seem to be available. The server that hosts them is down -- and anyway, based on the filenames in the URL, you need some sort of user account to access that information anyway.

I see that the SFUSD is developing a Master Technology Plan, with the avowed purpose of putting together a scheme that ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They also hope to qualify for technology grants, probably of the sort discussed in the article that started this whole discussion. They're holding public forums to discuss their technology plan, starting next February.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for some open source advocates in the area to attend some of these. Take along CDs full of open source software for Windows. Try The OpenCD. The schools are certain to have an existing investment in Windows, and would be highly suspicious of a switch to desktop Linux. But at the same time, they may be willing to experiment with OSS on an existing platform.

OpenOffice.org, for example, might be a good way of avoiding upgrade fees for MS Office. It would also open up the possibility of switching to Linux without losing a familiar app later on. Potential problems with this might include 1) distribution to students so they can use it at home (though I bet burning CDs in bulk is cheaper than buying MS Office); and 2) existing contractual obligations with MS or a reseller might make it unfeasible to switch at this time.

At any rate, it can't hurt to show up at a forum, say your piece, and give them a disc full of OSS to play with.

Interesting.

I'd really like to see the breakdown of expenditures for that money, but the Budget Status reports for the San Francisco United School District don't seem to be available. The server that hosts them is down -- and anyway, based on the filenames in the URL, you need some sort of user account to access that information anyway.

I see that the SFUSD is developing a Master Technology Plan, with the avowed purpose of putting together a scheme that ". . . may result in operational savings to recover the cost of technology investments by the District." They also hope to qualify for technology grants, probably of the sort discussed in the article that started this whole discussion. They're holding public forums to discuss their technology plan, starting next February.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for some open source advocates in the area to attend some of these. Take along CDs full of open source software for Windows. Try The OpenCD. The schools are certain to have an existing investment in Windows, and would be highly suspicious of a switch to desktop Linux. But at the same time, they may be willing to experiment with OSS on an existing platform.

OpenOffice.org, for example, might be a good way of avoiding upgrade fees for MS Office. It would also open up the possibility of switching to Linux without losing a familiar app later on. Potential problems with this might include 1) distribution to students so they can use it at home (though I bet burning CDs in bulk is cheaper than buying MS Office); and 2) existing contractual obligations with MS or a reseller might make it unfeasible to switch at this time.

At any rate, it can't hurt to show up at a forum, say your piece, and give them a disc full of OSS to play with.