Slashdot Mirror
Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology?
Alfred Lee Deon writes "Chris Patten, a former EU Commissioner, was speaking at the three-day conference in Nice, France, on European business and technology. 'Many politicians don't understand the technology issues that could affect government IT schemes,' he said.' Politicians have no sound grasp of technology issues — but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue.' He was especially critical of UK's government's ID card scheme — a scheme he felt would not achieve one of its possible objectives of making borders more secure."
Oh please... It's clear that our fearless leader has been using the google on the internets for years. I hear he looks up maps.
No, politicians have an excellent grasp of technology.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The internet is just a series of tubes ... right?
but in America our politicians have a strong grasp of how to use technology... for hooking up with underage boys.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
Series of tubes anyone?
We grasp the tubes quite well, thank you.
What can be done about it? None of those people are reachable like they claim and everyone who goes against the norm (lobbyists) will be discarded as a radical...
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
It is not just a problem in the EU and UK. We have major IT issues related to privacy, government and oversight here in the US and this is why we need to start populating the political system with politicians who *understand* some of the political issues. People like Pete Ashdown who is running against Orin Hatch (the guy who wanted to remotely destroy computers of those who download music) in Utah are the types of folks that we need to elect. Pete owns one of the first ISPs in Utah and has been at the technological forefront for a number of years. He understands how technology impacts government and business and effects the lives of private citizens.
Populating the political landscape with technologically savvy folks will eventually happen as a matter of statistics, but right now we are dealing with lawyers, jocks and business people as politicians who it seems frequently rely on their staff to even read and answer their emails, much less actually possessing an understanding of more complex technological issues or their wider implications. However, with issues like the massive cost overruns and failure of projects like the FBIs agency wide computer system, loss of privacy and government intrusion into our lives sought by those in the Republican party (OT: what happened to the Republicans? They *used* to be about smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, and a strong military. They are now 180degrees off from all of those issues), we need a new generation of politicians who will be responsive to the people they represent, will understand some of the complex technological issues and all of the social, political and economic implications that technology brings.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
In related news: the sky is blue. More at 11
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
They have a poor grasp on anything.
Except bribes, lying, and pages.
techies have poor grasp of politics?
What's a computer?
If they knew more about tech they'd be working as tech support. The Internet isnt made out of tubes. They're made out of pipes.
Assigning a grade of "poor" to politicians' grasp of technology implies they have grasp, most don't. They (IMO) seemingly react to political winds, political windbags, and moneybags. I can't recall ever seeing a politician on TV, or elsewhere and thinking, "Gee, that politician really gets it!".
And, that's probably why we see laws passed and considered that continue to feed the wealthy and lock in their revenue streams. Technology has so much potential, it is almost mind-boggling what we could and should be doing with it, but instead (IMO) we've watched the train wreck that is our (and now others (BTW, an American here)) government and their bizarre understanding spawning laws that not only hinder technology, they are indecipherable (anyone understand fair use anymore at all?).
The future continues to look more locked in with probably one major provider of technology with a track record of bumbles and fumbles that boggle. Money talks, and politicians listen.
I used to see a future of broad interconnected technology, almost transcendental and transparent. Instead, I see vertical silos of incompatible rubbish that doesn't even mature before generation N+1 is released... the technology moves "forward", our ability to use and access to technology diminishes. (Anyone still confident HDTV, HD DVD, BluRay, etc. will have a soft landing with everyone up and running happily? It's been 10 years since HD, what gives?)
Ironically, glimpses of technology at its best were government funded, the internet is largely an outgrowth of ARPA and DARPA funding. Hubble is NASA. One (the internet) is on the cusp of being regulated to death, to the benefit of the powerful lobbying of powerful groups. The other (Hubble) is on the chopping block for monies in almost any other context would be paltry...
Another interesting lack of understanding manifested after the 2000 elections. The confident rush to technology and electronic voting paradoxically ended up being pointed at as the culprit for another "stolen" election by the very people who had demanded the technology.
There's still a lot of good technology, and there will be a lot more, but it won't be because of the good hands of government. I'm hoping I never see politicians encroach to the point of locking up and out the Open Source and Linux worlds, but I'm fearing I might (Trusted Computing anyone?).
Duh.
Yay, I have a sig.
...most politicians are geezers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and sometimes 90s. so the current crop is ignorant, but in once the current crop starts to really turn over, those politicians should be more up to date. that said, i know some people in that age range that have a good grasp, and other who do not. the latter outweigh the former. additionally, i know a good portion of my classmates on campus are ignorant of technology as well. eh.
always mosh clockwise
Are you sure about that? Let me go home tonight, download the internet, and google it. [Ducks]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
...except how to hold on to power. That's their job, really, and the good ones do it well. No one ever lost an election because they didn't understand the things they were supposed to be making laws about. See also http://www.pontification.com/serendipity/index.php ?/archives/117-The-Know-Nothing-Party.html/
No shit!
That's like saying a snail can't play the violin.
There's alot of things snails don't have a grasp on.
Snails and Politicians.
But I don't have anything against snails... yet.
ZERO
Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology?
Does the question even need to be posed? Recall Ted Stevens' absurd "It's not a truck, its a series of tubes" nonsense.
Or more recently, Bush admitting he sometimes uses 'The Google'.
IT is a speaciality, it is not a layman's field. Of course politicians know little about it. Unless they happen to be hobbyists, it really ought to be expected of politicians. In the same vein, I would not expect a doctor, welder or forest ranger to know much about IT.
I have yet to see a single politician ever talk convincingly on any matter that involves technology. Living in the UK and having to hear some of the claims given about the ID Cards Database is enough to make me laugh at times. On top of that the Government continues to spend huge amounts of money on IT schemes that could be done with a fraction of the money. These schemes are generally run by everyones favourite useless shower of bastards, EDS. Invariably these gigantic schemes fail, leaving the Government without their much-touted improvements (Many of them imaginary, but still) and EDS with a pocket full of cash. Then the cycle begins again with the next eye-watteringly huge contract for another IT scheme.
It seems the highest level of IT amongst UK politicians is the ability to post a stupid clip of yourself on YouTube. I believe Tony Blair doesn't even use email, and I'd be amazed of Gordon Brown can even switch a PC on, frankly.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
A person who gets involved in politics may begin as an ideologue on one or more issues, but with the massive amount of issues that a politician must deal with, it's difficult if not impossible to keep up with them all. Thus, interest groups can influence pols by aligning with political parties to affect whatever outcomes they desire.
Unfortunately, as long as there is an expectation that a government should be involved in every issue, this is the way things will be. A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem would be to ignore these buffoons, and the problem will eventually go away. At the very least, vote for someone who will be ineffectual for a couple of years and routinely toss them out. Or, just vote for a drunken pirate for the laugh value.
Because, in the long run, we are all dead.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
For the most part - politicians in the US are lawyers and tend to be from the boomer generation. As such, they tend to have no training and little exposure to technology. Their technological background ranges from ignorance to neo-luddite. Is it any wonder when they turn out absurd policies regarding science and technology. I suppose we should be grateful that they're not still using quill pens.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Everyone knows that Congresspeople are assigned to committees based on their greatest weakness! Why else would Senator Ted Stevens, a man more comfortable in the horse and buggy era, wind up in charge of regulating the Internet... which, he believes, is a series of tubes... a series of tubes through which other Congressmen can reach in and fondle sixteen-year olds?"
Regulators and legislators are your new systems architects. I've had to deal with them in the US for years about tech issues. According to them there are three principles of systems architecture: Computers can do: (1)Anything; (2)Immediately; (3)Without cost.
HOST: I'm curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?
BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see -- I've forgot the name of the program -- but you get the satellite, and you can -- like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.
I see that the post mentions securing the UK's borders. Isn't that one of the easier things to do in a nation that has no land border to anybody? I mean, they could just check at the channel train. . ..
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
Thats all that ever needs to be said.... tubes.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Yep. He has now been learned on geography (he now knows where Iraq is), and his "No Child Left Behind" program has inproved the geography skills of children, too.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Seeing the number of comments here saying that politicians don't have much of a grasp on anything is astounding. I say this particularly because so many of you are saying it as if it were some sort of revelation, when in fact the exact same thing was spelled out in the summary: "'Politicians have no sound grasp of technology issues -- but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue.'" Is it really "insightful" for you to simply repeat something that was just said to you?
Since they have such a tenuous grasp on REALITY, it is no surprise that technology is a problem for them as well (given that technology is a part of reality).
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
For them to enact legislation pertaining to my profession, it is necessary for them to acquire a generalized understanding of it, but I wouldn't expect a politician to be able to author a BitTorrent client before attempting to pass legislation about it, any more than I would expect them to be able to perform surgery before passing legislation pertaining to the medical industry. I'm afraid a politician's only possible interest in passing legislation has to be pleasing the greatest number of his/her constituents, regardless of how wrong-minded industry professionals may find that legislation.
As much as I despise people who long for power, this is all a bit misleading. Yes, they probably have poor grasp of IT while making decisions greatly affecting the field, but are you really prepared to say that is a real problem? If it is, then you imply they should have a good knowledge of every single field their decision making touches. Every single one - law, business economy, medicine, pharmaceutics, university research, child care, road planning, ship lane ice breaking, geology, hydrology, satellite communications, nutrition, animal husbandry, criminology, emergency veterinary care, time keeping, library organization, weapon systems development, ....
I would certainly love to have such polymaths in any parliament; I doubt you could find 3-400 such people that are actually competent to make decisions in any country though.
Politicians don't know the ins and outs of their field any more than CxO:s know the details of their company operations. They rely on having people that are experts in their field give the needed input. Is that perfect? No, but, unlike the alternative, it is actually possible to implement.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Nobody can be proficient with all the topics a legislator works on.
What's suppsed to happen is that their hired staff is, or consults, experts in the field and briefs the politician on the issues and options.
We get the politicians we vote for, anyway. I wrote to my state legislator once about e-voting and he'd heard of GEMS: he wrote back to the effect "It's a nightmare. Access was never designed for that kind of application". Be certain I'm voting for him next time he's up.
Gee, politicians ahve a poor grasp of technology?
And where do those politicians come from? The same pool of people we have running the technology companies (I'm looking at you, Carly).
But keep votingDemocrat/Republican, the same people ensconced in the illegitimate power structure we ahve today. I'm certain doing the same thing again will show positive results.
Dumb-asses.
is how they compensate for ignorance. A good example is the (planned) "Gesundheitsreform" (restructuring of the health services system) in Germany which implies a remarkable remodelling of business processes (of course IT-based, really huge DBs) with remarkable extra cost. Of course there is a lot of other issues they fail with regard to the general issue as well, too many to tell.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
> but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue.
This is the understatement of a lifetime.
When they bring in an idiot actress, who played a farmer in a move, to talk about farm issues . . . well let's say they at least know how to contact people who are clueless about issues to help them out.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
"but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue"
Indeed. They don't need a firm grasp of any issue, because their whole goal is to get elected, not have views on any issue. Most of the false Dichotomies the modern western democratic political wars are over, are often over simplification of the issues.
The recent spat between Rush Bimbo and MJ Fox and the senate races in a couple of states is a great example. The issue is more complicated than "stem cell research" (without saying which of three kinds is in dispute). Even if you don't agree with certain viewpoints (right to life, cloning, etc), the whole debate was boiled down to overly simplistic and emotion tugging soundbites, that deny the seriousness of the issue.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle, and a compromise can be found, but only if we ignore the radical edges on both sides, and actually discuss the issue without the partisan passions of (R) bad, (D) good (or the opposite) garbage.
If you want to change the status quo, then vote 3rd party, and break the two party system into pieces. If you aren't happy with the current crop of congress critters, and executive choices, then take the time and find a third party candidate you can support.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
...gets to report hard-hitting news to people in Europe as well.
They are just script-kiddie posers, who was the incompetent clod who programmed this last? What was the admin thinking when he installed anti-virus on exchange. Only morons use windows.
Let's face it geek arrogance is bar none. What ever our specialty, we trash everyone without that knowledge (why do you think some of us stay employed with our childish attitudes).
For Congressmen we expect them to be experts in every field, and unfortunately they "should" be to get their job done. Peggy noonan has a great article on it and how this unrealistic demand causes either extreme arrogance (I "created" the internet) or ignorance (Internet is a series of "tubes", I downloaded an internet the other night).
Support a geek, Raise money for your school.
CNET had a story about some of the worst politicians' web sites. Further demonstrates how many politicians are behind in technology.
"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." - Henrik Ibsen
From a lot of the "political" comments on /. it's fairly apparent that most IT people/geeks have no real grasp on governmental affairs.
It's fantastic when slashdotters throw around terms like "censorship" when censorship is not really involved (thus proving said posters have no grasp on politics) but god fucking forbid a guy call it "the google".
It's sad how much we sit around here patting ourselves on the back for being so 31337 when the fact is that most of us are severely unqualified to do much more than post on slashdot.
I wonder if on some political site they're discussing how slashdotters have no grasp on politics.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Most of the world has poor grasp of technology. Even in the most developed countries, the average citizen has, at best, a marginal grasp of technology. Politicians are too busy being politicians to actual develop a good understanding of technology.
This should not surprise anyone.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The difference is between the politician and the welder, doctor or forest ranger. The doctor, the welder and the forest rangers are not setting long term decisions and policies regarding the internet.
IF someone is making policy regarding something, say a doctor and your health treatment, I would expect that doctor has more knowledge of my health and well being than a welder.
That is the difference.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
IT departments are there to help an organization to reach a goal. They're not there to be aided by that organization in reaching its own goals. Technology is a means, not an end.
The problem comes when authority figures fall victim to some marketer talking about a piece of technology as a cure-all, and fall in love with the concept of having said technology. Once they start pushing a technology as an end, they lose sight of other, better options.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
In other news, fire has been found to be hot, water is wet, and Microsoft is bad.
They would not have reduced our productivity by 2/3 because a bunch of executives looted enron.
Not one IT person has been indicted but many IT persons in america in a publicly held is drowning in new paperwork for even the most trivial changes.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
the seasons continue to rotate, and Slashdot continues to post obvious articles worthy of stupid trolls.
And they are the ones writing the laws that control it. They need EDUCATED, IMPARTIAL advisers, possibly even who have been elected.
There is a group trying to give iPods to our elected officials:
http://www.ipaction.org/
I would say that it is a much more serious problem, at least in the US, that most politicians have a poor grasp of the Constitution. I heard a story of a man asking a prominent senator what he thought of the 17th amendment. The senator had to ask which one is that and the man replied, "It is the one that says how you are elected."
I'm not surprised at this at all. Let's just ignore all the obvious evidence for a moment (DMCA, "series of tubes", etc.) Politicians are just like CEOs and such in some respects. They both get paid to do big jobs that require knowing things. Knowing computers is NOT one of those things. This means that most of them have generic computer skills, but I bet if they need anything more complex than something simple they get an assistant/secretary/whoever to do it. There are people who know how to do that stuff FOR them. As a consequence, they don't know as much about technology as they would need to if they were "normal" and had a "normal" job making say $30,000 a year.
As they get more powerful, they can easily insulate themselves from technology more and have other people take care of that allowing them less stress and the ability to get more done.
So then they go to vote on issues knowing: a) half-truths b) mis-interpretations c) lobbyist's "facts", d) what they get from pages/assistants/the public
Those who know about it went in that way and are interested in it (like many /.ers). The majority just "get by" just like 95%+ of computer users out there.
That's why the US cell phone networks are in the state they are. How many Senators and Congressmen do you think have had to get their own cell phone recently? How many do you think just say "I need a new phone" and they get one because someone else deals with all that. When things go wrong with the phone, do you think they deal with it personally (like the rest of us) or do you think they get someone on their staff to do it (like a CEO would)?
Insulation, pure and simple.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
...and /. readers have poor grasp of politics.
1 Enroll as a republican
2 Ensure Diebold Machines are used for polling
3 ???
4 Profit!
95% of all sigs are made up.
They're a counterbalance to the "America for Religion" legion of "religious" political orgs - sort of a gnocracy, or maybe a "theocrat -> technocrat" transmogrifier. You can join, without any specific obligations, at http://www.sefora.org/ . You can "tell a friend", or contribute money to their operation.
--
make install -not war
"Are you sure about that? Let me go home tonight, download the internet, and google it. [Ducks]"
That's a pretty good idea. The thought of having my own personal Google that has the entire net archived*cough*CACHED sounds great. With all the increasing regulation in the US and the United Nations now making noises about their intent to destroy it, you never know when you might wake up one day to find the Net gone.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Are politicians really that different from the average joe? The ones who don't know what a virus is, trust emails from phishers, complain when their computer's really slow but they don't know why, etcetera? Hardly anyone except geeks actually has a grasp of the way technology changes things and how it actually works. Even the generation that's coming up - does being able to use Myspace and iTunes actually qualify kids as "tech-savvy"?
That's half the problem of the proliferation of technology - everyone's using it, but most have a vague idea at best of what it actually is. The job of a politician is not to be an expert on the things they make laws about, it's to represent the views of the people who elected them in government. So we either need a much higher level of general awareness about technology so that people can vote accordingly, or advisers who do know what they're talking about to guide the politicians. I'm not hopeful myself...
A famous bank robber said it did it because banks are "where the money is." I don't find this to be overly different. Technology is an industry where there is potential for rapid growth. If technology lobbyists are good enough, the politicians don't really need to know what they're doing. The government is a way for tech companies to sell stuff in high volume. Blame the companies for having excellent salesmen rather than talking bad on the politicians.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Now you need to fix the grammar! I missed it the first time too. Are you familiar with the songs made off of this poem/line?
Where were you when the voynix came?
... e.g. Mark Foley and David Scondras. I have it on good authority that they have the IM thing down pretty well.
Series of tubes, anyone?
Ha ha. That was funny.
Rain is wet?
I doubt politicians could even close their italics tags! :-) Hey! I'm teasing! It's Friday!
A good leader is not generally going to know everything, but he should be smart enough to surround himself with people who can fill in the gaps.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
the other side of the coin is that technological people only rarely have any grasp whatsoever of public policy and/or law issues. case in point #1 is slashdot, where we see people with doubtlessly technological skill coming out of their ears but largely (though not universally, of course - ther are a few truly bright people here on all sides of the various questions) unable or unwilling to see beyond short-term self interest in giving rather poorly thought out views on virtually every matter from intellectual property to labor policy to corporate governance to crime and punishment. And, the cases go on and on, to the technically savvy but economically clueless CS professor at your local university to RMS. Are technological people good at providing us with new insights and ways of looking at things? yes - just like a good sci-fi story does. But I have yet to see any good evidence that technological people - that is to say, people who are trained and experienced in working with technical systems, can translate that ability into the sort of wider ken necessary for working and developing political or legal systems. I'm not saying there aren't people who made the leap. I'm also not saying that those people didn't do it brilliantly. I'm just saying that in my experience, that those people had a technical background didnt give them any particular specialized insight or brilliance per se. In summary, what I guess I'm trying to say is something like this. You wouldn't dare claim to write a line of code without knowing what a variable or a loop was. However, people seem perfectly content to pass themselves off as commentators on political matters (or competent policy officials, for that matter!) without knowing, say, what an externality is or what the gross national or domestic product of their country is (within an order of magnitude). In other words, yes, "ha ha, look how dumb politicians are", but also, "pot, meet kettle."
Water wet?
Windows prone to bugs?
Obvious statements as questions annoy readers?
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
been oddly unsuccessful....no doubt thanks to the dilligent efforts of those in the CIA trying to keep WMD data from the terrorist.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Well, no paper trail its obvious but I was still a little surprised the government is running on pre-80's technology except for "the google".
And this comes as a shock how?! Has anyone read the DMCA? That was proof positive.
It's a lack of represented professions. It's lack of not enough of everyone, or anyone, besides a lawyer. Plain and simple, and old as hat, government is ran by lawyers. Few are from any other profession. No, this is not another lawyer bashing, it is pointing out the fact that the masses would benefit from a more even, representative, spread of professions and knowledge-bases than are currently represented.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
During the DVD-Jon case here in Norway some years ago, there was in fact this politician (don't remember the name) who openly admitted this. He said something like, "here I am, 50(?) years old, and I'm not into this technology, I mostly use Word", very loosely remembered. I suppose he's not the only one. Some decisions aren't suitable for 50-year old politicians (with all respect), for example the effects laws about software patents and issues about digital rights would have. Many use the computer strictly as a work tool -- MS Word and Excel. I don't expect them to use 80% of their freetime to dig into various operating systems, IRC, programming, P2P, the SCO case and so on, so this is exactly how things naturally will end up. Most people aren't suited for every kind of task.
In the end, they need consultants from the geek community, along with "common users" who will experience the problems braindead laws about DRM etc. will have.
Politicians have a poor grasp of reality.
It's interesting from this vantage point to notice the story of a conference in France on EU politics and tech was being covered in ZDNetAsia.
Patten, as the Last Governor of Hong Kong, is a celebrity of sorts here, but it would have been far more interesting to hear him explain at detail his thoughts on the issues and potential flaws with the UK ID card plan as former chief executive of a government with a mandatory ID card program.
Perhaps the powers that be should send Patten, now the Chancellor of Oxford University, an invitation to participate in a Slashdot interview?
the sky is blue. story at 11.
The goal of politicians is to earn an image through which they can excercise power.
All of their lives they concentrate only on that goal: Issues, strikes, murders, family, etc., are ALL subservient.
They will turn any and all things into politics if it serves their purpose. And they will strike a deal with ANYONE to serve their purpose.
They are the most single-minded profession on Earth who go about with a zealousness that would have shamed Genghis Khan.
That said, to make them serve YOUR purpose, you need to make it look as if it came from their minds and they had the intelligence to think through it: Once that thought is planted the rest is easy. If the idea/law will serve their purpose, then you are all tied up: it WILL be law.
Politicians are of two kinds: Those in a democracy and those in a non-democracy. Those in democracy should have to show to the electing people that they care about issues affecting the electing people (mind you i said people, NOT public).
The other kind lives in a non-democratic like Pakistan, S.Arabia, Dubai, etc.,and want to make sure they are remembered for posterity.
So, all said, politicians are ones who may or may not be lawmakers, but most certaoinly will get laws passed for you.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
But they do have a good grasp of your wallet ...and mine. Right?
Couldn't resist. Sorry.
Either megaditto or I am misreading you. I was assuming that you were being sarcastic with your "You bet!" by pointing out the horrible choices the poor tend to make with their food stamps, whereas if they went to special government food stores, presumably there'd be no Twinkies or Ho-Hos there. Please tell me that megaditto misunderstood you and not me.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
that the politicians dont know anything about technology. They are politicians not technologists, they deal with a lot of topics in their normal course of duty and could never possibly learn everything about every topic that crosses their desk. What the real problem is, is the lobbyists and the fact that shysters and posers have put themselves in the position of teaching our politicians about technology. They are only learning about technology issues from the big money players who have either pushed everyone else out or just plain bribed the politicos to vote for their interest. There is no where else for a politician to learn about copywrite infringment issues except from the RIAA or MPAA because those organizations have spent billions of dollars insuring that no one else is heard except them. Cell phone companies, computer companies, cable companies, etc.. have all positioned themselves so that to politicians there is no other credible source of information available. A lot of the problems can be directly attributed to the current administrations vapid desire to get and maintain power (power for powers sake). They are either too busy worrying about passing laws that make them more money or causing more problems to cover up the fact that they are doing something they shouldnt be doing. But also the problems arise from the concerted efforts of big business in the 70's to change the laws so that politicians are now essentially being subsidised by corporations and not paid by taxes.
As you just said, a good deal of the currently "young" generation has no effing clue about technology in general and the internet in particular. They just treat it like their car. Turn the key, works, great. Don't bother explaining what's under the hood.
And current legislation and the course we're steering actually promotes ignorance. We're getting closer ot laws where you are suspicious or even already a criminal for simply knowing how to use the tools in the way you (and not its manufacturer) want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, go ahead and make fun of him again for the whole inventing the internet thing or whatever, but it's pretty clear that he's comfortable around technology.
They did use CNN to get their information on Katrina...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
They are supposed to listen. And they listen to whomever has the most money to put on their campaign.
I say we buy ourselves a congressman, too. I mean, if we all chip in, how expensive can a muppet be?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, who was it? On the off chance we live in the same state, I want to be sure to give him some consideration.
From a lot of the "political" comments on /. it's fairly apparent that most IT people/geeks have no real grasp on governmental affairs.
Everyone was having such a good time stroking each other, crowing about The Cluelessness of Others and the Manifest Superiority of Geeks. Why'd you have to piss on the parade? You, sir, are a traitor to your class!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Are YOU being sarcastic? Or are you actually enough of a food nazi to want a government grocery monopoly because people buy food with food stamps that you personally would not buy. I guess we really should not allow a private sector, right? Things would be SO MUCH EASIER if we had central menu planning, too.
(Here's a hint: if you don't like Twinkies, don't eat them. Problem entirely solved).
Where were you when the voynix came?
IT people aren't in the position to make good decisions to affect millions (or dare I say, billions?) of people, and, most importantly it's not their job. Politicians are SUPPOSED to make good decisions. Whether that requires them to learn something or get people that do, that IS their job. This post is like responding to a situation of a coach of a losing team by saying that some complaining players on the losing team don't know anything about coaching.
http://rangevoting.org/IRVLetter.html
http://rangevoting.org/
I found this line interesting "He was especially critical of UK's government's ID card scheme -- a scheme he felt would not achieve one of its possible objectives of making borders more secure.". If anything, the ID card scheme will make the borders less secure, as the excuse used to keep the UK out of the Schengen Agreement would no longer exist and there would therefore no longer be any need to retain border controls with the rest of the EU.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Politicians are pretty clueless about most things, really. The fact that they're clueless on technological matters is noticed on /. because we're on the whole a tech-savvy bunch. If you look in any single-issue forum, you'll find people slagging off politicians for their detachment from the real world.
I think it's getting worse, not better; because as politicians lose touch with reality, real people won't want to have anything to do with politics.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"it's because they [private schools] can "cut off poor, misbehaving, lazy, underperforming students". Emphasis primarily on misbehaving, as I understand it."
News flash: public schools DO suspend AND expel misbehaving students. There goes that excuse.
Part of the reason public schools do better is that they tend to get a better grade of teacher: those who are out to teach instead of to get rich. The work ethic encouraged in the public school system is shown by the lazy thug "teacher" loafing on a picket line to try to get more money instead of making positive effort in the classroom. Private schools have much less tolerance for these loafing thugs and will clear out the deadwood if this happened.
Where were you when the voynix came?
No shit Sherlock
No, I just really thought you were joking about how great it is to have such a wide selection of inferior food products available to those using food stamps. If I was trying to come up with the worst possible example in favor of vouchers, that might be the example I came up with. I'm sorry, but I sincerely thought you were joking.
For the record, I do think people should be able to buy the food they want with their own money. Same thing goes for education. However, you rarely appreciate things as much if you don't have to pay for it yourself. That's one more reason why private schools tend to do better. Are you going to shell out $20,000/year (for example) so your kid can do poorly in school? I used to work in an industry where we "gave" away a $500 product for $20. The conventional wisdom was that, if we gave it away for free, the consumers would not use it, and would not come back for more.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What he actually said was the internet is a series of tubs. You put your data, as much as will fit, into a tub, then shove it out onto the complex system of conveyor belts known as the internet (some call these "packets" fyi).
My problem is with people who are asked "Have you used google? Have you ever googled somebody?" and then respond with "I've used the google". The interviewer told him the right grammar and he still doesn't use it, so it's not like he just didn't know what "google" was. We actually have a president who is trying to be dumb.
Many politicians don't understand the technology issues that could affect government IT schemes
Actually, most politicians...or more specifically their interns and advisers...are very knowledgeable about information technology. It's a tool that allows millions of people to share information quickly and easily. The internet is the most empowering democratic tool in history.
That's why most politicians are doing everything they can to stifle, suffocate, and regulate the internet into something that no longer threatens them. Look at how the current administration is using the FCC for instance...net neutrality anyone?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I read this headline on my RSS reader, said "Yes" out loud, and almost skipped coming here altogether.
space is pretty cool.
"Private schools cater to students from families with higher incomes, more stable home situations, and better command of english at home."
No surprise, since the poor kids can't afford to go there! Vouchers for the "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" would change that. To use the car analogy again, right now only the families with "higher incomes" can get the Cadillac education. I myself think it education is too important to limit it this way, and would like to see "poor, non-native speaking, single-parent familied" have the same opportunities for the Cadillac education instead of being stuck with the 1985 Yugo.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Cause I'm going to mention "series of tubes" for the sixteenth AND seventeenth times in this thread. "Series of tubes". See?
Now if I could just find a way to say "series of tubes" another twenty-four times, I'd be the 42nd person to say "series of tubes". Just think, "series of tubes" AND a Douglas Adams joke. I don't think the series of tubes has enough capacity for all the laughter.
That is, politicians are good at politics. Geeks generally have as poor grasp of politics as Politicians do of Tech.
Certainly both need to do more to educate themselves about the others' spheres of influence.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
You, sir, are delusional. I taught in public schools for 2 years, and here's a news flash - I wasn't getting rich. After I quit that job (because I couldn't take the discipline problems any more), I landed a job as a computer programmer earning more than twice what I made teaching at a public school, and with a lot less stress.
As for public schools expelling "problem" students, there is a lot of red tape that has to be cut through first. Again, I've been there and seen it first hand.
You are a disgrace. You are clearly demonstrating that you know nothing about the system you're complaining about. Do you want to guess how many times in my 2 years at a public school I was on a picket line? Zero. Do you want to guess how many times the school I taught at, in its 80+ year history has ever had a picket line? Zero. Furthermore, although there has been an occasional news story about such things happening in public schools, there have been no strikes at the public schools that I, any of my friends, my parents, or their parents have taught at and/or attended.
What I really don't understand is why you hate public school teachers so much. You are a truly noxious person with respect to this topic.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Seriously, if we want someone to blame, let's blame the masses. It's people who don't have a grasp of technology, or much else for that matter. And why is that? Because our voting population is so low. Our country is filled with smart people, average people, and dumb people. Wow, just like a normal distribution! Yet for some strange reason, the majority people who vote fall on the right side of the curve, and the people on the left side of the curve votes are pointless. Like a sprinkler in a rain storm.
If we complain about it, then it becomes our responsibility to educate our fellow voters. It is OUR responsibility to vote the right people in, NOT the politicians. This is not how democracy works. We either vote right or run.
So Slashdot... our collective spawns some great discussions every now and then. Our collective eyes can bring down web servers with the best of them. We know a lot about technology and politics. So ask yourself... what have you done to remedy this problem lately? What can we all do together?
The answer? Sadly, nothing! That is until the voter distribution curve looks like the intelligence curve. Do your part! Vote and educate your fellow voters.
It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to. I then realized that my previous statement could be taken as a testimonial to the wisdom of the government. I apologize profusely if anyone thought that I would really imply such a thing. I merely meant that just because the government makes bad decisions it doesn't mean that people aren't capable of making worse decisions. I really have no idea what the solution is for feeding the poor. I just know that vouchers are no magic bullet. By "magic bullet" I mean just that. Vouchers *might* improve the system (although I doubt it), but they definitely won't *fix* the system.
So, since it's a topic I do care about, what do I think will make the biggest difference? Smaller class sizes. (Although private schools do tend to have signficantly smaller class sizes, arguing that vouchers would lead to smaller class sizes basically means that you have to believe in the ability to create money out of thin air.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"As the son of a teacher I can tell you authoritatively that in the vast majority of school districts teachers don't make a living wage"
The "living wage" is an entirely vapourous concept that is not the same amount for any two people, and is based on lifestyle choices, ability/disability, and many other factors. Other than that, if the teachers are alive, they are making some sort of living wage.
Where were you when the voynix came?
..water found to run downhill!
"What I really don't understand is why you hate public school teachers so much"
I only hate the ones that willingly participate in the teachers' union and its program of doing as little to educate as possible and getting the most money possible for it. This is less of a problem in "right to work" places where teachers aren't bullied to join the union. If you and your colleagues were not loafing on the picket line, then I really wasn't talking about you, was I?
I've seen plenty of this problem at nearby public schools: including strikes where the bad-guy teachers crowed about the "victory" of getting their pay to increase deeper into the upper crust (from $49,000 to $51,000)....to be paid for through money that they obtained by forcing the schools to cut educational programs, bussing, supplies, etc.
No doubt in your environment, perhaps without the union waging war against education so much, the public school teachers are indeed more dedicated professionals. I apologize for lumping you in with the bad guys, as they are what I know from my local schools.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Before teaching full-time, I was a substitute teacher for two years. I spent several weeks as a substitute teacher at an alternative school (for 16+ year-olds) where this was exactly the policy in place. Although most of these students were there as a last resort (i.e., they had gotten in much trouble before), at this school they were primarily well behaved. So, what I'm saying is that your proposal is not without merit.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
... it may be that some geeks understanding of the subtleties and nuances of politics is just as simple minded as some politicians understanding of tehnology.
Here's a clip with Bush talking about how he uses the Google. He also elaborates about why he doesn't email. :)
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
"The average age is rising due to emcumbancy."
How about getting rid of incumbency? Let them run as much as they want for a different office each time, or for the same office if they sit out an election. Abusing the power of the office to campaign on the public dime to keep the seat is now the rule rather than the exception.
Where were you when the voynix came?
teachers at private schools get paid less, but generally they're happier working there than in the public system.
My high school English teacher used to teach in the public school system and quit due to all the bs that he had to put up with. (What I did learn/develop a clear and concise writng style, thanks to him.) And this was years ago, and I do know its worse for the teachers in public schools now.
A good friend's wife is a teacher in the public school system, ironically the same school that I would have attended, had I attended public schools. (I grew up in a rough part of town and my family was not affluent.)
It's similar to being a social worker. (I used to be one until budgets were cut.) The students/clients have all the rights and the teacher/worker has none. So much time is wasted on administrative bullshit/paperwork, and justifying whatever you have to do, no matter what the circumstances. You are constantly required to do more with less, which makes both jobs damn near impossible, and increases the rate of burnout. And, in both fields, there are the constantly increasing requirements for CEU's--hell, when you are not working, you're taking a totally useless class or studying, just so you have the damn credential that is suddenly required. Plus, the pay sucks. And you have to pay good people who know their jobs decently, or they will say, "See ya!"
My late sister and brother-in-law were also teachers in the public school system. Both quit and went into other fields.
Back to my friend's wife--I don't know how she hangs on. If it was me, I would have walked and thrown away a pension years ago. (Especially after what I heard.) Fact of the matter is that there are many teachers out there who are really dedicated--same with social workers, who battle the stereotype of bureaucrats as they are overburdened with paperwork, and are lucky if they can spend 10 minutes per client. In light of the latter, I am glad that I am out. But, I do miss it sometimes--those days are fewer and farther between, Thank God. The stress was horrible.
Only bad thing about Catholic schools, from my experience, is that they are at least ten years behind the times (I'm probably older than most on this site.) not into tech and have rigid thoughts re: sex roles. A woman taking tech classes? That was rare. I took one computer class (only female) and that was it--teacher couldn't explain anything to make it understandable for someone just starting. (Talked on and on and on, assumed that everyone knew what all the jargon meant--made me crazy!) Had the same experience in college, so I gave up on it. Then, when I graduated, the economy tanked!
Now, as the economy in my state is tanking again, I'm teaching myself about computers and giving freelance writing a shot. There's nothing the fuck else to do.
And if anyone is interested in a net neutrality article that is concise and to the point, here's a writing sample.
The way you wrote it sure sounded like you were lumping public school teachers together in one big lump. I'm fairly certain that the teachers you're talking about are the exception and not the rule. You'll also find teachers like that in private schools (again, as the exception, not the rule).
First of all, if you think $51,000 is excessive for someone with a Master's degree and 20 years of experience (I believe that's about where you have to be on the chart to make that kind of money teaching), then I think you're undervaluing teachers. However, most teachers that I know would gladly see money well spent on making class sizes smaller, etc., and almost all teachers I know end up buying supplies for their classes out of their own salary . Doesn't sound like something you'd do if you're out to get rich.
Also, I was part of the union, although it was optional. They provided excellent coverage for legal costs if that became an issue, and as a male teacher I couldn't afford to take chances. Now, although it pains me to give you any ammunition, I will admit that, just as there were problems in getting rid of difficult students, there were also problems in getting rid of difficult teachers (although I was not actually aware of any such teachers). During orientation we were instructed on how our pay would get frozen (i.e., no more raises), if we failed our observation tests (when an administrator comes into your class to watch you teach) three years in a row. Basically, the observation tests worked like this: an administrator comes into your classroom and has a checklist of things you should be doing (teaching style, etc.). It's a good checklist; I've got no problem with it. Normally, you get 3 observations per year, as long as you pass all 3. However, if you fail an observation, they'll tell you what you did wrong (actually, they tell you what you did wrong regardless - no one's ever perfect), and give you another chance. So, it ends up that you have to pass 3 out of 5 possible observations in a given year. If not, you're on some kind of probation, but you still get a raise. Again, after 3 years of failing at least 3 out of 5 possible observations, your pay is frozen. That's ridiculous; you should be fired at that point. However, AFAIK, this is only a problem in theory, as I was not aware of anyone failing more than one observation in a year.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This innernet is not a dump truck SERIOUSLY, people - the discussion ENDS THERE!
A wise man once said nothing and simply listened.
tubes, duh, obvious, yes, noshit (tagging beta)
What can I possibly add to that?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Specialization in an occupation is a trend that has been increasing in recent years.
Eventually you'll have politicians who have absolutely *no* grasp of anything, except how to hold on to power.
Wait a minute...
I'm incredibly jealous of those who were lucky enough to go to such a school, based off what I've heard from some of its alums.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The UK gov't has a long history of staggeringly expensive IT disasters. The current national ID card plan has been blinking red since inception.
David Davis, the tory shadow home secretary - (the ID card scheme is owned by the Home Office) - has a BSc Joint Hons Molecular Science/Computer Science 1968-1971 and is OPPOSED to the ID cards scheme.
has a bad understanding of technology. politician are just the loudmouth versions of those.
It'd be nice if there was a system that was resistant to special interest groups and corporations that would allow qualified individuals to elect experts to a national body that would give advice on technological issues, and would be taken seriously by our leaders.
Then again most congressmen aren't doctors but they make decisions on healthcare, so maybe this is nothing new...
Politicians have no sound grasp of technology issues...
I have said it before and I will say it again:
There is no minimum IQ standard for being a politician. Unfortunately, all politicians seem to be below any minimum standards lately!
I've found most managers in organisations have no idea about technology either. The fact that most politicians have no idea isn't a big surprise.
In my head I can still hear one IT manager refusing our request for 1GB switches under the grounds that they'd buy us some as soon as we get the 10/100 switches running at 1GB speeds! Ahhhh, memories!
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
"And how does the $51k salary compare to other college educated wage earners in your area?"
That doesn't matter. The school should pay enough to retain and keep the good teachers, and no more. When you already have a huge pool of applicants trying to be teachers at the place, to be paid at the lower level, the pay is certainly quite adequate.
" In my area, the best paid teachers are paid much less than the average for college educated individuals"
So? Why compare apples and oranges? If these highly-paid teachers really wanted to be even richer and are obsessed with that, they should probably leave the profession. It's not like they are so dedicated to it in the first place.
"You are also talking about a 4% increase that comes generally once every few years (other years are lower), which overall, does not beat out inflation."
That's a 4% increase that HAS to come from somewhere, and it typically is paid for by cutting programs and increasing class sizes. The greedy demand for uneanred wage hikes (gimme! gimme! gimme!) do force schools to cut programs. They are basically taking money out of the school system. The voters and taxpayers have already voted to very amply fund the schools.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"It's not apples to oranges. You are saying teachers are overpaid"
In such districts, they are. If they would work for much less, they are overpaid.
" If I want a raise at the end of the year, does that make me obsessed with being richer? No, it means I feel I deserve the raise"
What if you are already amply compensated, and know that this pay raise will have to be paid for with increased class sizes and cuts in education? Then you are being nothing other than greedy. Putting yourself first.
"The fact that programs are cut for it are not the teachers fault."
If the teachers ask for more money, knowing that it has to be cut from somewhere else, it is the fault of the teachers that do this. Nobody else is involved at all.
"And guess what, if any employer does not budget appropriate wages for employees"
In this case, thay've budgeted inappropriately high wages already.
"but it isn't "stealing it" like you are trying to imply teacher's salaries are"
I never used the word "stealing" or implied it. I'm just pointing out the naked greed of those who are well paid and beg for more money without regard to the damage it causes.
"And who says the teachers are being greedy and the wage hikes are unearned? "
It can't be anything other than greed if they are already hansomely compensated, and the money they beg for comes from cutting education. The ones who are greedy like this (and demand unearned wage hikes) are taking money out of the school system. Every dollar that goes to them so they can buy another jetski or jacuzzi comes directly out of money that is used for supplies, programs, or something that has REAL educational benefit. That's my priorities: I think that books in the classroom are more important than cushy perks and overcompensation for school employees.
Most districts are quite amply funded (not "most school districts are woefully underfunded"). I can't believe anyone can look at the ever increasing amounts and claim any sort of underfunding. The problem is with what is done with the money. I don't want anything "free": I just don't want money wasted in overpaying both "teachers" AND adminstrators that is MUCH better used elsewhere. You said "There are classroom supplies like books, paper and writing utensils. There are costs such as electricity and heat.". That is the best point you have made so far. These costs should be the priority, not pushing upper-crust deeper into the upper crust. Pencils on the desk or jacuzzi on some employee's deck? How can you possibly choose the latter. If the public sends more and more money to the schools and it is all sucked up by selfish "public servants" with their hand in the cookie jar, you cannot blame the public here.
I have an in-depth knowledge of how the process works, and how those with the wrong (selfish) priorities destroy the system. I have a severe bias in favor of teachers. Those ones you defend who are already upper class and focus their effort on taking even more money out of the system no matter who it hurts? They are teachers in name only; they certainly don't care about the children. If they did, they would not take from them. With friends and family members who are on school boards and administrators, and are public school teachers, I've seen the damage done.
It's pretty clear from this thread that you are uninformed about public schools and the especially what the main mission should be. You think that mission 1 is for employees get rich, instead of to provide an education. Since my opinion is based on facts, the only thing that would change it would be if the situation changed, and anti-education special interests (the teachers' union) were shut out of the process entirely.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"What does the NEA want? They want good pay (just as any employee and/or employee group)"
I've been listening mostly directly to the NEA itself. I've also listened to many dedicated professionals who have been harassed and bullied by the NEA for daring to put the children first. What does it want? They already have good pay (more than that, even). What they want is to get the most pay for the least work as possible. Isn't it obvious that both of these are destructive to the mission of education? Regardless of their rhetoric, they do not really want "small class sizes and newer supplies/equipment": every pay raise victory means larger class sizes and fewer supplies.
If you still doubt what is most important to the NEA (greed, not education), look at the "critical lists" they publish every year in the last summer. What schools end up on the list? Which schools are problems? No, it's not the schools that are having trouble meeting education requirements. It's the schools where the school board is refusing to overpay the NEA even more.
"And like I've said before, the system is not broken"
Why of course it works fine if you are white and happen to go to a good school. But what about the others? How about, for example, the Detroit public school system? "In a report from Education Research Center, Detroit Public Schools ranked last among 50 large school districts for the percentage of students who receive a high school diploma on time." The NEA also badly ravaged this one recently too: the employees (is it even worth it to call them teachers?) went on strike in the Fall of 2006. As a result of the chaos of supposed teachers who were too lazy to teach, 25,000 students who would have gone to school never showed up again. Median pay in that city for teachers is over $70,000. This is well above the Michigan and national average. These teachers are the ones who struck to be paid even more. Do I respect teachers? Yes. These are the ones that crossed the picket lines.
"Vouchers will not allow children to choose better schools"
I'm not sure I ever said that. If I did, what I meant to say is that vouchers let parents choose better schools.
"For one thing, all parents have the option of sending their kids to private school, they just have to pay for it (kind of like most things in life). "
That's fine if you are rich, but what about the poor who cannot afford to go to better schools? Must a decent education be denied to the poor? Class sizes would still be smaller in private schools "post voucher". In fact, as private schools actively competed for student voucher money, they'd compete to advertise as having the smallest class sizes. More voucher money would mean more money for more teachers. They'd also have little of the problem like in Detroit of having to spend over $70,000 for every teacher in the system (good and bad) including those who are too lazy to show up to teach class at the beginning of the year.
"Personally, I don't think vouchers will do anything to change education, with the exception of enriching private schools at the cost of public schools"
There would be no cost to public education, as the private schools (through the voucher program) would become, in a way part, of the public education system. Only now you'd have more money/students going to good schools and fewer forced to go to the badly run ones. It's a transfer of money that would have a great benefit to society.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the public schools at all, as long as you are not a minority in a "bad area". I guess "those people" don't count, do they?
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Actually, private school teachers are different, not necessarily better. Private schools are allowed to higher anybody, for any position. Public schools are required (through state laws) to ensure a minimum qualification level of all teachers."
Actually, private schools are encouraged to hire better teachers because they have to in order to attract students. Thus, they tend to hire good teachers and fire bad ones. The traditional public schools, with the tenure system, keep the bad teachers and even reward them for being bad (by paying them the same as the good ones). The NEA even comes into the mix in another explicit example of how the NEA works against quality education. They try to prevent merit pay, and to prevent bad teachers from being fired. Why? Bad teachers pay the same NEA dues as good ones do, so the NEA does not care at all how good a teacher is.
I do not really HATE the NEA, and do not want it banned. I support teachers and their rights, and would like to see NEA membership to be voluntary. Let each teacher choose. Same with the AFT. Most likely, the good teachers (who would be paid more than the others anyway) would not join the NEA, and the bad ones would join the NEA so it could fight for mediocrity.
Where were you when the voynix came?
4. Private schools are not overseen by any citizen entity. Public schools report to the school board, who reports to the local voters. This allows the local community to set standards and oversee the progress of the district.
The caveat to this is thanks to school choice reformers, many areas DO have options so parents can choose to send their students to better schools instead of having to throw up their hands and accept inferior public schools. There are now charter schools which provide alternatives. They also provide real competition: I've noticed my local school board and the traditional public schools making more of an effort to do what they should have been doing all along(serve the students) since, with competition, they just can't get by slacking off anymore. Everyone wins.
Where were you when the voynix came?
That process might not seem bad to you, but when you're there, in the classroom, going through all these steps - it's an eternity. Also, when you have more than one such student, it's that much worse. I typically had 2-3 students on suspension at any given time. However, it was mostly a rotating door, with another 2-3 students actively trying to get put on suspension.
The first year I taught, I had 4 classes of physics and one class of AP chemistry (i.e., advanced 11th & 12th graders). The "discipline" problems I had that year were of the type you describe, but to a lesser degree. I enjoyed teaching these kids, even when they did test my patience. The vast majority of them rose to meet my levels of expectations, and it was very rewarding. I did have more than one conference with an assistant principle who told me something along the lines of "these are A & B students who should be making A's and B's", to which I responded that, yes, they should be. Several of these students later thanked me for pushing them.
One funny story is that one of these kids actually stole my teacher's edition copy of the textbook. They were easy to catch, however, as this textbook was so bad that many of the "answers" in the back of the book were wrong!
The second (and last!) year I taught, however, I had only one class of physics, and four classes of physical science. In our district, physical science is for 9th graders who are not on the "college track" (although the district likes to pretend no such tracks exist). This school was not quite inner city, but did have a large number of apartment complexes, and so for the general/remedial classes it was not uncommon to have kids coming and going from your classroom throughout the year. (This is the same school I went to, btw.) Many of these kids (more than half, I would guess) had parents who didn't really care how well their kids did in class. Therefore, the kids didn't care either.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
My favorite trick was to hook up a set of pulleys that allowed one of the good kids (who got picked on) to easily win a tug-of-war with one of the football kids. Even though I had already taught this stuff, the "football kid" decided that the "good kid" must have won because I gave him the end with the better hold on it. So, I took off the string, reversed it, and let the good kid win the tug-of-war again (i.e., making sure he still had the bigger pulley). I'd like to think most of the kids in the class understood what was going on, even though this particular football player never figured it out (even after I explained it again).
Note: this is not meant to disparage those who play football. I have a friend here at UVA working on his Ph.D. in physics who played college football.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?