Slashdot Mirror
Teachers Resist High-tech Push In Idaho Schools
First time accepted submitter Jack W writes "This morning's NY Times highlights the issue of learning in our public schools and the proper role of technology. The Idaho governor and his state school superintendent are advocating a legislative bill for a massive infusion of computers and on-line technology in schools and is meeting resistance from state teachers, particularly the part of the bill that requires high school students to take online courses for two of their 47 graduation credits. Superintendent Luna is quoted as saying, the computer 'becomes the textbook for every class, the research device, the advanced math calculator, the word processor and the portal to a world of information.' The article notes that the governor had received campaign contributions from technology companies and that Apple and Intel had played a part in drafting the bill."
Just one step closer to firing all the teachers.
What is new? Not so long ago Microsoft and Red Hat fought hard on that kind of thing.
But it's not always that bad. Just look at the Gacaca project in Rwanda, Microsoft spent a lot of money to showcase .Net and this allowed a better funding. Could this have been done (better) with another technology? Probably, but a bill had to be paid and expecting companies to do charity is not a prudent gamble.
lucm, indeed.
The pointless application of technology just for the simple sake of technology seems a waste.
Now, a subject course where students have to buy and learn to program a $25 computer, no more expensive than a typical textbook, that would be a worthwhile application of technology in schools.
*sighs*
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Some students and some classes could and should be taught online. However, these decisions need to be made by school districts, parents, and students. The governor shouldn't be placing a huge unfunded mandate on local schools just because Apple cut him a check.
If you think a little bit...... maybe the teachers are right about things?
Some common idea + "on the internet" doens't make a good patent.
Some same teaching + "on technology" doesn't make for good education.
All high school students know what a computer is and are hardly in awe of the 'portal to the world of information' any more than they are in awe of a telephone.
Doing something useful with it is the key---or spending the same money on something else which may give more value.
Teachers may, with good reason, believe that they will now be forced to use some odd creaky technology (edu-software is like that) without any decent level of tech support after the first year, and they'll waste all sorts of time on powerpoint nonsense instead of getting on with it.
The quality of education is not a result of the amount spent on technology. It is almost pointless to fight it, though, because these decisions are made for political reasons in a vacuum of real debate, metrics, or general considerations about what gets the best results. On some level the teachers have a right to resist this, as it's a further encroachment on their autonomy and freedom to teach as they prefer. On the other hand, if teacher unions did not fight every attempt to rationally measure student success, they might get a seat at the table discussing how to handle certain kinds of problems.
How this is controversial at all is simply beyond me
I agree, this shouldn't be controversial at all. Throwing money on expensive gadgets that do nothing to improve the educational process is a complete waste of money, and any administrator who suggests it should be fired on the spot and loose all retirement benefits.
Wrong. Any teacher that fails to teach must be fired. I'm fairly sure some teachers can teach very well without computers/calculators/projectors/...
Don't mistake the tools for the end result.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Wasn't there some research recently that computers in the classroom are not correlated with better academic outcomes?
I think it even got mentioned in a slashdot article some time back.
1. Lost/Stolen devices. Who pays for replacements? Why?
2. Damaged systems that need replacement. Who pays? Why?
3. Virus infections and such. What's the turn-around time on support for those? Will the school have extras to loan while they "clean" the students' machines?
4. Upgrade policy. Will the freshman class have better equipment than the senior class?
And so forth.
Throwing tech at a non-tech problem is stupid. And tech gets old really fast. And tech needs expensive support.
Preparing kids for today's job climate without basic computer literacy is a joke and a disservice to our children.
The first major push for computers in schools had more than just some computers. In addition to putting the Apple IIs (usually) into school computer labs, there were also initiatives like MECC to produce useful software for them, research from educators like Seymour Papert on how to use them to teach technical skills, etc.
By the late 80s this had mostly withered away, so that when my own high school in the 1990s replaced its Apple IIs with Macintosh LCs, the main thing they were used for besides word processing was... running the old Apple II software on the IIe attachment card.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If you think a little bit...... maybe the teachers are right about things?
About all things? I'm pretty sure not.
Some common idea + "on the internet" doens't make a good patent.
But EDUCATION + Internet = GREAT IDEA.
The fact is this. We live in a world where there is an amazing ability to learn almost anything online.
So why not teach kids, as early as possible to be able to take advantage of this amazing resource to learn when and where they want?
Something that can't go on forever will not, and the upward spiraling costs for downward spiraling benefits of a college education mean those that can truly learn online and make the best use of technology have a huge advantage - they could either go to a smaller cheaper school and supplement learning with technology, or skip college altogether and go a self-directed path.
All high school students know what a computer is
Well I can see you grew up rather privileged.
Doing something useful with it is the key---or spending the same money on something else which may give more value.
Like what? There is literally nothing more valuable to teach students now, because it is a meta-teaching.
Even if the actual execution is not that great (and with the public school system you can be sure it will not be) the very fact some of the courses are online will get more students to realizing they can learn from the internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And I'm sure that basic computer literacy is the biggest shortcoming of students that our education systems are pumping out today.
Potatoes?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
is your brain. Once you learn to use that you might add a decent calculator.
School is supposed to be about teaching our children how to learn for themselves, not moulding them into todays job climate.
Well, if you deploy Chromebooks, the answers are easy:
1. Google. You're on a service contract.
2. Google. You're on a service contract.
3. Don't exist.
4. Every three years. No.
Throwing tech at this problem sure solved it. Google Chromebooks for Education (hardware and support) are extremely well priced in my opinion.
Pure FUD, Negative Nancy. Now, please rail on now about how worthless Chromebooks are and kids can't possibly get an decent education with just the Internet.
then they are pretty much computer illiterate. Sure they can use Microsoft Word but would be stupefied if LibreOffice or Google Docs were put before them. They memorized what menus to click through but not the concepts of the tasks so it is no surprise the educators in Idaho would oppose more use of technology if they were anything like here. They would be unable to use the technology to teach the kids. And "here" is in one of the top 20 largest cities in America.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
there has been no established correlation between technology in schools and improved academic performance.
I think anyone who wastes money on shoving technology into schools should be fired. Yet I have a vested interest in it being otherwise (I make ebook readers and tablet computers).
there are strong correlations between economic affluence of the community (i.e. rich folks) and performance in schools. I'm not sure how that can be used to improve our schools, but better than some imaginary assumed linked between technology and success.
The other big waste is text books, why would low-level courses need new text books every 3-5 years. I would rather we spent the money on creating open licensed text books than on a nearly disposable laptop or tablet that becomes worn out or obsolete in 2 years. (I said "the money" as if schools have any just laying around. HA!)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Technology push YOU!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Our children get the education that we deserved. Not really fair but that's the way it is.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is a non-story. Traditional mass-produced education is going the way of the dodo, buggy-whip manufacturers, and RIAA.
With Kahn academy and various universities putting their courses on the net, a complete education is currently online. It's not yet super-charged with goodness, but right now it's entirely possible for anyone to get a complete online education up to and including the graduate level. (viz: the Standord online courses)
Kids are voracious learners. Give them the right materials and they will figure it out on their own, at their own speed, and in a sequence that makes sense to them.
We are rapidly reaching the point of not needing teachers. Certainly, the typical role of teacher as one who makes the kids sit quietly and watch a boring lecture are gone. Before ten years are up you will see grade schools perceived as nothing more than jail-time... which is what they are.
Traditional methods haven't changed in two millenia, the system has no feedback for improvement, there is no accountability that rewards goal achievement... there's really nothing to recommend the traditional school system.
Let them duke it out and squabble over whatever they like. They don't have a clue, they can only play catch-up and they won't even be able to do that. They simply won't be able to compete with what the web can offer.
We'll soon be questioning the wisdom of having schools outright, and the kids will be all the better off for it.
Throwing money on expensive gadgets that do nothing to improve the educational process is a complete waste of money
Making it far easier to access up-to-date information is great for the education process. You'll never replace teachers but technology like this is clearly advantageous. What is it specifically you're opposed to?
You're making a fundamentally flawed assumption ... that the problem with education has anything to do with learning or teaching. It just doesn't. The problem with the education system today, as much as the idiots whine about not enough money,and the other idiots whine about, whatever the idiot republicans claim the problem is, that parents refuse to be responsible for their children. I can't teach your little shit anything if you don't teach them to shut up, listen, obey, or care about learning. Everyone would be better off we we let your little felon drop out, but WIC pays you to make sure he shows up and causes problems at school.
...But behind all the rhetoric about the children, this boils down to a money fight: The subset of the tech industry trying to sell educational technology, vs the teachers and the teachers' union.
I'm a dues-paying, card-carrying member of a teachers' union (at a community college), but I can't help feeling that this is the kind of thing that teachers' unions in the US have brought upon themselves.
What should happen is that K-12 teachers should be professionals, and they should be treated just like other professionals, such as doctors and engineers. When is the last time you heard an engineer claiming that although his bridge fell down, he shouldn't be held accountable? When's the last time you heard a premed saying that it was unreasonable to expect him to do well on the MCAT, because African-Americans do worse on it, on the average, than whites and Asians, thereby proving that the test is racist? Or a doctor whining that it was unreasonable to expect him to use MRI scanners, because he hasn't had the training?
What left the K-12 teaching profession vulnerable to political interference was its history of failing to hold itself to high professional standards. That opened the door to NCLB and a general tendency of politicians to try to tinker with things that ought to lie within teachers' own sphere of professional competence and discretion.
What the politicians in Idaho are doing is stupid, but that kind of incompetent tinkering is the natural result of K-12 teachers' unwillingness to act like professionals.
Find free books.
Michigan has required "on-line experiences" for several years. In many districts this meant on-line courses, and most high schools offer at least a few if not several AP courses via on-line courses. At last check about 20% of college level courses are being taken exclusively on-line, and even a "residential" college has a significant on-line component. This is a broad generalization that obviously has many laudable exceptions, but teachers, who should be all about learning and new things are actually some of the most hide-bound stubborn, change-averse, and in some cases (as in Idaho obviously) actual luddites that I've ever encountered. That's based on 11 years combined as an IT Director for a good size district (9,000 students) and small charter system (1,100 students).
What is it specifically you're opposed to?
1. Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government.
2. Mandated online classes as a high school graduation requirement.
I think that a lot of people that push for technology (and don't have a vested interest) in the classroom don't realise that, good grades doesn't equal a good education. They try to make out that technology will increase their intelligence, i think it will just make it easier to spoonfeed students, it won't make them any better at developing their own ideas, conducting their own research, nor improving the quality of someones education.
Probably the biggest problem is, tests only identify those who are the best at regurgitating information, arguably, they need to know the information first, but exams don't really test how well students can conduct their own research (finding answers on google isn't research) nor how well they can formulate their own ideas (which is impossible to do on google, but hard to discern by a third party, ie teacher)
I think people should realise that technology has its place, and isn't an extension of somebody, technology is just a tool and not always the right tool.
In Colorado, on-line schools have been shown to be less effective than face time with the teacher -- dramatically so.
There's no reason to think that doesn't scale, and if it scales that means that those on-line courses would be ineffective.
The best math teachers I ever had shared one thing in common -- they disallowed calculators in their class. And as fun as a kindle or ipad may be, I'd wager a hefty sum that reading a novel in paper is (at least currently) more intuitive and less of a barrier to the material than reading it electronically. I hate to be a "get off my lawn" type, but I feel that schools should be actively resisting any technological "aid" to teaching that is not something directly taught by the class.
Math classes should be "show your work."
Language, history, and Literature should be "show your notes."
Intro to programming should be "show your algorithms" -- more switch design and less "hello world."
I can see benefit to computers in more advanced programming courses, as well as in history courses that want to include videos and/or art. But really, there is very little place for a computer in sub-college school work. People need to learn to think on their feet.
Just my $0.02.
The plan requires high school students to take online courses for two of their 47 graduation credits.
This sounds like a cost-cutting measure. Online classes are for times when the alternative is not having the class. They're "better than nothing", not "better".
If a school wanted to offer students a course in programming but didn't have anyone capable, then it might make sense to arrange for them to take an online course offered by a third party (preferably a tech school or college in the same area). It doesn't sound like this is anything close to what they're doing.
Not true. I am a systems architect and developer. Before that, I was an engineer who did CADD/CAE/CAM and then managed people who did the same. There were no computers in my grade school, no computer courses in high school. For my degree in engineering physics, most of my work was done with pencil and paper though some project were done on computer (by my choice). It is nonsense to claim that "computer literacy" (especially incarnated as the farce it usually is in schools) is required to be taught in schools. Instead, we need literacy, mathematics, and speaking to be taught. I'd prefer not a single computer to be part of any required course in grade or high school.
1. Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government.
Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government occur in almost all aspects of life, the government isn't expected to fund every mandate they make.
2. Mandated online classes as a high school graduation requirement.
What's wrong with having high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
It remains more or less the same as with books, lab equipment and classroom resources. Why does everyone expect something new when there's no real management and processing difference in what type of resource has been compared.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Their for old people... like reading and math... duh
Another sizable part of the resistence is even more simple than that: I've found giving my students access to technology in the classroom (particularly networked devices of any kind) is only rarely beneficial. Most of the time, it just gives my students a thousand more interesting things to do than listen to me, or do their actual work.
If its so great, why don't Silicon Valley tech execs use it?
http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/family-matters/silicon-valley-execs-send-their-children-tech-free-schools-and-s-ok.html
"We need more computers in the classroom!"
OK, what are you going to do with them?
The school district I grew up in (in yuppieville) has decided that every student should have a tablet computer.
My response was, why?
There is virtually nothing a tablet computer is going to do that can't be done with some combination of pen, paper, and an overhead. And in most cases, the pen/paper/overhead is going to be more effective.
I'm actually surprised the teachers are opposed - in my old district it's the teachers pushing the technology buy. Then again, most of the teachers there kinda stink.
paintball
Access to information is the opposite learning.
I've had lots of [university] students who were very skilled at looking up answers online. On the other hand, if you asked questions like "why is this so?" or "does this make sense?" they were at a complete loss because these questions require going beyond mere facts and actually knowing something about the subject matter.
People forcing computers into the classroom in the name of "education" don't seem to grasp the difference either.
Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government occur in almost all aspects of life, the government isn't expected to fund every mandate they make.
"It happens" and "it's a good thing" are two different concepts. And not expecting the government at the state level to fund something that they demand the local schools do is one of the "it happens" things, not one of the "it's a good things".
What's wrong with having high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
Nothing is wrong with allowing them to take approved online courses. Did you miss the word "mandate"?
... it's all about how technology is used rather then using it as a bandaid or distraction. There are places in schools where technology makes sense.
The real issue as always comes down to the staff and the students, unwilling uneducated/lazy staff or lazy/disinterested students are the real issues. No amount of technology or NO technology is going to change what is fundamentally a problem of understanding human beings strengths and weaknesses and tracking these people to curriculum appropriate to their abilities and interests.
But it does not follow from this that this proposed spending will efficiently remedy a lack of computer literacy in the students. That requires that students lack computer literacy now, that the spending will fix this, and that it will do so at reasonable cost.
I'm too removed from this situation to make a judgement, but the views of the teachers deserve careful consideration.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Like any pig at a trough, they want it ALL, not just their share. Education of the students is secondary while both sides play politics with their lives.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Superintendent Luna is quoted as saying, the computer 'becomes the textbook for every class, the research device, the advanced math calculator, the word processor and the portal to a world of information.'
Here's the only question that matters: What research-based evidence supports this view that a computer is a better and more effective medium for accessing this information than the present status quo of books, the library, the handheld calculator, and a desktop computer?
Because, to put it in terms of business, if there isn't a decent Return-On-Investment with buying all this tech, than no citizen or politician should put money up to invest.
I get "that look" regularly, when I hand a young cashier $10.34 for a $4.34 sale -- she saw the $10 bill and poked that number into the register which is now telling her to give me $5.66, and I'm telling her to give me $6. Completely baffled.
Sometimes I think about trying the old Abbott and Costello routine where I say I don't have a five so I'll pay with a ten, and then when I get a five back in change I say "ok, now I have a five, here's a five, give me back my ten."
I'd venture to say that this is not entirely true for many subjects that students learn in K-12. For example, geometry, arithmetic, algebra, even basic calculus haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years. Why would you need instantly up to date information to learn these subjects? The same is true for english, history, etc., etc. Just a thought.
We recently evaluated a new math curriculum/program for our school. When the time came to buy textbooks, almost all of our teachers told us they preferred the online material. The reasons they cited:
Students lose textbooks, or do not want to carry them home. Online resources are more easily accessed.
Parents want to check-in on their student's progress more frequently than a few times per year. Online access allows this.
Teachers like "ready made" interactive materials they can display on smartboards/projectors without having to resort to paper and overheads. It makes class preparation quicker, and the lessons more engaging.
We did eventually buy a few textbooks for students that prefer them, or lack technology resources at home, but the days of one book per student are going away fast.
"It happens" and "it's a good thing" are two different concepts.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate? Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all. Not to mention that 'it happens' and 'it's a good thing' are clearly not mutually exclusive.
And not expecting the government at the state level to fund something that they demand the local schools do is one of the "it happens" things, not one of the "it's a good things".
Why? They aren't mutually exclusive.
Nothing is wrong with allowing them to take approved online courses. Did you miss the word "mandate"?
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'. If you really are having that much difficulty then replace 'having' in the original statement with 'mandating':
What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
I'd venture to say that this is not entirely true for many subjects that students learn in K-12. For example, geometry, arithmetic, algebra, even basic calculus haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years.
Isn't it odd then that there are constantly new revisions of textbooks? These are 'updated' versions, you don't use the same textbook from hundreds of years ago because explanations and teaching methodologies are updated and errors fixed.
Why would you need instantly up to date information to learn these subjects? The same is true for english, history, etc., etc.
You don't think mankind discovers more about history as time goes on? Uncovering more details? Making archaeological discoveries?
I was being quite sarcastic. My suspicion is that in our culture today kids will have no shortage of experience working with technology. I don't necessarily see a problem with having a course teaching certain computer skills. But I don't know that it is necessary to force teachers to use computers in every class.
I recently was at a dollar store and and the cashier couldn't make change for $2 from a $1.13 sale. She had to pull out her calculator.
All this being said, if you want to treat teacher's as professionals, then it seems reasonable to entrust them with the decision of what tools to use. Maybe that will involve technology. Maybe that will involve good old pen and paper.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate?
Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening. There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated". A counsellor can have a student take an online class because it is appropriate (and the student wants to), and that's not the same as a state government mandating that he take the class no matter what. I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
If you do not prepare your students for taking online courses in HS then they will be unprepared for the online courses that they may be required to take in college. Students who take an online course or two in HS will be better prepared, plain and simple.
Apple and Intel played a part in the bill because they are corporate stakeholders. Will they profit? No more than usual. There are already countless Apple machines & Intel chips in schools everywhere in the U.S.
Alot of technology need hands on learning and that is a place where higher edu sucks at and if that where they want people to learn about stuff then it's be a lot some body on a golf course by some thing with not even knowing what they are buying. Now they been plan for hands on learning time and the need to hire real IT people some schools just dump the IT load on some staff that have little to no idea about IT.
I was being quite sarcastic.
Okay.
All this being said, if you want to treat teacher's as professionals, then it seems reasonable to entrust them with the decision of what tools to use.
Better yet, leave the decisions of how to teach one's kids at the parent's level -- where the money comes from -- instead of mandating the same thing for every school using other people's money. There are local school boards, and local school districts with local tax levies, for a reason. Not every school should do things the same way because not every school has to do the same job.
There is one thing that we know about education. The higher value the student places upon and takes responsibility for learning, the better the student does. If a student wants to learn, they can learn despite bad teachers, or bad online courses. The better the tools and more opportunity a student like this has. The more they will learn.
Sometimes a student lights this flame inside all by themselves.
Sometimes a teacher lights this flame for them.
More often than not though. It is parental involvement at home that makes a difference. Everything from reading to a child, installing the love of learning, to just making sure learn good study habits and get their homework done.
Parents who do not do this at home and rely on teachers to do it because "it is there job" are the real problem. Even the best teacher can not be guaranteed to be able to do this with the number of students and time they have in class. By definition, not all teachers can be exceptional. Many will fail at this because they don't have what it takes to inspire. It is still the parents job at home to do this.
vi +
The real Disabilities issues is with higher EDU being needed for most JOB's while this is a good starting point.
The real issues are with jobs that say need a 4 year BA for jobs like mail room.
As for IT jobs bypass people who went to a tech school (that are a better fit for people with learning disabilities) or who have done alot of learning on the job there own can be seen as violating the law.
I saw a job that says This is an entry-level position. Please do not apply unless you have recently graduated with a 4 year degree but in the same ad they say 1 — 3 years experience as well. Now That makes it seem like the 4 year degree part is just slapped on AND IS NOT NEEDED FOR THE JOB. No what your saying is that you want 1-3 years experience and the degree is not needed for the job.
Not only that I have seen job ads that ask for -Minimum ACT / SAT Scores and -Minimum GPA 3.0 Now that sounds like even more of away to passover people who have learning disability's who may not be good test takes but can do a job.
community college is also a other place that for some people who have learning disability's Is a better fit then other colleges but most of them MAX out at 2 years.
Employers “just assume it's okay” to require a high school diploma the same is true with a BA."
ALSO
"
Employers should not fear the EEOC warning. In fact, employers should use it to focus their attention on identifying the actual essential qualifications needed to perform a job...and how to assess whether or not a candidate has these qualifications. Because education has been so dumb-downed in the last 50 years, a high school graduation diploma or a high school equivalency certification simply is not evidence that an individual possesses the essential qualifications to perform a job. The same is true for many if not most post high school degrees. Check out the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses" by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. Also check out the new Skills Gap research report from A.C.T. showing that just having a diploma or certificate is no evidence an applicant possesses the foundational skills of reading for information, locating information, and applied math needed for almost every job today. Jim Collison, President, Employers of America, Inc."
The education systems needs rethinking and tech needs trades / apprenticeship.
Now the online schools are a stat but the Traditional methods are not the best for today's would much less the faster pass of tech. Traditional methods have left us with a BIG GAP form what is part of the class on College Campuses and real work skills. And a lot of the tech schools / on line schools fill that gap. But there is a lot that only comes from doing real work as there is a lot in tech that is not in the book or the test.
Give Luna a break. He got his advanced education training from an online college. His degree is in weights and measures. Surely someone with that background knows the proper role of technology in Idaho schools.
No, School is supposed to be about training them to have sufficient basic skills to enter the job climate.
Parents are supposed to teach kids how to think for themselves...
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
No i think that just because something is mandated by the government isn't a valid reason to oppose it.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening.
As in 'what's wrong with them mandating it'.
There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated".
I already clarified that and i even re-posted the comment with the word substituted, are you really that dense that you can't get past it?
I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason, moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods when such figures are not provided? Perhaps this is even cheaper.
I figured the decision would be left to the individual teacher. Different students learn in different ways. At the same time, different teachers have different teaching styles. One teacher might find certain technologies to be very helpful in doing their job, while others might find that it gets in the way. The obvious challenge with this is the temptation that technological toys can be and that teachers might choose it for the sake of it rather than for the benefits that it may provide.
Also, parents may assume that teachers that don't use technology are less qualified to teach or may have some other ideas that don't line up with reality.
I don't know that you would want it left in the hands of parents, because parents might feel that technology is the silver bullet that will help their children to be geniuses.
All things considered, I don't know what the best answer is. In an ideal world every teacher is amazing and only has the best interest of the students at heart. Unfortunately, teachers are people and as such don't act as they might in an ideal world.
My wife is a secondary school German and French teacher here in the UK.
Her school has a very tech heavy setup, with smart-boards in all the classrooms and all the kids have netbooks.
She really loves the smart-boards, they are incredibly useful because they allow her to use much richer teaching material much more easily than in the past, mixing video, audio, and even letting her create interactive games for the whole class.
The netbooks on the other hand are much less useful. In a class of 30 the odds of all the kids remembering to bring them, and all of them working properly is pretty small. They get broken and lost or infected with viruses. The school's IT team have done a really good job, but with 1200 students it's a sisyphean task to keep them all running.
Don't get me wrong, I think the kids having the netbooks has been a good thing overall, but it's not a magic bullet.
But most importantly the use of the new tech has been driven by the teaching staff, not imposed on them from above, so what they have actually serves an educational purpose.
Politicians should stay out of the minutia of teaching and let teachers and school mangement get on with it. Government should stick to just making sure that the results are good, and intervening where necessary, not ruling by dictat.
Paul Leader
Computers will not solve the problem, no matter how much money you spend. If the Idaho public schools were anything like my schools, the students invariably knew more than the teachers about how to use them and the teachers were always infuriated and scared to death of this. I once got yelled-at because some little bitch tattled on me after I had used a paperclip to eject a CD that was stuck in the drive. The teacher went on about how it wasn't my property and I could have damaged an expensive tax payer funded machine. Had I been the type to talk back, I would have said to him, "what the FUCK do you think that little hole is there for!?"
Now my generation of kids are becoming school teachers. I assure you, my generation knows almost as much about computers as the teachers who taught me (nothing at all). So the teachers are going to be afraid of students and the computers, and the computers won't benefit anyone.
The PTA hates anything that will make learning fun, so the hands of the more creative and knowledgeable teachers will be tied behind their back. Students will never learn about programming or algorithms, as they should, and even if these courses were approved, the teachers would probably make learning about it more torturous than fun, and kids will grow up fearing and hating computers, as my generation did.
The whole system is rotten to the core. Adding technology is like pouring expensive wine down the drain hoping it will purify the sewage.
you can't add in technology in the hope that they will help out the teachers. it's a shame most teachers are not good - few have teaching skills.
i think a large screen beside the white board, for the teacher to use for helping out while they teach would be enough.
Access to information is the opposite learning.
Are you retarded? How do you think one learns anything? By accessing information! You can't learn anything if you don't have access to any information.
I've had lots of [university] students who were very skilled at looking up answers online. On the other hand, if you asked questions like "why is this so?" or "does this make sense?" they were at a complete loss because these questions require going beyond mere facts and actually knowing something about the subject matter.
Which is why you have questions like 'explain' or 'with worked example', and don't be lazy and use generic questions. If you use real-world examples then they will solve them how they would in the real world, which is precisely the point. People use the internet and computers to solve problems in the real world and should obviously be doing so in education too.
Pretty old news isn't it? They already had a recall effort on Luna which failed (unsurprisingly) and I don't doubt the governor who fully supported this measure, will get re-elected. Idahoans vote based on name recognition and if there is an 'R' by their name
Also this measure seems like the kind of thing a democrat would do, which I find ironic
First some quote from TFA:
...Some teachers in the Los Angeles public schools, for example, complain that the form that supervisors use to evaluate teachers has a check box on whether they use technology, suggesting that they must use it for its own sake.
That is a concern shared by Ms. Rosenbaum, who teaches at Post Falls High School in this town in northern Idaho, near Coeur d’Alene. Rather than relying on technology, she seeks to engage students with questions — the Socratic method — as she did recently as she was taking her sophomore English class through “The Book Thief,” a novel about a family in Germany that hides a Jewish girl during World War II.
Ms. Rosenbaum, tall with an easy smile but also a commanding presence, stood in the center of the room with rows of desks on each side, pacing, peppering the students with questions and using each answer to prompt the next. What is an example of foreshadowing in this chapter? Why did the character say that? How would you feel in that situation?
Mr. Otter said of a teacher like Ms. Rosenbaum, “If she only has an abacus in her classroom, she’s missing the boat.”
I am a physics guy who is just as tech immersed as many posters here. But one of my main worries with the "modernization" of the educational system that is being pushed on multiple fronts these days is that it will cause us to lose touch with deeply engrained educational legacies that are at the heart of western civilization itself. I am speaking for one of the Socratic method, where we learn by constantly questioning. The type of thinking that Socrates displayed is at the heart of our civilization. It lies at the root of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution. It helped us overthrow despotic absolute monarchs. It led to the development of our democratic systems. I think most of us really do not realize how much Socrates changed the world.
The Socratic method is a way of educating that is "real time" and "interactive". A teacher asks questions, and as a student answers, further questions are asked. The student and the teacher each try to analyze the soundness of each other's logic. This method accomplishes many things, but one very important facet is that it instills in a student the habit of questioning everything. It encourages students to habitually seek after knowledge and truth.
I suspect many readers will not have experienced this type of education to any great extent. Our system has evolved into one that encourages rote memorization of facts. Many of our teachers are information dispensers. Possibly that is why many readers think there will be very little change if education becomes a matter between a student and his/her computer. But perhaps some of us have had a teacher or a professor who has somehow reached us, who caused us to think, who kindled a fire inside of us. In a world where teachers become bystanders to education, I worry that such experiences will become less and less frequent.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
What is being kept under wraps is that Luna's family is stockholders in the company the state is using for this upheaval.
The sad part is during the reelection campaign to put Luna into this position he ran commercials saying Idaho has the best schools in the US. After the election...the Otter administration bent over those who supported his reelection by showing how behind the schools were after the election. Because they were so bad...this has to be changed to put Idaho on top of the education system in the US by forcing taxpayers to provide computers and distance learning whether or not this needed to be done.
What will actually happen is rampant viruses and lost laptops...along with students who aren't smart enough to handle this distance education. Since the private sector is handling this...it will be okay. When the truth actually comes out...Luna and his family will be laughing all the way to the bank with students not able to complete their high school education.
Thought Oklahoma/Texas schools were bad...but having worked in schools in Idaho...the crappy public education I got 30+ years is better than anything students in Idaho will be getting.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
It is my opinion that the public education system is, and has always been, pretty much a joke, and this really won't solve that problem, but will at least allow the poor students who are subjected to teacher's who themselves are stuck in 20th century workforce mentality, in the 21st century, and ultimately preparing students for jobs that no longer exist in this country.
The struggle to maintain validity and their own job security has been trumping the capabilities of students for at least the last 2 decades, and this is only going to become more of a reality in the next 10-20 years, as quite a few University-level courses are slowly replaced by courseware. Sure, Doctors and perhaps, Lawyers may still need to attend class, but do english majors really need to sit in a class? Sure, there will always be an argument in favor of interaction with awesome teachers, but this is no reason to *not* embrace evolving methods of learning, not to mention, teaching.
As someone who was constantly ridiculed, demotivated-by, or simply insulted-by comments from teachers growing-up, who eventually dropped-out of HS, and now enjoy a far more stable and well-paying career than said teachers, I welcome this initiative, and hope teachers will wake-up to the realities of the 21st century markets, and workforce requirements. Not that everyone else should follow my footsteps, but the fact is, you can succeed fine in this world, given enough self-discipline, continuous learning, and determination. In that regard, this country still offers more than any other country, and should be noted accordingly.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Textbook are revised for all sort of reasons. Most of them, quite independent of methodology and what not. Permuting the exercises counts as a 'revision'...
No. There is an amazing ability to find information online, but learning requires evaluation and incorporation of correct information.
Gee, then wouldn't it be nice to have someone help you figure out how to evaluate and incorporate information online.
You know, something like, perhaps - A SCHOOL????????????
Perhaps one getting a large technology grant??
?!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Online learning is not better learning.
Better than great one-on-one or small classroom learning? I think I agree, the dialog between people learning is an awesome thing.
But how many people can have that? And as good as such a thing is, is it work 50k of debt? That I am not at all sure of.
The thing I do know is libraries everywhere have internet for the community. A poor kid with nothing could, if applying himself, really do a whole field of study entirely on the internet at this point. And that, I think is far better than the alternative.
Even for those that are not poor though, I think college has reached the price point where I would steep people away from it. You can take half the money you would have spent on school, and live in a college community on your own - investing time in online classes until you find your field of interest, and then focusing study until you had, roughly a degree - possibly with a bunch of real-world work experience thrown in along the way to see if working in your field of study held any interest for you.
Spending half as much you'd have the same social experience, but an immeasurably better learning experience with half the debt and thus a LOT more choices about what you could do - and the ability to learn anything new you desired at any time instead of having to go to "school" to do so.
That is now possibly because of the internet, do not take lightly the ability we now all have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't particularly disagree that things do change, and that textbooks get updated, I'm just saying that putting technology into classrooms for the sole reason that you have instantly updated information is perhaps unnecessary.
Well that's not the only reason, you can get access to pretty much any textbook you like without having to lug them around, you can easily access published papers and other research material not to mention it's a damn side more efficient to search a digital publication than a printed one. Then there's the backup, history, interactivity, media (audio/video), etc...
I'm not saying the proposal has any merit nor does any idea of replacing everything with new technology but clearly high school students will go on to use this sort of technology in the real world so augmenting the learning process with it in high school makes sense.
Wish I had mod points.
My thoughts exactly. The school my kids go to allowed them to use calculators to do homework. I saw all sorts of GIGO errors in their work; fundamental simple errors. They were frustrated with math. So I took their calculators away and made them do math long hand. Before long they understood numbers and how the answer should look like - before they use the calculator.
Kids also think "research" is sticking a phrase into google and copying and pasting the result into a paper. The last thing we need is more mindless computer drones who can't do anything but punch stuff into a search box and mindlessly repeat the drivel that shows up on screen.
Adding computers to the classroom does nothing if it's not a part of a curriculum built around computers. That means teachers have to be trained to use the technology in an effective way, the textbooks (or course materials) have to include computers, and lastly, there has to be support for computers.
Hahaha. no. Normal public school is about molding kids to be good little office/factory sheep. It SHOULD be about teaching them how to learn, but it is not. 2
http://phelannguyen.blogspot.com/
Technology is not going to go away and in 20 years people are going to look back and wonder why teachers would ever stand in the way of the use of computers in the classroom. Computers (and technology in general) are a tool and great teachers learn how to integrate technology into their curriculum. Now that "No Child Left Behind" is on the run perhaps teachers can focus on teaching students how to think instead of focusing on how to train students to take standardized tests.
Anything that undermines the power of teachers' unions is a good thing.
This threatens that power by threatening their continued illusion of relevance to the education of the young.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Why the fuck would it do anything now?
My 9 year old gave a powerpoint presentation in class the other day. While it's kinda cool that kids are learning to drive office suites it strikes me as a distraction. Instead of figuring out the content and structuring their presentation, the kids focused on slide transitions and effects. Instead of writing essays by hand, they type. They're rewarded for good classwork by getting to play moronic "educational" games.It's a bit worrying because they learn to be good little mouse-drivers and content consumers. The idea that a computer can be an engineering and problem solving tool is missing completely at school. It's only at home that I see that spark - he mucks with Lego mindstorms and thinks it's completely normal to dismantle handhelds to replace broken screens and such.
If you introduced tech at a site that would potentially replace you, how keen would you be?
I'm from Idaho and have been following this one for some time. This has nothing to do with education. Luna and a lot of his cronies stand to make some serious bucks they can redirect the money from public education into the coffers of private industry. The governor "Butch" Otter has received large campaign contributions from the same firms, and the Albertson Foundation is mounting a PR offensive to convince the public of the merits of this idea because they stand to profit also. If you check into Dan Popkey's articles in the Idaho Statesman on this subject, you can get all the dirt.
I grew up and went to high school in a rural school district in North Idaho where my parents are still teachers. As mentioned in many of the post above, the resistance to this move is not some anti-tech paranoia. There are serious concerns like plans to lay off large swaths of teachers, and use the savings to pay for the computers.
I most seriously object to the notion that the superintendent of schools is going to "fix" education with this move when many of the state's districts are in shambles. State and local support for schools is so dismal that my home district has gone to a 4 day school week to cut costs, and that's been going on for 7 years, one of the first in the country. Students all the way down to first graders sit through class from 8:00 to 4:00 every day to meet state requirements for hours, then spend 3 day weekends melting away what they learned. Every year the school board whittles away at the foundations, most recently furloughing salaries for two days during the Thanksgiving holiday. Every two years when the school has to levy the community for additional funds, the scenario gets even more bizarre and terrifying. The most recent levy had things like paper and dry erase markers on the chopping block as well as all extracurricular activities which were lumped in with things like "art" and "band." Is issuing every student a laptop going to solve these problems? By the time students make use of them, everyone will be outside in the rain doing algebra with sticks in the mud.
These issues seem to always take a tone of vilifying teachers for being antiquated and unprepared, when I really think they are true saints, working with the best that they have. I hope Idaho takes a little closer look at the reality on the ground and thinks of a better strategy than paying a company in another state to tube-feed content while slashing budgets.
In what other profession could you take a professional from 100 years ago and put them in today's work environment and with a few minor adjustments find that they could perform their job? Teaching/education system is about the only one I can think of quickly. That in itself doesn't mean there's a problem but it certainly stands out as something worth reviewing.
Why can't legislators realize that everyone learns differently? Oh yeah, lobbyists.
All I know is, from about grade 5 up through 12, I was bored to tears in school. I hated it. I still scraped by and graduated, a semester late, and then I took an interest in my education. I did pretty well for a former C-average student.
If I'd had computers in my classes to distract from the monotony, I wouldn't have picked up the limited education I did. That would have been the last straw. And don't tell me they would have "engaged my interest" or some such nonsense. Course material that's dry as the Sahara doesn't get better just because it's on a computer screen. Don't get me wrong: I had plenty of good teachers along the way, and not EVERY class put me to sleep, but for the most part, I was not a happy student in grade school.
Oh and, for the record, I work with a computer every day. Adult me manages to work with one just fine. Student me would have been doomed.
Can. Worms. Open.
1. As far as companies go, I like both Apple and Intel. But no company should ever be involved in writing legislation. This statement could spark an entire separate discussion, but I'm not going to go there...
2. Why new legislation? There is no need for any more legislation, anywhere. Existing laws are more than sufficient, we don't need more. Technology is just a tool. It doesn't require a law to be used.
3. Each State has a board of education. They are (should be) responsible for making sure the education system is up-to-date and effective, and setting curriculum. If you don't like the job they're doing, fire them and hire new people.
4. Teachers don't need to fight technology, they need to embrace it. Fight unnecessary laws, don't fight the technology. Computers (especially tablets) are going to become the textbook, calculator, word processor, research tool, etc. whether they like it or not. You can kick at the pricks, or you can adapt and get your own content prepared and on the devices.
5. If someone is worried about their lecturing being replaced by technology, then you're not teaching, you're just flapping your lip and people have finally had enough of that nonsense. An online course, or two, is a great idea for the school board to implement (not for politicians to legislate). But an online course needs to be more than some boring instructor lecturing in front of a white board and posting it as a video clip. Dumb. An online course needs to be fully interactive (especially for K-12) and well thought out. It needs to have all, or as many elements as possible as would be found in the classroom. And, for the K-12 group, the online course should actually be taught in the traditional classroom, to teach students how to make the most of the online resources and the technology devices - how to properly do research using the internet and other tools, how to properly create reports and fulfill assignments.
Technology can bolster learning, and enhance the teaching process rather than eliminate teachers. Technology is a tool, not an end in itself. It's all about how you approach it. Is the glass half empty or half full? The schools need to step up, not the politicians. The elected official's job is simply to replace school administrators that aren't passing muster.
wow, finally a /. article that hits home for my state and industry.
I was part of the supporters of 2 of Luna's 3 proposals this legislative year. This was the 1 proposal I was not in favor of. Partly because it shifted money out of the state for expensive gadgets / technology. And partly because teachers are already hampered enough as it is with idiotic curriculum dictated by district wide contracts with textbook grant related subsidies.
Technology isn't by itself a magic bullet. The use of it and efficiency of how this plan is implemented will determine if this was forward thinking, or just pandering to a few computer makers looking for a big contract.
I live in Idaho. What you all think about it is correct. It's mostly rural. The average wage and the average property tax don't cover costs well. My county just extended a special tax approved by us just to pay for existing schools. Some of the schools could use some serious upgrading. These smaller school districts cannot afford to offer every possible course. There exist a lot of gaps that cannot be filled in with more teachers because they cost money and who wants to fund a class with a total of 5 students each year? Out here, most of the talk is about the requirement to take two online courses to graduate. I hear less talk about a cool new toy. That's a benefit. One student is taking Chinese which isn't offered in the school. She is also taking Algebra to get ahead. Just think of the possible benefits here. You can take courses which will benefit you. You can take courses off track if the schedules don't work. You become used to the idea of self training which will be a benefit the rest of your life. When done right, think of what a good course will do. It could push you harder. It will take great teachers and stream video lectures which should be more informative than a normal teacher. Think of Kahn and what he's done. And for those of you who think I'm too pie in the sky, yes, I realize it will take time. Yes, I realize mistakes will be made. But by just sticking with a teacher only method, we limit ourselves and someone will figure out how to make the best use of technology to teach. If Idaho does it right it will be a combination of hardware AND the correct application of technology with online courses, education supplements, and other tools that enable students. If a few teachers jobs are lost along the way I'm not going to cry over it. We transitioned from elevator operators to fully automated elevators without destroying our society. Changing to role of teachers and giving them tools to leverage their skills would be a good thing.
A lot of the things that I've seen computers used for -- at least in the K-5 classes -- is drill problems (math, vocabulary, etc.). What need is there for "up-to-date" information regarding multiplication tables? If the computers are being used for research, why not put them in the library along with the other research materials? They do not need to be in the classroom. If they're going to be used for training on how to use a computer then why not put them in a lab with enough staff dedicated to dealing with those computers (maintenance, repairs, etc.). That way, each teacher doesn't need to be an expert on the computer and all the software that's on it. How effective of a tool is a computer in the classroom going to be if a single teacher has to be the walking help desk for 20-30 students?
If the state wants to mandate that all students need to take a class on the basics on how to use a computer (Not Office training. Please.) and how to use the Internet for research then fine. Set up a dedicated computer lab for those courses. Add a couple of classrooms, if necessary, to avoid increasing the overall class size. But don't eliminate other courses to fit the mandated curriculum into the school day. I'd be all for lengthening the school day by an hour in order to fit these classes in. (Students will complain but, hey, longer school days are all the rage nowadays.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Living in Moscow, ID - Home of the University of Idaho, I have heard a lot about this push from my friends who are studying to be teachers. One of the main reasons: It was trialed in some schools around Idaho, it was detrimental. Very detrimental. As in, this really is all about the money and appearance of being "high-tech". I haven't heard of a single teacher that approves of this. I've also heard choice words about the credibility of the superintendent... Not sure why this is still going forward?
From a 1996 Wired Magazine interview. ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html ):
Wired:
Could technology help by improving education?
Steve Jobs:
I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.
It's a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they're inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I'm one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system.
I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school for a few years before high school. This private school is the best school I've seen in my life. It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers - so it's not about money at the teacher level. I asked the state treasurer that year what California pays on average to send kids to school, and I believe it was $4,400. While there are not many parents who could come up with $5,500 a year, there are many who could come up with $1,000 a year.
If we gave vouchers to parents for $4,400 a year, schools would be starting right and left. People would get out of college and say, "Let's start a school." You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the businessperson of a school. And that MBA would get together with somebody else, and they'd start schools. And you'd have these young, idealistic people starting schools, working for pennies.
They'd do it because they'd be able to set the curriculum. When you have kids you think, What exactly do I want them to learn? Most of the stuff they study in school is completely useless. But some incredibly valuable things you don't learn until you're older - yet you could learn them when you're younger. And you start to think, What would I do if I set a curriculum for a school?
God, how exciting that could be! But you can't do it today. You'd be crazy to work in a school today. You don't get to do what you want. You don't get to pick your books, your curriculum. You get to teach one narrow specialization. Who would ever want to do that?
These are the solutions to our problems in education. Unfortunately, technology isn't it. You're not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's bad only if it lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problem with education.
Lincoln did not have a Web site at the log cabin where his parents home-schooled him, and he turned out pretty interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings with technology.
It's not as simple as you think when you're in your 20s - that technology's going to change the world. In some ways it will, in some ways it won't.
-- John
I think I can shed some light on this subject because I some direct experience with it. I'm currently a high school senior going to one of the best tech high schools in Idaho (mtchs.org). Tom Luna actually came to my school and watched us work in everyday class, he actually sat in on my English class that day. The reason he did is because our school gives a laptop to every student for educational purposes. We can't bring them home, but we drag them around with us all day to use in each class. A majority of our assignments are also online. For our school, this works very well because everyone who attends is at least somewhat interested in technology, so using a computer is second nature. There is also a team of seniors and a teacher who upkeep the network, which I am apart of. We still have problems all the time ranging from lost chargers, broken laptops, etc. but we can keep it together.
This system works pretty well for my school, but I couldn't ever imagine using our model on a normal high school with 1500+ students. The students in most high schools aren't interested in computers at all and there would probably be a steep learning curve to get them using online courses and their computers wisely.
I do understand where he's coming from for online courses. The vote to make 2 online courses mandatory to graduate did pass with no opposition and that's because our districts budget has tightened dramatically. But many of my peers and myself included absolutely hate online courses. I'm very glad that I'm graduating this year and don't have to take them.
Overall I support the push for technology in school, but the degree that Luna is taking it simply isn't economically feasible and too much of a drastic change to work in most schools.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
And that's support for it continuing. What is this game you keep trying to play?
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
I've told you before. Read the answer I already gave.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason,
In your opinion it is not a valid reason. It certainly is a valid reason if you believe that unfunded mandates are wrong. You happen to think that it's fine for federal and state governments to tell local school districts that they must do certain things but then not provide the money to do them. I don't agree.
moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods
Now you prove you didn't read what I've written because I didn't say that. I made no cost comparisons at all. I don't know which of the two costs more. What I DO know is that being forced to ADD support for mandatory online courses also ADDS the costs of those courses to an existing teaching system.
Perhaps this is even cheaper.
Only if you get rid of the existing teaching staff, and I've been repeatedly told in this discussion that nobody is suggesting that. You're basing your whole argument on that happening.
I think most parents are not competent to chose/direct their kids' education. The sad thing is, most teachers might not be, either, but I'm sure more parents aren't. Teaching a kid is more complicated than fixing a car, making a good pizza, or admin-ing a PC, and I sure do none of those (except maybe one ^^).
Even the good-enough parents are probably better off being hands-off, and *complementing* what teachers do. In middle and high-school I had far-right teachers, communists, gays, obiously frigid, borderline nymphomaniac, family guys and playboys/girls (and surprisingly these last dichotomies don't overlap that much)... Makes for an interesting learning experience. And the old-fashioned non-techie teachers were usually the most efficient and fun ones, too.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
As a resident of Idaho, my main problem was the complete disregard for public opinion. It's a rare occasion that up to 95% of the populace can agree on something, and they all said NO. But the company in charge of the online school is owned by Albertsons, who in turn was one of Tom Luna's largest campaign donors. He was paid a lot of money to get this pushed through.
If the school's IT Manager can't practice isolation, resistance and resilience, that is not a fault of the overall concept. As Shotgun points out, any infrastructure not properly managed will eventually be costly, but loading an image takes very little time, and, once a network has been properly secured, it can be done in bulk. The procedure you describe would fail to be comparable simply by the difference in resource or rate of restoration, relative to data volume and locations.
If you're going on slashdot, you might want to be more considerate about assuming incompetent network management would be an acceptable argument to implementing almost any class of technology augmentation. IT in a school is banal compared to a robot doing your yearly physical; if you want to attack a risk, put freedom or lives (other than Eric Cartmen being thrown under a bus) on the line.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
The administration decides the acceptable risk-strategy for a facility's liability insurance coverage. Usually when purchasing modern general-functionality class of device, such facilities use software and hardware relocation technology built into the device, making it dangerous for, "Some shady guys downtown," unless they have obtained the means of disrupting such technology. If such individuals manages a fairly significant share of such trade, then, like other black market activities, identification, arrest and confirmation will likely be on the way.
After prosecution, of ither your stoners or the shady guys, the offending party pays all such costs. If found innocent with questionable liability still lingering, civic prosecution often commences with the same end result. After that, only the liability insurance co-pay equivalent would be the remaining costs.
Optical and electric wiring, varying types of paper, presses and printers, desks, chairs, books, tiles, plants and even lockers have been stolen from schools with similar results. Again, what already exists can define what will like come next. There are few new significant risks from year to year and model to model. Your logic doesn't actually add to the conversation.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
People use and adhere to such arguments on a regular basis. Most coverage of liability insurance will ask for a third party assessment of the IT infrastructure before they will cover it. Such an assessment should be performed, regardless of any type of faith that administration might have in IT personnel. If you need an expert at something new that you do not understand, you need a means of assessing their capability. Third party auditing companies fill this void for everything from finance to IT.
Schools will still fail. Most potential failures will catch on quickly to prevent a dangerous ripple effect, as those covering their liabilities, from insurers to taxpayers, will demand evidence that the worst case scenario isn't likely to hit them.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Smaller entities often cannot afford significant liability coverage, but schools are very lawsuit aware. Lawsuits, when they happen, can be expensive to the loser, thus, having an insurance for them is EXTREMELY convenient, as, in all probability, an attempt, regardless of the legitimacy of a claim, will likely happen.
Extending liability for pursuit of stolen or damaged property is relatively common and affordable. Insurers would fit your latter model. Again, once any identification of liability due to a poorly implemented tech infrastructure, it would likely result in many other schools reviewing their own systems and policies.
Self-insuring has limitations and can be crippling under potentially damaging litigation. To insure a DUI'd driver to the commercial coverage range is very feasible; however, most companies that aren't assessed above $25million could find even settling a major law suit sufficiently damage to have lasting consequences on growth projections, asset recuperation and debt coverage.
As far a school districts go, they have liability coverage. It's a requirement in most states to possess some form commercial general liability insurance policies ("CGL Policies"); however, if that is all they chose to purchase, that falls under the risk assessment risk I mentioned earlier.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
And that's support for it continuing. What is this game you keep trying to play?
No it isn't, are you just completely retarded? Just because I call you out on your invalid reason to oppose something does not mean i support it, clearly this discussion is far beyond your level of intelligence, I'm not sure why you're bothering, with nonsensical logic like that you look stupider every time you post.
I've told you before. Read the answer I already gave.
So it's just about money for you then.
In your opinion it is not a valid reason. It certainly is a valid reason if you believe that unfunded mandates are wrong.
Explain how unfunded mandates are wrong then.
You happen to think that it's fine for federal and state governments to tell local school districts that they must do certain things but then not provide the money to do them. I don't agree.
Who even said this is unfunded? And even if it is then you oppose better quality education because the government won't pay for it for you?
Now you prove you didn't read what I've written because I didn't say that. I made no cost comparisons at all. I don't know which of the two costs more. What I DO know is that being forced to ADD support for mandatory online courses also ADDS the costs of those courses to an existing teaching system.
I assumed you meant that it adds to the cost and you've just validated my assumption as being correct. How does adding support for online courses add costs?
Only if you get rid of the existing teaching staff, and I've been repeatedly told in this discussion that nobody is suggesting that. You're basing your whole argument on that happening.
I'm not basing anything on getting rid of teaching staff, you're clearly having a severe reading comprehension problem. But obviously if you reduce the number of classes being taught by traditional methods and replace them with online classes that reduces - but does not eliminate - the need for teaching staff.