Slashdot Mirror


Wozniak Gets Personal On Innovation

snydeq writes "Companies are doggedly pursuing the next big thing in technology, but nothing seems to be pointing to the right way these days, claims the legendary Steve Wozniak. The reason? 'You tend to deal with the past,' replicating what you know in a new form. Consider the notion of computing eyeware like Google Glass: 'People have been marrying eyewear with TV inputs for 20 years,' Wozniak says. True innovation, Wozniak claims, becomes more human, more personal. People use technology more the less it feels like technology. 'The software gets more accepted when it works in human ways — meaning in noncomputer ways.' Here, Wozniak says, is the key to technology's role in the education system." And no amount of technology can save the American education system: "We put the technology into a system that damages creative thinking — the kids give up, and at a very early age."

161 comments

  1. I blame textbook monopolies. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And no amount of technology can save the American education system: "We put the technology into a system that damages creative thinking — the kids give up, and at a very early age."

    Open Source the curriculum, damnit!

    1. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And no amount of technology can save the American education system: "We put the technology into a system that damages creative thinking — the kids give up, and at a very early age."

      Open Source the curriculum, damnit!

      Well, the American system is flawed in nearly every direction:

      • Overemphasis on testing
      • Disengaged parents
      • Underpaid teachers
      • De-motivated and disempowered teachers
      • Inadequate funding (especially in poorer neighborhoods)
      • Kids used to passive "entertainment"
      • Poor diets
      • Administrative inertia
      • Cultural bias against education

      I could go on and on obviously. There is no one cause and no silver bullet solution. Technology can be part of the solution, but in the hands of morons it quickly becomes part of the problem.

    2. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open Source the curriculum, damnit!

      Are you saying that we should make an effort to make this year - and every year - the year of the Open Source Desk(top) for schools?

    3. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      You're right, there's no silver bullet solution, but Open Source curriculum would at least alleviate a non-trivial part of the "Inadequate funding" problem.

    4. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      You're right, there's no silver bullet solution, but Open Source curriculum would at least alleviate a non-trivial part of the "Inadequate funding" problem.

      No, OpenSource can not be applied here.

      By law educators must teach to the test.

      For those outside the teaching field there is a ton of state standards that need to be implemented in the exact way. 8.16 students must show understanding between x and y, 18.17 students must apply knowledge of understand between x and y with geographical tessellation, etc. Now imagine you have +90 to go over in just 3 months!! Also it varies by state.

      There is a concept of common core for all standards but that is still in the process of being implemented.

      Does the Open Source standard certified by the state to cover each and all +90 objectives for each course and by each grade level? If not then it is a waste of time of time for educators as they must scramble to find the appropriate content. Those state standards are difficult to read too. Yes if you know math you can look at hte problems and understand them, but the textual objectives like above can look like they are written by lawyers.

      Sometimes it can be subjective to interpret the appropriate lesson for each of the +90 objectives the teacher must cram in which leaves no room for innovation or going off topic with alternative learning sources.
       

    5. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it doesn't escape administrative inertia, cultural bias, and more importantly (and not mentioned) extreme government regulation of curricula. There are those who theorize this is all "by design." It's hard to imagine because no one wants to believe it. I had a pretty decent educational experience even if I didn't 'get it' at an early enough age due to a touch of ASD. (I'm actually glad it wasn't diagnosed back then -- I likely wouldn't have been forced to deal with it and adapt. These days when people are diagnosed with a 'condition' they quickly give up and get comfortable in their cozy little category.)

      But we also have this culture of blame and lawyers who think the answer is to sue everyone and everything into oblivion. The system is more interested in protecting itself than in doing their jobs well.

    6. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

      It's what you happens when you divorce actions from consequences.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    7. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, different objectives state by state, different pieces and parts at each grade level.

      It seems obvious that a system of curated content where you could select your state and grade level from drop down menus would be far superior to myriads of other sources. It seems like only a computer could do this job well.

      Where OpenSource comes in is that people could continuously update the content for clarity and readability and any states and grades using that content would benefit. This would also alleviate the Bullying California and Texas do on school textbooks, because if you cant sell them to those two states, they probably won't get printed. If your state wants to print its own books it just selects state and grade level then sends a PDF to a print house, or your local FedEx Kinkos.

    8. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Kids used to passive "entertainment"

      Oh come on, kids have been watching TV, listening music and reading books for many generations.

      I'm with you on the other points, though.

      Particular to the American education system, I'd add the overprotectiveness of teachers' jobs.
      Overprotectiveness prevents bad teachers from being fired, disempowering teachers protects students from bad teachers.
      These two factors combine in a race to the bottom.
      Give schools the power to fire bad teachers and you can give back power to good teachers.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the education system has failed so miserably, the legislature told them exactly ow to do their job. By the way, this is called "teaching to standards", not teaching the test. However, if the test is decently written, teaching to the test is a good thing.

    10. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give schools the power to fire bad teachers and you can give back power to good teachers.

      Well, you may just end up giving that power to upper management, who has no idea who the good teachers are, only who is best at gaming the "teach-to-the-test" system. The only other thing management has to go on is firing people to save the most money (more senior, experienced teachers). Unless you're very careful to give teachers a strong voice in management decisions --- through, e.g., strong, local, democratic unions --- "fire bad teachers" will become "fire teachers who take on difficult students/subjects, and think outside the test."

    11. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by no1nose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It really does come back to the parents. I have three kids and they each have about one hour of homework per night. I am a single father so I have to help them on my own each night after I get home from work. I have a B.S. degree so I am not a total moron (haha). The problem I run into after work is that I want to be disengaged and play EVE, but I can't. And I cannot parallel-process my help with each of my kids. They are about 2 years apart in age and if I am helping one, then the other two feel like they can stop working on their homework until I get back to helping them. Another problem is that they each act like the homework is new material every night and the teacher did not go over it during the day. I know I am not alone with these problems because I have had the fathers of their friends call me and ask if my kids were struggling with their homework too.

      I am 38 years old. Maybe I am not a very good dad or explainer of homework. Maybe the fact that my state (Nevada) is 50th in the nation for education. Maybe the fact that I am alone in raising these kids are all factors in why it is so tough.

      What are the rising star countries doing to pump out such smart people? India, Japan, China are all creating brilliant people who want our jobs. We should be embarrassed of what we have become. People, I think as bad as things are in the USA, this is as good as it is going to be.

    12. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh come on, kids have been watching TV, listening music and reading books for many generations.

      Kids have been watching TV for about two or three generations. They've been listening passively to music for perhaps four or five (before recording, people who wanted to hear music mostly performed it themselves--having visiting performers was a special occasion). Reading is a much less passive activity than the the other two, requiring the reader to interpret the written text.

    13. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Being a PTA board member and knowing many stories/data, I strongly disagree with your list.

      "Overemphasis on testing": Wrong! There are not enough tests on certain subject. The depth of tests is also a problem.
      - A big banner advocated by schools/teachers is that creativity is completely the opposite side of test/exams. Then, how can you claim that products are good without testing them?

      "Disengaged parents": Some parents are disengaging. However, many parents are blocked away by schools even though parents want to engage so badly.
      - In my areas, many parents are immigrants. They have first hand experience on how brutal global competitions are. Those ES/MS schools/teachers have no idea at all.

      "Underpaid teachers": This is a myth. Teachers have pensions/long vacations. Schools close in "BAD" weather days while many parents go to work.
      - Meanwhile, in this country, ES/MS math are taught by teachers with education degrees instead of STEM degrees. Therefore, many are not fully understand what they are doing.

      De-motivated and disempowered teachers: This is flatly wrong. Teachers, at least teacher unions are very very powerful.

      Inadequate funding (especially in poorer neighborhoods): Please check title 1 from the federal level and other funds from local level. In poor DC neighborhood, what is amount of dollars spent on each kid.

      God, I can go on and on and on...

      How to change the status quo on education? Make it less political and more technical.

    14. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you're very careful to give teachers a strong voice in management decisions --- through, e.g., strong, local, democratic unions --- "fire bad teachers" will become "fire teachers who take on difficult students/subjects, and think outside the test."

      The problem is, if you *do* give strong teacher unions all the power, "fire bad teachers" becomes "never fire teachers at all, under any circumstances."

    15. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh come on, kids have been watching TV, listening music and reading books for many generations.

      You seem to assume that the problems in education have appeared from nowhere in the last few years.

      Also, when I were a lad, at least in the UK, Kids TV had a lot more imaginative adventure serials, magazine shows about hobbies and current affairs and game shows where the contestants actually had to know or do stuff; and a lot less cheap cartoons designed explicitly to promote toys, thinly-disguised adverts for music and fashion accessories, mundane soap operas about dull people living dull lives, no-brain-required 'contests' and talent shows designed explicitly to raise money from premium-rate phone lines... all designed on the principle that anything requiring an attention span of more than 5 seconds will hit ratings. Seriously - modern kids television (insofar as it still exists) positively encourages goldfish-level attention spans. Hell, some programmes are flagged 'ADHD' in the listings!

      (Boringly, 'ADHD' in the listings apparently means 'High Def' and 'Audio Description available'.)

      As for the 'firing bad teachers' bit - the danger is that will only clear up a tiny percentage of teachers who are dramatically bad, while further re-enforcing the obsession with testing. If your job is on the line based on your test results, you're not going to skimp on the test cramming in order to do something creative or interesting.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    16. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by graphius · · Score: 0

      The system is more interested in protecting itself than in doing their jobs well.

      ^^ this ^^

    17. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing about overemphasis on testing. I always do good on tests. What's wrong with emphasis on testing?

    18. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      You have actually no idea whatsoever what Open Source is conceptually, do you?

    19. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by asylumx · · Score: 2

      Good job explaining it and clearing the air.

    20. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe schools should be places where there are enough resources that kids are mostly done learning at the end of the school day. Homework is a nice exercise in and of itself that kids could benefit from doing maybe once a week or so.

    21. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      Can I add:
                Overly structured days allowing kids no free time to play

      What with recess and gym time being cut back or removed entirely, and children being given practically no independent time from when they are first dropped off at school (often as much as an hour before class starts) to when they are picked up from "after school activities" when Mom or Dad comes home at 5, they are being given no time to be kids. They have no time to experiement, to play, to be free and let their minds grow at their own pace. It's industrial schooling, ten hours a day and even when they ARE offered something that might stimulate them, the kids can't engage because it is so mentally exhausting.

      For a variety of reasons, gone are the days when kids would be let out in the neighborhood to run and do their own thing under limited supervision. We are seeing some of the effects of that in our education.

    22. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame the chalk. It's not humane.

    23. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      He started with the assertion that Open Source methodologies can't be applied to a situation where the results must adhere to testing and standards. I'm sorry but I'm just too old and too angry to respond to false dichotomies or play circular word games today. If you want to clear the air, please, be my guest.

    24. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that the education system has failed so miserably, the legislature told them exactly ow to do their job. By the way, this is called "teaching to standards", not teaching the test. However, if the test is decently written, teaching to the test is a good thing.

      Sure in Theory.

      In practic however it results in over-optimization for a contrived environment that does not represent real world conditions. Thus students end up memorizing a bunch of canned answers to questions from past tests, learn to format their responses to hit the targets on the grading rubric, and a bunch of heuristics about when to guess vs leave an answer blank. All the while they are not really learning how to apply the skills they were supposed to develop to novel situations, and usually are not learning the base principles that were supposed to be the basis for their answers.

      Basicly it's like writing a general solution vs a hard coded one. The test can be passed by either, but teaching to the test favors the hard coded one because it passes the test and so all the effort to make the more useful general solution is "wasted".

    25. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ImdatS · · Score: 2

      During the last 10+ years, I came to the conclusion that the worst things that happens to kids is going to school. I'm basically convinced now that the single-source of dumbing down kids is going to school.

      The main reason for me is that kids don't learn really right things in school. They learn by the rote, for tests. There is a standard curriculum for all kids - one curriculum to rule them all. It is all based on tests (whether in the US, Europe, or elsewhere - it is the same everywhere).

      I can't see any approach where:
      a) Kids learn how they learn best
      b) Kids learn based on their strengths & preferences
      c) Kids have fun learning and learn having fun learning

      I'm afraid, the only thing we do in schools is try to created "standardized human resources" for the economy. There is no learning of "creative thinking", understanding how one learns best, what one's strengths are, etc.

      Form many, many direct observations, I have seen kids being "tortured" with standardized curricula though these were kids with strong artistic senses, or strong scientific senses, etc. Why, on earth, does a kid who loves STEM and is really a high-flyer in STEM, need to do well in Arts, Sports, and other topics in order to continue school/high-school/college? Same is true for kids who love Arts, Sports, or so who are tortured with STEM?

      If someone loves history, geography, social sciences and is really strong in it, why do they need to do all the other crap?

      It is a convoluted situation: We actually teach kids in school how NOT TO think for themselves anymore, how NOT to be creative, how NOT to understand how they learn - we just cram information into them for 10+ years and test whether this information-cramming worked or not with all school-tests...

      I have no solution, but at least I believe I have (partially) identified the problem (for me) - next step would be to really try to find solutions.

      Caveat: Yes, I believe there are basic things that everybody should learn: reading, writing, basic math, basic history, basic geography - but this is something that can be done "on the side"...

      Well, just the EUR 0.02 of a frustrated person - frustrated with the schooling system around the world (and no, I don't go to school anymore, I'm 45, but I also don't stop learning new things and am actually thinking about going to College - again...)

    26. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of that boils down to:

      Entrenched monopoly.

      Get rid of the entrenched monopoly and a lot of this goes away. As somebody whose K-12 experience included 3 years of private school I have some perspective.

      Both systems had their merits. The religious private school had superior discipline and literature. They weren't afraid to challenge students above their level, and students of all abilities and handicaps were mixed. My class had a guy who was like Forrest Gump, but he was required to read out loud with the rest of us, and anybody who poked fun or said "come on" was soundly disciplined, possibly with a paddle to the behind!

      The downside of the religious school was that it (predictably) sucked for science and lacked the resources for a music or organized sports. Public schools excelled at these things which is why I transferred back into the system for 7-12 grades. I went from "good morning Mr. Teacher" to a school where some students were dealing drugs under the table!

      A teacher tested me to make sure the private school was doing OK. You could see the disappointment in her union eyes when I blew through the test.

      My family had enough money to send me to private school because the disciplined environment was what I needed at the time--"Good morning Mr. Teacher", and silence in the class room. The public school at K-3 had lousy discipline as a matter of routine. Students were told to quiet down, and then over the course of 10 minutes the talking rose to a crescendo and it repeated like that. It was ridiculous and violence was a constant threat.

      All students deserve a choice, regardless of how much money their parents have. Bust the fucking teacher's unions and the monopoly shit schools they run. Keep just a few resources in common that have to be public, like gyms and music. Make those after-hours activities in public spaces. Academic stuff works *much better* with competition. Yes, this isn't practical in rural areas. Those people will still have to deal with some centralization; but even there you'd be surprised. You see plenty of parochial and even secular private schools in rural areas. That's how bad the incumbent monopoly is--people that care are willing to sacrifice. Mentioning disengaged parents but not calling out the monpoly? I think maybe you're just a bit of a Liberal (in the American sense).

    27. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have that teachers are underpaid in America relative to other countries?

      America spends more per student on education than most countries.

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      That's one link, but almost any other will show the same result.

      Even comparing teacher salaries to other jobs results in them being paid well in the United States.

    28. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing about overemphasis on testing. I always do good on tests. What's wrong with emphasis on testing?

      It's easier to teach a student the skill of passing tests than it is to teach them the underlying skills the test is supposed to be validating.

      Take a look at SAT prep classes. Their entire courses dedicated to learning how to game the SATs without actually improving the skills (supposedly) being tested.

    29. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      strong voice != absolute power. It's a straw man argument to say that he was advocating for absolute power on behalf of the teachers' union.

    30. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I know you're overloaded, and maybe "helping" your kids on homework is about theonly chance you get to interact with them, but if they really truly need your input for more than 5-10 minutes per week, there's something seriously wrong with either them or the teachers' expectations of their abilities.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    31. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't escape ... extreme government regulation of curricula.

      Government regulation of curricula exists to protect children from being taught "Creation Science" in public schools. You want to fix over-regulation in schools? Fix the root cause. Otherwise, I'm all in on that one.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    32. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by no1nose · · Score: 1

      I wish we would have the time to do family night and other interactions other than homework. I would like to be able to teach them to cook and fix flat tires. There may be something seriously wrong with them as the interaction is far more that 5-10 minutes per week. Maybe they are also burned out by the end of the day and need my continual prodding just to get through things. I just don't know. Summers are nice and we have much more time that I can work with them on regular things.

    33. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by penglust · · Score: 1

      While getting my BS in computer science, one of my fellow students was one of the most incredible looking women I will ever know. She also had an almost perfect memory, could give you back pretty much any fact she ever read, and aced every test. She could not program worth a damn. Helping her out had it advantages.

      That is the problem with just teaching to the test.

    34. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by no1nose · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with this. The 6 to 7 hours they are in school should be devoted to instruction and the professional teaching techniques that the educators went to school to learn. My schooling focused on I.T. and business management, not in methods of instruction. Perhaps homework should consist of showing me a summary what they worked on in school and briefly explaining it to me. Usually explaining things I understand helps me understand them better.

    35. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Maybe schools should be places where there are enough resources that kids are mostly done learning at the end of the school day. Homework is a nice exercise in and of itself that kids could benefit from doing maybe once a week or so.

      Hear hear...

      In recent years, I've been shocked at the amount of homework that kids have. I rarely had to take a book home as I grew up in school. I learned most of it at school, and it was actually rare that I had assignments daily...we did often have in some classes a special project (make a styrofoam mobile model of the planets, etc), but that was not the daily norm.

      We seemed to get a decent education, I was in public school for most of my schooling (private in grades 4-5 to avoid being bussed 2 hours across town), and in HS, at the end of my senior year, I had a chemistry class that took me through 1st year college, as well as a calculus class that got me through Cal I and about half of Cal II in college.

      And this was in one of the southern states that don't often rank that high in the nation.

      What gives with today giving so much homework? That certainly doesn't give much time for kids to play outside after school and get some exercise...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    36. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have that teachers are underpaid in America relative to other countries?

      America spends more per student on education than most countries.

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      That's one link, but almost any other will show the same result.

      Even comparing teacher salaries to other jobs results in them being paid well in the United States.

      Your link shows per pupil spending, not teacher pay. I have no figures and am not looking them up now, but while I know the mid-high end teacher pay is pretty good, the low end in lower paying states (read: mostly the south) is low.

    37. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't escape ... extreme government regulation of curricula.

      Government regulation of curricula exists to protect children from being taught "Creation Science" in public schools. You want to fix over-regulation in schools? Fix the root cause. Otherwise, I'm all in on that one.

      Root cause being people? How best to fix people? Through education? Should we regulate that?

    38. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by matbury · · Score: 1

      Presumably you mean develop syllabi and curricula under liberal, permissive Creative Commons licences and/or in the public domain. This is a good step towards releasing educational organisations from the dominance and control of the big publishers, e.g. Pearson and McGraw Hill, and yes they have captured a lot of K-12 education and manipulated it to their own benefit regardless of learners' needs, but it doesn't address education policy itself.

      Publishers are only part of a bigger system with vested interests pulling in multiple directions simultaneously and with the people that really understand how learning and education actually work being marginalised by political considerations. A lot of this is coming from the private sector, especially the IT sector, which wants a slice of the lucrative pie, and their attempts to privatise parts of the system to give them a stronger foothold, free from regulation and from annoying details like learning gains and effect sizes, dropout rates, etc.

      MOOCs are a case in point. The IT sector is driving this, with the help of a few universities that welcome the corporate money, but AFAIK, nobody researching MOOCs' with pre-, post-, and delayed-post tests or, more importantly, doing long term studies. All they're doing is gathering web metrics which may be fine for selling advertising to corporate sponsors but are utterly useless at measuring learning (whatever they may tell you on flashy TED Talks presentations).

      Bottom line: computers and computer mediated assessment are stupid, teachers are smart. Invest in teachers if you want smart learners.

    39. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just finished a 3 year stint within a community college and you are spot on. Upper management ("the administration") will reward the teachers who make their lives easy--which is always far from the priorities of providing a good, wholesome, meaningful education to students. The administration can fire bad teachers but they are not interested in legal entanglements with the union. In reality the teachers would back down, in most cases not strike, and get on with their lives...but there is the looming uncertainty, and above all, above every other priority, the administration wants to do their job, get their check and fat retirement, and go home without any trouble or disturbances. There is no incentive to provide a quality education and improve matters--the money just keeps flowing.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    40. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ranton · · Score: 1

      I could go on and on obviously. There is no one cause and no silver bullet solution. Technology can be part of the solution, but in the hands of morons it quickly becomes part of the problem.

      Technology may not be a silver bullet but in my opinion it has the potential to be the most cost effective solution, and by a wide margin. Technology has been a failure so far because there has been no accompanying process improvement in education. MOOCs are starting to show that lectures can be scaled out further than one teacher per twenty students. Think of all the time saved if there were merely a hundred lectures about numerators and denominators, varied by skill level and learning types, that every student in the country could watch in class. A smart student could watch one of them once and demonstrate to their teacher that they know the material, while another student could watch a dozen of them. Teachers could spend their time individually motivating and helping students. I assume lecturing takes up close to two thirds of teacher time now, so students could get three times the individual instruction for the same cost (minus the minuscule overhead of creating the lectures and improving them).

      This is just one example of how technology could help if we start modifying how teaching is done instead of just adding technology. I didn't even go into how the lecture quality would go up as well since only the best of the best would be creating these lectures. And they would get significant feedback on how to correct them since millions of students would watch each lecture. A combination of teacher comments and testing would give a very good measure of how well students are doing with each lecture, and experiments would be easy to run (just give 10 almost identical lectures to 10,000 students each and see which helps comprehension more).

      And all of this could be possible with very little spending (proportionally to the amount we already spend) and requires no social engineering of society.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    41. Re: I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always do well on tests, and generally favor them, but working within the system makes me see why people hate them.

      One of the largest problems is the nature of the state standards. State standards, particularly in the liberal arts, are not technical documents, nor are they actually made to aid teachers in reaching the bare minimum competency, which is what they should do. Instead, they're a set of broad political aphorisms in can do statements.

      Here's an example: Evaluate how well the rights of individuals have been upheld by american governments. That's a substandard that's supposed to clarify the main objective. How many classes would you devote to that? What definitions do students have to know in order to adequately meet those objectives? What do you do when the standards are just plain wrong, like teaching roots in the radical form rather than as an exponential fraction, or when the state tells me that all politics should fall on a spectrum from Democrat to Republican?

      Bear in mind that there are three separate standards we have to use in our school system; common core, nc, and WIDA. You can see how incredibly frustrating and unhelpful standardized tests become, even when I think they are a good thing.

    42. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 0

      If the test is decently written, your students will get 100% if you've taught them the minimum basics that any reasonable curriculum should include. "Teaching to the test" only becomes relevant if you're spending the majority of your time covering those basics (i.e., the test is too broad).
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Sounds like if you can arrange it, a talk with their teachers might be useful, so you can at least find out what the expectations are. Your kids are likely finding that not only can they use homework time to get a monopoly on your attention, but that they find the time with you to help them learn the material much better than they can in class... so they don't learn it in class and instead bring it home to do.

      Initially it'll take time out of your evening disengagements, but if you talk to the teachers, find out expectations for homework and whether this work is above and beyond classwork or is just stuff they didn't do when they should have in class, you'll be able to address this issue much better with your kids.

      It's also possible (unlikely, since your B.S. would have come with large doses of critical thinking) that your kids are manipulating you in to providing them with the answers the teachers were trying to get them to figure out for themselves -- development of critical thinking, tying together the ideas presented in class, etc. If this is the case, your help with their homework is actually getting them farther and farther behind in class, as they continue to fail to grasp the core concepts -- but are slipping under the radar at school as their assignments all come back relatively correctly done, so the teacher doesn't know until much later in the year where the real learning issues are (the teachers spend most of their time babysitting the troublemakers, which your kids probably aren't).

      So yeah; make a few appointments to talk with the teachers who are assigning these large amounts of homework. If the kids are in highschool and the homework is distributed across all subjects, it's time to talk with your kids first, as they're obviously slacking off/not actually reading the textbooks/not asking questions when they don't understand. Encourage them to be active learners instead of passive lumps of grey matter -- the incentive is that they'll have more time to play EVE with you after school, because they'll have little to no homework.

    44. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but there's a fine line between "strong voice" and "absolute power", and teachers' unions across the country have frequently stepped over that line.

    45. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Form many, many direct observations, I have seen kids being "tortured" with standardized curricula though these were kids with strong artistic senses, or strong scientific senses, etc. Why, on earth, does a kid who loves STEM and is really a high-flyer in STEM, need to do well in Arts, Sports, and other topics in order to continue school/high-school/college? Same is true for kids who love Arts, Sports, or so who are tortured with STEM?

      The ace STEM kid and the future art major needs sports to stay in shape.
      The star varsity athlete needs to take history and government to be a good citizen.
      All students need the Arts to give them a richer life, It's not necessary, but it makes life better.

      They can specialize post-secondary. For the truly talented, there's "Fame" schools and private elite sports schools.

    46. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have that teachers are underpaid in America relative to other countries?

      America spends more per student on education than most countries.

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      That's one link, but almost any other will show the same result.

      Even comparing teacher salaries to other jobs results in them being paid well in the United States.

      Your link shows per pupil spending, not teacher pay. I have no figures and am not looking them up now, but while I know the mid-high end teacher pay is pretty good, the low end in lower paying states (read: mostly the south) is low.

      I'd also like to mention that teaching supplies and materials (curriculum's the big one) and insurance are big chunks of that $/student ratio in the US -- most countries use old books or "open source" materials which cost very little, and spend most of the money on teachers and teacher training. A good teacher can teach well out of pretty much any material -- good material is useless if you've got overworked and underpaid people teaching to the test. Kid's don't read the material; they are walked through it by the teachers. Only the kids that discover they can read the material themselves and learn what's needed, and ask questions, will excel. And that's not taught in most schools.

    47. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's ridiculous groupthink that this is currently modded "troll". I don't agree with much of it, but c'mon mods, this isn't even troll-shaped, and "troll" is not the "I disagree" button!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    48. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem I run into after work is that I want to be disengaged and play EVE, but I can't.

      Every working parent feels that way. Unfortunately, if you're a single parent you don't get a day off, which makes things really hard. Even in a two-parent household you generally don't get days off, but on the rare day that you do, it really recharges you.

      Regimenting and structure can help. When you and your kids get together, get on to your nightly routine instantly: dinner, then homework immediately afterward. Don't stop. I find that if I stop, I have a hard time restarting.

      They are about 2 years apart in age and if I am helping one, then the other two feel like they can stop working on their homework until I get back to helping them.

      Motivate your kids to start on their own. My kids know that extracurricular activities (sports, get-togethers with friends, iPads, etc.) get yanked if their school performance goes down and that homework time comes BEFORE any extracurriculars so they focus on their homework and get it done. Other motivations are possible. Focus problems are easiest addressed at a very young age (reading books constantly, music lessons, etc. to force longer attention spans). Older children (beyond age 6-8) that don't have this will probably take longer to develop that level of focus.

    49. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Which country do you live in? In the US, where I live, teachers' unions have been crushed by scab organizations like "Teach for America", charter schools, and private school vouchers programs.

    50. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's simply a load of crap. Look around you. Do you see the luxury to deprive kids of skills relevant to earning a living (not to mention enjoying life) in order to spend time on crap that neither fun nor useful? We need a reasonable balance between studies the kids will find "fun" and "useful", but anything that's neither one for a particular kid should just vanish.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    51. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 1

      You have to include pensions in the compensation analysis. There are many places where the teacher's up-front pay is about median income, but the value of the pension funding is $40k/year on top of that pay. Public sector pensions now dominate the budgets of most state and local governments, so it's not some minor thing to handwave away.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If students can regularly get 100% on tests, you aren't challenging them enough.

    53. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by malvcr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To watch TV and to hear music is useless because they are oriented to commercial goals, they are not intended to teach anybody useful things. With clear exceptions (let me see ... BBC, BBC ... BBC ... ).

      Right now I am hearing Arthur Honegger: "Une Cantate de Noël" in Youtube, and I suppose nobody knows this music because of standard TV or Radio ... even, I doubt people, in general, knows that Honegger even exist as a composer or that there is this option to find good modern music; let me see, 6801 people saw this including me. Another test ... Samuel Barber (a very important US composer) ... "Summer Music" ... 958 views ... and a last one ... Miley Cyrus - "Wrecking Ball" ... 523,997,788 views ....

      I think everything is said.

    54. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Unless you're very careful to give teachers a strong voice in management decisions --- through, e.g., strong, local, democratic unions --- "fire bad teachers" will become "fire teachers who take on difficult students/subjects, and think outside the test."

      The problem is, if you *do* give strong teacher unions all the power, "fire bad teachers" becomes "never fire teachers at all, under any circumstances."

      Yes, there will always be bad teachers, and even a few horrible ones. But you cannot put the emphasis on getting rid of them, when the solution is to disenfranchise all the good teachers. Since every teacher is under scrutiny to produce test numbers or else lose their job, morale is in the toilet, and the good ones are all quitting. Don't worry about the few that don't deserve the pay, and concentrate on getting those good teachers back.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    55. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear!

    56. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I rarely help my kids with homework and they get good grades but they also go to a small school where they can get more individualized attention. This was entirely intentional on my part because I felt very much like I was lost in a crowd when I was in high school.

      I don't know about the school your kids attend or how you came to be the only parent, but I will propose an alternative. Since you mentioned being disengaged playing EVE your kids may be using the homework to keep you engaged.

    57. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for not blaming teachers and correctly blaming administration. Too often people assume education is the teacher's fault, when the teachers are limited in every way imaginable by administrators.

      Administrators have one goal: Make money, or hold on to current funds. If this means shortchanging education, so be it. That's what hampers teachers. The best funded school districts still do poorly when administrators divert that money into personal projects, non-education projects (new football field, new gym, etc.), or otherwise misuse it. So you can have money going into education but still doing nothing, and that's entirely the fault of the administrators.

      People might also be interested to know that most adminstrators are not teachers and have no education in history. They mostly come from business, or are former PE coaches. So they are the furthest removed from understanding what teachers and students need.

    58. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that somewhere in the last few decades we (as society) started treating education as having purely vocational objectives. The result is that we no longer value the life long enrichment that a rounded education gives us. This is unfortunate, because it turns us more and more into polarized automatons who simply cannot understand eachother.

    59. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a divorced dad and have my two kids for the weekend. Really just 24 hours per week. My 6 year old for the most part can get on with his homework independently but my 11 almost 12 year old needs constant monitoring, assistance and guidance. I find it appalling that basic principles are not taught in school and I repeatedly have to teach him how to do basic research amongst other things I think his teachers should be teaching him. While I don't expect teachers to be responsible for the entire education of my kids (ha, ha, yeah right!), I really don't expect that I should have to pick up their slack on the one day a week I have with them. Their mother is a teacher - probably a shite one judging by the extra effort I have to put in - but she also has a really low opinion of the teachers in the school. It is, purportedly a school for gifted and talented children. Perhaps the gifted and talented part is not a requirement for the teachers or school management. It really is sickening to see your own child's ability and future being squandered by idiots. The only positive thing at the moment is the music program, which I know many schools do not have, so we are fortunate. My older son is doing very well in that field - why? A huge part of it is the music teachers positivity and dedication.

    60. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Root cause being people? How best to fix people?

      The primary purpose of government regulation is to protect society from inept and unethical people.

      Through education? Should we regulate that?

      Thankfully, we do. We should not need national regulations on curricula, but ignorant voters in the Southwest have a direct impact on educated voters in the Northeast.

    61. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be modded up. I might only add one thing to the conversation.

      "Overemphasis on testing": Wrong! There are not enough tests on certain subject. The depth of tests is also a problem.

      It has been quite a while since I was in highschool and I narrowly dodged the No Child Left Behind crap, so my understanding of current affairs is limited. However, when it comes to depth of testing and amount of testing, I think we need to ask ourselves what we really expect our kids to get out of compulsory education. Getting an A should certainly require mastery. But I think for many students, getting the gist is often quite enough. There is no need for most students to master Algebra, or History, or Chemistry. They should be exposed and be able to demonstrate that they got something out of it. Tests usually are not needed to demonstrate that.

    62. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Setting aside the difference you missed between "students can get 100%" and "students all get 100%," the point of state-wide testing isn't to challenge students, it's to ensure a basic minimum standard of education.

      Different people have different views on what it's important to teach. Imposing from some central power an entire curriculum in every detail by very broad testing leads to legitimate complaints form teachers about being forced to teach to the test.

      OTOH, narrowly testing against minimum basic standards leaves plenty of room for teachers to teach what the district, school, teacher, and parents find important.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    63. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by lgw · · Score: 1

      You say this, but in my field almost no one comes out of college with any useful job skills. I value "life long enrichment," but you won't get that by forcing kids to do shit they hate. Art is enriching for a kid who likes art. Sports are enriching for a kid who likes to participate. Forcing kids into stuff that's neither vocational nor enjoyable is simply mental torture for the sake of mental torture.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    64. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Common Core (and you're not going to get away with hiding it by not capitalizing the program's name) is a scheme to create a uniform low level of education suitable to worker drones. As its goals and standards are becoming more widely recognized, states that had previously accepted it are reversing themselves.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by captainClassLoader · · Score: 1

      Was her last name Peng, by any chance? ;-)

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
    66. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      This is 100% nonsense, every single point. As long as people think these are the issues, there is no hope for fixing. The funding and money parts are the most absurd - American education is grotesquely over-funded.

    67. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Meanwhile, in this country, ES/MS math are taught by teachers with education degrees instead of STEM degrees.

      I looked into whether it would be possible for me to teach intro to programming at my step brother's school. There were way too many hoops to jump through. I ended up just teaching him on my own time. Were it easier for me to teach at the school, others could have benefited from my ~15 years of hands-on experience. Instead, they were taught by someone who learned the subject by reading a book on their own.

      We have a lot of really bright STEM workers in this country and we need to make it easier for them to pass on those skills to the next generations. Let's start by waiving the requirement for a teaching credential in those subjects...BS/MS + experience in the field should suffice. If necessary, pair them with a credentialed teacher to start. Another good step, allow companies to take a tax deduction for allowing their workers to teach high school and earlier.

    68. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no amount of technology can save the American education system: "We put the technology into a system that damages creative thinking — the kids give up, and at a very early age."

      Open Source the curriculum, damnit!

      To understand American public education, I suggest reading J. T. Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. The real purpose of the education system is to instill conformity. All else comes second. Our school records follow us the rest of our lives; being available to government agencies on their whim. Watch your steps little Sally and Johnny.

    69. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by no1nose · · Score: 1

      It was more or less rhetorical. Regardless of anything I would rather be doing, I don't have any choice but to be engaged since the kids are flooded with so much work. Options to move to a smaller town would be great, but for now it is not going to happen for me. Based on some offline advice I received through /. I am going to attempt to teach them how to study and learn, rather than focusing so much an helping them with the actual homework in hand. I would smarter to teach how to fish (so to speak) so they can learn for a lifetime.

    70. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Raising kids is tough work no matter what, so best of luck.

    71. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've done this for years. It's called lateral entry and the vast majority of states do it, especially for STM (no E in public school) fields. It has yet to produce a wave of qualified employees.

    72. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the bare minimum is poorly defined, and most state standards are political documents that seek to please the dominant party, cover everything, and provide a bare minimum. These three different goals prevent them from accomplishing any one goal well, and breadth is always favored over depth.

      This is a clarifying objective, which means the lowest level standard there is / the easiest to understand: Evaluate the rights of individuals in terms of how well those rights have been upheld by democratic government in the United States.

      That's hardly a granular or practical objective. How many days would you spend teaching that? How would you test that?

      Here's another one: Analyze the structures of national, state and local governments in terms of ways they are organized to maintain order, security, welfare
      of the public and the protection of citizens (e.g., federalism, the three branches, court system, jurisdictions, judicial process, agencies, etc.).
      Oh, that's all? I could easily hold three years worth of classes on that one subject. Bear in mind that that is one of 32 clarifying objectives. Virtually every one includes the word etc. on the end.

      There's the huge discrepancy between what the tests are supposed to do, and how they are actually made and defined. We don't want teachers teaching to the test, because they're the bare minimum, so the bare minimum is not made explicit. Therefore, many teachers teach below the minimum because they don't know what society at large wants the students to know. Right now, teaching is like trying to program without knowing the client's requirements.

      I say this as someone who is a huge fan of the idea of testing. I fought my classmates tooth and nail every day, writing things "you shouldn't stab out your eyes if you don't like what they show you." Now, I have to listen to their petty bitching about being held accountable while trying to decipher the completely ambiguous dictates of a group that isn't even composed of education professionals.

      And as a more direct response, I don't think you understand how little time we have with students, and how broad the material is that we have to cover, and how much miscellania saps at that precious time. We have to take attendance, grade homework, respond to parent emails, meet parents, do extracurriculars (especially as a young teacher), pass out report cards, "manipulate grades" (yes, it's as evil as it sounds and also required by the county) so parents can't see how poorly their children are performing, have IEP meetings, have department meetings, pull kids aside to talk to them, lecture on broad material, help students with their work, find primary and secondary sources for students because textbooks are worthless, research the lesson we're going to teach, have school meetings, deal with prom and yearbook, prepare class materials, sign up to use technology, meet with LEP coordinators, meet with IB and AP coordinators, attend student events, proctor useless tests (PSAT) that the school gets kickbacks for offering, proctor state tests, have firedrills, escort potentially dangerous kids to the office, print out everything we need for the day, talk to old students who came back just to see you, talk to current students who are having a bad day and need some support, talk to students who are sick, help older peers out with technology, attend PTA meetings, and arrange faculty observations.

      I want to spend my time teaching students to analyze primary sources. I took a day just going over the Declaration of Independence because it's a beautiful and tragic piece of human writing, and I still didn't have time to reach the required depth. That extra time was taken up by a seminar on writing I had to give my students because they didn't know what a topic sentence was as sophomores in high school. I want to have them writing every assignment on Office, and analyzing economic data in excel, but I only get a few days a month in the computer lab. I want to have debates, a

    73. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not to turn these highly-paid STEM workers into lower-paying teachers. The point is to take experts in their field and give them a chance to volunteer their time. These professions pay way too much for people to leave and become teachers. But there are a lot of people who could either get time off or take a sabbatical to help out, particularly when their kids/family are among the students.

      That was my situation...there's no way I'm leaving a job to take 6x less money teaching (I'm in a golden handcuffs situation). Yet I guarantee I could have taught the class better than the teacher who did. As my step-brother commented, he liked my teaching better because I told him why to do something rather than how. Why is something that only comes with experience.

    74. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by penglust · · Score: 1

      Her name is still Gemini. Married a doctor.

    75. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These ideas...

      Overemphasis on testing

      Underpaid teachers

      Cultural bias against education ...are pure crap... ...there is a ton of evidence to the contrary in fact. ...overemphasis on teaching? sure, like starting the "spelling does not matter" and "how do feel about your answer" and the "new math" where close enough is Ok as long as you tried? ...underpaid teachers? work what 8 months out of the year plus a pension plus the day ends at about 3pm and summers off and etc? ...cultural bias? sure like where "ain't" and Ebonics are "nice ideas"? ...sheesh... people...

    76. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "scheme" was the original objective of the US public education system 100 years ago. Pump out masses of complacent workers that only knew enough not to get themselves killed in a factory, else they wouldn't be around any longer to contribute tax revenue.

    77. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      I think that proof of the woeful deficiencies of schooling in the U.S. is cultural and extends back to the antisocial aspects of Americans who are used to running off to form isolated communities in the wilderness when they disagree with everybody else. The value of an education is to be able to reason and persuade as well as to be able to discover and apply. All of these skills are depcricated by the factory school system we have today and by the micromanaging of education by government. If you think that this is a statism vs. free enterprise issue, it is not, for the owners of business really want a passive consumer population, not people who are able to see beyond their scams.

      In other worlds the problem with American schools is a problem with American thinking, not with individual teachers and students. There are many examples of teachers and students who do fine, creative work despite the excessive structure and outside controls. It is that the adults who should be in control don't demand enough from one another and that the nation does not have a vibrant national discussion about issues in general. I think the fault goes back to the excesses of Pragmatism and the lack of respect for long traditions going back to Classical times. Also this is caused by the foisting of social issues such as Civil Rights into the classroom rather than preparing students to be citizens in a democracy, which is not the same as being successful in a career or business.

      University has not done enough to promote intellectual curiosity which filters down into the classroom. Students in University are not taught that they have an obligation to their fellow citizens to serve them and to protect inclusive institutions, If I were to predict the future of the country based on what students do in University, I would say that it is destined for tyranny, and that the intellectual leadership has failed to transmit values to them. This is the single most important reason why American schools fail, not because of curriculum or regulation, Teachers with strong minds, really taught to think for themselves find ways around the excessive controls and will eventually defeat them. It is because of weak critical thinking skills that Americans are easily duped into giving away rights or not fighting for things of value.

    78. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame scientific calculators. It's disgraceful that they should have a place in any Math or Science class. Let computers be used in lab classes but the primary curriculum should be calculator free.

    79. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but I'm just too old and too angry to respond to false dichotomies or play circular word games today.

      Well, you've pretty much made a liar of yourself on that one, because here you are responding.

    80. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by nobodie · · Score: 1

      i'm gonna' mod you up to11, you have hit it all on the head.
      (I'm a parent -- of 6 kids, three natural and three step--, a teacher, the brother of a teacher and brother in law of two other teachers; i do know a lot about both sides of the fence)

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    81. Re:I blame textbook monopolies. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      This is 100% nonsense, every single point. As long as people think these are the issues, there is no hope for fixing. The funding and money parts are the most absurd - American education is grotesquely over-funded.

      Interesting. Yeah, I know it's boycott week and so on, but I just saw this and thought I would reply. So.. I have your comment and then another that says I'm spot on every single point. That comment is from a teacher and parent to several kids, someone who should know.

      So, what's your point of reference then? As for funding, it may be true that the US spends relatively more per pupil than other countries, but it is not money well spent. Walk into any (OK, not *any*, but nearly any..) poor school district in the nation and you will not have to look far to find very old and falling apart textbooks, awful infrastructure, inadequate equipment, and oh btw, not the best teachers I'm guessing, as the best ones tend to be attracted to the richer districts. The conservative response to all education woes tends to be "let them eat charter and religious schools!", which is also utter bullshit. It solves problems for some, but leaves the underserved even more so.

  2. Analogy to Movies by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

    A similar comment can be made about movies. I hate remakes and especially reboots. Even movies made from book are better than remakes. Can you come up with something new?

    However, I disagree a little with Woz here because it's critical to improve existing technology. True innovation is difficult and important, but improving those first bits of technology is probably as crucial. The obvious case in point is the mobile phone. It has been around quite a while, but our lives are greatly affected by recent technologies (including infrastructure).

    1. Re:Analogy to Movies by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Ok but bearing in mind that Facebook is an evolution of Friendreunited I'm not sure if I like where this is going

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Analogy to Movies by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "A similar comment can be made about movies. I hate remakes and especially reboots. Even movies made from book are better than remakes."

      I don't mind a remake if the original film was made from a (classic) book, like the plays of Shakespeare, Frank Herberts Dune, Lord of the Rings etc
      Or even dramas based on historical events, or legends.
      But if something was originally a movie, or TV show, and presumably worked with the original cast, then they don't need to do a remake.
      I also hate prequels, If they want to contiue a franchise (like Star Trek) they should make one that is set after TNG, Voyager, and DS9

  3. The class room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to agree with Woz, we're going down the wrong path. We tried throwing resources at this in a million ways and nothing is really moving it forward. I don't blame people who don't see a place for a lot of things in the classroom because we just aren't getting the results from students that we did before we have computers and cash in the school systems.

    Meanwhile we go on these rants about students not learning evolution in the schools while the point is totally moot since the system is pushing students through to graduation who can't read at the 5th grade level.

    1. Re: The class room by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy here we come.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. Technology can be great by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    It can revolutionize teaching if done the right way. You need structure and a learning environment where the students have freedom to pursue as well.

    Bare in mind this citation above was in Mexico where there is a ton less presure on teachers to follow through circulumn to ensure test scores. Teaching today folks is very different than when we went to school thanks to No Child Left Behind. Teachers are handed a list of +90 topics to go over in 3 months! So the time to experiment which has proven test results can not happen as the only goal is to raise test scores based on all +90 topics in a very short window to teach it.

    But it is possible and technology can help garner research, display data visually (nice aid for students learning graphing), and can apply math and science principles to projects like Lego mindstorm make learning it easier.

    1. Re:Technology can be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bare in mind...

      Yes, this happens a lot when I think about Kat Dennings. I can hardly bear it.

  5. Analogies by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 2

    From the summary: "People use technology more the less it feels like technology. 'The software gets more accepted when it works in human ways — meaning in noncomputer ways.'" Take a world where you have a pen, and then you have a typewriter come along. The uptake in typewriters may have been relatively slow, taking a few decades, never really displaced the pen in many uses. Now computers replacing typewriters - a little faster. Internet replacing non-internet sources of information - definitely happened much faster. But in all these cases it is using technology that feels more like technology. So I don't know what he means by working in non-computer ways.

    1. Re:Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So I don't know what he means by working in non-computer ways.

      Try rewriting your reply on an Altair 8800 using the front panel and maybe you will understand what he means.

    2. Re:Analogies by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      I certainly have a ton of respect for the woz, but this sounds like someone just saying whatever in a desperate attempt to sound relevant. Worse, it sounds like he's trying to channel Jobs. Woz's a brilliant man, but he knows damn well his innovations in computers were not inventing something nobody had seen before. And while they might have made computers more approachable, they were definitely not hiding the technology.

      He should also know that innovation is rarely, if ever, inventing something totally new. Usually it involves putting together some stuff that has existed for 20 years in a way that causes people to say, "oh! i never thought that would have worked, but it surely does!" (though in my experience, google glass sucks and doesn't make me say that. still, you can't really innovate without failing a few times.)

      Generally, when something totally new is invented, it languishes. Nobody knows what to do with it. It needs to sit for 20 years until someone realizes they could now put it in some eyeglasses.

    3. Re:Analogies by Agares · · Score: 1

      What I think he means it trying to make computer technology feel more natural to people.

    4. Re:Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the interesting thing about the computer is that it is more than a typewriter. The 'computer' replaced'' the typewriter, the telephone, the radio, the gramaphone, the television, the calendar, the mail service, the book, the ecyclopedia, the library, the office clerk, the playground and is currently replacing the driver.
      What Steve refers to is that the computer is done replacing the typewriter, and for innovation to take place we should no longer focus on what a computer does (calculating, processing data), but on what it enables.

    5. Re:Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the big flaw in your analogy is the typewriter. nobody ever willingly used a typewriter out of convenience. nobody wrote letters to friends and family members with a typewriter. typewriters were used only used professional situations.

      a better analogy for what woz is saying: human-technology interaction a jig-saw or tetris puzzle. while their shapes and sizes do vary, humans have some fairly standard puzzle-piece configurations. technology is most innovative when it is designed to fit into the human puzzle-pieces tightly, almost seamlessly, and with little adaptive effort on the part of humans.

      obligatory car analogy: hover cars would be great, right? which is better: requiring the whole car to be replaced or little hover-engines that bolt right on to existing cars where the tires used to be, without modifying the car?

    6. Re:Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      summary: it is best to adapt to nature than try to change it.

    7. Re:Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Would love to go out to coffee with you. I just answer questions honestly. I don't concoct answers. Innovation is a tricky subject. I'd love to talk to you personally about it and you'll see where my comments come from. I would never struggle to be relevant, I assure you. We should talk about myths too.

    8. Re:Analogies by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      If you really are Steve Wozniak, I would absolutely be up for coffee anytime. I'll be in the bay area in july onward.

  6. Or maybe it's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe there just isn't that much left that needs doing. Oh, except maybe creating a society for people, instead of for consumers.

    1. Re:Or maybe it's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe there just isn't that much left that needs doing. Oh, except maybe creating a society for people, instead of for consumers.

      This.

  7. On Education by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Funny

    The biggest problem with the Public Education system is

    IT IS DOING EVERYTHING WRONG!!

    Start with having Standard Reference E-Books on Everything on a EduCORE server network. When a kid starts school issue the kid an EduSlate (something good enough to work but cheap enough to not be a target for theft). As the kid grows up unlock more and more info (redact less and less). For the things where there are recognized Alternate ViewPoints have the Alternate availible if asked for.

    as far as how the teaching should go

    1 In preschool teach exactly 3 things 1 YOU CAN LEARN 2 HOW TO LEARN 3 The rock basics of learning (numbers letters colors ect)

    2 when they hit K5 1 separate the boys from the girls (outside of Dance Class and Recess) 2 teach every kid physically able to how to dance (ballet/gymnastics type)

    3 group things into K5-3 4-6 7-9 and 10-12 worry about graduating a kid when s|he can jump bands (btw put the Ladies and Gentlemen together in class during the upper 2 bands)

    4 use the older/smarter kids in each band to help the other kids

    5 end of the second band and during the third band start sorting kids for where they will be going after graduation (use a "Nut Filter" also)

    6 create Sanctuaries for kids to go when they can handle "home life"

    In Short STOP KILLING OUR CHILDRENS MINDS.

    Challenge for Apple: Create an ISlate and i will front you your Kinder Garden

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:On Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dance? How about shop? How about Latin, so that we can spell et cetera correctly?

      I just think there are lot of traps for "everyone should do X", when X is something the speaker does well or values.

    2. Re:On Education by dmiller1984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      2 when they hit K5 1 separate the boys from the girls (outside of Dance Class and Recess)

      This has been tried before and it's been found to not work. It's one of the few things in education that has been pretty much proven not to work. I just read an article the other day about seperating by gender, and it just serves to reinforce sterotypes when the genders are not together. Boys are allowed more freedom to move around since "boys will be boys" when there are girls who could use freedom of movement as well. If you were going to break up classes, break them up by the way they learn.

    3. Re:On Education by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Valid divisions for class groups:

        - reading level
        - reading speed
        - academic performance

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    4. Re:On Education by RichMeatyTaste · · Score: 1

      Separating students by the way they learn will never happen given the push for "inclusion" in public schools.

      Meanwhile my wife (teacher) has her entire class dragged down because she has to spend so much time with those who need additional assistance. Those kids end up getting more assistance, but not as much as they truly need, while the other kids fall behind.

      Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of inclusion, but I disagree with others having to noticeably suffer (in terms of education) as a result.

      --


      Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
    5. Re:On Education by Syhra · · Score: 1
      Great, so what to do for the 4-6 band kid who does well with reading and comprehension, easily meeting or surpassing the next band, not so hot in math and not meeting the requirements for the next band, but is young or socially young, but can Riverdance with the best of them and still draws stick figures?. Which band does s/he go to? Why are 4 bands better than 12 grades?

      I will resist making fun of the provided magic thinking here that seems to be right out of someone's feelings on what might work well. We could spend quite a few years going down every garden path on a whim to see it it might just be better.

      1. What is the goal?
      2. What is the metric to measure that goal? Is it valid?
      3. What paths have been tried and can we now retrospectively measure those ones with the given metric?
      4. Take the retrospective methods that score well and do a prospective cohort study to determine where to go to.

      Quite frankly, until we can even agree on step 1, we will get nowhere with an overhaul of the school system.

    6. Re:On Education by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      the point of working it as "bands" is to give time to work around issues where a given kid is a lot better at some subjects than others (s|he can help with the slower kids in the good subjects and be helped as a slower kid in the not so good subjects).

      as far as the The Holy 200 Point Checklist goes that does not matter (unless you are part of the school board/ Government Official Board writing said checklist).

      the point of the bands is to give a teacher 3 years to get a kid up to snuff.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    7. Re:On Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the education posts in this thread presume that schools should optimize teaching because that's what primary schools are for. They're not. You guys are assuming that more formal education is always better for everyone, and it's not. Lower test scores are not a crisis. It's not a disaster that some kids can't read their diplomas. Some people are never going to be able to do that, and they won't need to. The primary school system teaches kids because its the best way to keep them occupied without them getting hurt. This frees up the adults to add to the economy, because having 1 person corralling 25 kids frees up 12 additional adults for the workforce. And regimented instruction is the best way to keep kids from being hurt. So our teaching methods ARE efficient- for the economy. That's right, I just called you teachers in this thread a bunch of glorified babysitters. And you need to accept that, and get over yourselves, and start caring more about the welfare of the kids in your care than in their reading comprehension and their penmanship. We live in a time when the computer can read to them, when you can speak to your phone and it will tell you what you need to know. But the computer doesn't care. It can't tell if someone is beating the kid. Maybe someday it will, and I hope it does, because my teachers were geniuses at pointing out that I write like a doctor signing a prescription, but they always managed to look the other way whenever I showed up to class with bruises. Some of my friends DIED from this, and the teacher was the only one who could have stopped it, and she did nothing. So please quit all this "teach them to dance" nonsense and get some sense of perspective. And kids are learning all the time, it's just that not all of it is measurable. And frankly, they're dancing a lot of the time too, except when they're hurting. And to step on the last few toes left, let me tell you this: teach creationism or evolution in primary schools? IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's right, they'll figure it out on their own. You did.

    8. Re:On Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would examine abandoning the notion of group division completely in favour of individual assessment. At the very least performance in each subject should be grouped separately as much as possible. Logistically it's probably not possible to have a complete separation of subject/ability due to the number of teachers available but it should be possible to have 3 study groups for each subject and there's no strong reason the teacher can't handle multiple levels within each group. Primary education where the teacher is a generalist anyway can have all levels in the same room. Peer pressure will keep kids working close to their level of ability if you make rankings available to them and offer support to advance if they want it. This will require abandoning the idotic idea that effort is the only thing that matters and a concerted effort to overcome the anti-intellectualism of Anglo-Saxon (particularly American) society.

      Reading is critical to all education and should be taught as early as possible. Starting kids reading between 3 and 5 would be best.

  8. Doing a theoretical valuation for an M&A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social network sites at that time were blogger aggregators, where you shared with relevant bloggers. The cost model proved the product made the company valued at 5 million. Investment models could not put a company beyond 200M.
    This reasoning in valuations is wrong as valuations use deals, branding, investment banking and rolling of money.
    And never say the technology existed or "really you were able to patent that".
    Go figure....

  9. Rock-star status needed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    What's needed to make STEM pursuits attractive to kids is rock-star status that they see everywhere in entertainment and professional sports (technically entertainment too).

    1. Re:Rock-star status needed by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What's needed to make STEM pursuits attractive to kids is rock-star status that they see everywhere in entertainment and professional sports (technically entertainment too).

      You wish.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Rock-star status needed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      There are a few who have achieved that sort of status e.g. Jobs, Gates, Woz, Macafee, Ellison.

    3. Re:Rock-star status needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Ellison

      What? Ellison (and McAfee) are barely known outside the industry.

      (Besides, Ellison looks like a super villain from a Bond movie (you know it's true) and has a personality to match. I don't really want a generation of little techie Lex Luthors.)

  10. He hit the nail on the head... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the tech community says, "Ouchie" and runs back to their offices. I've been lecturing developers on this for years, and gotten little but hostility back. When you tell them "The fucking computer DOES NOT MATTER" they just look at you blankly.

    The computer. It's a toaster, OK? It should turn on immediately. Do what the fuck I tell it to do and stay out of my face. It's not even a servant. It's *less* than a servant. It deserves no regard whatsoever.

    More to the point, the toaster should not ask me a bunch of questions, steal my input focus, wait for it's little processes to complete in the foreground before moving on, take minutes to start, or stop, refresh my screen randomly, puke out unhelpful pointless error messages that require my attention, and so on. Aside from all of this being a sign of lazy, careless design and programming, all of this will drive consumers to devices that *don't* do this, or do it less. This is one reason among many why Android is taking over the world, while Windows is dying a well deserved death from it's ossified, well preserved stupidity.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:He hit the nail on the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The computer. It's a toaster, OK? It should turn on immediately. Do what the fuck I tell it to do and stay out of my face. It's not even a servant.

      The problem is that what you actually mean is "Do what the fuck I want it to do but don't know how to articulate unambiguously and stay out of my face.

      The earliest computers did exactly what you asked for, and no one liked them because they do what you tell them not what you meant to tell them. All the things you point out as undesirable are artifacts of or coping mechanisms for the behavior of users.

    2. Re:He hit the nail on the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes and no.
      the "perfect" computer stays out of the users way. but how many here and elsewhere have cut there teeth on computers that were NOT helpful?
      my personal opinion is that there needs to be a "backdoor" to the behind-the-scenes part of the computer and then obviously shit can happen once you get access to it : )
      i'm against a completely blackboxed computer even if it were super user friendly. some people want to know "how the magic trix" works!

    3. Re:He hit the nail on the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The computer. It's a toaster, OK? It should turn on immediately. Do what the fuck I tell it to do and stay out of my face. It's not even a servant. It's *less* than a servant.

      A toaster? Oh really? No, the computer is a tool, and a very versatile one. I couldn't agree more with you about the computer not beeing perfect. But being angry at a computer for not guessing what you mean to do is like being angry at a knife for being unable to perform surgery by itself. Nobody expects surgery to be trivial, a helicopter to fly by itself or a pen to make you a nobel prize winner in literature. Just for a computer nobody has been pointing it out. So maybe you should not compare the computer to a toaster but rather to a mechanic workshop.

      Also, a computer is not about itself or about technology, it is about what people make it do. Everybody took the idea of a computer and did something else with it. Because we were unable to agree about interface standards, we need device drivers and all the woes which come with them. Because of corporate ideas about software your computer enforced company policies. And since lawyers have the last word in the matters it does not exactly get easier (-> DRM, software patents). So 99% of what you complained about is not a techological problem but a social one. So there your computer sits and reflects all the problems society has. In order to fix the computer, we have to fix society first.

    4. Re:He hit the nail on the head... by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The only thing worse than a Grammar Nazi is an incorrect Grammar Nazi. It's a toaster = It is a toaster (correct). Its = neuter possessor.

    5. Re:He hit the nail on the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the tech community says, "Ouchie" and runs back to their offices. I've been lecturing developers on this for years, and gotten little but hostility back. When you tell them "The fucking computer DOES NOT MATTER" they just look at you blankly.

      The computer. It's a toaster, OK? It should turn on immediately. Do what the fuck I tell it to do and stay out of my face. It's not even a servant. It's *less* than a servant. It deserves no regard whatsoever.

      Just so we're on the same page, with it doing what you tell it to do, what happens when you select one too many files to delete? Should it ask you if you really want to, or just delete the files? From your line above it should 'do what the fuck I tell it to do and stay out of my face'.
      Yes sir! File completely gone! Undelete? But you said you wanted it deleted so I deleted it. Exactly as you said.

      What people want is for the computer to be magic. Do what I mean not what I say. Do what I mean even if I don't know what I mean. I remember a story about a kid who was asking for help on a forum with writing a Flash game. He wanted to know what he needed to do. They told him he needed to write a script to tell the computer what to do. He came back saying it hadn't worked. They asked what he did and he said he created a new text file and wrote in it 'There should be tanks and planes and cool explosions'. He thought that would create a game that 'did' that.

      You get similar things with cars and people have had those for decades longer (at least). "Oh, I just ignored those lights. I don't know what they mean." "Oil? I don't use oil, I use petrol." People use computers in one form or another for most of the time they are awake. Can you imagine if someone who drove a car for 8 hours a day didn't know the first thing about them?

      People want the computers they see on Star Trek that you talk to in plain English and it creates a perfect replica of a movie set for you out of thin air. They want computers that don't do X when X is a really stupid thing to do. You can't get mad at a hammer for smashing you in the face if you picked up the hammer and swung it at your face.

  11. Creativity, Innovation and the Previous Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The re-use of old thinking with new technology is akin to the adage "we always prepare for the previous war".

    Frankly, there are people frightened of "creative thinking" because it often is "disruptive" and breaks the pre-existing social-- and financial-- order.

    Innovation starts at the bottom of the corporate food-chain in an effort to solve problems... yet there are usually efforts within any organization to "reserve creativity to the qualified"... is it any wonder that education seems engineered to make more drones?

  12. No such thing as passive entertainment by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Kids used to passive "entertainment"

    I agree with you otherwise, except for this point.

    I do not think ANYTHING that holds your interest and takes your mind elsewhere, is passive. Sure you are sitting idle for a while watching/reading. But after that if it was good you are thinking about it, it is affecting how you think about things.

    For good or bad that is not passive, it is active in shaping how you think and even what you do (action figures exist after all to "act"ion out the stuff you saw in in the passive medium).

    It is why just like food, you should be a bit careful about what forms of entertainment you digest...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Very smart, will never happen - in public schools by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what is funny though, is that your list is exactly the process that a lot of homeschooled kids go through.

    I know, I was one.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Invisibly advance by Lord+Grey · · Score: 2

    Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.

    - Alfred North Whitehead, Introduction to Mathematics (1911)

    Technology that Woz describes is essentially invisible, because the user can focus on the task and not the tool. As tech people, creating such technology should be our goal. I imagine that the vast majority of us want to do that, anyway. What we need to do is convince the people in charge of the money to let us.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  15. Technology will not cure what truly ails you by korbulon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Teaching is hard. It requires talent and a whole lot of effort, in spite of what that ass G B Shaw once sad ("ha HA!"). The problem with technology is that it gives so many people in the school systems the false assurance that it can solve the main problems plaguing the education system (see the recent episode of South Park parodying the ObamaCare website fiasco). But what's really plaguing the eduaction system is that parents are getting less involved and more demanding even as teachers become increasingly overworked, underpaid, and poorly trained.

    A big part of it has to do with the squeezing of the middle class. Decades ago you could actually earn a decent wage on a public school teacher's salary, enough to buy a house and raise a family. Who can do that now? And in a metropolitan area? Fuck that. I honestly don't see how people are making it. I think the best teachers now go to private schools or colleges, and many (but not all, mind you) of the ones who remain are the ones who just aren't very good. People love to blame the unions for protecting bad teachers, but without the unions I think the situation would be far far worse.

    1. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Teaching is hard. It requires talent and a whole lot of effort

      Maybe, but there is a lot of repetition. Seems like teaching counting or simple math should be a solved problem with an expert system providing individual, best practices instruction. A classroom teacher can't do that because she has many kids to help. If the computer could to the individual, routine stuff, the the teacher should have more time to handle special cases. In short, technology ought to be able to help, but for some reason it isn't.

      Perhaps a good proof of concept open source project would be something that teaches the first grade core curriculum math requirements.

      What's the best iPAD app out there to do this now, and is it capable of doing the job for some percentage of the students?

    2. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology can never help us if we don't understand exactly how we need to change and why. At that point, technology is not the deciding factor for success, but your understanding-testing-experience feedback loop IS.

      However, technology can rapidly bring change, when coupled with irresistible and obvious advantages. Just look at Khan's Academy, which has the potential to completely turn the education system up-side-down. At it's core, Khan's Academy IS NOT about technology, but caring and listening to your students (feedback loop), as a teacher. However, since most people lack these exact skills, videos can act as a substitute, inspiration and even teacher training. True teaching still need to be prioritized though, instead of budgets, so it's not a silver bullet. Again, here the technology can bring cost down to pratically zero, so can turn the tables, especially in poor areas, IF internet is prioritized enough.

      So it's about the whole becoming more than the sums of its parts, not just about promising technology, and not just about promising business cases either.
      Too bad our society is constantly punishing all those focusing on the whole, and promoting everyone to focus on their own little part..

    3. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia they are taking the teacher's salary problem seriously. They are building lots of new housing units and teachers get special support in the form of reduced prices and government guarantees for their mortgages to buy a home. This applies even to recebt graduates who are just starting their first teaching job. And the government has increased teachers' salaries and has stated that it intends to continue increasing their salaries.

      Why do American journalists spend all their time complaining about Putin this and Putin that, when they could be doing some deep investigative journalism by talking to ordinary Russians and finding out what drives them, why they vote for Putin in such overwhelming numbers? There is a huge amount of redevelopment happining in Russia that is transforming that country and will help it overtake the USA in terms of economy and quality of living. The 50 billion spent in Sochi should be a clue. No way did they spend that on just the Olympics. They built an new airport, new train station, new highways with bridges and a massive tunnel bypass, hotels, sports centers, housing units. They essentially went into a small coastal town and transformed it into a modern city.

      And while the world was watching Ukrainian demonstrators in Kiev, Russia and Ukraine signed and agreement to build a transport link on the Kerch peninsula which will provide a tunnel and bridge that links road traffic from the EU right into Southern Russia and Sochi.

      And a bit of digging will show you that the Sochi project is only one of dozens of big infrastructure development projects in Russia. Can you even name one big infrastructure development project in the USA?

    4. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Payden+K.+Pringle · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what we need. Something far far worse. So that maybe, just maybe, people will actually try to fix the problem. Don't get me wrong. People are trying. But apparently not enough of them are. Or they aren't trying hard enough. Or they don't understand the problem. Or they don't really care. (I'm sure it's a mix of all that.)

      Something needs to change. Sometimes the only way to get that to happen is for things to get worse.

    5. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the computer could to the individual, routine stuff, the the teacher should have more time to handle special cases. In short, technology ought to be able to help, but for some reason it isn't.

      The hard part is motivation. The problem with school is the knowledge looks "fake" to the majority of young schoolchildren, because it has no apparent connection what adults do. Small children are very quick to get excited about mimicking "real" things -- things they observe adults doing.

      Some kids do well enough in school because their parents influence them to take the "fake" lessons seriously. The existing system serves those children adequately, but perhaps computers can be a further improvement.

      Those kids who have not been successfully brainwashed by their parents into taking "fake" lessons seriously, are they going to blossom when served by a computer? Maybe. But probably not.

      Asking a computer to influence the emotions and motivations of a human mind in a manner that the parents in the child's life did not succeed at, that is pretty tall order.

    6. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Lamps · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't see how people are making it. I think the best teachers now go to private schools or colleges, and many (but not all, mind you) of the ones who remain are the ones who just aren't very good.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read that many teachers who move to private schools from public institutions take a pay cut to do so, and they do it because they find the environment more comfortable and more conducive to doing their job. The students tend to be more classwork-oriented, and they have less disciplinary issues, so although there's less financial incentive to work in private schools (including no prospect of a nice pension upon retirement), the experience itself is more gratifying. Teachers in some urban areas, such as Chicago, for example, can make six figure salaries, along with some very nice perks; I'm not sure how that has worked out for them in terms of educational outcomes.

      It seems that every aspect of the education experience feeds into every other aspect. Indifferent parents (as you've pointed out) produce indifferent or downright hostile kids, who, in turn, make many of the best teachers run for the hills, which leaves the parents and kids to deal with the less well-equipped teachers, and this process propagates through the generations. Most of the fix to education should will probably come with a cultural shift, rather than by throwing more technology into the classroom. People were learning trigonometry and calculus just fine before they had computers in the classroom, and there's no reason they can't do so now. Use computers when necessary (i.e. working with complex regression equations in a Stats course), and leave them out of the classroom when they're simply expedient or a hindrance. Things such as kindles, which present a great variety of books to students, can be extremely useful. Things like iPads are attention hogs, and wire young brains in ways that may not help them in their future endeavors. Use technology as appropriate, but don't pretend that it will be a panacea.

    7. Re:Technology will not cure what truly ails you by Lamps · · Score: 1

      The hard part is motivation. The problem with school is the knowledge looks "fake" to the majority of young schoolchildren, because it has no apparent connection what adults do. Small children are very quick to get excited about mimicking "real" things -- things they observe adults doing.

      Agree with a notion that extends what you said there. Children have less ideas/concepts/mental schemas on which to draw, so much of what is presented to them in school appears arbitrary. One of the paths towards more effective education is to associate new knowledge with concepts that are present in a student's mind. This is pretty basic stuff that William James was saying in the 19th century, and which has a more modern instantiation in our understanding of artificial and biological neural networks. In a nutshell, when teachers present ideas, if it seems that the idea appeared out of a vacuum, or is arbitrary, the student will either be skeptical about the idea, or will have a hard time integrating it (i.e. may have to take the idea on faith and rotely memorize it, and retention will be difficult due to a lack of association with other concepts). The process of relating new ideas to ideas that have already been integrated by a person is crucial to the process of learning.

  16. next step by SeanBlader · · Score: 1

    If I was going to do something crazy, I'd look at getting rid of our screens, and replacing it with voice. That means probably doing better with voice generation, and leveraging and improving voice recognition. I have a thought or two about the idea at a basic level, but I don't have the programming or theoretical chops to make it happen. That would be neat though to see something go that way. Granted that's not all that crazy as evidenced by the movie "Her" but it's a start in the direction Woz was talking about.

  17. Problem is HOW we pay teachers by ranton · · Score: 1

    Even comparing teacher salaries to other jobs results in them being paid well in the United States.

    You are correct that teachers are very well paid in the US. This is especially true when you look at the quality of applicants we get to apply for our teaching colleges (very poor, literally among the worst of any major). One major problem is how we pay our teachers. We pay them with huge benefits packages that no one ever realizes the value of. People are drawn to high salaries, and teachers don't get that. What they get is a huge amount of vacation days and a huge pension. If more people understood how valuable the pension is then many more people would have been going into the profession, and the quality of teachers would go way up.

    Since humans are unlikely to start becoming more future focused in their decision making, the better solution is to raise teacher salaries by 30-40% and get rid of the pensions (which would be a budget neutral solution). We should also enact more summer school programs since we are already paying teachers as much as similar private employees who work around 230 days instead of 180.

    Even with a longer work year, I think we would get much better teachers if average salaries were closer to $60k instead of $45k even if the pension went away. Very few people factor in the pension when deciding what career to enter at the age of 18 anyway.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Problem is HOW we pay teachers by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What they get is a huge amount of vacation days and a huge pension.

      My parents are both retired teachers. Neither of them ever had a pension. Mind you, my grandfather had a pension from his teaching, but they stopped that system for new employees hired way back in the 1970s. Maybe some big-city schools still have pensions, but that's an aberration, not the norm.

      Also, teachers don't just work 180 days. They are actively teaching for 180 days, but teachers often work weekends when grading assignments, which could mean they're working up to 250 days. Add to that the mandatory continuing education, having to do work for part of the summer to update tests and assignments as the curriculum changes (and to discourage people from just copying off their older siblings), and the notion of a "huge amount of vacation days" becomes downright silly.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Problem is HOW we pay teachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being friends with many people who are teachers across my state, and hearing of their routines, your experience with your parents isn't necessarily standard practice. I roomed with a guy for several years who was a teacher. There was no working on weekends. Ever. Also, he spent 4 days at the end of summer, the week before classes "prepping". At several parties I attended where the teachers swap stories, his experience was standard.

      Teachers (in general) get paid just fine for what they do.

    3. Re:Problem is HOW we pay teachers by ranton · · Score: 1

      Also, teachers don't just work 180 days. They are actively teaching for 180 days, but teachers often work weekends when grading assignments, which could mean they're working up to 250 days. Add to that the mandatory continuing education, having to do work for part of the summer to update tests and assignments as the curriculum changes (and to discourage people from just copying off their older siblings), and the notion of a "huge amount of vacation days" becomes downright silly.

      First off, professional full time employees tend to work about 45 hours per week. Taking a standard school day of 8-3, and a teacher working 15 minutes before and after that time with a half hour lunch break, leaves a 35 hour work week. That leaves about 10 hours of out of school grading and preparation per week to equal a standard job. From the teachers I know that is either pretty standard or a bit high. There are certainly teachers who do a great deal more than this, such as those running after school groups, and I agree with paying them more than other teachers. Although they tend not to be paid significantly more (popular wisdom is that this is because of unions, but I can't comment on this from experience).

      Most careers require out of work time keeping up in their industries. There are numerous certifications and organizations that have a certain number of units of continuing education every year, every 5 years, etc. Teachers are not unique in needing to do this, they are just unique in being given an extra 10 weeks off to help complete the requirements. And teaching Continuing Education Units are the easiest of any serious professional organization I am aware of. My next door neighbor just takes exams online because the tests are so easy he doesn't have to sit though the online lectures to pass. Any teacher that finds keeping up with their CEUs to be difficult is probably not worthy of being a teacher.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  18. Dig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So no one sees this as a dig at Bill Gates and his new interest in curriculum? Bill has been linked to pushing the new "common core" scam system that is making it's rounds in the US. I see it as a slight to Bill and common core, which is fine by me. Hats off to Woz.

  19. Re: I blame textbook monopolies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US teacher pay is in line with other countries if you consider per capita pay. Of course a teacher in spain, poland, or ireland is going to be paid less; people on average make less in those countries.

    http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/eiip/eiipid40.asp

  20. reply to comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about having more than 1 monopolistic education system.

    i.e. it's that very thinking that there should be "a" system or "the" system which is the problem.

  21. All the other crap... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    If someone loves history, geography, social sciences and is really strong in it, why do they need to do all the other crap?

    I'll give you the same answer I give my students when they say, "Why do we have to learn this?"

    It's very simple. Our nation depends on civil-minded productive citizens, and public education is an exercise in developing, strengthening, and disciplining the mind, very much like regular weight training does for muscles or general exercise does for the cardiovascular system.

    Are you going to have to use all, or even a majority of, the information you learn in school? Heavens, no. But you'll be a more civil individual who behaves in a civil manner, which is a very necessary and productive requirement for the welfare and maintenance of our society.

    It is certainly up for debate what information is necessary, or how it is presented and "exercised", in order to be successful at this endeavor. But there is no question that public education's primary purpose is not for an individuals rote memorization of facts as much as developing civil minds for the preservation of our nation.

    1. Re:All the other crap... by ImdatS · · Score: 1

      But there is no question that public education's primary purpose is not for an individuals rote memorization of facts as much as developing civil minds for the preservation of our nation.

      Yes, I fully agree with this statement, but fact is that in today's schools, it is rote learning and information cramming only. If the schools would prepare kids for life by educating them that learning is a great thing by itself, educate them to understand how they learn and teaching them to think for themselves, that would be a school-system I'd fully support.

      The problem is that today's schools really teach kids how not to think for themselves, and how not to be analytical, questioning the status-quo, etc.

      I'm all for learning some facts, i.e. information transfer. But let me ask you a simple question:
      Which school (or which teacher) tells the kids clearly during history-lessons that what we know about is history may not be the actual fact but only what some people, and in most cases only the victorious's, have written down?

      History is taught in schools as if it was something "true" - while being known for most people that it is only what was written down mostly by the victorious party. It would be more prudent to teach kids: "Look, I'll tell you what we have discovered so far about history - but some things might have been quite different or opposite, so take it with a grain of salt..."

      Same is true for everything else: In science, most of what the teachers are teaching they do so as "facts" instead of "... as far as we know so far ..."

      If we'd first teach kids how to think for themselves and actually encourage them to question especially their teachers, and then start teaching them "facts", the school-system would be probably significantly better for the society and we'd be developing the civil minds you are talking about. But, as said, currently we're just producing human resources for the economy - preferably human resources that don't think for themselves...

  22. Bare in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're bare in mind you have a barren mind.

    You need structure and a learning environment where the students have freedom to pursue as well.

    Since you can't handle homophones I'm betting you didn't have that structure and learning environment, because most people know the difference between "bare" and "bear" before the third grade. Hint: Bear, as to bear a load. Bare, as in empty, naked.

    Need a little help with their, there, and they're while I'm at it?

  23. innovation - are you crazy ? by westcountyboy · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone think that schools were trying to develop innovators ? Why would anyone think more than a very few can innovate anything or even know what innovation is or that any innovators go anywhere near a school ? If everyone was an innovator who is going to pick up the garbage anyway ? Schools just train as many cogs for the big machine as possible and babysit the rest.

  24. best way to stifle innovation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    involve a manager

  25. functions as intended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American education system is not broken. It is working exactly as it was designed. That is, to create an obediant and predictable workforce. Why would the US Dept. of Education want anything else? It's not like critical thinking and practical life skills are some great mystery to academia. It's just that the priorities of the American education system are that of the nations largest employers and not of the students. It's pretty simple once you look at it from that perspective. Why would the government want to create entire generations of critical thinkers to really work on solving problems? Wouldn't that make large portions of government irrelevant?

  26. Go more extreme Woz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just need to aim higher, don't try to use technology to make public education better, use technology to make it so public education is seen as the less desired choice.

  27. Where Woz is getting his information by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Woz is talking out of his ass. His proposal for 1:1 teacher:student ratio has been shown non-optimum. How would you like to have a teacher hovering over your shoulder 6 hours a day, like a slave's overseer?

    Most students do well in moderate sized classes, 20 to 30 well-behaved children. Those with behavior problems and those with learning disabilities may need more attention, but they're not "most students".

    There are about 50 million school-age children in the US. The total workforce is about 150 million. Assuming 20% overhead for administration and maintenance, a 1:1 teacher:student ratio means 60 million people in the education industry without even considering college. Where are those people going to come from? How are they going to be paid? Where is the production going to come from to feed, clothe, house (etc.) the 1 person in 5 who is engaged in nothing but teaching?
    The more carefully the idea is examined, the worse it looks.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  28. Old time education by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    I'm currently reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, which gives a little insight into what education was like over 150 years ago. (T.S. was written in 1876.) There was much more rote memorization than today, including memorizing long poems. Lots of attention to literature (particularly the Bible), geography, history. Math was primitive but thorough. Science and technology was practically nonexistent. Debating was standard fare.

    The net was that people's minds were filled with enough information to be able to judge political affairs and to be able to handle daily tasks, and in addition filled with heaps of useless garbage. Careers were learned outside of school.

    Today's schooling has just as much garbage, but its nature has changed. Math is less thorough but covers much more ground. Science education is greatly improved, in part because its value is so obvious with 150 years of progress. Graduates are woefully unable to judge political affairs, and have their minds filled with historical irrelevancies and bias.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  29. 6801 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means that there are 6801 old gits watching youtube.

  30. Yeah, beacause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...most of the people who create this technology don't pay attention to human behavior. And I don't mean what their JOB is, but what drives them.

    I suggest every computer scientist study some psychology, you know, to pull their head out of their own arse.

  31. Underpaid teachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets ignore how they don't have to be evaluated by the state or even by a nationalized system. To make sure A, they deserve to keep there jobs, B, to see if they deserve raises for working 4-5 months (if even that with all the vacation time they take off), and C, should they be getting reeducated.

    Underpaid is far from the problem with the school system. Out of your list.

    Are you forgetting that people or both parents have to work, and today's jobs pretty much force you to be married to your work. (I do not have children because I would fail them and myself for not spending time to aid them in school work. And that probem could be solved by the communities creating after school programs and utilizing there libraries, local historical centers, ect, ect... Community involvement has disappeared, and if they want to get involved they want paid for it.

    I could pick off everything you listed as a nationwide problem to do the cost of living, taxes, such as, property, school, county, local income, state, federal, mortgages, having to feed your family, ect.....

    Wozinak just says things because hes loaded with money, and doesn't care. I hear him talk a lot of BS but don't see him being open to anything, or helping out anything. Anytime a tech comes out that will /could overtake Apple, and Apple couldn't come up with it, he always says something negative, the irony is Apple has copycatted/stole ideas and or tech and then tries to monopolize it.

  32. body or the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "America spends more per student on education than most countries."

    And that is due to Copyrights. You pay loads per copy of the course literatures.

  33. wheresthemoney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where would be the money in lobbying for an open source system to be used? Usually policies which cut costs or make things more cost-effective don't succeed because - there is no one to make any money out of pushing for them.

    I totally agree with you that it is the sensible thing to be done - for most schoolkids and parents as well. But if there's no money in it people will have to push for it in their spare time...

  34. Makes me think about STEM education! by virginiajim · · Score: 1

    I'm an old guy and after periodic immersions in STEM classes have started thinking we should reverse the way subjects are taught. I'd get more out them if they were used to build a house (on paper) or flashlight with its parabolic reflector, or in the market (stock and super) to find best prices, etc. So we'd work from the finished product back to the concepts of parabolas, statistics, electronics, weight distribution and vectors. I guess this is the case study method and seems better than word problems as I've never had to determine when I'd meet someone driving towards me on a road at 50mph when I was moving towards them at 60mph, but did have to understand how much dirt a buried house roof could carry. Is this reasonable?