Slashdot Mirror
Can Students Have Too Much Tech?
theodp writes: In a NY Times Op Ed, developmental psychologist Susan Pinker goes against the conventional White House wisdom about the importance of Internet connectivity for schoolchildren and instead argues that students can have too much tech. "More technology in the classroom has long been a policy-making panacea," Pinker writes. "But mounting evidence shows that showering students, especially those from struggling families, with networked devices will not shrink the class divide in education. If anything, it will widen it." Tech can help the progress of children, Pinker acknowledges, but proper use is the rub. As a cautionary tale, Pinker cites a study by Duke economists that tracked the academic progress of nearly one million disadvantaged middle-school students against the dates they were given networked computers. The news was not good. "Students who gain access to a home computer between the 5th and 8th grades tend to witness a persistent decline in reading and math scores," the economists wrote, adding that license to surf the Internet was also linked to lower grades in younger children.
Every serious (read "non-vendor-sponsored") study for the last 20 years has shown that computers in school hinder education.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A general purpose computer is a powerful tool for many tasks. However like all tools some personal discovery and possibly training to aid that discovery are required to make the best use of the tool.
Just throwing money, or tools of any kind, at a given problem isn't going to inherently address the problem. Tools need actual critical thinking and artistry of use taught to be effective.
They can
Are they measuring adult/supervisory interaction in these studies? Technology can't be a baby sitter for children/students. "What's this website 'Imgur'?"
The party's over
If they're using tech to read textbooks and learn, then no. If they're browsing slashfacedottwitbook, then yes.
Who were these "one million disadvantaged middle-school students" compared to in order to determine that there was a "persistent decline in reading and math scores"?
Were they compared against their own scores from earlier testing?
What's to say that the decline wouldn't have happened anyway over the same time period, even if they hadn't been exposed to computers and the Internet?
Ages 11 to 15 are when many "disadvantaged" (that is, black) youth start to get involved with gangs, drugs, violence, and not going to school. We can see this in any major American city, and even most smaller ones. With over 95% of black youth being affiliated with one or more gangs in some areas, which usually results in a failure to attend school, I can't see how there wouldn't be a decline.
What's the real problem here? Is it computers and the Internet, or is it really just the toxic modern black culture that glorifies harmful behavior and shuns self-improvement? Are the researchers unable or unwilling to admit what the real problem is?
Students with no technology would be sitting naked in the dust. Students with too much technology would have equipment at hand that they had no hope of learning to master (or in some cases even use).
Tech is neither the problem nor the solution. The problem is outside (and inside) agencies attempting to use objects to solve their teaching problems. Technology is just another word for Tool. It's possible to have a really good teaching session with a bunch of 5-year-olds wielding iPads. It's also possible to have just as good a teaching session with a bunch of 5-year-olds wielding blocks or finger paints.
The big thing people have to realize is that "new" technology doesn't make it better OR worse technology. We've now got to the point where people have more tools to accomplish a task than they have time to accomplish those tasks. So just pick a few tools out of the set and use them appropriately to the task.
Really -- it's not that hard.
Yes, I have never liked tech in class. Never!
"Students who gain access to a home computer between the 5th and 8th grades tend to witness a persistent decline in reading and math scores," the economists wrote, adding that license to surf the Internet was also linked to lower grades in younger children.
About me: I am a former full-time teacher:
Now my $0.02.
That's why kids from the so called "third world," that come here consistently beat our own kids in all subjects that really matter. Why? Their brains were conditioned to think. They only used PCs if they had any, at home. And only when homework was complete. Homework done the "old fashined" way.
Look folks, there's so much distraction in class that kids can't really learn. It's hard for such young minds to focus. The trouble is that our learned colleagues submit studies that are clearly biased, and what can you say? The contract to supply the latest gadget is inked! It's a sad state of affairs now. The so called "third world kids" when here, quickly catch up with tech and do even better. Is anyone listening?
Its what tech, and how the tech is used. Both in the Apple and Microsoft Camp, our schools have been and are being fleeced for billions possibly Trillions to buy grade school and high school kids toys, from MacBooks, to iPads, to Surface Tablets. Linux and Android technologies that could be used to teach effective use of problem solving in Math, science, Literacy, and assistive technologies for the Disabled are being shut out to prop up wholesale robbery of the tax payer to buy media consumption platforms to create an addict user base that is helpless without effective tools.
Then it'll cost us BILLIONS in potential money to buy technology that won't even last a year anyway.
It is really very easy to understand. Did these economists then take that relationship, come up with a theory making precise predictions to explain it, and then see if those predictions were consistent with new data? Of course we all know the answer is no, so this is not convincing evidence of anything.
...or a great distraction. Not too surprising that handing a kid a tablet and turning him loose doesn't work out too well, but what do I know, I've only work in educational IT for 20 years. A properly supported computer (don't try to make teachers into sys admins) supervised by a properly trained teacher can be very useful in a classroom setting. But training and support are expensive and unsexy, so who the hell wants that?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
If poor people received poor a person's education and the relevant job training for their likely future job level, maybe they would just be happier instead of feeling pressured...
In grade school I can't think of many good uses of constant tech but there should be times specifically for it to learn.
At the college level it depends on the type of courses. I find that a laptop helps a lot in my engineering classes at bother the undergraduate and now at the masters level.
Especially at the masters level it is easy to look up subjects you need to read more on as the professor mentions then so you can read the articles later. After some classes I will have 20 tabs queued up to read.
Some of my classes even expect you to have a laptop with you since the lessons are sometimes done interactively. Recently we have been working on molecular dynamics simulations and looking at the importance of minimizing energy before a simulation, making sure the random starting point is stable, figuring out the free energy of a reaction etc.
There is a huge gaping difference between someone telling you those things are important and you actually doing them and working along with the class. All of our simulations have also required data analysis and visualization of the data and you are expected to quickly be able to parse various strange text formats and do some fairly complex calculations on the data. We normally use python or matlab.
It is also very useful for solving some of the math problems we run into in classes now. Even when an ODE has an analytically solution you don't want to solve it by hand and a computer present allows you to focus on the understanding of the problem and let the computer solve the math part.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Certain kinds of calculators have been banned from test taking for a long time. If the tech supplants mental requirements: its not allowed.
School is for teaching brains not for checking circuits designed by someone else.
Ask something less obvious next time!
unless the kids get 'borg-yfied' the problem isn't the amount of tech it's how it is introduced and utilized
if you allow them to use facebook, whatsapp, twitter and who knows what all the time sure learning isn't that attractive unless it's done the right way, by teachers who know what they are doing,...
Students can be motivated in other ways than by tests and grades. Using tests and grades really teaches kids that they should dislike school.
Alfie Kohn makes The Case Against Grades.
A favorite passage:
Maybe a student's decline shows a teacher's ineptitude?
For going against Dear Leader's 5 year plans.
Can Students Have Too Much Tech?
Betteridge's law of headlines says the answer is... wait a minute. TFA says the answer is "yes"?!?
Does this researcher know she has disproved one of the most oft-cited Slashdot axioms?
If anyone was to ask "Could I have too much tech?" I would laugh in their face.
Businesses do not go around asking, you know, perhaps the smartphone, laptop, and desktop I gave to my employees is too much. The idea is just plain ridiculous.
The real question is "Could the tech we are giving to students suck balls so bad that it is worthless?"
Because I have seen businesses give out crappy tech and I am sure some schools do as well. But the idea of 'too much', is just so inane it is not worth discussing.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
you can never have too much TeX. (Or TeX-MeX, for Mathematical eXpressions.)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The first time that some body said to me, "I don't need times tables I have a calculator." I died a little inside.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
You are right, in many circles this is well known. The trouble is that it is often not communicated to the decision makers.
I teach at a disadvantaged middle school and I see this on a constant basis. To make it worse, I teach computer applications and business. I see the students off task and falling behind even with active monitoring. Yes, it is the students that need the most help in advancing themselves that are the first to go off task.
Some of the off task behavior is that the devices have already become toys; as such, that is what they see them as, even in the classroom. There is also the reality of cognitive development challenges in may poor households, they may simply lack the ability to stay on task without monitoring (this is a whole body of research and no, I am not going to write an easy on this topic here).
To make it worse, my school district is one considering issuing chrome-books to students. Like everyone else, they are hoping they can just buy something that will bring about improvement. There is little that will replace low teacher/student ratios and up to date teaching material; however, the districts will keep trying.
Considering that it is my job, there are places for technology into classroom. As many others have said, the problem is that the students sees, largely as a result of conditioning, the technology as toys and meed careful supervision, and instruction, to get the most out of the technology.
If you can't add without a calculator 33 and 84 in your head and get an answer instantly, then you are fucked up.
If you have to think about it at all, then your education has been wrong.
There is value to pages and pages of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division work. And in not being able to access a calculator to do it.
You can read a Superman comic or a physics book. You can watch the A-Team or the Science Guy. You can play Call of Duty or write a recursive descent parser. Technology isn't the problem, but it's also not the great equalizer. It's what you do with it that advances you or holds you back. Technology is an accelerator, an amplifier, in every direction.
But suppose you don't have the technology, no computer or television or console gaming, and all you have are books. You will almost certainly learn to read well, and that will put you ahead of a LOT of people today. The best thing you can do for your kids is take their summers and make sure that for large portions of them they don't have access to media other than books.
We started our youngest two on computers at 12 months. They moved on to tablets not long after. They were reading at a sixth grade level before preschool. Our very youngest has been accepted to and attending a school for the gifted, as she reads at a college level now and is also good at math. She publishes how-to articles online and is working on a serial drama in the fan-fiction genre that has fans among her peers - without prompting or assistance. She's eight. She lies on the forms to get around the TOS. She has gotten her older brother interested in authorship as well. Their littler nephew was showing me the other day how to modify the network settings on my Android tablet to join his Minecraft server. He is six.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It is my very humble opinion that constant access to tech kills the ability to think, and encourages laziness in critical analysis (often completely annihilating it as people go for that panacea for factual argument, Wikipedia, in attempts to "prove" their arguments, ironically often proving them wrong but like some sort of broken thing they insist that the bloody peer reviewed encyclopedia is wrong!). Back when I was at school, we found out the speed of sound through experiments. Wikipedia wasn't even a pipedream back then, you couldn't just look it up. That's just one example. Hell, whatever happened to you know, just *talking* to people?
Am I getting old??
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Using tech is not the same thing as understanding tech. People have been making this mistake since PC's went mainstream.
A PC using kid in 1980 was likely a smart geeky kid. A "tech" using kid in 2015? Not so much. Sure, a few of them ... just like it was a few kids back then.
"Stay on task" like a workhouse or factory? Whose task? To what end?
The new (yet old) paradigm is learner-directed education. A healthy kid's own natural curiosity and desire to succeed then helps him or he power through challenges (if it has not been wiped out before then through boredom/confusion or rewards/punishments). However, most software and even internet content is not that educational and so is a rough fit. We need more good stuff, especially FOSS educational simulations. If kids are not choosing to learn important things with at least some of their time, we need to ask why? What sort of messages are we sending kids about what we value as a society (like what is on TV)?
See also my essay: ...
"Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools"
http://patapata.sourceforge.ne...
"Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to "learning just in case"
based on someone else's demand.Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world". In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change.
So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools. Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade. Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age. They are no longer needed. What remains is just to watch this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the fewest people get hurt in the process."
That said, I strongly believe that there needs to be a way to ensure families have the resources they need to raise healthy educated kids (including paying for tutors and classes as desired). I feel a "basic income" from birth could be part of the answer to that (John Holt suggests that in "Escape from Childhood"), and would provide families with plenty of money to pay for their children's education as desired or time to teach their own. Until then, consider: :-) because ultimately local schools will grow into larger vibrant community learning centers open to anyone in the community and looking more like college campuses. New York State could try this plan incrementally in a few different school districts across the state as pilot programs to see how it works out."
http://www.pdfernhout.net/towa...
"New York State current spends roughly 20,000 US dollars per schooled child per year to support the public school system. This essay suggests that the same amount of money be given directly to the family of each homeschooled child. Further, it suggests that eventually all parents would get this amount, as more and more families decide to homeschool because it is suddenly easier financially. It suggests why ultimately this will be a win/win situation for everyone involved (including parents, children, teachers, school staff, other people in the community, and even school administrators
Also, there are so many addicting aspects to modern society, parents need better support in managing that for their children (rather than even more kid-targeted commercials and so on). The problem and some partial solutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.paulgraham.com/addi...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/the-...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yep, all that hi tech gortex would be a shame--kids should be struggling with flus and pnemonia walking to school.
Kids need so much -- nature; human interactions; emotion coaching; music; manipulating blocks, sand, and water; physical exercise; and so on. Computers (or other screens) crowd that all out so quickly as a "supernormal stimuli". Sure kids can learn computers young, but the human mind is adapted to grow a certain way within a natural environment and an extended family/tribe. Best to avoid computers/screens as long as possible IMHO, as it will happen soon enough anyway. We did not let our kid have much screen time until around age four, and I still feel that was too soon, and rapidly became a losing battle after age six to eight or so. Sure, like you I'm proud of my own kid's accomplishments with computers, but I also realize they come at a cost of other missed opportunities.
BTW, John Taylor Gatto essentially says "gifted" programs are a scam, carving off those who might otherwise be natural leaders and making them a cog (if that) in a bigger system of social control.
The Albany (NY) Free School and its high school equivalent are examples of places that gets a lot of things right, IMHO.
http://www.albanyfreeschool.or...
https://tubmanschool.wordpress...
"Harriet Tubman Democratic High School is the only democratic educational institution for teens in the Capital District. We offer a supportive and personal learning environment for young adults from diverse backgrounds. Our staff strives to teach young adults how to think for themselves by encouraging critical discussions and respecting student input into their educational process. Our students learn self-motivation and, in the process, discover independence and self-reliance."
Contrast with, at the other extreme, a place like Choate Rosemary Hall,in the words of one of its students, Alfredo Brillembourg '16 News Staff Writer:
http://thenews.choate.edu/arti...
"In his essay about elite education, writer William Deresiewicz asserts, "Elite education forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers." This idea of higher education refers to a stage of formal learning that further cultivates young minds. Indeed, Choate is an establishment of higher education and it excels in its academic teaching. In light of this, Choate has very high expectations for its students and acts upon them by assigning heavy homework loads, frequent assessments, and rigorous course work. Although this method does promote good habits and a high level of learning, it does not encourage students to think for themselves because there is simply no time for us to do so.
In response to this stress-inducing environment, students are forced to figure out the system of boarding school, rather than actually taking in what they are being taught. Choate scholars need more time to be able to relax and embrace their studies. Choate must steer away from teaching kids to cheat the system of higher education by supporting a more innovative learning environment that will allow kids to appreciate what they are learning, rather than simply learning it for the grade. Choate's methods for education must work toward teaching kids how to think for themselves because it will allow for more success in life as a whole, rather than simply teaching how to succeed through the system of higher education.
The pressure and demands imposed upon students at Choate force kids to resort to techniques such as last-minute studying and memorizing, which are not conducive toward actual learning and will harm students in the long run. The large workloads are a huge source of stress for students, and they cause students to lose interest in pursuing other subjects because they have too much to understand at once. Likewise, the long hours of school and sports combined wear students down, and rather than appreciating intellectual topics outside of school, kids are too caught
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
IMHO, an important skill is order-of-magnitude calculations. If you subtract US$79.99 from your bank balance in a checking account, you should realize something is wrong if your balance drops by $1000 instead of near to $100. Same for political-type calculations relating to roughly how many people are in a country and how much some policy might cost if it costs $X per person and so on (by rounding, to get a ballpark figure). Without that basic skill, people are completely at the mercy of the machines or their own fat finger typing or unscrupulous other people.
Order-of-magnitude calculation is the sort of skill people picked up quickly using slide rules. :-)
"Simulated Pickett N909-ES Slide Rule"
http://www.antiquark.com/slide...
"Slip-stick" engineering pretty much got us to the Moon and back. :-) Even if no doubt more precise calculations were made along the way at some point.
But precise calculations are indeed perhaps better turned over to calculators, so people can focus on other things. There are only so many things we can pay attention to or remember at one time.
Yes, I did learn to do a square root on paper at some point, not that I recall it much now. But I don't feel especially weaker for not being able to do that at the moment. And even if I did recall the procedure, what would be the point in using it to determine the square root of 99 if I could punch use a calculator? Again though, being able to check the result roughly would be important though, to know the correct result must be somewhere around 10 and not 5 and not 20.
Just out of curiosity:
"How to calculate a square root without a calculator"
http://www.homeschoolmath.net/...
One example comment there (from an "Instructor of Mathematics"): ..."
"I vaguely recall learning the square root algorithm in K-12, but frankly, I see no value in this algorithm except as a curiosity. And I am not of the "reform" crowd. I fully believe students not be given a calculator to use until advanced algebra or pre-calculus, and then only a scientific calculator (not graphing). Do you really believe student at the K-7 level will understand how/why this algorithm works? I was happy to see that you recommended the "estimate and check" method. This is what I also recommended to my daughter, who is now studying square roots in her home school curriculum. The "estimate and check" method is a good exercise in estimating, multiplying, and also memorizing perfect squares.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
This just in: Access to the internet provides a vast opportunity to learn things that are actually interesting to the user; School curriculum blows so hard that it can't effectively enslave a civilization under the whims of the current government or otherwise existing power structure.
Programming should not, and that's an absolutely not, be a part of so called 'modern' education, all it does is removes critical thought and logic from so called 'modern' education.
Teach a kid logic and they can program if they want. Teaching theem some dipshit drag and drop stuff calling it "programming" is a waste of everyone's time (especially the kids).
I'm sure you are going to try and make some more excuses, but lets ask what language they should be learning to be great at a job then? Hint: There isn't one language to teach, there are at least dozens. All of those languages do different things, and serve different purposes. If you want to write Kernel code you sure as fuck are not going to use Java to do it, but if you are going to write GUI code you might. So trying to do what you claim harms people, it does not help anyone (well, perhaps politicians and your ego)
the tech should facilitate. if it is not doing that then get rid of it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We should NOT be teaching programming in school
Agreed. They should just accelerate the basic math, science and English courses already. There is no reason calculus can't be taught by grade 9, for example. It's been done. Kids can easily learn all the algebra and geometry by 8th grade (really 6th grade) in the right environment. Teaching styles are so outdated. highschool in a well desired world would all be advanced science courses and real world models such as accounting and statistics and maker-fair style building projects.
No one ever got an eduction from technology, the powers that be have been selling you snake oil to keep their kids the smarter ones.
scientific models are in computer programs rather than mathematical equations
"Scientific computer models" ARE mathematical equations. The physics model in a FPS, the scientific one that simulates air pressure in climate models, or shoots a space probe through a gap in Saturn's rings, they are all using Newton's equations to model the behaviour of an object.
There are generally two types of equations used to build scientific models, whether it be on paper or silicon. The ones that bend to calculus are said to have an "analytical solution" and can be solved with pen and paper, but the majority of problems encountered in nature, engineering, FPS, etc, do not have an analytical solution, they require a supercomputer to crunch the numbers into an answer.
The proper name for "number crunching" is numerical calculus, which is why Babbage called his clockwork computer a "difference engine". In fact the term "computer" comes from the name of the first human job made obsolete by what was arguably the first modern computer, Turing and Co's computer was funded during the height of WW2 because it replaced large numbers of human computers that had the tedious and error prone job of "number crunching" artillery tables.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The side pushing for tech has interests in selling tech and making tech seem necessary. They are selling tech services for things where it isn't necessary, its about keeping people using their services, including non-educational ones like Facebook and Google. They also have a goal of creating users for life, even at everyone's expense. Sort of like cigarettes. It's #1 fundamental law of capitolism. The profit motive always trumps.
The other side are the educators and families who see the forcing of tech and other shit is harming kids futures. This side might also believe that they are being short changed and denied resources by government to offer a proper and complete educational experience for all students. What is not profitable, often doesn't get what it deserves in America. Yes, they will even push things that are harming us in the name of profits. Our government knows that even if our society is denied a useful education, they can merely import talent from other countries which are less profit driven and more human rights centered or those who are merely more interested in having a competitive society.
obamasweapon.com
The problem with technology in schools is that it is treated by politicians and hopeful parents like some magic artifact that automatically makes learning better and kids smarter. No one wants to challenge that, since everybody want to seem progressive and with it. But teachers don't understand it much better than the students, and the people that do understand technology assumes everyone is as smart as them, and don't know much about kids nor teaching. Result: Kids get to make PowerPoint presentations instead of a written or verbal presentation. And everyone is happy. Despite kids learning less, reading less and learning that any answer can be googled.
What is really hurting learning and schools, is that we make very little accommodation for the children that are above average and below average. Everyone is expected to learn the same and to to be equally talented at everything. But the reality is, that just like adults, some children are better at math while other children are gifted with language skills and others again gifted in other areas. When everyone is treated the same, the talented kids get bored cause they're not challenged, and the less talented get frustrated because it's hard and bored cause they have no interest in it. Learning in schools need to get more differentiated in order to get better. We can't solve that just by throwing more computers at schools.
By me: http://slashdot.org/submission... ... Superintendent Stephen Tomlinson said safety is the driving force behind the technology, however, admitted student behavior also plays a role in utilizing the equipment. Tomlinson said students have rights, and he wants to respect their privacy, but their rights change when students step foot on school grounds. ... Tomlinson said he already notices the culture has changed in the high school. He believes the amount of bullying and vandalism in the hallway is greatly reduced already. Gennett said faculty and teachers have peace of mind now, knowing the entire school is under surveillance. "It would be very difficult to find a location in our buildings where you can hide, or you can go, and intentionally do something that is not acceptable in our buildings," Tomlinson said. Some of the administrators view the security cameras as entertaining. Seniors Smith and Horne said certain staff members will call-out students over the loud speaker, and tell them to take off their hats."
"Caroline Murray reports for the Sacandaga Express: "Just this year, the Broadalbin-Perth Central School District completed Phase 1 of a plan to install high-tech security cameras in every school across the district. For the first time, high school and middle school students started off the school year with security cameras pointed at them from every direction, including hallways, staircases, and public rooms, such as the cafeteria and gymnasium. For some veteran students, the cameras feel a bit invasive. "It is like '1984' with big brother," senior Hunter Horne said while walking down the hallway.
One question not addressed in the article is whether forcing a child to submit to total one-way surveillance is a form of bullying or in some other way a vandalism of privacy or democracy? See also David Brin's "The Transparent Society" for another take on surveillance, where all the watchers are also watched."
Original source: http://www.sacandagaexpress.co...
The inclusion of spending on "security" without any explanation of accountability or privacy issues is a reason I voted against the most recent New York State bond issue for educational technology in schools, as much as I am all for educational technology and also recognize the importance of security for all (the issue being how we go about ensuring security effectively in a broad sense).
http://ballotpedia.org/New_Yor...
"The New York Bonds for School Technology Act, Proposal 3 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in New York as a legislatively-referred bond question, where it was approved. The measure authorized the state comptroller to issue and sell bonds up to the amount of $2 billion. The revenue received from the sale of such bonds are, according to the proposal, used for projects related to the following:[1]
* Purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets and high-speed broadband or wireless internet.
* Constructing and modernizing facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and replacing classroom trailers with permanent instructional space.
* Installing high-tech *security* [my emphasis] features in school buildings."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
symbolic algebra programs could massively ease and sped up math courses. numeric stuff could usefully be done in pascal. it would require first-rate cs didactics and teachers. cs is a science, not a hobby. using general purpose sw is a hobby, though.
that said, we have already too many sw engineers.
I don't agree. The problem with grades is that they actually don't mean anything. They indicate nothing about a student other than how they responded to questions, at an arbitrary date and time, against how an arbitrary instructor graded those responses. For everyone who understood the game, it didn't matter. For everyone who doesn't understand the game, it probably doesn't matter.
After education, there is a world of "pass/fail" tests where sometimes passing or failing doesn't matter and the rules are foggy. Some people become well adjusted, productive, members of society and their community and some don't with many shades in between. But those aren't things that can always be taught let alone graded. You can maybe grade yourself (if you have the maturity to do so objectively) and your boss and peers may grade you, as may your SO/spouse, but those scores are have real world value and are based on real world criteria. That criteria can't be prepped for and forgotten next week, but has to be part of who you are. If you're passing those tests, you're doing something right, if not, you need to adjust. No amount of schooling (I specifically didn't use "education" there) adequately prepares you for that. Experience and introspection does.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
6 999 999 999 people know that's an urban myth.
Most of them can spell cosmonauts, too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Deceptively simple question time:
Q1: How much *additional information* did you end up learning through your research before you got to the information you wanted to get to?
Q2: How much *additional information* do you get when you Google something or look it up on Wikipedia?
Q3: Compare and contrast the magnitudes of both values from Q1 & Q2
Q4: Is it *really* better today, where you lose the exposure to that additional information, some of which you inevitably integrate into your knowledge base and internalize, and may happen to find useful later?