Actually, I think the '(' character is equivalent to 14 and the ')' character is equivalent to 0.5 with an implicit multiplication between them. How is my answer any less correct than "()" = 7? This is the problem when one deviates from a standard notation.
No. This unnecessarily tests their ability to guess a most-likely meaning in an ambiguous message, rather than the goal of testing their ability to use the addition property of equality. The student missed the question. What do we now need to cover in remedial teaching? Addition property or deducing meaning out of a poorly worded message?
Why? The world doesn't format problems neatly for you. That's the job of the person approaching it.
If you are trying to quantify a student's ability remember and use the addition property of equality (as in this case) then introducing a brand new notation is a really bad idea. If you are trying to test their ability to adapt to a new notation based on knowledge they have already proven they know, then this could be a good question.
Try and test both at once and you cannot be sure where the student stumbled. Subsequently, there is no way to determine what needs remediation.
It appears you have a problem with what is being taught. A distraction from the issue at hand.
Are you testing their knowledge of the equal sign? Or are you testing their ability to guess about the meaning of your non-standard notation? This is a common problem that teachers face. I am an ex-teacher. We worked hard (often as teams) to eliminate or rewrite questions like this from our tests and quizzes.
While the ACLU document does mention that this police officer unholstered his weapon before identifying himself as a police officer, this is not the crux of their complaint. If I am stepping out in front of an unknown individual (his face obscured) on a heavy motorcycle, I too am going to want some form of quick defense. I am no expert on the rules of escalation of force for MD state troopers, but at worst the unholstering of the weapon is a training issue that needs to be corrected with this individual.
The ACLU is, instead, focusing on the use of the recording laws in Maryland as a form of suppressing speech; in my opinion, a much more important issue.
Most posters here just want to run a jack-boot-thug, social-feedback-loop rant. They are completely missing the point of both the ACLU and the slashdot submission.
I find it offensive that you can get a well-formed equation tattooed on your butt before I can get a decent one displayed using markup on my web pages in a cross-browser manner.
There have been a few people who have tried taking this to small claims court under these laws. In general the judges in small claims courts are political animals and refuse to enforce them.
It's the same story with the anti-spam laws.
If that is the case and they plan on enforcing it, I hope they thought to include the requirement in the job description that the employee provide the hardware and net access to do so! If not, guess who is on the hook to provide them?
This was the technology supervisor. So you're right, "it's their call," and I believe this guy is arguing that he was the "they." It appears now that some other committee is, retroactively, trying to decide otherwise.
Taking away distractions reduces their options to paying attention or doing nothing at all. I cannot make you pay attenion or, goodness, learn. If I can take away other possibilities then the odds go up that you *will* pay attention. Very few students can stay awake and do absolutely nothing. If the only option is to do the classroom activity then at you have a shot at learning something!
You try to make it sound like some sort of power trip. This is not my ego and I am not offended by the student who is not paying attention. If I were teaching at the college level I would be happy to just lecture and walk away. These are not college students, they are not adults, they do not behave like adults. Call them adults-in-training, if you prefer.
This has all been proven through years of experience. Not just mine but many decades (centuries) of practice. Education today is declining because the teachers are losing the tools they need to control the classroom, something they actually had before. Lawsuits and paranoid administrators are making the educational environment too hard to maintain control of the classroom.
It is. If you think the other students in the classroom are not aware you are texting, then you're wrong. If you think they're not going to lean across and ask you "what did she say?" then you're wrong. A student who is not actively participating is a problem for themselves (i.e. not learning) and others (disruptive). This is not teacher ego, as much as the students would like you to believe, but a demonstrable fact that is taught that can be shown throughout history. It is taught to all new teachers. Some new teachers refuse to believe it; those do not last long.
My friends, this is all covered in Teaching 101. (Actually the class is called Behavior Management) Demanding a student's attention is not unreasonable, it is required.
It never stops with the texting. And yes, although it can be inaudible, other students get distracted by it. Not "you're bugging me" distracted but "Like... what did she *say*?" distracted. As I have said in other subthreads, those who haven't been teachers [in public school] often do not understand behavior management. It is actually several classes for licensure. There are seminars about it. If a teacher cannot or will not do this then they simply cannot teach.
I would have LOVED to have just lectured about my love (math, electronics, etc) for 48 minutes, but then the monkeys rule the zoo and no one learns anything. It isn't grad school. They may look like young adults and sometimes they may behave like young adults, but they are still children and make boneheaded choices.
You do not have to obey as long as you are willing to take the consequences for your actions. Disrupting the classroom so other people cannot learn is not going to be tolerated.
The teacher must do so immediately. Maybe he/she did wait until a student activity was begun? Then quietly asked for the phone? "No." At which point the teacher must insist right then. Letting "no" go means losing the entire classroom management later. It has nothing to do with pride or "hurt feelings" it is a necessity!
You can rationalize that it's the "teachers fault" all you want, but you would be wrong. This girl is facing consequences for behavior she knew was wrong. The consequences are well documented in any public school. She CHOSE to behave this way and now must face the consequences.
You need to look for educational law. There are laws on the books for "disrupting the educational process." A school has special status in the eyes of the law due to the nature o the activity there. Things are allowed on the street which are disallowed in a school environment.
I won't cite laws, I have better things to do. But I got you pointed in the right direction for your research.
As a teacher, I would say that ignoring it will result in complete loss of the classroom management by about week 6. Once other students see no consequences they will pull out their phones. Then they will skip the phones and start talking to each other. Then objects will begin to fly across the room. It's all an escalation of behaviors. Where will you draw the line?
The only acceptable behavior in a learning environment is participation. By everyone participating and showing some civility to their fellow classmates then there are no lines to be drawn.
You are under the mistaken belief that every student can learn just from listening to lectures. It is incorrect. Learning requires participation, which requires the students' attention.
If the student had provided the phone immediately, the disruption would have been minimized and confiscation would have been the punishment. The student, by refusing to give the phone to the teacher further disrupted the classroom. I had it happen a lot as a teacher. Amazingly often. 3 to 4 times a week security would have to be called to confiscate a phone. The students learned they could stop the class by refusing.
I was a mathematics teacher for 4 years. I still have my license.
I can assure you that any student who is not actively participating in my classroom (15 minutes of lecture is all your average high school student can sit still for) would eventually start disrupting others. Texting itself is not the problem, it is just a symptom of the "not paying attention" and will escalate to more disruptive behaviors if left unchecked. It will ALWAYS happen... period. Every time. Anyone who has ever taught in a public school environment will tell you so.
Other students will pick up on this and the classroom will become completely unmanageable. If even 5 of the students think think they can do whatever they want, a classroom of 30 will grind to a halt and no learning will take place. One or two hardcore individuals will slow the class significantly, 5 will stop it cold.
My bet is this is going to really REALLY negatively affect all of those mailservers that have been setup, for which there is *no* administrator.
Content cut here.
All in all, this is a pathetic (understandable, mind you) move, and reeks of inconsideration.
One simply can not set up an email server, with spam filtering, and not have some entity actively maintain it. The fact that anyone believes this is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. No, this bad decision is the root cause of the blockage, not the DNSBL operator who has effectively no other choices available to him.
Headsets or speaker phones being safer while driving is a myth.
Yes, yes, we know. Hands-free/headsets are still legal in most places.
Soapbox aside; given the current laws, how is this detector going to help this [hypothetical] police officer in any way or form? Don't ya just love solutions in search of a problem?
Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast...
Excellent point. However, are they also as responsible for the Letters to the Editor section? I find this a closer analogy. The writer of the article was, to my knowledge, not an employee of the publisher in this case.
Not a moment too soon! Oops... wrong tag
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
As a high school teacher, I completely misread the subject of this post. I took it to mean the body spray. As a person with a lot of allergies, I was pretty exicted to read the article!
Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.
It is a tenet of critical reading skills. We always teach our students to "consider the source" when reading and "consider the audience" when writing. Giving the reader a heads-up about any historical political bias is a legitimate act.
I fail to see how free speech has been restricted as you appear to imply. They said it and anybody can read it. If any source has a history of being a wingnut, of any persuasion, policital or otherwise, then potential readers will benefit from knowing.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the '(' character is equivalent to 14 and the ')' character is equivalent to 0.5 with an implicit multiplication between them. How is my answer any less correct than "()" = 7? This is the problem when one deviates from a standard notation.
No. This unnecessarily tests their ability to guess a most-likely meaning in an ambiguous message, rather than the goal of testing their ability to use the addition property of equality. The student missed the question. What do we now need to cover in remedial teaching? Addition property or deducing meaning out of a poorly worded message?
Why? The world doesn't format problems neatly for you. That's the job of the person approaching it.
If you are trying to quantify a student's ability remember and use the addition property of equality (as in this case) then introducing a brand new notation is a really bad idea. If you are trying to test their ability to adapt to a new notation based on knowledge they have already proven they know, then this could be a good question.
Try and test both at once and you cannot be sure where the student stumbled. Subsequently, there is no way to determine what needs remediation.
It appears you have a problem with what is being taught. A distraction from the issue at hand.
Exactly.
Are you testing their knowledge of the equal sign? Or are you testing their ability to guess about the meaning of your non-standard notation? This is a common problem that teachers face. I am an ex-teacher. We worked hard (often as teams) to eliminate or rewrite questions like this from our tests and quizzes.
While the ACLU document does mention that this police officer unholstered his weapon before identifying himself as a police officer, this is not the crux of their complaint. If I am stepping out in front of an unknown individual (his face obscured) on a heavy motorcycle, I too am going to want some form of quick defense. I am no expert on the rules of escalation of force for MD state troopers, but at worst the unholstering of the weapon is a training issue that needs to be corrected with this individual.
The ACLU is, instead, focusing on the use of the recording laws in Maryland as a form of suppressing speech; in my opinion, a much more important issue.
Most posters here just want to run a jack-boot-thug, social-feedback-loop rant. They are completely missing the point of both the ACLU and the slashdot submission.
Whoa... hold on there.
"Point a gun in his face" and "wave a gun" is a long way from "draw a gun and keep it pointed at the ground". You are exaggerating.
I find it offensive that you can get a well-formed equation tattooed on your butt before I can get a decent one displayed using markup on my web pages in a cross-browser manner.
There have been a few people who have tried taking this to small claims court under these laws. In general the judges in small claims courts are political animals and refuse to enforce them. It's the same story with the anti-spam laws.
Ah yes. Fox News redefines "newsmaking." Why wait around for newsworthy things to happen when we can manufacture it with very little effort?
If that is the case and they plan on enforcing it, I hope they thought to include the requirement in the job description that the employee provide the hardware and net access to do so! If not, guess who is on the hook to provide them?
This was the technology supervisor. So you're right, "it's their call," and I believe this guy is arguing that he was the "they." It appears now that some other committee is, retroactively, trying to decide otherwise.
I could have sworn that was something out of one of the E. E. Doc Smith books. Yet here it was something hokey thought up by the ancient greeks.
Taking away distractions reduces their options to paying attention or doing nothing at all. I cannot make you pay attenion or, goodness, learn. If I can take away other possibilities then the odds go up that you *will* pay attention. Very few students can stay awake and do absolutely nothing. If the only option is to do the classroom activity then at you have a shot at learning something!
You try to make it sound like some sort of power trip. This is not my ego and I am not offended by the student who is not paying attention. If I were teaching at the college level I would be happy to just lecture and walk away. These are not college students, they are not adults, they do not behave like adults. Call them adults-in-training, if you prefer.
This has all been proven through years of experience. Not just mine but many decades (centuries) of practice. Education today is declining because the teachers are losing the tools they need to control the classroom, something they actually had before. Lawsuits and paranoid administrators are making the educational environment too hard to maintain control of the classroom.
It is. If you think the other students in the classroom are not aware you are texting, then you're wrong. If you think they're not going to lean across and ask you "what did she say?" then you're wrong. A student who is not actively participating is a problem for themselves (i.e. not learning) and others (disruptive). This is not teacher ego, as much as the students would like you to believe, but a demonstrable fact that is taught that can be shown throughout history. It is taught to all new teachers. Some new teachers refuse to believe it; those do not last long.
My friends, this is all covered in Teaching 101. (Actually the class is called Behavior Management) Demanding a student's attention is not unreasonable, it is required.
It never stops with the texting. And yes, although it can be inaudible, other students get distracted by it. Not "you're bugging me" distracted but "Like... what did she *say*?" distracted. As I have said in other subthreads, those who haven't been teachers [in public school] often do not understand behavior management. It is actually several classes for licensure. There are seminars about it. If a teacher cannot or will not do this then they simply cannot teach.
I would have LOVED to have just lectured about my love (math, electronics, etc) for 48 minutes, but then the monkeys rule the zoo and no one learns anything. It isn't grad school. They may look like young adults and sometimes they may behave like young adults, but they are still children and make boneheaded choices.
You do not have to obey as long as you are willing to take the consequences for your actions. Disrupting the classroom so other people cannot learn is not going to be tolerated.
The teacher must do so immediately. Maybe he/she did wait until a student activity was begun? Then quietly asked for the phone? "No." At which point the teacher must insist right then. Letting "no" go means losing the entire classroom management later. It has nothing to do with pride or "hurt feelings" it is a necessity!
You can rationalize that it's the "teachers fault" all you want, but you would be wrong. This girl is facing consequences for behavior she knew was wrong. The consequences are well documented in any public school. She CHOSE to behave this way and now must face the consequences.
You need to look for educational law. There are laws on the books for "disrupting the educational process." A school has special status in the eyes of the law due to the nature o the activity there. Things are allowed on the street which are disallowed in a school environment.
I won't cite laws, I have better things to do. But I got you pointed in the right direction for your research.
As a teacher, I would say that ignoring it will result in complete loss of the classroom management by about week 6. Once other students see no consequences they will pull out their phones. Then they will skip the phones and start talking to each other. Then objects will begin to fly across the room. It's all an escalation of behaviors. Where will you draw the line?
The only acceptable behavior in a learning environment is participation. By everyone participating and showing some civility to their fellow classmates then there are no lines to be drawn.
You are under the mistaken belief that every student can learn just from listening to lectures. It is incorrect. Learning requires participation, which requires the students' attention.
If the student had provided the phone immediately, the disruption would have been minimized and confiscation would have been the punishment. The student, by refusing to give the phone to the teacher further disrupted the classroom. I had it happen a lot as a teacher. Amazingly often. 3 to 4 times a week security would have to be called to confiscate a phone. The students learned they could stop the class by refusing.
I was a mathematics teacher for 4 years. I still have my license.
I can assure you that any student who is not actively participating in my classroom (15 minutes of lecture is all your average high school student can sit still for) would eventually start disrupting others. Texting itself is not the problem, it is just a symptom of the "not paying attention" and will escalate to more disruptive behaviors if left unchecked. It will ALWAYS happen... period. Every time. Anyone who has ever taught in a public school environment will tell you so.
Other students will pick up on this and the classroom will become completely unmanageable. If even 5 of the students think think they can do whatever they want, a classroom of 30 will grind to a halt and no learning will take place. One or two hardcore individuals will slow the class significantly, 5 will stop it cold.
My bet is this is going to really REALLY negatively affect all of those mailservers that have been setup, for which there is *no* administrator.
Content cut here.
All in all, this is a pathetic (understandable, mind you) move, and reeks of inconsideration.
One simply can not set up an email server, with spam filtering, and not have some entity actively maintain it. The fact that anyone believes this is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. No, this bad decision is the root cause of the blockage, not the DNSBL operator who has effectively no other choices available to him.
Headsets or speaker phones being safer while driving is a myth.
Yes, yes, we know. Hands-free/headsets are still legal in most places.
Soapbox aside; given the current laws, how is this detector going to help this [hypothetical] police officer in any way or form? Don't ya just love solutions in search of a problem?
Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast...
Excellent point. However, are they also as responsible for the Letters to the Editor section? I find this a closer analogy. The writer of the article was, to my knowledge, not an employee of the publisher in this case.
As a high school teacher, I completely misread the subject of this post. I took it to mean the body spray. As a person with a lot of allergies, I was pretty exicted to read the article!
Boy, what a let down that was.
Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.
It is a tenet of critical reading skills. We always teach our students to "consider the source" when reading and "consider the audience" when writing. Giving the reader a heads-up about any historical political bias is a legitimate act.
I fail to see how free speech has been restricted as you appear to imply. They said it and anybody can read it. If any source has a history of being a wingnut, of any persuasion, policital or otherwise, then potential readers will benefit from knowing.