Very true. It's just too bad that you referred to it as "gansta". I don't normally respond like this, but your comment smacks of racism and ethnocentrism. Just please be more careful with your criticism. Cheers, mate.
3,41 is a commonly accepted way of expressing money in a lot of countries which should have been obvious based on the post. Expand your world and investigate a culture beyond your own.:-D
As a psychometrician who works in educational assessment, I can't tell what bad advice this is. You build a test based on requirements of content and psychometric characteristics needed. For example, you may have the wrong target in mind if this is supposed to a test that gives normative information, rather than a benchmark. I don't think we have enough information to give answers about how to build the test. Your personal experience with certifications exams may not apply here. Better to ask questions than to give advice that might not fit the need.
"The sponsor is Kay Hagan. Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."
Despite those that say the government can't do anything right--I'm pretty sure the government already has this capability and has done it. While the GP was referring to municipal broadband, there are many countries that do this and call it common/public property. And no... they aren't "communists". They just made a decision that it was a waste of resources to run multiples cables/wires to do the same damn thing.
Both SAS and R were originally developed inside academic environments. I'd say they both enjoy a rather wide audience (one FOSS, the other rather on the expensive side).
Meego and WebOS are both pretty good for Joe user, *AND* they can have the extra bells and whistles for those who like to "unlock" (unlocking WebOS palm is built in by default, which I think is pretty cool) into developer mode.
I think the original post meant something along the lines of having a simple, clean UI that Joe user can understand. Of course more features in a generic sense are useful, but if a user can't find the freaking button or option hidden in a sub-menu pop-up box and then check the appropriate box to use that really cool feature, what's the point?
How do you know they did not try to address this with Nintendo? Regardless of how you feel about patents, do you think Nintendo has a reason to be nice to someone who quite possibly patented something but is not an MNC? There's a pretty large difference in power/capital of the companies involved I'd wager.
Whoah... I don't think anyone said anything about "the states" raising kids. Personally, I believe that community and public schools *are* we the people. that said, I agree that local control has been undermined, perhaps some good and bad from that. It probably also depends on what state you live in--Iowa and Missouri are good examples of stronger local control.
Lucky for me, my wife chose to be a stay at home mom and I work from home--and yes, we made sure to do that in order to raise our kids. I feel fortunate to be able to do that. If what you are saying is that our current political and social environment doesn't support that--I think you're right.
Interesting thoughts on tax credits, etc. Sadly, I suspect most people would not support that redistribution for the benefit of someone else's kids. I wish that more people would support millages, sales tax, etc. to support smaller "neighborhood" style schools where parents and teachers all know each other very well. The factory schools are definitely not all that healthy. But there are benefits from large schools in terms of shared resources (e.g. expensive labs and other facilities). The factory school, in my experience, can be made more human by being a classroom parent--we both are, but again, this isn't an option for a lot of people.
In west Michigan, where I interacted with the greatest number of home-schoolers, it was always what I would consider an affluent family, but I guess this is relative. Considering that about 28% of US households make under 25K, I think it'd be quite difficult for a lot of families to do this. But perhaps you're right, where there is a will, there should be a way.
We both support the school by volunteering and with dollars. Parental involvement, as you note, is key to raising well-adjusted, intelligent and respectful kids. I respect your sibling for the choice they have made. My wife and I just made a different decision to support our public schools--not just for the good of our children, but the good of many other children. We both feel richer (not monetarily) for it.
Thanks for a really good conversation. Cheers and quoting my educator-hero Bob Ross, "God Bless, my friend."
Cool--I think you are correct about the "sharing" role of home schools. I've seen that in action, and frankly, it is again a case where you must have a concentrated area (or group) of rather wealthy people. This may work for a select few, but it isn't a solution to educating our youth as a whole. Do you have a way to extend this to the masses? If so, I'd love to hear.
Nope--though I agree it's probably more likely in a charter/for-profit. Perhaps it's a north-south or big city/small city thing? Anyway--I'm glad that all the administrators you have experience with are qualified. In the states I've worked with, it seems (anecdotally, I'll admit) that the proportion of administrators without education backgrounds is on the rise.
True enough--you're right that they could both be translated that way, and from a lay perspective, the could be considered more or less the same. Probably I'm only speaking from a technical perspective, but in the language of testing ability is defined as an innate thing--you may genetically be born with more mathematical or linguistic ability. You learn skills to apply this ability. Does that make sense?
If you're really motivated, google "aptitude versus achievement" to get a taste of the finer differences.
No--in fact many administrators are indeed not qualified. There is a growing trend of school administrators in the US (maybe you are speaking from a different experience?) of having business trained professionals in school administration roles. This may be good from the Gates and Broad foundations perspectives, but my point still stands.
From a psychometric perspective, skill and ability are not the same. Skill is something that is learned while ability is more of an intrinsic characteristic of a person. They are very similar, but for those of us who work in the field, very different in practice.
Two issues with this: 1) self-selecting population means that they are more highly motivated (or their parents are, and 2) higher SES, typically is a requirement to be able to afford to do home-schooling.
Did you studies control for at least these two factors? I'm sure I could think of more, but based on research I've seen, after you've controlled for what educational researchers typically would, the outcomes are not as positive as you might think. There may be a plethora of research out there to support what you want to believe, but I suspect quality research will show the opposite.
The children who are home-schooled typically do well in whatever their parent is good at--math, spelling (most of the kids in the Scribs spelling bee are home-schoolers) or reading, but not usually across the board. The fact that more teachers are able to specialize in more fields of study shouldn't comes as a surprise.
I'm troubled, but not surprised that this was modded so highly on slashdot.
Should a teacher just "shut up and teach" rather than educate our youth? That's where US schools are already and it's half the problem. The schools run by students of the Broad school are perhaps the most damaging to our nation's schools. They think that children are widgets and that we should be able to produce more and better yet cheaper widgets every year.
The teachers, by and large in my experience over the last decade of work in this field, have been *more* concerned about a good curriculum than those who actually control the curriculum. The trouble is, those who control the curriculum don't actually teach and typically have an "improvement" agenda. It's far more politically palatable to say our teachers aren't doing their jobs than to say that our society is failing our children in so many ways.
I have listened to teachers "talk shop"--a lot. So let's address your points.
First, they do have a long work day. Typically, most teachers work on the clock for about 8 hours. They don't get breaks the same way most workers do, because they are liable for whatever happens to the kids in their care (thank goodness someone is). Often, lunch is about 15 to 20 minutes because of some responsibilities such as helping monitor lunch, helping kids who didn't understand something, etc. etc. Then after the on the clock work day is done, most teachers have between 1-3 hours of additional work. If they happen to be a coach or do some other additional extracurricular activity, add more time here. That seems like a long day--especially without any real breaks.
Next, yes--they do complain about meeting standards. I would complain about standards that specifically mandated what a teacher perceived to be an impossible task. The standards of NCLB and now RTT (Race to the Top) are specifically designed to allow administrators and politicians to blame and/or fire teachers at will under the pretense that since a teacher(s) didn't get 100% of his or her kids "proficient", they are inadequate. Perhaps this is news to many people, but there are indeed students who will not be proficient and it might not have anything to do with the teacher.
I suspect that "how to make the classroom interesting year in and year out" is part of their desire to break the mold of the traditional factory mentality of a lot of administrators and politicians. Historically in America, the ebb and flow from "school as a factory" and more of a "Thoreau learn by experience and whatever catches your fancy" has been a moving target. At the moment, I suspect many teachers and the public at large probably recognize that education is moving again more towards the factory style approach. There are definitely some advantages to standardization as a lot of computer geeks will likely tell you. That said, without innovation (not Wall Street innovation), there isn't a whole lot of progress. One could perhaps sympathize with teachers (who typically are very creative people) when their creativity is systematically stifled and discouraged.
To your expanded point about your best teachers being the âoelazyâ ones. Iâ(TM)m truly sorry. Probably you didnâ(TM)t really need a teacher for the most part and are more of an intrinsically motivated learner. That fantastic for you. Not all students are. That said, I think you are 100% correct in your assessment of gee wiz technology. Technology is a tool or a means to an end.
I work hard, too, and I expect you do as well. Please try to understand that though teachers are a high profile target because of their exposure to the public, they do not have as much influence over students outcomes as we would like to think. In fact, over the last decade they have even less control over their classrooms than pretty much any other point in US history. It's true that an amazing teacher can have a profound impact on a student, but without addressing all the non-school issues that our children face, perhaps we should not hold them accountable for those same non-teaching issues as well?
Cheers and as my personal teacher-hero Bob Ross would say, "God bless, my friend".
Slashdot Mirror
No--that would be their lobbyists that change the rules and regulations to make it harder for mom-and-pop to compete. /tongueincheek
come on mods!! That's funny. :-)
http://www.alice.org/
this always seemed to get reviewed highly... I haven't used it as my kids aren't old enough yet.
and so why comment? don't give traffic to a story if you don't want to see it.
Very true. It's just too bad that you referred to it as "gansta". I don't normally respond like this, but your comment smacks of racism and ethnocentrism. Just please be more careful with your criticism. Cheers, mate.
3,41 is a commonly accepted way of expressing money in a lot of countries which should have been obvious based on the post. Expand your world and investigate a culture beyond your own. :-D
As a psychometrician who works in educational assessment, I can't tell what bad advice this is. You build a test based on requirements of content and psychometric characteristics needed. For example, you may have the wrong target in mind if this is supposed to a test that gives normative information, rather than a benchmark. I don't think we have enough information to give answers about how to build the test. Your personal experience with certifications exams may not apply here. Better to ask questions than to give advice that might not fit the need.
This might be why:
"The sponsor is Kay Hagan. Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."
Despite those that say the government can't do anything right--I'm pretty sure the government already has this capability and has done it. While the GP was referring to municipal broadband, there are many countries that do this and call it common/public property. And no... they aren't "communists". They just made a decision that it was a waste of resources to run multiples cables/wires to do the same damn thing.
Where's the mod "disturbing -1" when I need it.
+1 lol yeah--I think this sums it up better than a people who've 10 times as much.
Oh for mod points. :-)
Laughed in the middle of a drink. No thank you for aspirated water.
OTOH: a new or indie developer would have a harder time making money thus stifling innovation.
Both SAS and R were originally developed inside academic environments. I'd say they both enjoy a rather wide audience (one FOSS, the other rather on the expensive side).
Meego and WebOS are both pretty good for Joe user, *AND* they can have the extra bells and whistles for those who like to "unlock" (unlocking WebOS palm is built in by default, which I think is pretty cool) into developer mode.
I think the original post meant something along the lines of having a simple, clean UI that Joe user can understand. Of course more features in a generic sense are useful, but if a user can't find the freaking button or option hidden in a sub-menu pop-up box and then check the appropriate box to use that really cool feature, what's the point?
How do you know they did not try to address this with Nintendo? Regardless of how you feel about patents, do you think Nintendo has a reason to be nice to someone who quite possibly patented something but is not an MNC? There's a pretty large difference in power/capital of the companies involved I'd wager.
Whoah... I don't think anyone said anything about "the states" raising kids. Personally, I believe that community and public schools *are* we the people. that said, I agree that local control has been undermined, perhaps some good and bad from that. It probably also depends on what state you live in--Iowa and Missouri are good examples of stronger local control.
Lucky for me, my wife chose to be a stay at home mom and I work from home--and yes, we made sure to do that in order to raise our kids. I feel fortunate to be able to do that. If what you are saying is that our current political and social environment doesn't support that--I think you're right.
Interesting thoughts on tax credits, etc. Sadly, I suspect most people would not support that redistribution for the benefit of someone else's kids. I wish that more people would support millages, sales tax, etc. to support smaller "neighborhood" style schools where parents and teachers all know each other very well. The factory schools are definitely not all that healthy. But there are benefits from large schools in terms of shared resources (e.g. expensive labs and other facilities). The factory school, in my experience, can be made more human by being a classroom parent--we both are, but again, this isn't an option for a lot of people.
In west Michigan, where I interacted with the greatest number of home-schoolers, it was always what I would consider an affluent family, but I guess this is relative. Considering that about 28% of US households make under 25K, I think it'd be quite difficult for a lot of families to do this. But perhaps you're right, where there is a will, there should be a way.
We both support the school by volunteering and with dollars. Parental involvement, as you note, is key to raising well-adjusted, intelligent and respectful kids. I respect your sibling for the choice they have made. My wife and I just made a different decision to support our public schools--not just for the good of our children, but the good of many other children. We both feel richer (not monetarily) for it.
Thanks for a really good conversation. Cheers and quoting my educator-hero Bob Ross, "God Bless, my friend."
Cool--I think you are correct about the "sharing" role of home schools. I've seen that in action, and frankly, it is again a case where you must have a concentrated area (or group) of rather wealthy people. This may work for a select few, but it isn't a solution to educating our youth as a whole. Do you have a way to extend this to the masses? If so, I'd love to hear.
Nope--though I agree it's probably more likely in a charter/for-profit. Perhaps it's a north-south or big city/small city thing? Anyway--I'm glad that all the administrators you have experience with are qualified. In the states I've worked with, it seems (anecdotally, I'll admit) that the proportion of administrators without education backgrounds is on the rise.
Cheers.
True enough--you're right that they could both be translated that way, and from a lay perspective, the could be considered more or less the same. Probably I'm only speaking from a technical perspective, but in the language of testing ability is defined as an innate thing--you may genetically be born with more mathematical or linguistic ability. You learn skills to apply this ability. Does that make sense?
If you're really motivated, google "aptitude versus achievement" to get a taste of the finer differences.
Que lo pase bien, amigo.
No--in fact many administrators are indeed not qualified. There is a growing trend of school administrators in the US (maybe you are speaking from a different experience?) of having business trained professionals in school administration roles. This may be good from the Gates and Broad foundations perspectives, but my point still stands.
From a psychometric perspective, skill and ability are not the same. Skill is something that is learned while ability is more of an intrinsic characteristic of a person. They are very similar, but for those of us who work in the field, very different in practice.
Two issues with this: 1) self-selecting population means that they are more highly motivated (or their parents are, and 2) higher SES, typically is a requirement to be able to afford to do home-schooling.
Did you studies control for at least these two factors? I'm sure I could think of more, but based on research I've seen, after you've controlled for what educational researchers typically would, the outcomes are not as positive as you might think. There may be a plethora of research out there to support what you want to believe, but I suspect quality research will show the opposite.
The children who are home-schooled typically do well in whatever their parent is good at--math, spelling (most of the kids in the Scribs spelling bee are home-schoolers) or reading, but not usually across the board. The fact that more teachers are able to specialize in more fields of study shouldn't comes as a surprise.
I'm troubled, but not surprised that this was modded so highly on slashdot.
Should a teacher just "shut up and teach" rather than educate our youth? That's where US schools are already and it's half the problem. The schools run by students of the Broad school are perhaps the most damaging to our nation's schools. They think that children are widgets and that we should be able to produce more and better yet cheaper widgets every year.
The teachers, by and large in my experience over the last decade of work in this field, have been *more* concerned about a good curriculum than those who actually control the curriculum. The trouble is, those who control the curriculum don't actually teach and typically have an "improvement" agenda. It's far more politically palatable to say our teachers aren't doing their jobs than to say that our society is failing our children in so many ways.
I have listened to teachers "talk shop"--a lot. So let's address your points.
First, they do have a long work day. Typically, most teachers work on the clock for about 8 hours. They don't get breaks the same way most workers do, because they are liable for whatever happens to the kids in their care (thank goodness someone is). Often, lunch is about 15 to 20 minutes because of some responsibilities such as helping monitor lunch, helping kids who didn't understand something, etc. etc. Then after the on the clock work day is done, most teachers have between 1-3 hours of additional work. If they happen to be a coach or do some other additional extracurricular activity, add more time here. That seems like a long day--especially without any real breaks.
Next, yes--they do complain about meeting standards. I would complain about standards that specifically mandated what a teacher perceived to be an impossible task. The standards of NCLB and now RTT (Race to the Top) are specifically designed to allow administrators and politicians to blame and/or fire teachers at will under the pretense that since a teacher(s) didn't get 100% of his or her kids "proficient", they are inadequate. Perhaps this is news to many people, but there are indeed students who will not be proficient and it might not have anything to do with the teacher.
I suspect that "how to make the classroom interesting year in and year out" is part of their desire to break the mold of the traditional factory mentality of a lot of administrators and politicians. Historically in America, the ebb and flow from "school as a factory" and more of a "Thoreau learn by experience and whatever catches your fancy" has been a moving target. At the moment, I suspect many teachers and the public at large probably recognize that education is moving again more towards the factory style approach. There are definitely some advantages to standardization as a lot of computer geeks will likely tell you. That said, without innovation (not Wall Street innovation), there isn't a whole lot of progress. One could perhaps sympathize with teachers (who typically are very creative people) when their creativity is systematically stifled and discouraged.
To your expanded point about your best teachers being the âoelazyâ ones. Iâ(TM)m truly sorry. Probably you didnâ(TM)t really need a teacher for the most part and are more of an intrinsically motivated learner. That fantastic for you. Not all students are. That said, I think you are 100% correct in your assessment of gee wiz technology. Technology is a tool or a means to an end.
I work hard, too, and I expect you do as well. Please try to understand that though teachers are a high profile target because of their exposure to the public, they do not have as much influence over students outcomes as we would like to think. In fact, over the last decade they have even less control over their classrooms than pretty much any other point in US history. It's true that an amazing teacher can have a profound impact on a student, but without addressing all the non-school issues that our children face, perhaps we should not hold them accountable for those same non-teaching issues as well?
Cheers and as my personal teacher-hero Bob Ross would say, "God bless, my friend".