Where is the revolution?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them, and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need, even though it is making good profits. Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.
What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet, and students connected to their homework through their computers? Computers are cheap, the students are on the internet. It is the school that is not making the connection. Why do you think that is? Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?

[rjh01]

There are problems with the Internet.
Not everyone has it.
Quality control in the Internet is not present.
Teachers may lose control if everything was done via the Internet.
Easier to read a textbook then a screen.
Internet is still new. Takes time to adapt.
RSI
Need special furtniture and lots of equipment.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

There are problems with the Internet.
It works well enough to start, and the added pressure/resources would speed along efforts to solve its problems.

Not everyone has it.
The ones who do would have that option. And if the school had real internet access, after school programs (that they have already) would help provide access.

Quality control in the Internet is not present.
Why would the state of the internet interfere with a good quality school site? And if the child pulls up wrong information from the internet, it could be tagged and/or corrected, adding to the learning experience.

Teachers may lose control if everything was done via the Internet.
No one said anything about everything being done over the internet, it would be another resource. Like if the textbook is on the school site, a child with access would not always need to take the book home. Email would give parents contact with the class, and teachers with them.

Easier to read a textbook then a screen.
Adjusting to new things is always thought to be hard, but we have to move on-and do.

Internet is still new. Takes time to adapt.
RSI
Lets begin. The school sites I have seen only deal with politics and pretending.

Need special furtniture and lots of equipment.
Not much, and good computers sell for $200.
Your post here shows one of the major reasons why things are not moving along, the people involved are too busy looking for reasons why they can't.

[Jimbo07]

why things are not moving along,

From where to where?

A change should have goals and add value to a process. 'Surfing the web' is not a good goal (I'd suggest, anyway). What value does the web add in learning multiplication, that a good textbook cannot?

[drkitten]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them, and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need, even though it is making good profits. Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.
What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet, and students connected to their homework through their computers? Computers are cheap, the students are on the internet. It is the school that is not making the connection. Why do you think that is? Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?

This makes little sense to me.

What "need" is the textbook industry supposed to be meeting? Making textbooks available on-line? They do that. Making supplementary exercises available on-line? They do that. Giving away content for free and going out of business as a result? Not a reasonable expectation, I'm afraid.

What are the teachers supposed to be doing that they're not? Using on-line materials in their teaching? Most do, subject to the equipment limitations. Making all homework online only? Can't be done with the current state of technology; among other things, the security isn't good enough and there's no practical way to prevent collaboration and outright cheating. Put curricula on the Web? Also not practical; the universities have shown that it takes as much or more time to develop a course for on-line presentation as it does to develop one for face-to-face presentation; you would need to double the number of teachers at any given school or district.

What are the schools supposed to do. Put the textbooks on the Web, in violation of the author's copyright?

The main problem is that the Internet is full of crap. The main problem that teachers have with the Internet is that there's simply not enough time to validate the materials the students would like to look at, and not enough time to re-write it for presentation.

As a simple example: I do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reference. Full stop. It's simply not accurate enough. If you want to use Wikipedia as a first stop to figure out what primary sources you need to look at, that's up to you -- but if you put Wikipedia in a footnote, your grade just went down.

If you want to be able to use Wikipedia entries in paper you write for me, I'll cut you a deal. You fact-check every entry out there to the level expected of Brittanica, certify the contents as accurate, and when I receive your certification, you can then use it until someone changes the contents.

If you are unwilling to do that much work fact-checking, why should you expect your teacher to?

[Jimbo07]

If you want to be able to use Wikipedia entries in paper you write for me, I'll cut you a deal. You fact-check every entry out there to the level expected of Brittanica,

You sure you wanna do that? Did you check out that Nature hubbub around Wikipedia and Britannica? ;)

[geni]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them

Yes and no


and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need


The textbook industry is at best an irrelivance.


What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet,


Been done. Results in large boring PDF files.


and students connected to their homework through their computers?


It happens is some places.


Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?

Schools have job security whatever. The internet is not going to have any impact on face to face teaching.

[geni]

This makes little sense to me.

What "need" is the textbook industry supposed to be meeting? Making textbooks available on-line? They do that. Making supplementary exercises available on-line? They do that. Giving away content for free and going out of business as a result? Not a reasonable expectation, I'm afraid.

It has been in some areas. South korean copyright law has some rather unusal clauses although I think they may be about to be removed. That aside you are broadly correct although I would tend to argue that others will provide the content and make certian classes of text books things of the past.


Can't be done with the current state of technology; among other things, the security isn't good enough and there's no practical way to prevent collaboration and outright cheating.

No worse than what can happen with other methods. While full scale DRM might be considered overkill it is posible.


What are the schools supposed to do. Put the textbooks on the Web, in violation of the author's copyright?


http://www.curriculumonline.gov.uk/Default.htm


As a simple example: I do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reference. Full stop. It's simply not accurate enough.


Which means someone along the line has failed to educate them about tertiary sources and why uni students should not be useing them.


If you want to use Wikipedia as a first stop to figure out what primary sources you need to look at, that's up to you


Of course that would work better if certian people didn't appear to enjoy citeing the most obscure sources known to man.


If you want to be able to use Wikipedia entries in paper you write for me, I'll cut you a deal. You fact-check every entry out there to the level expected of Brittanica, certify the contents as accurate, and when I receive your certification, you can then use it until someone changes the contents.


Given that wikipedia allows for citation at the article version level the above is irrational.


If you are unwilling to do that much work fact-checking, why should you expect your teacher to?

Teachers are paid to educate. Wikipedia is the most popular site in the area of information disemination by a fair margin (only thing close are a few news sites). Until the traditional eductional establishment creates a site that widely used or finds a way to intergrate with wikipedia it will continue to be failing to take advantage of the opertunity to educate that the internet offers.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This makes little sense to me.
Oh boy.

What "need" is the textbook industry supposed to be meeting?
Reduce the price of their textbooks for one. Maybe then the school system would be able to buy one for every child.

Making textbooks available on-line? They do that.
A student able to download a copy of a textbook would always have one-that is if the school would cover the cost.

Giving away content for free and going out of business as a result? Not a reasonable expectation, I'm afraid.
Farmers are subsidized to make sure they don't go out of business.

What are the teachers supposed to be doing that they're not? Using on-line materials in their teaching? Most do, subject to the equipment limitations.
Help push for the standard school curriculum to be available on line.

Put curricula on the Web? Also not practical; the universities have shown that it takes as much or more time to develop a course for on-line presentation as it does to develop one for face-to-face presentation; you would need to double the number of teachers at any given school or district.
Spend the time to develop a good course because there are advantages to not being face-to-face. Home schooling would benefit, and a child with a computer would always have access to the "standard course", allowing them to move ahead (if they had the mind to) during the summer months.

What are the schools supposed to do. Put the textbooks on the Web, in violation of the author's copyright?
The standard things a child should know should not have a copyright. There should be a right to know. Is the copyright the reason the books cost so much?

The main problem is that the Internet is full of crap. The main problem that teachers have with the Internet is that there's simply not enough time to validate the materials the students would like to look at, and not enough time to re-write it for presentation.
I don't want to put more on the backs of teachers, a safe course and sources could be developed. That which is presented by Wiki could be validated in a system where from year to year one class improves the conditions for the next. Such a thing would also help Wiki grow.

As a simple example: I do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reference. Full stop. It's simply not accurate enough. If you want to use Wikipedia as a first stop to figure out what primary sources you need to look at, that's up to you -- but if you put Wikipedia in a footnote, your grade just went down.

If you want to be able to use Wikipedia entries in paper you write for me, I'll cut you a deal. You fact-check every entry out there to the level expected of Brittanica, certify the contents as accurate, and when I receive your certification, you can then use it until someone changes the contents.
I think you are too hard on them.

If you are unwilling to do that much work fact-checking, why should you expect your teacher to?
I went to a school in the military where the students went through a standard course. When we took tests, all we had to do is insert it into the computer, saving the teacher loads of time. That was 20 years ago. I have been wondering what is taking stuff like that so long to catch on. Especially when that same course was already in some schools even then.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The textbook industry is at best an irrelivance.
Not if students have to still share them.


Been done. Results in large boring PDF files.
I'm thinking about a smaller, more lively version.


It happens is some places.
It should happen in more.


Schools have job security whatever. The internet is not going to have any impact on face to face teaching.
In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

[juniper_ann]

Oh boy.
I think you are too hard on them.

No way. An important part of education is to teach critical thinking, and an important part of critical thinking is learning whom to trust. Wikipedia is awesome, but it's only a little more reliable than a forum.


I went to a school in the military where the students went through a standard course. When we took tests, all we had to do is insert it into the computer, saving the teacher loads of time. That was 20 years ago. I have been wondering what is taking stuff like that so long to catch on. Especially when that same course was already in some schools even then.

You mean a scantron? Yes, teachers do use those, and yes they are useful. However, they only work with multiple choice questions, which don't check your thought process, encourage analysis, or improve communication.

On the other hand, the GRE (Graduate Record Examinations--like the SAT for graduate school) is now using a computer program to score essays. Maybe someday, teachers won't have to grade essays, either.

[athon]

I first have to ask, under what authority do you have that it isn't? Or is this another supposed armchair educational expert?

The internet is used extensively across many subject areas in both the UK and Australia, and I'd go as far as presuming in other countries as well. ICT is a massive field in modern education systems. I myself run a laptop program at my school, and know that everything from smartboards to classroom blogs and Web 2.0 technology to personal computers, data loggers and digital technology is used profusely.

So, is this an assumption you have or do you have evidence that in the majority of school systems, IT has taken a back seat?

Athon

[Foolmewunz]

Business, as usual, runs a little ahead of academia in trying out new technologies and applications. (Academia dreams 'em up... we exploit 'em!)

We have numerous courses in our company that are available on the web, including quizzes or tests to make sure they understood the part they are working on before just leaping to the next chapter.

It works very well, and I could see converting a ninety minute lecture into a web presentation, with diagrams and visuals, and then giving the same sort of quiz/test.

It's still in its infancy, though. We're working on combining the web-based training with a video conference so that I can teach from Hong Kong, they can follow the notes on the web, and watch the lecture(and participate in Q&A) from Shanghai and Singapore. We've run our first test, and the technology is pretty good. (The bandwidth won't allow videos, but we can link to green-screen applications, powerpoint, spreadsheets, etc.... all with relative ease and smoothness.)

The element I like the most in this method, is that the web-based training chapter keeps me within the outline, but I still have some personal feedback and interplay, as I can control the camera from my and and can scan the audience from my side and address questions to individuals, or respond directly to someone, with eye contac, albeit from several thousand kilometres away. Much of the most important stuff about training and teaching is making that "connection" with the class/audience. This is especially important since I'm teaching stuff that would normally bore one to tears. (UCP600, Incoterms, Cargo Liability, etc.... All stuff that's trade and shipping related.)


ETA: I think Athon's right, by the way.... there are degrees available on line - some from reputable schools.

[drkitten]

Reduce the price of their textbooks for one. Maybe then the school system would be able to buy one for every child.

Textbook publishers already operate at extremely thin margins, and the cost of printing is a relatively small fraction of the costs of a textbook. As I said, textbook companies do make textbooks available for download, but the savings are marginal and the uptake is very small.

Basically, that experiment has been done, and it doesn't work.


A student able to download a copy of a textbook would always have one-that is if the school would cover the cost.

... and if the school wouldn't cover the cost? School budgets aren't infinite, you know.


Help push for the standard school curriculum to be available on line.

And who's going to pay the costs for this?


Spend the time to develop a good course because there are advantages to not being face-to-face.

Of course there are. But few of the advantages are cost-effective.

The standard things a child should know should not have a copyright.

They aren't. But any particular expression of what a child should know does, and should have.

There should be a right to know.

No more so than there should be a "right" to watch movies for free, regardless of how much it cost the studio to make them.

Is the copyright the reason the books cost so much?

No, the reason the books costs so much is because they're expensive to write and produce, and sales tend to be relatively low, so the fixed costs have to be spread over few volumes. Copyright is just the legal mechanism that makes sure that the publisher can set the price



I don't want to put more on the backs of teachers, a safe course and sources could be developed. /QUOTE]

Of course it could. It would be horrendously expensive and obsolete almost from the moment of publication -- but it could be done.

Or, alternatively, you could simply tear up stacks of $100 bills in front of the school board. Which would probably be more cost-effective in the long run.

I'm still waiting to see what you think "the Internet" can accomplish that can't be handled in a more cost-effective way.

[QUOTE]I went to a school in the military where the students went through a standard course. When we took tests, all we had to do is insert it into the computer, saving the teacher loads of time. That was 20 years ago.

Yeah, Scantrons have been around for decades. They're great for grading multiple choice tests.

I have been wondering what is taking stuff like that so long to catch on.

They haven't. Scantrons have been around in civilian schools since before they were in the military, I believe. But not all subjects can be taught effectively via Scantron.

[drkitten]

You sure you wanna do that? Did you check out that Nature hubbub around Wikipedia and Britannica?

Yeah. Britannica has half the error rate of Wikpedia. I don't expect perfection from either, but I do expect my students to use the best available sources.

[geni]

Yeah. Britannica has half the error rate of Wikpedia. I don't expect perfection from either, but I do expect my students to use the best available sources.

And if the best available is encyclopaedias then your university library is either under funded or incompetent.

[geni]

And who's going to pay the costs for this?


Goverments generaly. It can be paid for in the reduced cost of producing writen versions for the people who ask for them (why I'm not sure hardly gripping reading).



Of course there are. But few of the advantages are cost-effective.


I would argue that the sucess of the open university suggests otherwise.


They aren't. But any particular expression of what a child should know does, and should have.


Plenty of maths text books are in the public domain. Anyone who wants to get hold of one scan it and upload to the web is free to do so.

I would not be suprised if the US militry has produced a few PD text books.


No more so than there should be a "right" to watch movies for free, regardless of how much it cost the studio to make them.


There is a right to watch them for free or at least at little above the cost of reproduction. You simply have to wait.


Of course it could. It would be horrendously expensive and obsolete almost from the moment of publication -- but it could be done.


Depends on the subject area. Sub degree maths doesn't shift to much on the other hand you would have to rewrite the biology stuff every year,


I'm still waiting to see what you think "the Internet" can accomplish that can't be handled in a more cost-effective way.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed

[geni]

oh and if you really want a revolution I'm sure wikibooks would not object to more help:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page

Some of it's stuff isn't too bad:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:Big_Cats

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:Solar_System

[blutoski]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them, and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need, even though it is making good profits. Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.
What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet, and students connected to their homework through their computers? Computers are cheap, the students are on the internet. It is the school that is not making the connection. Why do you think that is? Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?

The people making the 'prediction' were computer geeks who didn't know anything about education. They were wrong, basically. See: Silicon Snake Oil by Stoll.

Related: when television was invented, it took about four seconds for RCA to claim that it would revolutionize education. Just bolt the kids down into auditoria across the nation, and one teacher could teach them all via broadcast.

Some people even believed it.

Suckers.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The people making the 'prediction' were computer geeks who didn't know anything about education. They were wrong, basically. See: Silicon Snake Oil by Stoll.
No, they were right, the "powers that be" had other plans.

Related: when television was invented, it took about four seconds for RCA to claim that it would revolutionize education. Just bolt the kids down into auditoria across the nation, and one teacher could teach them all via broadcast.

Some people even believed it.

Suckers.
The television worked too. It has taught us how to buy things, what we need, and why we need it. It has taught us that pills will cure anything, if we keep taking/buying them.
Five news shows cover the same thing, at the same time. They pick what is important. You don't have to listen, they will bombard you till you had to have heard it. They will just "educate/inform" your friends. Their success at using it to literally "buy and sell" us, shows that it can be used the other way. Some people just believe the spin.

While the government admits that it cannot stop drugs from coming into this country, it is determined to wage a "war on drugs" that realy should read "a war on people caught up in its failure".

[Jimbo07]

Yeah. Britannica has half the error rate of Wikpedia. I don't expect perfection from either, but I do expect my students to use the best available sources.

I was being somewhat glib, but this is interesting. When I was very young, big bound dictionaries and encyclopediae were considered to be near gospel in my household. They were books, and were to be treasured. I wouldn't try to assert that Wikipedia is Britannica's equal, but some very interesting discussion occurred at the time of the Nature article.

I'm surprised that an online reference has come up with so much legitimacy so quickly (measured relative to a lifetime). I think it will be possible for things like this to improve with time and experience, although I don't know what model such a resource would finally follow.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No way. An important part of education is to teach critical thinking, and an important part of critical thinking is learning whom to trust. Wikipedia is awesome, but it's only a little more reliable than a forum.
Critical thinking, forums, and schools, are a natural match. If you think you are smart, go up against other people who think the same thing. Accept the results. A child on line with a good online mentor while in class, could add to the overall experience. He could come on line like I do, ask a question, take the consequences, but get something out of it.




You mean a scantron? Yes, teachers do use those, and yes they are useful. However, they only work with multiple choice questions, which don't check your thought process, encourage analysis, or improve communication.
They would if you asked a whole lot more questions. Like how the basic yes/no language of computers are used.

On the other hand, the GRE (Graduate Record Examinations--like the SAT for graduate school) is now using a computer program to score essays. Maybe someday, teachers won't have to grade essays, either.I think forums will be able to do that for them one day. I am thinking about collecting the information that those students gather in those essays. Direct them towards a subject, and every book associated with it, and have them sort the data. They can even be used to sort the data of forums. A lot of good information is wasted there. The schools have the numbers, are mandated to work with information anyway, and because of that, will do it very cheaply. Hell, they would do it for an award.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Textbook publishers already operate at extremely thin margins,
I haven't looked, but I bet they do okay.

and the cost of printing is a relatively small fraction of the costs of a textbook.
Printing should not even be a factor. But are you saying the cost is in putting it together? Because once that is done, copies are unlimited.

As I said, textbook companies do make textbooks available for download, but the savings are marginal and the uptake is very small.
No child would be without access to a textbook, if the school were able to print what it wanted from the net.



... and if the school wouldn't cover the cost? School budgets aren't infinite, you know.
They are being mismangered though.



And who's going to pay the costs for this?



Of course there are. But few of the advantages are cost-effective.

The money is already there, but I am thinking in terms of what could happen if they had the moeny.

They aren't. But any particular expression of what a child should know does, and should have.
Don't they make that decision already?


No more so than there should be a "right" to watch movies for free, regardless of how much it cost the studio to make them.



[quote]No, the reason the books costs so much is because they're expensive to write and produce, and sales tend to be relatively low, so the fixed costs have to be spread over few volumes.
Make your money, but we are talking about children here. You are honor bound to care. Show me you don't and you should feel some pain, but they don't.
And you also know that there is plenty of money around for the things they want.

Copyright is just the legal mechanism that makes sure that the publisher can set the price
Do the school system pay someone to write a textbook and then paids the authors for life?


Of course it could. It would be horrendously expensive and obsolete almost from the moment of publication -- but it could be done.
Like with computers, updates are needed, but shouldn't changes be easy, considering the technology?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Business, as usual, runs a little ahead of academia in trying out new technologies and applications. (Academia dreams 'em up... we exploit 'em!)
Right, they have to issue a challenge. Want something.

We have numerous courses in our company that are available on the web, including quizzes or tests to make sure they understood the part they are working on before just leaping to the next chapter.

It works very well, and I could see converting a ninety minute lecture into a web presentation, with diagrams and visuals, and then giving the same sort of quiz/test.

It's still in its infancy, though. We're working on combining the web-based training with a video conference so that I can teach from Hong Kong, they can follow the notes on the web, and watch the lecture(and participate in Q&A) from Shanghai and Singapore. We've run our first test, and the technology is pretty good. (The bandwidth won't allow videos, but we can link to green-screen applications, powerpoint, spreadsheets, etc.... all with relative ease and smoothness.)

The element I like the most in this method, is that the web-based training chapter keeps me within the outline, but I still have some personal feedback and interplay, as I can control the camera from my and and can scan the audience from my side and address questions to individuals, or respond directly to someone, with eye contac, albeit from several thousand kilometres away. Much of the most important stuff about training and teaching is making that "connection" with the class/audience. This is especially important since I'm teaching stuff that would normally bore one to tears. (UCP600, Incoterms, Cargo Liability, etc.... All stuff that's trade and shipping related.)
You have a website?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I first have to ask, under what authority do you have that it isn't? Or is this another supposed armchair educational expert?
I know somewhat about what is happening here.

The internet is used extensively across many subject areas in both the UK and Australia, and I'd go as far as presuming in other countries as well. ICT is a massive field in modern education systems.
Is it good for you? Have you ever wondered why the U.S. does not do the same thing.


So, is this an assumption you have or do you have evidence that in the majority of school systems, IT has taken a back seat?

Athon
Its just a feeling, lets see if it is true.

[juniper_ann]

This makes little sense to me.
If you want to be able to use Wikipedia entries in paper you write for me, I'll cut you a deal. You fact-check every entry out there to the level expected of Brittanica, certify the contents as accurate, and when I receive your certification, you can then use it until someone changes the contents.


Critical thinking, forums, and schools, are a natural match. If you think you are smart, go up against other people who think the same thing. Accept the results. A child on line with a good online mentor while in class, could add to the overall experience. He could come on line like I do, ask a question, take the consequences, but get something out of it.


These do not contradict.

The main problem that teachers have with the Internet is that there's simply not enough time to validate the materials the students would like to look at, and not enough time to re-write it for presentation.

But this is a valid problem.


I haven't looked, but I bet they [textbook publishers] do okay.

Now that's some hard-hitting research.

Make your money, but we are talking about children here. You are honor bound to care. Show me you don't and you should feel some pain, but they don't.

Wait, are you, the armchair expert, accusing Dr. Kitten, the educator, of not caring about children?

[athon]

I know somewhat about what is happening here.

Gee, that's a bag of confidence. How do you fit all that evidence into one post? Care to explain how you know this? What expertise / evidence / reference can you cite?

Is it good for you? Have you ever wondered why the U.S. does not do the same thing.

From what I've seen, it does. A conference I went to a fortnight ago on Web 2.0 technology and its implications in the classroom had demonstrations that included resources and curriculum designs from Kansas, two schools in Collarado (in fact the guy running the conference was an ex deputy principal from Columbine) and a school from New York.

Does this mean all schools in the US fully embrace ICT? Hell no. But for you to be calling for a revolution, you make yourself sound like an ignorant dick who hasn't a clue what is happening around him. The 'revolution' is well and truly moving.

Its just a feeling, lets see if it is true.

'Just a feeling'. Here's an analogy - I start a thread on programming and suggest we should have a revolution where programmers should use HTML to write internet sites. When challenged on what evidence I have that we don't use this, I say it's 'just a feeling'.

Did you see my credibility disappear?

Athon

[athon]

I haven't looked, but I bet they do okay.

If you really did bet, you'd lose. Dr. Kitten is correct.

No child would be without access to a textbook, if the school were able to print what it wanted from the net.

Paper is free? Ink? Printed text books still exist and remain useful. Besides, why use internet resources simply to distribute print? Most today are to distribute flash animations, movie clips, sound files, worksheets and for students to collaborate over long distances.

Text books? Where are you from, the 1950s?

They are being mismangered though.

Evidence? Or more 'gut feeling'? :rolleyes:

The money is already there, but I am thinking in terms of what could happen if they had the moeny.

This makes no sense. Are you sure this is what you mean?

And you also know that there is plenty of money around for the things they want.

I guess you again have evidence for this, right? Or do you enjoy making a fool of yourself and making stuff up?

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Now that's some hard-hitting research.
Want to bit. That is something we can easily prove. How much do you think individual textbooks cost?


Wait, are you, the armchair expert, accusing Dr. Kitten, the educator, of not caring about children?
I didn't, but I am saying that the system is not taking advantage of the technology.

[blutoski]

No, they were right, the "powers that be" had other plans.

Doubtful, and now your argument is just one more vague conspiracy theory. Who, specifically? Where is that ruling documented? How is it translated into action on the ground?

I'm a software developer at the intersection of computers and education. I worked for several companies that made educational software for K-12, postsecondary, and enterprise. I have no hesitation in saying that nobody's been able to figure out how computers help kids learn. The evidence is that it makes things worse: lower vocabulary, worse socialization, &c. Software education is the most expensive way to deliver what could be provided on a cheap piece of paper.

In terms of 'the powers that be'... I personally know people in local school districts who make these decisions. The very teachers who were so enthusiastic about it ten years ago are the same ones who are completely jaded today: they've seen the negative returns and the wasted money, and prefer to build their educational system around the kids' needs, instead of trying to mallet the kids' lives into their personal computer hobby.

ie: they're big enough to drop what doesn't work when the evidence is this conclusive.




The television worked too. It has taught us how to buy things, what we need, and why we need it. It has taught us that pills will cure anything, if we keep taking/buying them.
Five news shows cover the same thing, at the same time. They pick what is important. You don't have to listen, they will bombard you till you had to have heard it. They will just "educate/inform" your friends. Their success at using it to literally "buy and sell" us, shows that it can be used the other way. Some people just believe the spin.

While the government admits that it cannot stop drugs from coming into this country, it is determined to wage a "war on drugs" that realy should read "a war on people caught up in its failure".

So, you're saying Internet education is a good thing because you believe indoctrination is the right way to go? I don't understand what you're saying here.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Gee, that's a bag of confidence. How do you fit all that evidence into one post? Care to explain how you know this? What expertise / evidence / reference can you cite?
If you help me. We both want to know. If I go after references, you can say I cherry picked them. Lets both look and let the chips fall where they may.


From what I've seen, it does. A conference I went to a fortnight ago on Web 2.0 technology and its implications in the classroom had demonstrations that included resources and curriculum designs from Kansas, two schools in Collarado (in fact the guy running the conference was an ex deputy principal from Columbine) and a school from New York.

Does this mean all schools in the US fully embrace ICT? Hell no. But for you to be calling for a revolution, you make yourself sound like an ignorant dick who hasn't a clue what is happening around him. The 'revolution' is well and truly moving.
I didn't call for one, I asked where was the one I heard about.
It seems that ignorant dick is what you heard because you are the ignorant dick. You appear to be one of those people who fly off the handle (often about what they didn't hear) and curse about other people being as stupid as you look.

'Just a feeling'. Here's an analogy - I start a thread on programming and suggest we should have a revolution where programmers should use HTML to write internet sites. When challenged on what evidence I have that we don't use this, I say it's 'just a feeling'.

Did you see my credibility disappear?

Athon
No. The information is probably valid, and I have gotten use to the little tandrum that often comes with it. However, do not call me anything you don't want me to redirect your way.

[Foolmewunz]

Right, they have to issue a challenge. Want something.

You have a website?

Not for our training - that's intranet. (We're some 47,000 headcount around the world.)

We have a public site, but I post anonymously because I sometimes flap my jaws too much on issues that I may know of because of client dealings (although I always take care to hide the names of principals and make the posts as generic as possible) where we have NDAs (and where I, personally, am in charge of the department that handles these big Fortune 500 type accounts, so have a personal NDA).

I can say, though, that I work for one of the largest Forwarders in the world (which is what we used to call ourselves before we decided that "Logistics" or 3PL sounded so much cooler).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Doubtful, and now your argument is just one more vague conspiracy theory. Who, specifically? Where is that ruling documented? How is it translated into action on the ground?
Come on, I know you know that television is used to sell "product", no matter what it is. Why do you think 5 stations cover the same story in a nation of over 300 million people? They couldn't find anything else? Or do you think they all just happen to choose the same story?


I'm a software developer at the intersection of computers and education. I worked for several companies that made educational software for K-12, postsecondary, and enterprise. I have no hesitation in saying that nobody's been able to figure out how computers help kids learn. The evidence is that it makes things worse: lower vocabulary, worse socialization, &c.
They remember the movie they saw the night before, and their video game moves. The method should make more of an effort to go where they are. Do things their way.

Software education is the most expensive way to deliver what could be provided on a cheap piece of paper.
Software is the wave of the future, and paper isn't cheap. The tree and the enivorment say no. I heard that most of the trash in landfills is paper.


In terms of 'the powers that be'... I personally know people in local school districts who make these decisions. The very teachers who were so enthusiastic about it ten years ago are the same ones who are completely jaded today: they've seen the negative returns and the wasted money,
That sounds like what I was talking about, the system is saying "we will do things this way" and that wears the spirit out of some its teachers. You have identified a process that does not surprise or alarm you. That is just how things are, why try nd change it.

and prefer to build their educational system around the kids' needs, instead of trying to mallet the kids' lives into their personal computer hobby.
They are already on the computers, waiting.


ie: they're big enough to drop what doesn't work when the evidence is this conclusive.
Or never pick it up.





So, you're saying Internet education is a good thing because you believe indoctrination is the right way to go? I don't understand what you're saying here.
Wasn't the school system built on indoctrination? What's alittle more.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I goggled the costs of textbooks, and they say $600 to $800 per book, and that the costs are affecting whether or not students have books. How's that for a feeling? Should we look into how they justify that amount?

[athon]

If you help me. We both want to know. If I go after references, you can say I cherry picked them. Lets both look and let the chips fall where they may.

Let's try just for a couple of references, then. Just two might be nice. We'll take it from there. Unless you don't have anything.

I didn't call for one, I asked where was the one I heard about.

Have you even looked? You don't hear me asking where the revolution in heart repair is when I have no knowledge of cardiac surgery.

It seems that ignorant dick is what you heard because you are the ignorant dick.

Tu quoqe. Yeah, well done.

You appear to be one of those people who fly off the handle (often about what they didn't hear) and curse about other people being as stupid as you look.

I do when people act as armchair experts in education. Seriously, look at the analogy I offered. It's a good one.

No. The information is probably valid, and I have gotten use to the little tandrum that often comes with it. However, do not call me anything you don't want me to redirect your way.

Really, the analogy reflects it perfectly. If I came in asking where the revolution is currently in floppy disk drive technology, I'd be laughed at. Not much different here.

Go and do some homework first, then come and ask questions. It would help looking less ignorant.

Athon

[athon]

I goggled the costs of textbooks, and they say $600 to $800 per book, and that the costs are affecting whether or not students have books. How's that for a feeling? Should we look into how they justify that amount?

Link? We paid $15AU per text book recently for a school set, which included research guides. I guarentee they have very little room to move.

Athon

[drkitten]

I haven't looked, but I bet they do okay.

Look, then. The people who have looked disagree with you (see later).


Printing should not even be a factor. But are you saying the cost is in putting it together?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

At the university level, which is where my of my experience is -- "simple" textbook costs a hundred thousand dollars or so to put together. A more complicated one (and most of th introductory texts that people complain about are complicated) can cost several millions. These are "fixed" costs, in the sense that the costs are the same whether you sell one copy or a million -- and need to be amortized over the cost of the entire expected sales lifetime.

Now, having said that, almost no textbooks sell a million copies. In fact, with the used book market as predatory as it is, it's unusual for a textbook to sell 10,000 copies. So let's do some simple numbers. A simple textbook that costs $300,000 to produce needs to sell at $30 per copy just to break even at 10,000 copies. If you can't plan to sell 10,000 -- and no one can -- you're probably looking at between $40-50 per copy just to break even.

Average bookstore markup is about 100%. That book that cost the bookstore $50 will be on the shelf for $100. Of course, Amazon can (and will) get it to you more cheaply, but this just forces the local bookstore to raise markup even more to cover rent.

Of course, this also means that the publisher can (and often does) sell on-line copies of the book at just over $50. (I know that both Wiley and Pearson, which covers something like 50% of the textbook market just between those two.) The problem : no one buys them.

So why are costs so high? Well, the salary of the production staff isn't cheap. But another major factor, according to the GAO, is exactly the thing that you suggest should be the savior -- technology.

From this site (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/16/textbooks):

While publishers might have been dissatisfied with the GAO’s findings on what has happened to textbook prices, they were quite pleased by the agency’s explanations for those increases. “The primary factor” driving them, the GAO said, has been publishers’ efforts to add technology applications and other enhancements that improve the quality of instruction and learning.

“Publishers told us they have made these investments to meet changing needs of higher education, such as the increase in part-time faculty who require greater instructional support and supplements that will enhance student learning of the subject matter,” the GAO investigators said.

The agency cited examples such as online homework and quizzes “online homework and quizzes that allow instructors to track student progress quickly,” and “more extensive curricular support including lesson plans, homework sets, multimedia lectures, and even workshops on specific teaching approaches.” The report adds: “While these materials are provided at no cost to instructors, the cost of developing them is built into the price of the textbook.”


No child would be without access to a textbook, if the school were able to print what it wanted from the net.

Because it's so much cheaper to print stuff out in single copies at $20/copy than it is to run it through a commercial press at $3/copy. Or were you suggesting simply stealing the content? Because it still costs $50/copy to compile in the information in the text.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Look, then. The people who have looked disagree with you (see later).

You sure? I don't want to do all that work. When I make my school connection, I'm going to sick'em on people like you.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
That is what I was hoping. That is a one time cost.

At the university level, which is where my of my experience is -- "simple" textbook costs a hundred thousand dollars or so to put together. A more complicated one (and most of th introductory texts that people complain about are complicated) can cost several millions.
Fine. Spend five million on a good product and print away.

These are "fixed" costs, in the sense that the costs are the same whether you sell one copy or a million -- and need to be amortized over the cost of the entire expected sales lifetime.
Okay... I'll pay you 100 dollars each and a service charge to keep up on the dates. Any book printed after there is enough to cover the students in the system, is free.

Now, having said that, almost no textbooks sell a million copies. In fact, with the used book market as predatory as it is, it's unusual for a textbook to sell 10,000 copies.
That seems pretty low if we are talking about the school system of New York.

So let's do some simple numbers. A simple textbook that costs $300,000 to produce needs to sell at $30 per copy just to break even at 10,000 copies. If you can't plan to sell 10,000 -- and no one can -- you're probably looking at between $40-50 per copy just to break even.
This is not a business. I want my product, you take care of yourself as best you can after that. That is why I payed you so much per copy.

Average bookstore markup is about 100%. That book that cost the bookstore $50 will be on the shelf for $100. Of course, Amazon can (and will) get it to you more cheaply, but this just forces the local bookstore to raise markup even more to cover rent.
No bookstore. The product is made and stored, when dealing with the school system, college, that is something else.


So why are costs so high? Well, the salary of the production staff isn't cheap. But another major factor, according to the GAO, is exactly the thing that you suggest should be the savior -- technology.
Lets get rid of the production staff and put that money into technology too.

From this site (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/16/textbooks):





Because it's so much cheaper to print stuff out in single copies at $20/copy than it is to run it through a commercial press at $3/copy. Or were you suggesting simply stealing the content?
Oh no. I wouldn't want to steal a book to give to a high school student.

[drkitten]

You sure? I don't want to do all that work. When I make my school connection, I'm going to sick'em on people like you.

I'm not worried.


That is what I was hoping. That is a one time cost.

Yes, fixed costs usually are. That's what the word means.


Fine. Spend five million on a good product and print away.

Okay... I'll pay you 100 dollars each and a service charge to keep up on the dates.

All right, then. The "service charge" will probably amount to about $1 million per year (the average lifespan of a textbook is about five years, after which pedagogy has changed enough to require rewriting the book in full). Actually, the lifecycle recently has been more like 3 years, but you're probably willing to use the book for a couple of extra years given how much you're putting up front.

Or were you planning on using technology to push an outdated and obsolete book?

At $100 each, you have to be able to guarantee that 50,000 students will use that $5 million book over the five year period. Basically, if you can come up with $5 million up-front, you can have a textbook written to order and do what you like with it.

But, as far as I know, no one has been able to come up with that kind of money up-front. And the people who can tend to guard their books ferociously.


That seems pretty low if we are talking about the school system of New York.

Nope. Got that number straight from Prentice-Hall (yes, I'm one of their authors and reviewers). One of the problems is that for every book picked up by New York, there are dozens if not hundreds that aren't. If you could guarantee that the book would be picked up by the State of New York, then we could probably come to a deal regarding lower prices. In fact, if you were the State of New York, we probably already have (most of the large systems -- where "large" in this case can be only a few thousand, depending upon the overall market for the book in question -- can, in fact, negotiate bulk discounts).



This is not a business.

The devil it isn't. I'm an author; Prentice-Hall is a publishing company, and both of us need to pay our own rent and phone bills.

I want my product, you take care of yourself as best you can after that.

That's not how economics works. If I can't afford to sell you the product, I'm not going to, and you can whistle for what you "want." Try dropping by Harvard sometime and telling them that you "want" to take a class, but don't intend to pay tuition. For that matter, try dropping by a local public school and tell them that you don't live in the area, but will be taking classes there anyway.


Lets get rid of the production staff and put that money into technology too.

Yeah, because computers are just so good at writing. Or copy-editing. Or graphic design. Or web page development. (Yes, that's irony. Or possibly sarcasm. Or perhaps both.) The main expense is with the stuff that technology can't do.

What do you think the "production staff" do, anyway? I'm specifically not talking about the printers (most publishers outsource that, and it's not part of the fixed costs anyway) nor about typesetting (which many authors already do for themselves; typesetting programs have gotten good). I'm talking about things that need to be done by humans to make sure this is the "good product" that you want to spend five million dollars on.

Just as a simple example -- it will typically cost something like $10 per page just to produce an index for a book. That's $10 per page of the book, not per page of the index. And, no, there is no software out there that will do it acceptably. (Simple file search doesn't do it, unless you've got a better solution to the hyponym problem than Google does.) I've seen a few research proposals suggesting how it can be done, and the first company that produces a viable competitor to the human indexer will make a fortune. (That company will probably be Google, by the way -- as though they needed another fortune.)

The illustrator isn't cheap, either. S/he will typically need to be a domain expert in both graphic design and in the subject of the book (since most authors have the drawing ability of a sea snake). Heck, even copyright clearance (to use existing images) can get extremely expensive; do you know how much it can cost to get permission to reproduce a typical movie still in a textbook?

My most recent book, as I said, is through Prentice-Hall. I worked hard to keep the costs down as low as they could possibly be, precisely because I've listened to my students complain about how expensive textbooks are (and justifiably so). There simply aren't enough corners I can cut, unless I decide that I dont kare how badlly spelld the buk iz (there goes any chance of it being a quality product). I'm wondering what you suggest should be done differently.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Taking Steps to Reduce Costs

Please note that textbook prices began their astronomical climb after the multi-nationals bought up most independent publishers. Very few companies publish textbooks anymore and as the field narrows, monopolistic practices have become common.
Taking Steps to Reduce Costs

Please note that textbook prices began their astronomical climb after the multi-nationals bought up most independent publishers. Very few companies publish textbooks anymore and as the field narrows, monopolistic practices have become common.
Taking Steps to Reduce Costs

Please note that textbook prices began their astronomical climb after the multi-nationals bought up most independent publishers. Very few companies publish textbooks anymore and as the field narrows, monopolistic practices have become common. This is from the site you mentioned. Its not a conspiracy, that is just the way business operates. Cost and effect.

[drkitten]

Please note that textbook prices began their astronomical climb after the multi-nationals bought up most independent publishers. Very few companies publish textbooks anymore and as the field narrows, monopolistic practices have become common. This is from the site you mentioned. Its not a conspiracy, that is just the way business operates. Cost and effect.

Yes. And do you know why the multinationals bought up the smaller publishers? Because it's not cost-effective for a smaller publisher to stay in business, because the profit margins are too thin. It's the same reason that Wal-Mart can afford to undersell the Mom and Pop stores; because Mom and Pop can't make a living on the kind of margins that Wal-Mart expects.

And, funny enough, that's exactly what the GAO found, too. You'll notice the title of the cited study : "College Textbooks: Enhanced Offerings Appear to Drive Recent Price Increases." Not "Monopolistic Practices Appear to Drive Recent Price Increases."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but TIm Saxon (the person you cited) is simpliy wrong. And his "solution"? Use technology to present outdated material! Search out and find out-of-date editions that can be bought more cheaply! That's exactly what teachers should not be doing, and that's exactly why prices on new material are so high (because of the technological demands of the new material). So even Dr. Saxon ends up agreeing with the GAO.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

All right, then. The "service charge" will probably amount to about $1 million per year (the average lifespan of a textbook is about five years, after which pedagogy has changed enough to require rewriting the book in full).
No. We won't be rewriting the whole book. It was such a good product, it was constructed to be revised. Type the changes into the computer, press print.

Actually, the lifecycle recently has been more like 3 years, but you're probably willing to use the book for a couple of extra years given how much you're putting up front.
Of course, a business has to devise a way for the customer to keep coming back. Some subjects don't change very much.

At $100 each, you have to be able to guarantee that 50,000 students will use that $5 million book over the five year period.
No I don't.

Basically, if you can come up with $5 million up-front, you can have a textbook written to order and do what you like with it.
That is my point. If the current publishers want what you say here to produce, someone could produce a cheap version and put them out of business.

But, as far as I know, no one has been able to come up with that kind of money up-front. And the people who can tend to guard their books ferociously.
5 million, with the amount of money the school system throws around? Come on.


Nope. Got that number straight from Prentice-Hall (yes, I'm one of their authors and reviewers). One of the problems is that for every book picked up by New York, there are dozens if not hundreds that aren't.
What? After making them, they are not delivered? Do they then generate storage fees?

If you could guarantee that the book would be picked up by the State of New York, then we could probably come to a deal regarding lower prices. In fact, if you were the State of New York, we probably already have (most of the large systems -- where "large" in this case can be only a few thousand, depending upon the overall market for the book in question -- can, in fact, negotiate bulk discounts).
I would think that that would be the smart thing to do. But that article said that "custom versions" add to the cost.



The devil it isn't. I'm an author; Prentice-Hall is a publishing company, and both of us need to pay our own rent and phone bills.
Sorry, but you might want to either produce the standard model that I am talking about, or look for other work.


That's not how economics works.
Right, create and maintain a demand for a product you got. Make the customer feel that they can't do without it. Children be damned. There is a weakness there though. This business has to at least pretend to care.

Yeah, because computers are just so good at writing.
Not writting, copying.

Or copy-editing. Or graphic design. Or web page development. (Yes, that's irony. Or possibly sarcasm. Or perhaps both.) The main expense is with the stuff that technology can't do.
That stuff is a oone time cost, after that, copy.

What do you think the "production staff" do, anyway? I'm specifically not talking about the printers (most publishers outsource that, and it's not part of the fixed costs anyway) nor about typesetting (which many authors already do for themselves; typesetting programs have gotten good). I'm talking about things that need to be done by humans to make sure this is the "good product" that you want to spend five million dollars on.
Yes, you gave me my product, good bye till update time. Don't even think of a complete rewrite for 50 years.

Just as a simple example -- it will typically cost something like $10 per page just to produce an index for a book. That's $10 per page of the book, not per page of the index.
The index is a $10 charge on every book? Even though it has to be produced once?


The illustrator isn't cheap, either. S/he will typically need to be a domain expert in both graphic design and in the subject of the book (since most authors have the drawing ability of a sea snake). Heck, even copyright clearance (to use existing images) can get extremely expensive; do you know how much it can cost to get permission to reproduce a typical movie still in a textbook?
Yes, I am sure the industry made it hard.

My most recent book, as I said, is through Prentice-Hall. I worked hard to keep the costs down as low as they could possibly be, precisely because I've listened to my students complain about how expensive textbooks are (and justifiably so). There simply aren't enough corners I can cut, unless I decide that I dont kare how badlly spelld the buk iz (there goes any chance of it being a quality product). I'm wondering what you suggest should be done differently.

Produce the product and revise it. Sought of the authorized King James version. Your spell checking job will get easier with the revisions. The same for the guy who puts in the pictures, then again, the computer can do both of those.

[blutoski]

I would think that that would be the smart thing to do. But that article said that "custom versions" add to the cost.

This is a different discussion, though. Have a chat with Bill Bennetta of The Textbook League (ttl@textbookleague.org), or listen to his interview on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. He explains why textbooks are expensive and problematic. He's been following textbook editing and procurement in the US for thirty years, with special expertise on California.

The key problem is that almost all states have a textbook approval system that passes through a PAC. If the parents don't like the book as submitted, they return it to the publisher with revision instructions. Sometimes they pass the publisher a half million revision instructions, all conflicting with one another, or worse: technically inaccurate. (eg: "add a chapter on Intelligent Design") And usually at the last minute before going to press.

Personally, I think Bill's a bit too cynical.


In terms of costs, as you might expect, volume is the key determinant. When my wife was in medical school, our student society bought textbooks that wholesaled for $1000 because there are only maybe 4,000 medical students in Canada per year. But when I was on a school board PAC, our unit cost for grade five math textbooks was $1, not including administrative overhead. (overhead: if a kid lost one, we'd have to ship it from the warehouse in Victoria, and there would be a $6 courier fee plus the time for somebody to fill out the requisition. The kid would have to cover this, plus a punitive charge, in a penalty, so they'd have an incentive to keep them safe.)

I'm more concerned about the negative influence of partents and subsequent circus of vetting of facts in textbooks than their unit price.

[blutoski]

In terms of costs, as you might expect, volume is the key determinant. When my wife was in medical school, our student society bought textbooks that wholesaled for $1000 because there are only maybe 4,000 medical students in Canada per year. But when I was on a school board PAC, our unit cost for grade five math textbooks was $1, not including administrative overhead. (overhead: if a kid lost one, we'd have to ship it from the warehouse in Victoria, and there would be a $6 courier fee plus the time for somebody to fill out the requisition. The kid would have to cover this, plus a punitive charge, in a penalty, so they'd have an incentive to keep them safe.)

Incidentally, regarding environmental concerns, these particular math books are on Electrabrite, which is 100% post-consumer. Firing of a copy of this 220-page book from a local printer would cost $60, not to mention it would certainly be on mostly new fibre paper and consuming considerably more fossil fuel in the form of fused toner or inkjet dye than in offset lithography pigment. Those are the limitations of local printers.

[blutoski]

In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

And that right there shows me that you have no exposure to education theory. This is the opposite of how people actually learn. Especially children. I always invite my students to raise their hand as we go along, because if they don't grasp the first point, everything that follows will be gibberish. Without context, the lesson could be all in one ear; out the other.

And as I pointed out above, the TV solution that looked so good on paper turned out to be a failure. It's been 50 years that we've known this. This isn't a new solution.

When I was a kid, it was all "CB Radio will revolutionize education!" (the 70s), followed by "Computers will revolutionize education!" (the 80s), then when I was in university, "The Internet will revolutionize education!" (the 90s). These people were wrong. And they were CB Radio / Computer / Web2.0 salesmen. Understand that these claims originate in marketing departments.

I find some confusing contradiction in the abovequoted suggestion, too. On the one hand, you object to rigidity in the system, but here you suggest that assembly-line education is the way to go by bolting kids to desks and forcing them to sit through non-adapting standardized lectures. What happens to the kid who is a verbal learner instead of a visual learner? The teacher's experience in reaching each kid uniquely is the bread-and-butter of learning success.

[athon]

In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

I missed this. Man, it gets worse and worse with you, doesn't it? I was being generous by calling you an arm-chair expert.

Go and find out how an education system works. Look up the word 'pedagogy'. Learn why chalk-and-talk doesn't work. The fact that some teachers do just what you say is a major problem with the education system. And you're suggesting it should be continued?

Incredible.

Athon

[blutoski]

Come on, I know you know that television is used to sell "product", no matter what it is. Why do you think 5 stations cover the same story in a nation of over 300 million people? They couldn't find anything else? Or do you think they all just happen to choose the same story?

I asked you specifically who 'they' were. Who is it that you claim is the "powers that be". How did their 'plans' materialize on the ground to prevent an educational broadcasting initiative. (hint: there *was* an educational broadcasting initiative, but kids didn't learn well through assembly-line education).

I was responding to this:
No, they were right, the "powers that be" had other plans.

"they were right" implies that you have evidence of a television-distributed educational format (in conjunction with onsite educators or in isolation) that demonstrated efficacy greater than on-site educators alone.





They remember the movie they saw the night before, and their video game moves. The method should make more of an effort to go where they are. Do things their way.

Mine don't. We don't have TV, and they find computer games boring. They're active kids, and if they're not doing homework wherever they find comfortable around the house, they're at sports or just plain outside goofing around, rain or shine. The thought of chaining them to a computer to do homework is depressing.

There is a great deal of research on this, actually. It's not just a computer thing: the principle of 'learning games' is a hundred years old. The problem is that a lot of subject matter should not be taught in an entertainment format.




Software is the wave of the future,

Vague. Also: not the same as 'it has been demonstrated to work'.

It sounds like a slogan straight from the marketdroids, which is where it probably originated.





and paper isn't cheap. The tree and the enivorment say no. I heard that most of the trash in landfills is paper.

You're changing your criteria now. I do not personally endorse providing kids with an inferior education in order to reduce landfill mass. I will reduce my waste in other ways. That is my value judgement.

Regardless, this is 2007, and most textbooks are 100% post-consumer.

OTOH, if you *want* to do something that causes a billion books to be dumped in a landfill, legislate that they are obsolete and to be replaced by digital versions.

Plus: the lifespan of a computer is less than that of a book, and the materials aren't even *legal* to put in a landfill here in BC because they're so environmentally toxic.




That sounds like what I was talking about, the system is saying "we will do things this way" and that wears the spirit out of some its teachers. You have identified a process that does not surprise or alarm you. That is just how things are, why try nd change it.

Nope. You completely, utterly, misunderstood what I said. These are teachers with software development and IT experience who had a budget to deploy equipment and titles as they saw fit for about ten years now as part of a pilot project in Vancouver School District. The school board has been supportive both financially and in terms of public relations (parents hate computers in class, because they associate it with gaming and porn.)




They are already on the computers, waiting.

Dream on. Especially at the younger ages, kids just aren't interested. Fora have no appeal, since it's all words. My kids and their friends find computers very boring, and I'm glad for it. More good times sailing.

Some of their peers are 'into computers' more, and almost without exception, they are futzing with commercial sites that have Flash games for stickiness. eg: the Smarties website, the Cheerios website, Oreos website... basically, they're entertained by commercials.




Or never pick it up.

The example I provided was people who are both competent software developers and experienced K-12 teachers. They have spent ten years exploring options for bringing multimedia and networking into classroom settings to the benefit of learning outcomes. They have been careful to keep their metrics objective, and I admire them for being honest enough to admit that the results have been disappointing.





Wasn't the school system built on indoctrination? What's alittle more.

Bad, is what. I fight against it.

But I think I know where you stand now.




Related: every now and again, I come across somebody who has a grand solution for everything. Chiropractors think every problem can be fixed with a spinal adjustment. Computer geeks think every problem can be fixed if only we gave everybody a PC and broadband.

The expression is: "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[blutoski]

Come on, I know you know that television is used to sell "product", no matter what it is. Why do you think 5 stations cover the same story in a nation of over 300 million people? They couldn't find anything else? Or do you think they all just happen to choose the same story?

I haven't had TV in thirty years, so I'm a little out of touch, but my understanding is that there are more than 5 stations in the US that have a newshour.

"If it bleeds, it leads," is the slogan.

It's no surprise that there's convergence of stories. Stories are about ratings, and ratings are about what people will watch. If you're suggesting that the top stories should be different in different cities, you're suggesting that for some reason, people in different cities 'think differently' than those in others.

My experience is that people share common interests.

The purpose of a news program is to keep people tuned in to the station for the commercials. To this end, there is usually a network national news, followed by a provincial segment supplied by the local affiliate. Occasionally, a local catastrophe will pre-empt the network slot.

As discussed, economies of scale are reinventing even the way local news is produced, although this is more evident in papers and radio than in TV. Witness the massive efficiencies that have materialized with NewsCorp or Viacom. If you own twenty papers, why have a seperate national desk at every, when you can have one guy doing national for all of them? And advertising's overhead is reduced when the one graphic can be composed and recycled twenty times over (times 1,000 graphics - it adds up to $millions in savings per day).


And I'm no industry apologist: twenty years ago I was part of an initiative to create a magazine and non-profit society dedicated to exploring and exposing the role of media in the formation of public opinion. We focused on the blurring distinction between content and endorsement. Informercials. Ads in magazines that use the publisher's font and style. Articles in special sections of the newspaper whose wording was supplied by a business who wanted exposure... and was willing to pay the newspaper for 'editing consultation'. What we formed became Adbusters and the Media Foundation.

I left when they stopped being skeptical and flushed their credibility down the toilet with conspiracy theories... Not unlike what I'm reading in this thread. (I finally discontinued my subscription when they pinned blame for 9/11 on the Jews)

[dudalb]

Adbusters was good whan it was more consumer oriented, but I stop reading it when it took such a sharp turn to the left and was not surprised when it went totally WooWoo. Now it seems to be ran by a bunch of unreconstucted Marxists.

[drkitten]

No. We won't be rewriting the whole book.

Yes, you will. Five years from now, the entire book will be obsolete and will require rewriting in full.


It was such a good product, it was constructed to be revised. Type the changes into the computer, press print.

Yes. But even planned revisions aren't free. Those "changes" will require approximately $1 million per year to create and enter.

Of course, you don't need to do that.

You could instead hold onto the book and continue to use it until it's forty-five years out of date:


Yes, you gave me my product, good bye till update time. Don't even think of a complete rewrite for 50 years.

... except that I thought you were in favor of improving education. Let's see... that fifty-year old textbook would have been written in.... 1957? And you're not even going to consider a complete rewrite? Have you seen how bad textbooks are from the 50s?



Produce the product and revise it.

I will be happy to. You've seen the cost sheet. $5 million up front and a continuing effort of $1 million per year. If you want it, that's what it will cost. Screaming and kicking your heels won't make it any cheaper.

[drkitten]

Of course, a business has to devise a way for the customer to keep coming back. Some subjects don't change very much.

That's a common opinion among non-experts, yes.

The material may not change much, but the pedagogy changes radically, both as a result of improvements in education theory as well as improvements in technology that are incorporated into the classroom.

For example, the "chalk-and-talk" method of high school education is not used much any more, precisely becuase it doesn't work as well as more interactive methods.



That is my point. If the current publishers want what you say here to produce, someone could produce a cheap version and put them out of business.

No more than Yugo put Mercedes out of business with a cheap, low-quality product.

What? You've never heard of Yugo? There's a reason....


[QUOTE]
What? After making them, they are not delivered? Do they then generate storage fees?{/QUOTE]

No, most publishers have gone to a print-on-demand system, so almost nothing is printed or stored if it hasn't already been sold. But since books are usually written in advance of sales (precisely because you don't know what the quality will be from reading a proposal and topic outline), you don't know how many sales a book will generate until you've already written it.

So the first copy of the book costs $5 million to produce, mostly in the costs to produce the content. It costs the same to write and edit the manuscript whether you print one copy or a billion. If you could sell your first copy for $5 million, you could give the rest of the copies away for the price of paper, ink, and shipping and still break even.

Unfortunately, there's no way you will sell it for that price. Instead, you sell it for, say $100 --- or $50, or $10, depending on how many sales you expect to make. If you sell 100,000 copies at $50/copy, you've made your money back. But if you price the book at $50/copy and only one school adopts it, you've just sold a $5,000,000 dollar book for maybe $5,000 dollars of total revenue.

Perhaps this will help you understand. There are about 15-20 million high school students in the United States today; and so each year, there are about 4 millon students in any particular year.. Assuming that a quarter of those students take any particular class (some classes, like Latin, will be have fewer, some, like Creative Writing, will have more). There are therefore 1 million textbook-users per year for an average class like "Earth Sciences."

Because of the ferocity of the used-book market, a book more than one year old generates basically zero sales to the publisher. So each book has essentially 1 million potentially profitable adoptees, and you make money by having as many students of those one million as possible adopt that.

There are roughly fifty textbooks on the market for "Earth Sciences." If the market were split evenly between all the textbooks, everyone would get 20,000 in sales. The textbook that costs $5 million to produce would need to sell for $250/copy for the publisher to break even. That's simple economics; you can't sell something for less than it costs. If it costs $1 million to produce, that's "only" $50/book.

Of course, the market is not split evenly; in practical terms, usually one (or a few) books will have the lion's shsre of the market, partly because of bloc buying (e.g. New York) and partly because better and better-marketed books displace weaker ones. So a more typical split would be 10 books each selling 80,000 copies, and the remaining 40 books selling 5,000 each. (That's the good old 80/20 rule -- 20% of the books have 80% of the market.)

Now do you see why the average book is lucky to make 10,000 copies?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The key problem is that almost all states have a textbook approval system that passes through a PAC. If the parents don't like the book as submitted, they return it to the publisher with revision instructions. Sometimes they pass the publisher a half million revision instructions, all conflicting with one another, or worse: technically inaccurate. (eg: "add a chapter on Intelligent Design") And usually at the last minute before going to press.
So while the information prints out the same, a process has been added to make it differcult. Nonprofessionals should have very little say in the presentation of the basics. They are basic.

In terms of costs, as you might expect, volume is the key determinant. When my wife was in medical school, our student society bought textbooks that wholesaled for $1000 because there are only maybe 4,000 medical students in Canada per year. But when I was on a school board PAC, our unit cost for grade five math textbooks was $1, not including administrative overhead. (overhead: if a kid lost one, we'd have to ship it from the warehouse in Victoria, and there would be a $6 courier fee plus the time for somebody to fill out the requisition. The kid would have to cover this, plus a punitive charge, in a penalty, so they'd have an incentive to keep them safe.)
That sounds right. After a large initial cost, copies should be much cheaper. That large initial cost should then been avoided. There is no reason to start from scratch every 5 years or so.

I'm more concerned about the negative influence of partents and subsequent circus of vetting of facts in textbooks than their unit price.Me to.

[drkitten]

There is no reason to start from scratch every 5 years or so.

Because, of course, teaching methods haven't changed at all. That's why we're still in the age of the one-room schoolhouse, learning out of McGuffey's Readers.

But that will change, as soon as we get computers. Why, once we have computers in the schools, we'll be prepared to take the next major step and install gaslights.

[blutoski]

So while the information prints out the same, a process has been added to make it differcult.

The cost of living in a democracy, I guess. Parents represent their communities and children. They are key stakeholders, and entitled to participation in the direction of curricula and textbook selection.

I'll give you an example: the district where I live introduced a calculus course into grade 12. All the textbooks available were designed for firstyears and were too advanced, including proofs, multivarible, &c. The decision was made to request an enhanced version of the grade 12 book be provided for highschool level.

This is more than just cutting and pasting relevant sections from the firstyear book into the grade 12 book: they have to follow a different lesson format to work with the spectrum of ability available in this age group.

The system was not added to make things difficult: the system was added to reflect the fact that a nation's communities and kids aren't boiler-plate.




Nonprofessionals should have very little say in the presentation of the basics. They are basic.

I don't understand what you mean by 'basics'. And aren't you saying in earlier posts that professionals are biased and should have less say?




That sounds right. After a large initial cost, copies should be much cheaper. That large initial cost should then been avoided. There is no reason to start from scratch every 5 years or so.

Unfortunately, there are many reasons to overhaul textbooks. They're not just lists of rote facts: they are teaching tools. As teaching advances, the textbook plan and format becomes obsolete and fails to connect well with lesson plans.

In any case, "5 years" is thrown around but the actual lifespans vary. In the case of biology, that sounds about right. In the case of math, it's more like 20 years, with some exceptions. Math textbooks are more likely to just find themselves in an earlier year. Sometimes there is a shift in teaching style so broad that all the texts become obsolete at once. The recent trend toward problem-based and groupsolving in science education is an example.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And that right there shows me that you have no exposure to education theory. This is the opposite of how people actually learn. Especially children. I always invite my students to raise their hand as we go along, because if they don't grasp the first point, everything that follows will be gibberish. Without context, the lesson could be all in one ear; out the other.
I don't need education theory to know that children learn from video. I am not talking about replacing teachers with video (at least not all of them) but a video of the class can't hurt. Some students don't ask questions, for them "rewind" would come in handy.


And as I pointed out above, the TV solution that looked so good on paper turned out to be a failure. It's been 50 years that we've known this. This isn't a new solution.
I think it did work, only the wrong way. Its time to try again.


When I was a kid, it was all "CB Radio will revolutionize education!" (the 70s), followed by "Computers will revolutionize education!" (the 80s), then when I was in university, "The Internet will revolutionize education!" (the 90s).
Maybe if we can put two of them together.

These people were wrong. And they were CB Radio / Computer / Web2.0 salesmen. Understand that these claims originate in marketing departments.
Those people were wrong, though I am thinking that running into a system that was use to doing things their way, helped.

I find some confusing contradiction in the abovequoted suggestion, too. On the one hand, you object to rigidity in the system, but here you suggest that assembly-line education is the way to go by bolting kids to desks and forcing them to sit through non-adapting standardized lectures.
Force, bolts, non-adapting, etc, I used none of that, or implied it. The textbook should be standardize to save money to use on technology. I am not talking about getting rid of them. Video in the form of a screen, a dvd, or a tape, would allow the lessons to go where they are.

What happens to the kid who is a verbal learner instead of a visual learner? The teacher's experience in reaching each kid uniquely is the bread-and-butter of learning success.
Maybe with the help of technology the teacher would have more time to spend with them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I missed this. Man, it gets worse and worse with you, doesn't it? I was being generous by calling you an arm-chair expert.
I hope my luck holds.

Go and find out how an education system works. Look up the word 'pedagogy'. Learn why chalk-and-talk doesn't work. The fact that some teachers do just what you say is a major problem with the education system. And you're suggesting it should be continued?

Incredible.

Athon
Wow, I am hearing a lot about what doesn't work, I guess that is why the system is failing, even though it is run by people who understand education theory. If the experts knew better, the system would be better. And remember, I am not the one who ranks our education system among the worst in the world. I want to know why the system said technology did not work.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Because, of course, teaching methods haven't changed at all. That's why we're still in the age of the one-room schoolhouse, learning out of McGuffey's Readers.

But that will change, as soon as we get computers. Why, once we have computers in the schools, we'll be prepared to take the next major step and install gaslights.
What are you huffing about? They don't change that much in five years. And if all the technology has been routinely thrown out, it has changed barely at all.

[drkitten]

What are you huffing about? They don't change that much in five years.

You've made this statement several times. I've told you each time that it's untrue. Textbook publishers have told you its untrue. Professional educational theorists have told you it's untrue. The GAO has told you it's untrue.

Have you considered the possiblility that you MIGHT be underestimating the rate of change?

Nah. You've got all the answers in your armchair, don't you?

[drkitten]

I don't need education theory to know that children learn from video.

No, but evidently you do need education theory to know that children don't learn as well from video than they do from active participation in teacher-led activities. For that matter, children don't learn as well from video as they do from active-listening to teacher-initiated lectures -- which in turn loses to active participation....

So, what you're proposing is that we should use technology to let us make greater use of a teaching method known to work poorly.

Great idea. I'll get back to you. Right after I finish installing these gaslights.

While we're at it -- I think that bussing children to school is far too efficient. I think instead we should breed millions of hummingbirds and every morning, the children can strap a thousand hummingbirds to their body and have the birds fly them around randomly until they arrive at their school.

And then we can take advantage of what technology offers us to upgrade to robotic hummingbirds. With high-speed metal wings, and maybe laser beams shooting out of their eyes. That would be SO KEWL!!!1!!!1!

What do you think?

[bpesta22]

Edumacation researchers are too focused on the method. I'm a chalk and talk lecturer but I think I'm a better teacher than many who know more in my field than I do. In fact, gimme the textbook and two weeks notice and I bet I (or any good teacher) could teach any class (except hard science and math) as well as half the faculty in that department.

I think power points are good for presentations, but they ain't teaching.

Going on line, having video's, digitalizing text books, it matters not. Til people accept the fact that not everyone's born equal in terms of ability to learn, we'll just keep scratching our heads wondering why half the kids are scoring below the median on some standardized test, even though we threw money and a new method at those kids scoring below the median.

Sorry for the derail!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Edumacation researchers are too focused on the method. I'm a chalk and talk lecturer but I think I'm a better teacher than many who know more in my field than I do. In fact, gimme the textbook and two weeks notice and I bet I (or any good teacher) could teach any class (except hard science and math) as well as half the faculty in that department.

I think power points are good for presentations, but they ain't teaching.

Going on line, having video's, digitalizing text books, it matters not. Til people accept the fact that not everyone's born equal in terms of ability to learn, we'll just keep scratching our heads wondering why half the kids are scoring below the median on some standardized test, even though we threw money and a new method at those kids scoring below the median.

Sorry for the derail!
I think because people learn differently, all those things should be available. A standard textbook would allow the video to match what is being taught in the class. If you saw the videos, (as many times as needed) the class may be easier. Digitalized textbooks on the internet may reduce the costs enough for a home version. And video would not reduce reading skills that much if an "out loud" reading class (video taped if you like) made sure.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You've made this statement several times. I've told you each time that it's untrue. Textbook publishers have told you its untrue. Professional educational theorists have told you it's untrue. The GAO has told you it's untrue.

Have you considered the possiblility that you MIGHT be underestimating the rate of change?
Are you telling me that english, math and history change so much in five years that the entire book has to be rewritten? History would need to be "updated" but not too much the others.

Nah. You've got all the answers in your armchair, don't you?
No, but i'll look if you don't mind.

[athon]

I hope my luck holds.

It hasn't so far. I've lost count how many times you've been told you're mistaken. The fact you squint and ignore that doesn't make you lucky - it makes you intentionally ignorant.

Wow, I am hearing a lot about what doesn't work,

Huh? You say 'they should do more lecture-style education', and I say that doesn't work. I'm sure there is a substantial amount of that going on and it is indeed one deficiency in education. Maybe you should ask 'why' that's going on.

Please keep track of the conversation.

I guess that is why the system is failing,

Failing? I'm going to assume from here on that when you talk about education, you're only discussing the US system (there is a world outside the US, you know?). And I know of some massive problems with differentiation across state education systems and the stupidity of the federal 'NCLB' policy, yet you've thrown another assumption out here without any substantiation of it.

Define what you mean by failing and some evidence to support it. Gut feeling is not a valid reason.

And remember, I am not the one who ranks our education system among the worst in the world. I want to know why the system said technology did not work.

Again, who says it doesn't? You? The rest of the world is also using ICT in the classrooms quite effectively. A major problem in many US states is the spread of schools, where some are doing exceedingly well and others are doing shockingly poorly. The administration of how teachers are treated is abyssmal, for one. The provision for ESL seems to be rather third rate, and community bridging programs I can't find much information on, so am starting to infer that they are rather weak as well. Interestingly, much like in the UK (who share some similar issues), ICT resourcing is quite good.

Putting a computer into a crumbling house isn't going to fix the house, no matter how competent the residents are at using the internet.

Now, do you have anything of substance to offer or are you going to continue to come out with misinformed gut feelings and hot air?

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, but evidently you do need education theory to know that children don't learn as well from video than they do from active participation in teacher-led activities. For that matter, children don't learn as well from video as they do from active-listening to teacher-initiated lectures -- which in turn loses to active participation....
Teachers may be the best method, and they admit to being in trouble. Maybe we should send in 2nd and 3rd best too. There are some subjects that can be taught well with the help of video.

So, what you're proposing is that we should use technology to let us make greater use of a teaching method known to work poorly.
Poorly in comparision to teachers. A video, or the internet, can help when the teacher is not around-like when they are home.

[athon]

Edumacation researchers are too focused on the method. I'm a chalk and talk lecturer but I think I'm a better teacher than many who know more in my field than I do. In fact, gimme the textbook and two weeks notice and I bet I (or any good teacher) could teach any class (except hard science and math) as well as half the faculty in that department.

It always depends on the group and the material. Some subjects work well with being delivered as a lecture-style to a group of experienced students (such as those aiming to do well at tertiary) who know how to get the most of it. With a variable group of students, of who a percentage aren't academic at all and have less interest in the field, where a variation of materials and skills still need to be conveyed, chalk and talk should not be the dominant method of teaching.

I think power points are good for presentations, but they ain't teaching.

Actually, much of my board work is done using smart boards and power points these days, linked in with video clips and interactive activities. It works quite well.

Going on line, having video's, digitalizing text books, it matters not. Til people accept the fact that not everyone's born equal in terms of ability to learn, we'll just keep scratching our heads wondering why half the kids are scoring below the median on some standardized test, even though we threw money and a new method at those kids scoring below the median.

There are always going to be kids who pick things up faster than others. When further academia is the only goal of an educations system, of course a proportion of kids are going to fail. Change the goal of a system to arming future citizens with some skills which allows the individual to adapt to what they want and need, and form the outcomes based on that idea, and 'failure' becomes something of a meaningless concept.

Sorry for the derail!

Actually it's quite interesting. Thanks for the derail. :)

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It hasn't so far. I've lost count how many times you've been told you're mistaken. The fact you squint and ignore that doesn't make you lucky - it makes you intentionally ignorant.



Huh? You say 'they should do more lecture-style education', and I say that doesn't work.
Wow, you say, I guess I better "snap to". Yes sir!

I'm sure there is a substantial amount of that going on and it is indeed one deficiency in education.
Is that like the feeling I had about textbook prices?

Maybe you should ask 'why' that's going on.
Why is that going on?

Failing? I'm going to assume from here on that when you talk about education, you're only discussing the US system (there is a world outside the US, you know?).
Maybe you should do just that. Especially since I have said it serval times. Is that you being intentionally ignorant? I am talking about where it is not being done, if it works for you there, it gives weight to doing it here.


And I know of some massive problems with differentiation across state education systems and the stupidity of the federal 'NCLB' policy, yet you've thrown another assumption out here without any substantiation of it.
Define what you mean by failing and some evidence to support it. Gut feeling is not a valid reason.
I was right.


Again, who says it doesn't? You? The rest of the world is also using ICT in the classrooms quite effectively. A major problem in many US states is the spread of schools, where some are doing exceedingly well and others are doing shockingly poorly.
That is what I see, the ones doing poorly should be on board for using the textbooks of the ones doing well, that would help that bulk buying thing.


The administration of how teachers are treated is abyssmal, for one. The provision for ESL seems to be rather third rate, and community bridging programs I can't find much information on, so am starting to infer that they are rather weak as well. Interestingly, much like in the UK (who share some similar issues), ICT resourcing is quite good.
See, you appear to have there, what should be done here.

Putting a computer into a crumbling house isn't going to fix the house, no matter how competent the residents are at using the internet.
It might help make moving easier.

Now, do you have anything of substance to offer or are you going to continue to come out with misinformed gut feelings and hot air?

Athon
From what you said here, I was right about the U.S. system, and sometimes hot air is all you need-at first. I have learned that others are doing things differently.

[Hindmost]

All the technology and teaching methods have not really changed the US education system. When I took a class in teaching methods, I was laughing inside during the whole class. The keywords and tricky phrases were mesmerizing (sp?).

A good teacher needs a piece of chalk, subject matter and the ability to make it interesting and a classroom of reasonable students. The internet and computers are tools...tools still need operators. A teacher that can understand how to show the relavance of what is being taught so students become infected with the desire to learn will not do that better with the internet or any other modern teaching method.

A true revolution in education in the US would require the culture to change. Until parents and students consider education of primary importance, we will have to deal with students' preferring Paris Hilton over Einstein. There will be no revolution. A bunch of wheel spinning, but no revolution.

glenn

[Jeff Corey]

...I bet I (or any good teacher) could teach any class (except hard science and math) as well as half the faculty in that department.

I think power points are good for presentations, but they ain't teaching.

Going on line, having video's(sic), digitalizing text books, it matters not. Til people accept the fact that not everyone's born equal in terms of ability to learn, we'll just keep scratching our heads wondering why half the kids are scoring below the median on some standardized test, even though we threw money and a new method at those kids scoring below the median...
Experimental psych is hard science. At least my students say so. And wondering why half the people score below the median is akin to Pres. Eisenhower wondering why half the people were below average IQ.
Except in Lake Wobegone.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

All the technology and teaching methods have not really changed the US education system.
By that, are you saying it has changed others?

A good teacher needs a piece of chalk, subject matter and the ability to make it interesting and a classroom of reasonable students. The internet and computers are tools...tools still need operators.
Right, teachers operate your new tools.

A teacher that can understand how to show the relavance of what is being taught so students become infected with the desire to learn will not do that better with the internet or any other modern teaching method.
They can reach more people. I learn from the programs on ch 13 all the time.

A true revolution in education in the US would require the culture to change.
That is not going to happen, the system likes things the way they are.

Until parents and students consider education of primary importance, we will have to deal with students' preferring Paris Hilton over Einstein. There will be no revolution. A bunch of wheel spinning, but no revolution.
Who would know about Paris Hilton without the television and computer? Children are learning through the tools that some in the school system say don't work. Redirect the camera and do what ch 13 does.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I asked you specifically who 'they' were. Who is it that you claim is the "powers that be". How did their 'plans' materialize on the ground to prevent an educational broadcasting initiative. (hint: there *was* an educational broadcasting initiative, but kids didn't learn well through assembly-line education).
The market economy is run on advertising. The "product" is "packaged" and sold to the masses. And that applies to anything they want to sell. "They" are people with interests, and the money (or access) to get it sold.



Mine don't. We don't have TV, and they find computer games boring. They're active kids, and if they're not doing homework wherever they find comfortable around the house, they're at sports or just plain outside goofing around, rain or shine. The thought of chaining them to a computer to do homework is depressing.
Many kids are into those things, and their numbers are sure to grow. No one wants you to chain them to anything.


There is a great deal of research on this, actually. It's not just a computer thing: the principle of 'learning games' is a hundred years old. The problem is that a lot of subject matter should not be taught in an entertainment format.
Problem solving can.


You're changing your criteria now. I do not personally endorse providing kids with an inferior education in order to reduce landfill mass. I will reduce my waste in other ways. That is my value judgement.

Regardless, this is 2007, and most textbooks are 100% post-consumer.

OTOH, if you *want* to do something that causes a billion books to be dumped in a landfill, legislate that they are obsolete and to be replaced by digital versions.
Well if the school system is replacing them as they locally see fit, they are not helping.

Plus: the lifespan of a computer is less than that of a book, and the materials aren't even *legal* to put in a landfill here in BC because they're so environmentally toxic.
You right about that, that's why those things should be standardized in schools too.

Nope. You completely, utterly, misunderstood what I said. These are teachers with software development and IT experience who had a budget to deploy equipment and titles as they saw fit for about ten years now as part of a pilot project in Vancouver School District. The school board has been supportive both financially and in terms of public relations (parents hate computers in class, because they associate it with gaming and porn.)
But teachers are being worn down that way. There was a program on 13 about it yesterday.





Dream on. Especially at the younger ages, kids just aren't interested. Fora have no appeal, since it's all words. My kids and their friends find computers very boring, and I'm glad for it. More good times sailing.
All those websites catering to them say so. I am talking about high school students in general.

Some of their peers are 'into computers' more, and almost without exception, they are futzing with commercial sites that have Flash games for stickiness. eg: the Smarties website, the Cheerios website, Oreos website... basically, they're entertained by commercials.
Those kids are being "educated" by those mediums, so they can teach if used right.

[Hindmost]

By that, are you saying it has changed others?

This is an international forum...when I only have knowledge realted to the US, I try to ensure I point that out in my posts.


Right, teachers operate your new tools..

I do not understand what you are trying to say with this statement. However, I was trying to say that all the technology in the world is not going to make students learn any better if the teacher is not competent. A good teacher doesn't need technology to teach.

They can reach more people. I learn from the programs on ch 13 all the time.

ch 13 is a Spanish news and entertainment channel on my cable.

That is not going to happen, the system likes things the way they are.

I don't know what you mean by "the system," but I am talking about apathetic students and parents that don't care about education. Until the culture changes where education is primary importance, the US education system will not change much.

Using phrases like "the system" and "the powers that be" are not going to help you make points on a subject here. We want hard evidence, not slogans. Please make your points more concise.

Who would know about Paris Hilton without the television and computer? Children are learning through the tools that some in the school system say don't work. Redirect the camera and do what ch 13 does.

Some students can learn by watching a video...most can't...they will fall asleep. It is extremely obvious that you have not been in the classroom teaching. Students can have very short attention spans and want to be entertained.

glenn

[athon]

Wow, you say, I guess I better "snap to". Yes sir!

Ah, now I see why you've got no idea what's going on. You get advice from somebody in the profession and you intentionally ignore it. You don't have to 'snap to'; it would be beneficial for you to pay attention to those of us informed in the industries you're talking about.

Fine if you don't. But you're really coming across like somebody who is creating opinions out of thin air.

Why is that going on?

As Hindmost is saying, all the technology in the world won't make a lick of difference if the teacher is incompetent. Monitoring educators is difficult to do as it is a 'closed door' profession. Teaching occurs mostly out of sight of other professionals, making it difficult to ascertain performance fairly and efficiently. Many teachers object to having constant assessment of their performance. Assessing student performance in evaluation of a teacher has been shown to not work.

The curriculum itself, in many cases, could work brilliantly yet fall apart at the last step where teachers have to implement it. Solutions are many but are hardly forthcoming in systems which undervalue educational professionals. The very fact you yourself feel you have a firm grasp on how education should be done is a classic example; effective pedagogy requires more than vague gut feelings and hot air.

Maybe you should do just that. Especially since I have said it serval times. Is that you being intentionally ignorant? I am talking about where it is not being done, if it works for you there, it gives weight to doing it here.

Somewhat hypocritical calling me 'ignorant', when you admittedly have no experience or knowledge of what you're talking about, and have already admitted to producing little but 'hot air' and have presented no evidence to back up what you're saying.

Again, your introverted view of the world does you injustice. Referring solely to the educational system, without defining the parameters, does not automatically mean the United States. Most nationalities on this board give such boundaries when discussing a particular national system. The US is not the default country when none are mentioned.

That said, I still have some experience of US curricula and as I've said, you're wrong in that technology has not been efficiently implemented.

I was right.

If you say so, chief, but reality doesn't change because you think it is a certain way. Meanwhile, your waffling does nothing but spread misinformation. Those of us in the industry know better.

See, you appear to have there, what should be done here.

And a great deal of what we have here is based on programs implemented in the US. :rolleyes: You really don't know what you're talking about.

From what you said here, I was right about the U.S. system, and sometimes hot air is all you need-at first. I have learned that others are doing things differently.

The differences don't lie so much in the programs and technology, but in the treatment of teachers, the infrastructure of the school system, opportunities offered to the students in terms of community links AND the inability to replace poor quality teachers (who teach using methods just like you are advocating).

Athon

[athon]

Some students can learn by watching a video...most can't...they will fall asleep. It is extremely obvious that you have not been in the classroom teaching. Students can have very short attention spans and want to be entertained.

glenn

No matter how many times this is said, he just won't accept it. There are professional educators on this board who know better and he still thinks he knows more than them.

A sad mix of ignorance and arrogance.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No matter how many times this is said, he just won't accept it. There are professional educators on this board who know better and he still thinks he knows more than them.

A sad mix of ignorance and arrogance.

Athon
And I am sitting here thinking the same thing about you. But I am going to really try my best and sort it out.
http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine
Here is a link saying all I am saying. Tell me if you agree with how "they" do things? And if you tell me that you feel powerless to change things, you are in the wrong profession. I just don't think a "can't do" attitude conveys the right spirit.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Ah, now I see why you've got no idea what's going on. You get advice from somebody in the profession and you intentionally ignore it. You don't have to 'snap to'; it would be beneficial for you to pay attention to those of us informed in the industries you're talking about.
It appears I am talking to the ones responsible for the way things are. You can take that as you want.

Fine if you don't. But you're really coming across like somebody who is creating opinions out of thin air.
I told you, I have a good feeling about this one. I know the U.S. system is failing in places and not in others. I know there is a textbook shortage because I lived it, and I figured it didn't go away. I know that greed is behind most of the failures in our system. The richest nation on the planet has the money, someone has to be either using it wrong, or keeping it. I know that people can do anything they set their mind to, the colleges here are among the best in the world, so it has to be something the schools are doing. I bet you that I can find evidence of all that, and if I got it out of thin air, I must be psychic.


As Hindmost is saying, all the technology in the world won't make a lick of difference if the teacher is incompetent. Monitoring educators is difficult to do as it is a 'closed door' profession. Teaching occurs mostly out of sight of other professionals, making it difficult to ascertain performance fairly and efficiently. Many teachers object to having constant assessment of their performance. Assessing student performance in evaluation of a teacher has been shown to not work.
Let us open the door, its not magic, what some of them are doing is not working.


The curriculum itself, in many cases, could work brilliantly yet fall apart at the last step where teachers have to implement it. Solutions are many but are hardly forthcoming in systems which undervalue educational professionals.

Yeah, yeah, teachers are heroes, as are fireman, policemen, soldiers etc. Is it just me or do the professions want more pats on the back lately?

The very fact you yourself feel you have a firm grasp on how education should be done is a classic example; effective pedagogy requires more than vague gut feelings and hot air.
Find a method and stick with it. How about keeping the textbook geared towards the other method, in case they want to switch back.


Somewhat hypocritical calling me 'ignorant', when you admittedly have no experience or knowledge of what you're talking about, and have already admitted to producing little but 'hot air' and have presented no evidence to back up what you're saying.
But I produced the link, and know I can do that some more, but why would I need to, you know they are there.

That said, I still have some experience of US curricula and as I've said, you're wrong in that technology has not been efficiently implemented.
No surprise there.


And a great deal of what we have here is based on programs implemented in the US. :rolleyes: You really don't know what you're talking about.
The internet also came from here, but you say that others are using it in their schools.


The differences don't lie so much in the programs and technology, but in the treatment of teachers, the infrastructure of the school system, opportunities offered to the students in terms of community links AND the inability to replace poor quality teachers (who teach using methods just like you are advocating).

Athon
That is part of it, but I think that better use of the available technology would help. Here in the U.S.

[athon]

And I am sitting here thinking the same thing about you.

The difference is I have knowledge and experience in the industry. You have admittedly nothing.

I have no idea what you do for a living (if anything), yet if I stepped up and made claims on it which sounded misinformed, I assure you that you would object and do your best to give me an informed point of view.

But I am going to really try my best and sort it out.

Based on what you've said so far, you have no desire to learn more about the issue. Your mind is made on based on misinformation already. Other than search for material which will help you maintain your current position, there's not much more I feel you're willing to do.

http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine
Here is a link saying all I am saying. Tell me if you agree with how "they" do things? And if you tell me that you feel powerless to change things, you are in the wrong profession. I just don't think a "can't do" attitude conveys the right spirit.

You use George Lucas's foundation as your main source? Good gods, no wonder you're lost. Not a bad little collective, but it's no more a respectable educational journal than New Scientist is for science.

So you've found an author who is also calling for changes to how text books are written. So what? He says little about ICT, and simply recommends adapting resources in order to being able to:

...let teachers assemble their own curricula from numerous individual sources instead of forcing them to rely on single comprehensive packages from national textbook factories. We can't have a different curriculum in every classroom, of course, but surely there's a way to achieve coherence without stultification.

I agree with him 100%. I find it hard to believe that this author isn't aware of these changes, considering the fact that such programs in Australia and the UK are often born in the US after being modelled and studied in US schools, and Australia has recently started to export a number of ICT resources to the US. I can only say that the article, while not incorrect, insinuates that the change has yet to commence in spite of the fact that numerous examples of such differentiation exist. It does take time to sink through the layers of the system and for older educators to retire and new ones - familiar with this approach - to take over. The US is further inhibited by limited communication through the various state systems, with a coordinated set of national standards lacking. But for him to think he is calling for a revolution is ludicrous.

Text books and technology and all forms of resource are tools which should be selectively applied throughout a curriculum, which the article calls for. Again, this is acknowledged in pedagogy universally and is being implemented.

Athon

[athon]

It appears I am talking to the ones responsible for the way things are. You can take that as you want.

Evidence that 'we' are responsible for a lack of technology? Or more hot air?

I told you, I have a good feeling about this one.*snip*

Nothing past this is relevant if you have no evidence. Your 'good feeling' has nothing on my 'good feeling', other than the fact I have experience in the field.

What do you have?

Yeah, yeah, teachers are heroes, as are fireman, policemen, soldiers etc. Is it just me or do the professions want more pats on the back lately?

When did I ask for a pat on the back? I said educational professionals are undervalued, as your armchair judging is demonstrating. I tell you what, next time you're sick and you go to the doctor, tell him or her how to do their job, too. I'm sure they'll be most impressed.

Find a method and stick with it. How about keeping the textbook geared towards the other method, in case they want to switch back.

What does this mean? I say you've got nothing but hot air and gut feelings, and you respond with this?

I guess you've run out of things to say.

But I produced the link, and know I can do that some more, but why would I need to, you know they are there.

Ah, I see; when you're losing the debate, start to lie. Well, luckily the evidence stands in the posts in this thread. Again, you've got nothing. Insinuating that effective ICT application is absent in any US system demands evidence which you haven't provided. Asking me to provide it is ludicrous. There is none.

The internet also came from here, but you say that others are using it in their schools.

Non sequitor argument, mate, so try again. This time, take some time to consider what you're saying. We're not arguing whether other schools are using technology that originated in the US. They are, and we both accept that. You're arguing that the US isn't using ICT - that has been established in US schools and we base our programs on - in education at all.

That is part of it, but I think that better use of the available technology would help. Here in the U.S.

Your examples of how you would like to see it better implemented have so far been laughable. Videos and PDF text books? Got any more than that?

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Evidence that 'we' are responsible for a lack of technology? Or more hot air?
Evidence of what a "can't do" "me right" attitude can do to change. Even while you admit change is needed, and that what I am talking about is being used elsewhere.



Nothing past this is relevant if you have no evidence.
But you know the technology is being under used, you said so. Textbooks making is a circus of waste. Students are using and learning from the technology, you know these things, you just don't think you can do anything about them.

Your 'good feeling' has nothing on my 'good feeling', other than the fact I have experience in the field.
What good has that been doing? I wouldn't be saying anything if you "experts" were producing. And if you are from a place where they are, I am not talking about you. If you are talking to me, you are defending the U.S. system. So don't go jumping back across the pond fence when you need to cloud a point.



What do you have?
The right, and the need, to question what is happening at the expense of children.


When did I ask for a pat on the back? I said educational professionals are undervalued, as your armchair judging is demonstrating.
The only problem I have is where they are not using the technology that their target audience is.


I tell you what, next time you're sick and you go to the doctor, tell him or her how to do their job, too. I'm sure they'll be most impressed.
I expect him to do his job to the best of his ability, you know, like all of us "heroes".


What does this mean? I say you've got nothing but hot air and gut feelings, and you respond with this?
I was right. You seem to think that only those "in the field" have eyes.

I guess you've run out of things to say.
Sometimes I wish that that were possible... I really do.


Ah, I see; when you're losing the debate, start to lie. Well, luckily the evidence stands in the posts in this thread. Again, you've got nothing. Insinuating that effective ICT application is absent in any US system demands evidence which you haven't provided.
So you are adding that I said "not in any U.S...." show me where I said that? It is you who have been twisting things.

Asking me to provide it is ludicrous. There is none.
None? Or are you saying that unless I provide it it isn't there?


Non sequitor argument, mate, so try again. This time, take some time to consider what you're saying. We're not arguing whether other schools are using technology that originated in the US. They are, and we both accept that. You're arguing that the US isn't using ICT - that has been established in US schools and we base our programs on - in education at all.
Now show me where I said that?


Your examples of how you would like to see it better implemented have so far been laughable. Videos and PDF text books? Got any more than that?
Channel 13 seems to think that videos work. And it is an educational channel here.
Your defense of the way things are, while at the same time saying that change is needed is laughable. You say the teacher is the key, but the teacher says that parents are, so they send home a larger homework assignment. When the parents kick in, and the student improves, the system gets the credit, all the while calling on the parent to do more. Those heroes rarely get a pat on the back.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I do not understand what you are trying to say with this statement. However, I was trying to say that all the technology in the world is not going to make students learn any better if the teacher is not competent. A good teacher doesn't need technology to teach.
Technology can be made to help much more than it is.

I don't know what you mean by "the system," but I am talking about apathetic students and parents that don't care about education.
Something turns them into that. We know that both teachers and students start off fine, what changed their mind?

Until the culture changes where education is primary importance, the US education system will not change much.
Okay, how do you do that?

Using phrases like "the system" and "the powers that be" are not going to help you make points on a subject here. We want hard evidence, not slogans. Please make your points more concise.
Some type of shorthand has to be used.

Some students can learn by watching a video...most can't...they will fall asleep.
Those type stay awake for those games. They may have to be reached through there.

It is extremely obvious that you have not been in the classroom teaching. Students can have very short attention spans and want to be entertained.
Yeah, that is why they watch tv, use computers, and readily adapt to any technology (or circumstances) presented them.
glenn[/quote]

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Okay, this is a link that has the GAO talking about the practices of publishers being behind the rising cost of textbooks.
http://www.maketextbooksaffordable.org/newsroom.asp?id2=18610

[Hindmost]

Light

I am going to bow out of this thread as it is not going anyplace. However, I recommend that you get fully involved with a high school or some other school and see what is happening. Observation from a distance does not provide the answers. There is no panacea in education--good teachers are still the cornerstone of education. Poor teachers are a very real problem--but technology is not going to make an education system better or make a bad teacher good. Example: Labs in my class were done with logger pro technology--however, the technology did not help the students analyze and draw conclusions from the data nor writeup those observations in a reasonable lab report.

When I talk about apathetic students and parents, this is from direct observation. Things I have seen:

Students' grades changed by administration so they don't get kicked off a sports team. Accomodation is better than litigation.

Parents argueing why they should be allowed to call students during class on a cell phone.

10 parents out of 100 students coming to parent teacher conferences.

Parents telling me not to give homework because their son/daughter needs to work--but don't count it against them.

Parents argueing why their daughter should be allowed to dress in clothes that leave absolutely nothing to the imagination.

I could go on...

glenn

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Light

I am going to bow out of this thread as it is not going anyplace. However, I recommend that you get fully involved with a high school or some other school and see what is happening. Observation from a distance does not provide the answers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I have about what I need.

There is no panacea in education--good teachers are still the cornerstone of education. Poor teachers are a very real problem--but technology is not going to make an education system better or make a bad teacher good.
I never said technology was a panacea, nor railed about replacing teachers. I believe that technology will help, if you don't, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Example: Labs in my class were done with logger pro technology--however, the technology did not help the students analyze and draw conclusions from the data nor writeup those observations in a reasonable lab report.
A bad example can always be countered with a good one.

When I talk about apathetic students and parents, this is from direct observation. Things I have seen:
Yeah, I have seen that. It don't take much, and you forgot to add teachers to the list of the apathetic. I say that since at least two of the three start out with a good attitude towards school and learning, what do you think makes them apathetic?

Students' grades changed by administration so they don't get kicked off a sports team. Accomodation is better than litigation.

Parents argueing why they should be allowed to call students during class on a cell phone.

10 parents out of 100 students coming to parent teacher conferences.

Parents telling me not to give homework because their son/daughter needs to work--but don't count it against them.

Parents argueing why their daughter should be allowed to dress in clothes that leave absolutely nothing to the imagination.

I could go on...

glenn
I'm sure you can, because your list only included bad things about students and parents, we still have teachers, method, lack of materials, etc to go. You are voicing the things you think are most urgent, and i'm doing the same.

[athon]

Thanks for the recommendation, but I have about what I need.

And for this reason, I'm also stepping out. Those who read this thread will see that Light has nothing to offer and has no wish to actually learn anything about what they're talking about.

Admitting you're unwilling to actually investigate any closer to the actual core of the issue because you honestly believe you have all the information you could possibly need is the height of arrogance. While you play in your pseudo-intellectual world, some of us are actually doing something.

Sleep tight.

Athon

[Hindmost]

Thanks for the recommendation, but I have about what I need.

I never said technology was a panacea, nor railed about replacing teachers. I believe that technology will help, if you don't, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

A bad example can always be countered with a good one.

Yeah, I have seen that. It don't take much, and you forgot to add teachers to the list of the apathetic. I say that since at least two of the three start out with a good attitude towards school and learning, what do you think makes them apathetic?

I'm sure you can, because your list only included bad things about students and parents, we still have teachers, method, lack of materials, etc to go. You are voicing the things you think are most urgent, and i'm doing the same.

since you asked a question, I will answer it.

What makes students, parents (and teachers) apathetic...a difficult question. Much of it is due to the inability of seeing the long term benefits of an education. Students have a difficult time grasping how learning as a teenager can benefit their quality of life in the future. This would be compounded by bad teachers and parents that don't feel an education is really that important--especially if they have been successful and felt high school was not necessary. In the end, 75% of students look back on high school wishing they would have worked harder. Good teachers and parents that put education as a primary family goal tend to push the scales in the correct direction--but nothing is 100%. There is much more to this.

The reason I listed the "bad things" was to show how the culture surrounding education in the US needs change...when 90 of 100 parents show up for parent teacher conferences, then I would feel the culture has improved. I could give examples of great parents and great students.

glenn

[NobbyNobbs]

I know somewhat about what is happening here.

And just what do you know about it? Are you a teacher, publisher, copy editor, or author?

I goggled the costs of textbooks, and they say $600 to $800 per book, and that the costs are affecting whether or not students have books. How's that for a feeling? Should we look into how they justify that amount?

I'd love to know where you got this figure. In college, my texts cost me between $50 and $120. As a teacher, I got books for my students for $15.




In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

Some teaching can be done with video. Most can't. And apparently, what you consider to be teaching is actually just "throw information at the child and hope it sticks". This is what a video does. This is not teaching.

So while the information prints out the same, a process has been added to make it differcult. Nonprofessionals should have very little say in the presentation of the basics. They are basic.


Once again, are you a professional in the field? An educator, a publisher, an author? If so, please state your credentials. If not, according to you, you should have very little say in the presentation of the basics.

Step back, and leave it to us professionals. :D


I don't need education theory to know that children learn from video.


Flat out wrong. Some children can learn from video some of the time. Many students are verbal learners. Even more are kinesthetic learners, and there's absolutely nothing a video can do for those.

What are you huffing about? They don't change that much in five years. And if all the technology has been routinely thrown out, it has changed barely at all.

As you stated above, you don't know much about education theory. How, then, can you make this statement? We're not talking about the basics of mathematics changing, we're talking about how it is taught changing.

And yes, it often changes every 5 years. Often faster, in fact.

Are you telling me that english, math and history change so much in five years that the entire book has to be rewritten? History would need to be "updated" but not too much the others.


Yes.

The facts generally don't change (although new archaeological digs are discovered, and new books are written). But often either the way they are taught change, or the decision as to which facts should be taught change.

Teachers may be the best method, and they admit to being in trouble. Maybe we should send in 2nd and 3rd best too. There are some subjects that can be taught well with the help of video.
/QUOTE]

With the help of, perhaps. As a support device to, say, a teacher, classroom, and textbook.

[QUOTE=lightcreatedlife@hom;2882336]

They can reach more people. I learn from the programs on ch 13 all the time.


Does channel 13 happen to carry any programs about educational theory? If one comes on, maybe you should watch it.



Channel 13 seems to think that videos work. And it is an educational channel here.

Of course channel 13 says that. They are in the video business. Do you expect them to say, "What are you doing sitting here watching TV? Go read a book!"

(Which, by the way, is one of the things I love about the PBS program ZOOM. They always say, if you see something you like, turn off the TV and try it. My kids often do.)

[Jeff Corey]

...I'd love to know where you got this figure. In college, my texts cost me between $50 and $120. As a teacher, I got books for my students for $15...
...Some teaching can be done with video. Most can't. And apparently, what you consider to be teaching is actually just "throw information at the child and hope it sticks". This is what a video does. This is not teaching...

Good points. I was wondering where the $600 to $800 came from. My students typically pay around $80 for new texts. Pre-meds typically pay more.
I'm using Gilovich's "How we know what isn't so" in Critical Thinking. $20 at the bookstore, less on Amazon.
As to videos, when I have access to a "smart" classroom, I can show clips of tapes, DVDs or websites like Utube or "Visual Illusions". Integrated with other activities (like the ones demonstrated at TAM1 and 2) and frequent testing, they can make important points and maintain interest.

[drkitten]

Good points. I was wondering where the $600 to $800 came from.

The same place most of his observations come from, I fear.

"And now, our staff proctologist, Dr. Fudgepack, will take you on a tour of light's library...."

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

since you asked a question, I will answer it.

What makes students, parents (and teachers) apathetic...a difficult question. Much of it is due to the inability of seeing the long term benefits of an education. Students have a difficult time grasping how learning as a teenager can benefit their quality of life in the future. This would be compounded by bad teachers and parents that don't feel an education is really that important--especially if they have been successful and felt high school was not necessary. In the end, 75% of students look back on high school wishing they would have worked harder. Good teachers and parents that put education as a primary family goal tend to push the scales in the correct direction--but nothing is 100%. There is much more to this.
There must be. Lots of teachers start out eager to get going, later its eager to either get away, or get through it. Children start off with the words "what's that" written across their face. And while what you say has merit, how the school gets things done has some to do with it, I think it produces boredom. Videoized some of the lesson plan, make it entertaining. Package it "to go".


The reason I listed the "bad things" was to show how the culture surrounding education in the US needs change...when 90 of 100 parents show up for parent teacher conferences, then I would feel the culture has improved. I could give examples of great parents and great students.

glenn
Getting 90 out of 100 parents is simply not going to happen, another way has to be found. Do you get those numbers where you are? And if you don't, why isn't your system failing like ours?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The same place most of his observations come from, I fear.

"And now, our staff proctologist, Dr. Fudgepack, will take you on a tour of light's library...."
This is where I got those prices, and there are plenty more saying the same thing, but either me, or my computer, won't let me bring more than one of them at a time. No matter, I will be glad to do it, that way you would be able to see how many of them there are. Only, I have no idea how you could possibly have missed them. Everyone seems to think the textbook industry is out of whack, except here.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cheap/20040810a1.asp

I found a good one where students were trying to use the same books year after year and the publishers changed around some of the pages so that they had to get a whole new book.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

ETV14 Decrease the Cost of K-12 Textbooks


Summary
California schools are facing two issues regarding textbook acquisition: availability and cost. More than half a million students do not have textbooks to use in class and approximately two million students cannot take textbooks home to do homework.[1] (http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/etv/etv14.htm#1b) School textbook prices have risen alarmingly in recent years. Depending on the subject, a single elementary textbook can range in price from $30 to $100. Legislation should be enacted to reduce the cost of K-12 school textbooks.

This statement from the web points out what I was saying before, if students can take books home because there are not enough of them, they can't do homework-even if they wanted to.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Good points. I was wondering where the $600 to $800 came from. My students typically pay around $80 for new texts. Pre-meds typically pay more.
I'm using Gilovich's "How we know what isn't so" in Critical Thinking. $20 at the bookstore, less on Amazon.

Even I think that $600 to $800 can't be the norm, and I rounded them down, it was actually $642. What I was mostly refering to is students and teachers saying they were too high, I believe them. That and the fact that business often want more than a fair price.

As to videos, when I have access to a "smart" classroom, I can show clips of tapes, DVDs or websites like Utube or "Visual Illusions". Integrated with other activities (like the ones demonstrated at TAM1 and 2) and frequent testing, they can make important points and maintain interest.
That's what I am talking about. You can come at them from serval relate directions. Even a videotape of you doing "your thing" would convey some of the orginal intent.
Okay, all districts afford smart classrooms, but a model to be copied has to be made. And this is a rich country with a lot of wasted money, make it find the money needed. The textbook industry is an easy target, and they deserve it.

[Jeff Corey]

I goggled the costs of textbooks, and they say $600 to $800 per book...
You didn't read your source closely. They say all books ("annual cost") . That means "per year", not "per book".

F

[NobbyNobbs]

This is where I got those prices, and there are plenty more saying the same thing, but either me, or my computer, won't let me bring more than one of them at a time. No matter, I will be glad to do it, that way you would be able to see how many of them there are. Only, I have no idea how you could possibly have missed them. Everyone seems to think the textbook industry is out of whack, except here.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cheap/20040810a1.asp

I found a good one where students were trying to use the same books year after year and the publishers changed around some of the pages so that they had to get a whole new book.

That $642 figure you are quoting is not the price of a textbook. It is the price of a year's worth of textbooks for a college student. Read the article carefully. It took me about 3 seconds to notice that.

Considering that a college student probably takes about 5 classes at a time, that's 10 classes over the course of a year, at $600 that's $60 a text...actually not such a bad price for a college text. I think it's fairly reasonable.

[Jeff Corey]

Well, great minds post alike. Not that I believe in "minds", mind you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And just what do you know about it? Are you a teacher, publisher, copy editor, or author?
I guess if you put it that way, i'm... nobody. But I went to school, saw and felt the teachering experience. And since it has not changed all that much (except for the security) yeah, I have an idea. I know what sharing (or not being able to take home) textbooks can do. My refresher course came from sheparding family through the system, registering, trips, trouble visits, (including summer school) and dealing with the loads of homework they very recently started bringing home.


Some teaching can be done with video. Most can't.
I think half can. Feel free to disagree.

And apparently, what you consider to be teaching is actually just "throw information at the child and hope it sticks".
I say throw it till it sticks. That is the beauty of "rewind".

This is what a video does. This is not teaching.
If you learn from video, it taught you.


Step back, and leave it to us professionals. :D
I have been, that is not working.


Flat out wrong. Some children can learn from video some of the time. Many students are verbal learners. Even more are kinesthetic learners, and there's absolutely nothing a video can do for those.
Use it where you can. I know it is the only (practical) way to take a teacher home.

As you stated above, you don't know much about education theory. How, then, can you make this statement? We're not talking about the basics of mathematics changing, we're talking about how it is taught changing.
Stop doing so much of that, use what worked best. We ain't got the money for you to fiddle with everything that comes into your head year after year.

And yes, it often changes every 5 years. Often faster, in fact.
Stop it. I think the same method is used to keep the system in a state of confusion. For the economy their is a federal head that guides it, for the education system someone comes in every 6 years to change how things are done. Them a president or two, the "No Child Left Behind" program is a joke.

The facts generally don't change (although new archaeological digs are discovered, and new books are written). But often either the way they are taught change, or the decision as to which facts should be taught change.
Stop doing so much of that. You say you are an expert, read "the theory" and all, find something, and stick with it.


With the help of, perhaps. As a support device to, say, a teacher, classroom, and textbook.
Fine, it can only enhance the experience, and allow the teacher to be taken home.

Of course channel 13 says that. They are in the video business. Do you expect them to say, "What are you doing sitting here watching TV? Go read a book!"
They can't be worst then the textbook industry, a vcr can easily copy them.
And what about those who learn through video?

[Z]

Well, I don't know what all the hubbub is about. My son is virtual-schooled, through the K12 program. They sent him a computer, some text books, some varied materials, and the majority of lessons, worksheets, etc. are on-line.

The total weight of his entire year's physical materials, not counting the computer and whatever physical materials we need to supply (like paper, printer ink, etc.), is less than my max lifting weight, as I carried the boxes in the house.

I'd say the way he's schooled is entirely revolutionary.

http://ohva.net

[Z]

Why do you want education to stagnate and become immutable, LCL?

[NobbyNobbs]

I guess if you put it that way, i'm... nobody. But I went to school, saw and felt the teachering experience. And since it has not changed all that much (except for the security) yeah, I have an idea. I know what sharing (or not being able to take home) textbooks can do. My refresher course came from sheparding family through the system, registering, trips, trouble visits, (including summer school) and dealing with the loads of homework they very recently started bringing home.

On the one hand, you say that the decision-making process should be left to the professionals. On the other hand, without any experience whatsoever as a teacher, administrator, publisher, or author, you propose to revolutionize the educational system. So which statement would you like to retract?




I say throw it till it sticks. That is the beauty of "rewind".

No matter how much educational theory changes, I think you'll find there's one thing that remains constant: educators agree that "throw it till it sticks" is just about the worst way to teach.

If you learn from video, it taught you.

Bolding mine. Not everyone learns visually. In fact, not even a majority do. The last figure I saw claims about a third.

And to be honest, even those who do learn visually do not learn best visually. the best way to learn anything is a fairly even distribution of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning.


Use it where you can. I know it is the only (practical) way to take a teacher home.

Actually, the best way to take a teacher home is for the parents to get involved.

Stop doing so much of that, use what worked best. We ain't got the money for you to fiddle with everything that comes into your head year after year.

Just as scientific theories change, what works best changes too. Same is true in most disciplines. Are you suggesting that psychiatrists, sociologists, etc. not use the latest and most improved methods? Then what's the point of progress?

Stop it. I think the same method is used to keep the system in a state of confusion. For the economy their is a federal head that guides it, for the education system someone comes in every 6 years to change how things are done. Them a president or two, the "No Child Left Behind" program is a joke.

Case in point. NCLB was created by politicians, not educators. That's why it doesn't work.

Stop doing so much of that. You say you are an expert, read "the theory" and all, find something, and stick with it.

Again, theories change. See above.


They can't be worst then the textbook industry, a vcr can easily copy them.
And what about those who learn through video?

So I guess that those who can learn through video were hopelessly lost and ignorant before the invention of video?

Besides, even if you taught everything through technology....technology changes too. The kids spend money on the videos...and then lessons are released on DVDs. The kids spend money on DVDs, and the lessons are released on Blu-Ray. Buy that, and in 5 or 10 years you'll have to spend money on the holographic whatnot that will certainly come about.

Textbooks oir technology, money still needs to be spent.

[Joppy]

LCL, I am not clear as to what the goal of this revolution should be. Over the thread you seemed to have jumped from different positions. First you say the system should eliminate textbooks. Then you say textbooks should be subsituted with computer textbooks. Can you describe this vision you have for a new schooling system. Maybe then this thread can move on.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

LCL, I am not clear as to what the goal of this revolution should be. Over the thread you seemed to have jumped from different positions. First you say the system should eliminate textbooks. Then you say textbooks should be subsituted with computer textbooks. Can you describe this vision you have for a new schooling system. Maybe then this thread can move on.
I said nothing about eliminating textbooks, or teachers. I wanted to know why computers have not made it far. As for textbooks, I wanted to standardized them enough so that what they are teaching can be put the web. Both to save money and improve access.
With them on the web it would allow the lesson to be taken home without the need for a textbook to make the trip. Especially since many can't. Through the video of the internet, good teachers should be able to reach more people than are actually sitting in front of them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Why do you want education to stagnate and become immutable, LCL?
Where did I say anything about any of that?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, I don't know what all the hubbub is about. My son is virtual-schooled, through the K12 program. They sent him a computer, some text books, some varied materials, and the majority of lessons, worksheets, etc. are on-line.

The total weight of his entire year's physical materials, not counting the computer and whatever physical materials we need to supply (like paper, printer ink, etc.), is less than my max lifting weight, as I carried the boxes in the house.

I'd say the way he's schooled is entirely revolutionary.

http://ohva.net
How did it compare to the traditional education? Did it allow him to move along faster?

[athon]

With them on the web it would allow the lesson to be taken home without the need for a textbook to make the trip. Especially since many can't.

Tempted as I am to stay away, there are some statements too ignorant to ignore.

I have to ask; what of the percentage of students who have no internet access at home?

Through the video of the internet, good teachers should be able to reach more people than are actually sitting in front of them.

Why are you ignoring what we're telling you about the relative ineffectiveness of pure video education? Repetition on your behalf isn't making it true.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Tempted as I am to stay away, there are some statements too ignorant to ignore.
Give me a break why don't yuh. That way I can give you one. Why I got to be ignorant? Even thinking that textbooks went for $642 apiece does not make me that-at least not technically.

I have to ask; what of the percentage of students who have no internet access at home?
I'll guess 20% (even though many more of them have web access) and that does not scare me. That is because if the high school course was on the web, it could give parents incentive to get their kids there. Like that guy who got the course off the net, some parents may opt to put their child through the course themselves, knowing it would have real impact because they gave them the same course.


Why are you ignoring what we're telling you about the relative ineffectiveness of pure video education?
It only seems that way to you. Somehow, no matter what I say, you want to believe that I am talking about "pure video education". I said it can help, mostly by making the course mobile.

[athon]

Why I got to be ignorant?

I can't say why you are. But since you've had quite a few people who have personal experience in the field, tell you that you're mistaken on your inferences and assumptions, and you still feel you've got it right, I can come to no other conclusion that you are wilfully ignoring the offered advice. Hence are ignorant.

I'll guess 20% (even though many more of them have web access) and that does not scare me. That is because if the high school course was on the web, it could give parents incentive to get their kids there.

To get their kids the internet? What makes you think that low income families could magically find the funds then? Or that parents who didn't care previously about taking some responsibility for their kids education would change their mind now?

It only seems that way to you. Somehow, no matter what I say, you want to believe that I am talking about "pure video education". I said it can help, mostly by making the course mobile.

Then I have no idea what you're suggesting. You've said text books should be replaced by PDF type files on the internet; there are numerous net-based resources which serve better than simple downloaded text files. Yet you still think this deserves a 'revolution'. You suggest that video could replace teaching in some instances, which is poor education if used to replace interaction. There are actually a number of useful video files for download on the net, which are extremely useful in supplementing classwork. However, they still cannot replace interactive teaching in any way.

You wonder why you're being picked on, but your only contributions have either been of things already in existence or things that wouldn't work. And your reasoning has been admittedly all based on nothing but conjecture without any real experience or knowledge of the system in place. If you demonstrated some appreciation of what others know, I might have some sympathy. The only thing I can agree with you on is that more teachers need to utilise technology in their classroom. However this is not a fault of the system as much as an evolving trend that is slowly being taken up.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote]I have to ask; what of the percentage of students who have no internet access at home?
I read the U.S. has 200 million of the wrold's 308 million users.

[Z]

Where did I say anything about any of that?


As you stated above, you don't know much about education theory. How, then, can you make this statement? We're not talking about the basics of mathematics changing, we're talking about how it is taught changing.
Stop doing so much of that, use what worked best. We ain't got the money for you to fiddle with everything that comes into your head year after year.
And yes, it often changes every 5 years. Often faster, in fact.
Stop it. I think the same method is used to keep the system in a state of confusion. For the economy their is a federal head that guides it, for the education system someone comes in every 6 years to change how things are done. Them a president or two, the "No Child Left Behind" program is a joke.
The facts generally don't change (although new archaeological digs are discovered, and new books are written). But often either the way they are taught change, or the decision as to which facts should be taught change.
Stop doing so much of that. You say you are an expert, read "the theory" and all, find something, and stick with it.

You're promoting stagnancy.

[Z]

How did it compare to the traditional education? Did it allow him to move along faster?

He's already a year ahead in school, and two years ahead in mathematics. His education is far more thorough and enjoyable. And without suffering the usual distractions of the social dynamic of the average brick-and-mortar school, he's able to truly focus on his academics.

Plus, if he has a bad day, we can stop and take a break, and make it up on Saturday or Sunday or a holiday or Spring Break... and if he's on a roll, say, in History class, we can knock out a month's worth of class in a few hours. The flexibility is magnificent.

Plus, if there are changes to the texts or updates (like demoting Pluto to dwarf planet, etc.), they can adjust the classwork within a few hours to reflect those changes.

OHVA is higher-rated than any of the public schools around Cincinnati. Personally, I attribute their success to a highly dynamic, instantly adjustable internet-based curriculum - truly, a revolutionary education system that breaks the traditional boundaries of the old-school classroom.

Viva La Revolucion!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I can't say why you are. But since you've had quite a few people who have personal experience in the field, tell you that you're mistaken on your inferences and assumptions, and you still feel you've got it right, I can come to no other conclusion that you are wilfully ignoring the offered advice. Hence are ignorant.
So either I agree with what was told me or I am ignorant? I can't just hold another view?



To get their kids the internet? What makes you think that low income families could magically find the funds then?
After school programs could provide access, and the library already does.



Or that parents who didn't care previously about taking some responsibility for their kids education would change their mind now?
It would be easy.


Then I have no idea what you're suggesting. You've said text books should be replaced by PDF type files on the internet; there are numerous net-based resources which serve better than simple downloaded text files. Yet you still think this deserves a 'revolution'.
If focused it could.

You suggest that video could replace teaching in some instances, which is poor education if used to replace interaction. There are actually a number of useful video files for download on the net, which are extremely useful in supplementing classwork. However, they still cannot replace interactive teaching in any way.
Who said I wanted to?
Computers can provide a type of interaction.



You wonder why you're being picked on, but your only contributions have either been of things already in existence
I asked why weren't they being used more.

or things that wouldn't work.
care to try again?


And your reasoning has been admittedly all based on nothing but conjecture without any real experience or knowledge of the system in place.
So are you now argueing for the U.S. system? Should I go back and see how many times we came together on a point?

The only thing I can agree with you on is that more teachers need to utilise technology in their classroom.
And that textbooks are overpriced because of the way they are made.
And that children can learn through video.
And that the system needs help-of which I am trying to do. Perhaps not the way the system wants me to.
"I am the expert, just do as I say, we don't need your input."
"Then why are you asking for help"?

However this is not a fault of the system as much as an evolving trend that is slowly being taken up.

Athon
Speed it up, increase demand would do that.

[athon]

I read the U.S. has 200 million of the wrold's 308 million users.

Without challenging the actual statistics here, how is this relevant? How does this demographic break down? What percentage of households in the US have internet access? I'll go further to suggest that often it's low socio-economic communities which suffer in being able to send students to well resourced schools, and who themselves have a reduced percentage of households with internet access.

Athon

[athon]

Let's look at what you've said from the beginning:

Computers were suppose to be available to most students,

Wrong: they are. Most schools have computers available.

connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them

Most do, and use them well. Admittedly a percentage remain behind the times, but this is improving constantly.

and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need

Wrong. Still no evidence on this other than 'gut feeling'.

even though it is making good profits.

Wrong, and explained why it's wrong.

Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.

This is worded as if it is universal, making it wrong. While some schools might well have this problem, many do not. And again, this is increasing.

Provide a percentage if you wish to back this up.

No one said anything about everything being done over the internet, it would be another resource. Like if the textbook is on the school site, a child with access would not always need to take the book home. Email would give parents contact with the class, and teachers with them.

Wrong. Again, not all parents have access due to financial or motivational restrictions.

That which is presented by Wiki could be validated in a system where from year to year one class improves the conditions for the next. Such a thing would also help Wiki grow.

A number of such wikis exist already. The ones we use are based on ones implemented already in US schools.

When we took tests, all we had to do is insert it into the computer, saving the teacher loads of time. That was 20 years ago. I have been wondering what is taking stuff like that so long to catch on.

An example of a poor way of evaluating progress. Reading and addressing critical thinking skills cannot be done effectively by a computer reading. There is no constructive feedback this way. That's why it isn't being done universally in schools. This is one example of a poor suggestion.

In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

You have no qualifications on this suggestion, making me believe you feel it is an adequate replacement for standard teaching. This is a second example of a poor suggestion.

No child would be without access to a textbook, if the school were able to print what it wanted from the net.

The school would still have to purchase online licenses for the text book (to pay those who write them) and cover printing costs (paper and ink, as you point out by saying yourself 'and paper isn't cheap. The tree and the enivorment say no. I heard that most of the trash in landfills is paper.). In the end, this is actually comparable in cost with purchasing textbooks. This is a third poor suggestion for that reason.

I don't need education theory to know that children learn from video. I am not talking about replacing teachers with video (at least not all of them) but a video of the class can't hurt. Some students don't ask questions, for them "rewind" would come in handy.

The bold part is the part of concern - you would still replace some teachers with a video and suggest that some students would learn as well without interacting.

I could go on, but I think this suffices for the moment. Clearly your argument has no merit.

To answer your last post:

So either I agree with what was told me or I am ignorant? I can't just hold another view?

If you go to a mechanic and he says 'your car needs oil', and you say 'well, my gut feeling based on nothing more than assumption is that it doesn't', I think it is an ignorant decision. Sure, you're entitled in either case to ignore the advice given, but given the weight of the information it makes for poor evaluation skills on your behalf.

Who said I wanted to?

You did. See above quote.

Computers can provide a type of interaction.

You're talking about videos, as I again quoted above.

And that textbooks are overpriced because of the way they are made.
Wrong
And that children can learn through video.
Can learn if video is correctly used in conjunction with interaction
And that the system needs help-of which I am trying to do. Perhaps not the way the system wants me to.
The system doesn't need help like the sort you're offering
"I am the expert, just do as I say, we don't need your input."
I am the expert - I am happy to discuss this using relevant and accurate information
"Then why are you asking for help"?
Who's asking for help?


Athon

[NobbyNobbs]

So either I agree with what was told me or I am ignorant? I can't just hold another view?

Other views are more than welcome...as long as they are well-informed. An opinion with no facts to back it up is just about worthless.







It would be easy.

If it would be easy, then why isn't it happening now? Why would the availability of online textbooks suddenly make these parents care?


Computers can provide a type of interaction.

Yes. Just not the best type for learning.




And that textbooks are overpriced because of the way they are made.

This is flat-out wrong. Textbooks are made the same way any other book is made...with paper and ink, a publisher, a copy editor, researchers, etc. The big difference is that textbooks have a much more limited audience. They are only of interest to students, whereas a generic book (like, say, the almanac or a new novel) is of interest to the general public. As a result, large chains of stores across the nation buy up tons of the generic books, while only schools (and not all schools, at that) buy the text book.

Now, I suspect that the bulk of the cost of any book is getting that first copy printed. Once you have everything set-up, running off additional copies probably isn't that hard. Which means it costs (approximately) the same to print a few textbooks for schools as it does to run off tons of volumes for Barnes and Noble.

Divide the cost of that printing by the number of books and you get the price per book. In the case of textbooks, the number of books is small, therefore the ratio I just described is large.

(If I'm wrong about this, would someone please correct me? Thanks.)



And that children can learn through video.

You keep making this blanket statement, despite having been corrected on it many times. Some children can learn through video, some of the time, if it is used in conjunction with other styles of learning, such as reading, listening, and interaction.

And that the system needs help-of which I am trying to do. Perhaps not the way the system wants me to.
"I am the expert, just do as I say, we don't need your input."
"Then why are you asking for help"?

Sorry to be so blunt, but no one is asking for your help. You yourself said this should be left to the professionals.

Just as, having never been to med school, I would not presume to dictate what the latest medical procedures ought to be, I don't think that a person with no background or knowledge of educational theory should dictate how teaching should be done.

[eir_de_scania]

He's already a year ahead in school, and two years ahead in mathematics. His education is far more thorough and enjoyable. And without suffering the usual distractions of the social dynamic of the average brick-and-mortar school, he's able to truly focus on his academics.

Plus, if he has a bad day, we can stop and take a break, and make it up on Saturday or Sunday or a holiday or Spring Break... and if he's on a roll, say, in History class, we can knock out a month's worth of class in a few hours. The flexibility is magnificent.
My bolding. You forgot to mention supportive parents...:)

[drkitten]

Sorry to be so blunt, but no one is asking for your help. You yourself said this should be left to the professionals.

And speaking as a professional, I wouldn't accept your "help", any more than a surgeon would accept the "help" of some random auto mechanic who happened to turn up near the ER and offered to scrub up and "help out, you know, tighten the bolts and lube the chassis and such."

It's obvious that your information and understanding is sufficiently sketchy that taking your advice and assistant would result in more harm than good. The single sentence "throw it until it sticks" established that.

If you have an informed critique of educational practices, most of the professionals here would love to hear it -- notice the reception Z's getting from his description of his cyber-school (although as has been pointed out, a substantial part of his child's performance can be attributed to Z himself. I suspect I could put Z's kid on one end of a log and Z on the other and the child would test at grade level....) But you need an informed critique -- which you don't have.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And speaking as a professional, I wouldn't accept your "help",
And that applies to most "so called" professionals. They say that they are "always open to advice", "willing to look at anything". But by the standards here, that means that it would have to come from another professional. "That, or a well informed person." Do you realize that you are talking to parents? They try and run the other side of the child's life. And any talk of "bad parents" is canceled out by that of "bad teachers".
Some "professions" create a bubble around themselves, they don't like to be told how to do their jobs, but the school system is in fact asking for help. You don't even need to be a parent for them to take you. They will take anybody that will help them do their jobs. They ask for help every time they give homework, and they are getting it. Some of the real "one on one" learning involving school work, often occurs there. I wonder what the numbers would look like if the "school work" taught at "home" were taken away?
Oh yeah, the school system asks for a lot of helped, they ask for a "partnership" but prefer it be a "silent" one. One the personal level though, I know what you are talking about when you say you don't want my help though, but I am only making suggestions. What is that saying that your industry has: "there are no stupid questions"?



any more than a surgeon would accept the "help" of some random auto mechanic who happened to turn up near the ER and offered to scrub up and "help out, you know, tighten the bolts and lube the chassis and such."
And I don't know if you can compare yourself to a surgeon, if you fail, the patient may be a little dumb, but he won't die. A teacher is help anytime school related information is passed on, and they definitely help them if they help them with their homework.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'd say the analogy is quite good. In either case, surgeon or teacher, if the professional does not do the job correctly, the patient/student is likely to suffer in one respect or another for the rest of his/her life.

Furthermore, accepting professional advice from someone lacking the knowledge needed to give it is likely to cause the professional to not do the job correctly.

Out of curiousity, Light, what is your profession?

[blutoski]

[quote=athon;2892054]

I read the U.S. has 200 million of the wrold's 308 million users.

As a website designer, I pay attention to connectivity statistics. In the US, broadband (including satellite internet) household penetration is about 40%. 35% of households use dialup, and the remaining 25% of households do not have internet.

However, the relevance to education is important, because these percentages look different for lower-income families, which are exactly the groups that would benefit from your proposed enhancements. 70% of households below the poverty line in the US have no internet at all.

These numbers have reached some sort of threshold, as most people in broadband-ready areas have upgraded already. In fact, this year marks the first set of consecutive quarters where broadband sales have levelled off.

The US is less connected per-capita than most developed countries, because of the geographic logistics. A significant portion of the population still lives outside major metropolitan areas, in contrast to Europe or Asia, where the population densities are greater, and broadband penetration is much higher. Canada shares the same problem.

[drkitten]

And that applies to most "so called" professionals.

You know, if I found that most professionals wouldn't accept my help, I would think that there was something wrong with me instead of the professionals.

Oddly enough, I find the opposite. I deal -- professionally -- with a lot of professionals in their area of specialization, and I have few problems either with offering help or getting it accepted.

But then, I do my homework first.

They say that they are "always open to advice", "willing to look at anything". But by the standards here, that means that it would have to come from another professional. "That, or a well informed person."

Yup. Exactly. If you are going to tell your local auto shop that the reason that for the clunking noise is because leprechauns have invaded the photon torpedo tubes, they're likely not to take you seriously. Because a "well informed person" would know that a) there are no photon torpedo tubes in your car, and b) leprechauns don't do things like that.



[The school system] will take anybody that will help them do their jobs.

Yes indeed. So, typically, will the local hospitals, and often the local police and fire departments.

But they won't take people that will actively hinder them in doing their jobs.

Congratulations. You've proven yourself -- repeatedly -- to be a hindrance.

One the personal level though, I know what you are talking about when you say you don't want my help though, but I am only making suggestions. What is that saying that your industry has: "there are no stupid questions"?

Yes. But there are stupid people who don't realize that there is a difference between asking a question and making a suggestion.

You asked a question in the opening post -- why don't teachers make more use of technology in their teaching? You were answered, by several different people, that most proposed uses of technology are neither cost- nor performance-effective.

In particular, electronic editions of textbooks are not particularly cost-effective (since most of the costs of textbooks are associated with the materials and particularly the supplemental materials, not with the physical paper-and-ink media), and usually don't work as well for delivering materials because students can't study away from their computers.

Use of the Internet as a teaching resource is mainstream, but suffers from a dearth of high-quality and affordable materials; most of the freely available information (such as Wikipedia) needs to be screened and modified before it's ready for classroom use, and such screening takes both time and money.

One of the most effective uses of computers and the Internet is not as an information source, but as a collaboration tool -- but such use is at this point routine among schools that can afford the necessary infrastructure. Among the schools that can't -- well, if you can't put a computer on the desk, it doesn't matter what kind of software is available to not be run on it.

Computer-mediated education, either via computerized grading (Scantrons and on-line assessment) or via computerized delivery (e.g., tape the lesson and let students watch the MPEG) simply doesn't work well enough to justify more than a marginal role in a well-designed curriculum.

As far as I can tell, that's a fairly full, frank, and complete answer to your question. The fact that you don't seem to accept the answer doesn't make it any less full, frank, complete -- or correct. And at this point you stopped asking questions and started making ill-founded, ill-informed, and ill-advised suggestions without regard to whether or not they would actually help education.

If you want to get back to asking questions, feel free. "Question Authority" is always a good motto. But the follow up is that you should pay attention when Authority answers....

[Z]

My bolding. You forgot to mention supportive parents...:)

Ah, true. Without supportive parents/guardians, no education system is viable.

[Z]

If you have an informed critique of educational practices, most of the professionals here would love to hear it -- notice the reception Z's getting from his description of his cyber-school (although as has been pointed out, a substantial part of his child's performance can be attributed to Z himself. I suspect I could put Z's kid on one end of a log and Z on the other and the child would test at grade level....) But you need an informed critique -- which you don't have.

Not sure what you meant by putting us on either end of a log... :D

Though if anyone here doubts Wolf's abilities on the basis that, being home-schooled, my own bias would cause him to test higher, I should point out that OHVA requires all state mandatory testing to be done under standard testing conditions. He takes the same achievement tests as every other school student does, in a big room with all those other students, and is where he is not by reason of my bias, but by reason of his abilities - and our dedicated classwork.

I know I tend to be skeptical of the reported achievements of other home-schoolers, usually because their idea of 'home school' is to let the kid stay home playing Playstation for eight hours a day, then doing cram sessions two weeks before testing. :D

But the OHVA system is quite excellent, and I wish I had had a similar means when I was in school (I was a public-schooled menace from kindergarten on up... and I found it dull, boring, repetitive, and riddled with problems).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Not sure what you meant by putting us on either end of a log... :D

Though if anyone here doubts Wolf's abilities on the basis that, being home-schooled, my own bias would cause him to test higher, I should point out that OHVA requires all state mandatory testing to be done under standard testing conditions. He takes the same achievement tests as every other school student does, in a big room with all those other students, and is where he is not by reason of my bias, but by reason of his abilities - and our dedicated classwork.

I know I tend to be skeptical of the reported achievements of other home-schoolers, usually because their idea of 'home school' is to let the kid stay home playing Playstation for eight hours a day, then doing cram sessions two weeks before testing. :D

But the OHVA system is quite excellent, and I wish I had had a similar means when I was in school (I was a public-schooled menace from kindergarten on up... and I found it dull, boring, repetitive, and riddled with problems).
So the evolution did happen, its not just widely known. I have been talking about this same sought of thing as an additional resource of the public school system, but it works good enough to do it alone? Imagine how far along OHVA would be if the public school system supported it? Oh, maybe I am speaking out of turn, do they? I know it is hostile towards school vouchers (as am I) because it would take funds away from the public system.

[Jeff Corey]

Not sure what you meant by putting us on either end of a log..."The ideal college is Mark Hopkins on a log with a student on the other end."
Pres. Garfield.
"The idea log is on a college with a student with Jesus in him."
Pres. Shrub.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You know, if I found that most professionals wouldn't accept my help, I would think that there was something wrong with me instead of the professionals.
Not me, they could just be protecting their interests. They do that sometimes, selfishness is a good survive trait.

Oddly enough, I find the opposite. I deal -- professionally -- with a lot of professionals in their area of specialization, and I have few problems either with offering help or getting it accepted.

But then, I do my homework first.
You may have a point.


Yup. Exactly. If you are going to tell your local auto shop that the reason that for the clunking noise is because leprechauns have invaded the photon torpedo tubes, they're likely not to take you seriously. Because a "well informed person" would know that a) there are no photon torpedo tubes in your car, and b) leprechauns don't do things like that.
I didn't go that far off.

But they won't take people that will actively hinder them in doing their jobs.
Or threaten how they do things.

Congratulations. You've proven yourself -- repeatedly -- to be a hindrance.
An established system sees things that way, sometimes they come around, and sometimes, they are forced around. I like that OHVA thing as a supplement.

You asked a question in the opening post -- why don't teachers make more use of technology in their teaching? You were answered, by several different people, that most proposed uses of technology are neither cost- nor performance-effective.
Let's take a look at the cost of that OHVA thing.


Use of the Internet as a teaching resource is mainstream, but suffers from a dearth of high-quality and affordable materials; most of the freely available information (such as Wikipedia) needs to be screened and modified before it's ready for classroom use, and such screening takes both time and money.
So its a good idea, it just has to be supported. Somebody has to be found to check it. What if credit was given to college students if they did their essays on targeted areas of Wikipedia? Tell them they are helping a project to compile all knowledge.


One of the most effective uses of computers and the Internet is not as an information source, but as a collaboration tool -- but such use is at this point routine among schools that can afford the necessary infrastructure. Among the schools that can't -- well, if you can't put a computer on the desk, it doesn't matter what kind of software is available to not be run on it.
So it works where it can be afforded? Again money, okay.

Computer-mediated education, either via computerized grading (Scantrons and on-line assessment) or via computerized delivery (e.g., tape the lesson and let students watch the MPEG) simply doesn't work well enough to justify more than a marginal role in a well-designed curriculum.
Every little bit helps. I like the idea of a big increase in the number of multiple choice questions to help cover some of the gaps.

As far as I can tell, that's a fairly full, frank, and complete answer to your question. The fact that you don't seem to accept the answer doesn't make it any less full, frank, complete -- or correct.
It looks fine to me.

And at this point you stopped asking questions and started making ill-founded, ill-informed, and ill-advised suggestions without regard to whether or not they would actually help education.
That OHVA thing seems to work, its what I have been saying, lets try and move it along, connect it to the public system.

If you want to get back to asking questions, feel free. "Question Authority" is always a good motto. But the follow up is that you should pay attention when Authority answers....
but don't be afraid to challenge what it says.

[athon]

So the evolution did happen, its not just widely known.

What circles are you finding your information in? Educational journals and magazines have discussed this topic for some time. Do you talk to a range of educators? Do you attend your kids' P&C meetings?

I have been talking about this same sought of thing as an additional resource of the public school system, but it works good enough to do it alone?

This is going to seem petty, but I feel it is significant; you seem to have indicated an education where 'throw it till it sticks' and education by talk and chalk works. You even indicated a military education where they evaluated your tests through machine testing, which on its own offers no reasonable feedback.

Your spelling and grammar leave much to be desired, even forgiving the occasional typo. I normally reserve pointing such things out, however I can't help see a possible connection between your level of literacy and your perception of effective education.

I'd re-read Dr. Kitten's posts. Seriously. He did a brilliant job of explaining why your advice has been less than appreciated.

Athon

[athon]

Or threaten how they do things.

Light, you really have a distant, uninformed view of education circles which makes you see it as an 'us versus them'.

In truth, the educational profession is constantly in a dynamic state of discourse. There is no external threat - there are groups within the profession who prefer various methodologies and all have evidence to support their views. Pedagogy is like any other science in that respect as it is constantly being assessed by academics and practitioners in what works and what doesn't. Education evolves slowly under these influences, adopting and testing new methods and theories. Inevitably some fail for various reasons, with the results being modification or outright rejection.

Your ideas aren't ludicrous for discussion value; it's simply that they have been discussed and found wanting already by those who study these things. Your continuation to ignore this is really what is going against you.

What you're saying is the equivalent of a person suggesting an idea for perpetual motion to a group of physicists, then suggesting his opinion is no less worthy because he isn't a physicist, and then wondering why he is getting a cold reception.

So its a good idea, it just has to be supported. Somebody has to be found to check it. What if credit was given to college students if they did their essays on targeted areas of Wikipedia? Tell them they are helping a project to compile all knowledge.

Again, many school already have their own wikis which do just this. The one I use in my school is based on a program called 'peanut butter wiki', developed and used by a number of US schools.

but don't be afraid to challenge what it says.

Challenging something is only effective when you understand what it is you're challenging.

Athon

[blutoski]

What you're saying is the equivalent of a person suggesting an idea for perpetual motion to a group of physicists, then suggesting his opinion is no less worthy because he isn't a physicist, and then wondering why he is getting a cold reception.

Dennis Miller:
Sometimes the self-educated, untutored maverick who stands on his own two feet and challenges the authorities... the self-appointed-so-called experts in their ivory towers... well, actually, most of the time... this guy is just some crank or whatever.

[aries]

In Denmark, it has been part of the school law since 1993 (or so) that all students in all classes learn how to use computers. In the revisions of the 1993 laws during the years since then, it has always been stressed that
teachers etc. must find a way to integrate information tech (called IT) in their lessons plan.

At first, teachers were skeptical, but when they saw how students became motivated and flocked to to the computers and learned a lot more through using them, especially on how to use computers etc, they were content. And then some teachers started to make educational programs, like Pixeline and such games.

And now, today, in 2007, nearly all Danish teachers integrate Information Technology, in their lesson plans, thus teaching students how to use the internet to find information etc. as well as being critical about this info.

Most students in Denmark do also have a laptop since they tend to be very cheap today in Denmark, ranging from say 500 USD to 1000 USD. Especially Danish middle class parents seem to have a lot of money to buy laptops etc. for their teenage sons&daugthers.

As I teacher myself, I'm not opposed to text books, but I find it highly motivating for students that they learn how to search the info for themselves as well as, of course, present the info, correctly & properly.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

In Denmark, it has been part of the school law since 1993 (or so) that all students in all classes learn how to use computers. In the revisions of the 1993 laws during the years since then, it has always been stressed that
teachers etc. must find a way to integrate information tech (called IT) in their lessons plan.

At first, teachers were skeptical, but when they saw how students became motivated and flocked to to the computers and learned a lot more through using them, especially on how to use computers etc, they were content. And then some teachers started to make educational programs, like Pixeline and such games.

And now, today, in 2007, nearly all Danish teachers integrate Information Technology, in their lesson plans, thus teaching students how to use the internet to find information etc. as well as being critical about this info.

Most students in Denmark do also have a laptop since they tend to be very cheap today in Denmark, ranging from say 500 USD to 1000 USD. Especially Danish middle class parents seem to have a lot of money to buy laptops etc. for their teenage sons&daugthers.

As I teacher myself, I'm not opposed to text books, but I find it highly motivating for students that they learn how to search the info for themselves as well as, of course, present the info, correctly & properly.Thank you Denmark-and aries. Your example may help a much richer country understand that it does not know everything, and "find a way" to do the same thing. Make it work. You see, the students took to computers, like they have here, and they learned more. Just like I said.

[Z]

So the evolution did happen, its not just widely known. I have been talking about this same sought of thing as an additional resource of the public school system, but it works good enough to do it alone? Imagine how far along OHVA would be if the public school system supported it? Oh, maybe I am speaking out of turn, do they? I know it is hostile towards school vouchers (as am I) because it would take funds away from the public system.

Actually, it's part of the public system here. It isn't widely known about, and in general home-schooling has been under fire for some time; but OHVA's performance outstrips the performance of traditional brick-and-mortar schools by quite a bit, at least in Cincinnati.

The actual curriculum, btw, is the K12 program.

Linkies:

http://ohva.net
http://k12.com

Part of the public school system!

[Z]

"The ideal college is Mark Hopkins on a log with a student on the other end."
Pres. Garfield.
"The idea log is on a college with a student with Jesus in him."
Pres. Shrub.

Ah. Got it.

Thank you!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Actually, it's part of the public system here.
My state is listed on that link too.

It isn't widely known about, and in general home-schooling has been under fire for some time;
I think home-schooling can lessen interaction with other children, even as I recognize that sometimes that is a good thing.
Why do you think it isn't widely known?

but OHVA's performance outstrips the performance of traditional brick-and-mortar schools by quite a bit, at least in Cincinnati.
Is that so... something working "better" and being overlooked. So the experts don't know everything, or at least they don't always act on what they know. And all I am talking about is a watered down version of that to aid doing homework and working during the summer months.

The actual curriculum, btw, is the K12 program.
Not the same textbooks? I am waiting to be contacted, the site didn't say much.



Part of the public school system!
How about that? I'm going to check and see what it takes to enroll a child here.

[drkitten]

Every little bit helps. I like the idea of a big increase in the number of multiple choice questions to help cover some of the gaps.

Yes, but the problem is that multiple choice tests, after a certain point, create more gaps than they cover. That's what I mean by "more than a marginal role."

For simple, factual information (What is your name? What is your quest? What is the capital of Assyria?), multiple choice tests are pretty good. Not great, since they can still be gamed (as anyone who has taken a Kaplan prep course knows -- I suspect that my sixth grade niece could score substantially above the mean on the MCAT just on her test-taking skills), but pretty good.

But they are lousy at providing feedback.

They are also lousy at testing higher-order concepts, such as process, evaluation, problem-solving, and so forth. And so overreliance on multiple-choice tests tends to weaken student understanding of the higher-order concepts.

One rule of thumb I use (there's that pesky "education theory" again) is that questions can be divided into three categories -- What, How, and Why. What-questions are simple factual retention questions. What is the capital of the United States? What is the density of water at room temperature? What was the date of the Treaty of Versailles?

How questions test understanding of process. How do you measure the density of water? To answer this, you not only need to know what density means, but how it relates to other concepts such as mass, volume, and lab procedure.

And, of course, why-questions tend to be evaluative and possibly counterfactual. Why does ice float? Why did the Treaty of Versailles create economic instability in the Weimar Republic? Often there aren't even simple "right or wrong" answers to these.

How- and Why-questions cannot be tested effective on a Scantron. If you want to make your entire curriculum Scantron-friendly, you essentially have to ignore everything that isn't rotely factual. You are creating gaps in the student's knowledge, because you can't teach what you can't evaluate and provide feedback on. I like to use about equal mixtures of these kinds of questions in class and on my tests; I would prefer to use more Why-questions, but my students generally can't handle material that abstract. But the Why-questions are the important ones, precisely because they're the ones whose answers computers can't give me.

I can find out the density of water in thirty seconds on Google -- authoritatively. I can't find out the causes of the German inflation; there will be twenty or thirty papers, all relevant, all citing different theories and causes, and unless I know how to read and evaluate them, I will be at see. My computer can't do it for me, and my scantron can't tell me what I'm doing wrong so I can do it better next time. Fortunately, I had good teachers who knew what multiple-choice questions could and couldn't do, and didn't overrely on them just because they're technologically interesting.....

[NobbyNobbs]

I didn't go that far off.

But you did. When you advocated "throw it until it sticks" teaching. That theory is the educational equivalent of the perpetual motion machine; all the people who have done their homework know unreservedly that it doesn't work, yet there are those who refuse to do their homework and try to build the thing, inevitably without positive results.


Every little bit helps. I like the idea of a big increase in the number of multiple choice questions to help cover some of the gaps.

And here, in the same post, is another example of how far off you go. Increasing the number of multiple choice questions won't challenge a child's critical thinking skills, creative thinking, etc. Consider giving a test on the meaning of Hamlet's famous solioquy. Consider three ways of giving the test.

a) Multiple choice
b) Essay
c) One-on-one discussion

(I will forgo the desire to be ironic by asking you to pick one best answer. Instead, I'll give it to you.)

In most cases, "c" is the best method. You are involving the child interactively with a knowledgable person (the teacher), who can react and modify the questions asked based on the previous answers and the knowledge of the child. The discussion may even go off on a tangent, and the child will learn something new!

The drawback is time. With few exceptions, there aren't many situations where a teacher can afford to give half an hour, or even 10 minutes, to each child individually for this sort of assessment.

Of the three choices up there, "a" is the worst. How can you get a complete assessment of the child's understanding through multiple choice questions? You suggest more of them. This is like the "20 questions" game, except it would take a heck of a lot more. It's a yes/no thing. You can't get very deep with that. If the student answers a question wrong, you have no idea why they answered the way they do. In an essay, at least you have the surrounding context. And in a discussion, you can ask more probing questions, including the all important one, the one that no multiple choice test can ask...."Why do you think so?"



It looks fine to me.

That OHVA thing seems to work, its what I have been saying, lets try and move it along, connect it to the public system.

but don't be afraid to challenge what it says.[/QUOTE]

[Jeff Corey]

I never use multiple choice tests. I tell my students about going to Radio Shack to buy some parts and requesting a receipt made out to the Psychology department. The clerk said,"How do you spell that? I took that course at State U, but never could spell it."
Why was that? He only had multiple choice tests and never got beyond the letter "D". I want my students to be able to spell "psychology", "neurotransmitter","hippocampus","reinforcement". "retroactive interference" and so forth. Therefore, my tests are fill-ins, short answers and short essays. And I grade them myself to get more detailled feedback about what they are (and are not) mastering than ever could be provided by multiple guess tests.
ETA: Ironically enough, there is a typo in "reinforcement" that the system won't let me correct.

[drkitten]

I never use multiple choice tests. [...] I want my students to be able to spell "psychology", "neurotransmitter","hippocampus","reinforcement". "retroactive interference" and so forth. Therefore, my tests are fill-ins, short answers and short essays. And I grade them myself to get more detailled feedback about what they are (and are not) mastering than ever could be provided by multiple guess tests.


I should point out that just by stepping from multiple-choice to fill-in-the-blank tests, you've already gone beyond what is easily practical to machine-grade. If the answer I write is "hipocammpus," then I should (I hope) earn more points than if I leave the spot blank --- but computers make lousy judges of what the correct spelling of the word that I intended to write is. (Google does surprisingly well -- but not well enough that I'd be willing to let it grade my tests.)

More importantly, if I write "hipocammpus" on one of Dr. Ccrey's tests, he learns both that I remember something about neuroanatomy, and that I'm a poor speller. If I write "I am a fish," then he learns that I'm schizophrenic. This is an important type of feedback that the Scantron couldn't give him.

[Jeff Corey]

It is true that my tests would not lend themselves to machine grading. I do give partial credit for misspellings if they are close. "Hypocampus" or "retrograde inhibition" would not qualify because they are confused with similar terms.
One other good point of this type of question is that I can tell when the student doesn't understand a particular question. If I am grading the quiz as soon as the student finishes it, I can tell the student what is wrong and ask for it to be corrected. I can revise the item later to eliminate the problem.

[NobbyNobbs]

And one final nail in the coffin of Scantron tests...and this comes from personal experience....

If your eyes overlook a question accidentally, no matter how much you know, the computer will count that and everything that comes after as "wrong".

[athon]

I never use multiple choice tests. I tell my students about going to Radio Shack to buy some parts and requesting a receipt made out to the Psychology department. The clerk said,"How do you spell that? I took that course at State U, but never could spell it."
Why was that? He only had multiple choice tests and never got beyond the letter "D". I want my students to be able to spell "psychology", "neurotransmitter","hippocampus","reinforcement". "retroactive interference" and so forth. Therefore, my tests are fill-ins, short answers and short essays. And I grade them myself to get more detailled feedback about what they are (and are not) mastering than ever could be provided by multiple guess tests.
ETA: Ironically enough, there is a typo in "reinforcement" that the system won't let me correct.

I also detest muli-choice. I use them at the beginning of some tests for some questions, but am against using them as the basis for an exam.

I do pass questions with poor spelling, but have the luxury of making students write out every mispelt word in an exam paper.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

They are also lousy at testing higher-order concepts, such as process, evaluation, problem-solving, and so forth. And so overreliance on multiple-choice tests tends to weaken student understanding of the higher-order concepts.
Okay, no overrreliance. That is not good any in case.

How questions test understanding of process. How do you measure the density of water? To answer this, you not only need to know what density means, but how it relates to other concepts such as mass, volume, and lab procedure.
I was thinking about putting the answer among a choice of 5 and more. But you are right, the best way is to have the student say what they mean. I am thinking multiple choice, and its grading computer thing as a part of the total program. Someone can move ahead by studying and taking the tests themselves, they would then be required to give written proof. And they may even be able to do that while being taped to make sure they did it.

How- and Why-questions cannot be tested effective on a Scantron. If you want to make your entire curriculum Scantron-friendly, you essentially have to ignore everything that isn't rotely factual. You are creating gaps in the student's knowledge, because you can't teach what you can't evaluate and provide feedback on. I like to use about equal mixtures of these kinds of questions in class and on my tests; I would prefer to use more Why-questions, but my students generally can't handle material that abstract. But the Why-questions are the important ones, precisely because they're the ones whose answers computers can't give me.
The method may help provide additional time for "why" sessions.

I can find out the density of water in thirty seconds on Google -- authoritatively. I can't find out the causes of the German inflation; there will be twenty or thirty papers, all relevant, all citing different theories and causes, and unless I know how to read and evaluate them, I will be at see. My computer can't do it for me, and my scantron can't tell me what I'm doing wrong so I can do it better next time. Fortunately, I had good teachers who knew what multiple-choice questions could and couldn't do, and didn't overrely on them just because they're technologically interesting.....
Good thing. I got nothing against teachers.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is going to seem petty, but I feel it is significant; you seem to have indicated an education where 'throw it till it sticks' and education by talk and chalk works.
I don't care how they know (they can straighten it out later) I just want them to know as much as possible. When science makes it possible to inject it into the head, I will be for that. Others may think that the "old fashion" method was best.

You even indicated a military education where they evaluated your tests through machine testing, which on its own offers no reasonable feedback.
Not on its own. You had to then go and do it, then write down what you saw.

Your spelling and grammar leave much to be desired, even forgiving the occasional typo. I normally reserve pointing such things out, however I can't help see a possible connection between your level of literacy and your perception of effective education.
Its the damnest thing. I heard of don't drink and drive, but I did not know it applied to writing. Its a problem, but if you saw me earlier, I got better. Even sober I am no wiz, but some of how I write is personal. I use commas a pauses, but most people use them like this: "You do not want that, then". I as I talk I would not have paused there. I would write: "You do not want that then"?
At other times, I will use many words to get around spelling a long word. I think that works in my favor, because I intend to be understood by teens.
Finally, at most times, I am in a hurry. Being crazy is not as easy as it may appear.
I'd re-read Dr. Kitten's posts. Seriously. He did a brilliant job of explaining why your advice has been less than appreciated.
Athon
Here, though he did do a brilliant job. The position here is not the only one-even if it turns out to be the one most thought out. I have a question. Are you guys pulling your replies off the top of your head, or do you have a file system that allows information to be readily available? You don't know how much I want that answer to be yes. It would mean that you have advantages that I don't... but I i'm not mad, or sad.
I'm developing a physical file system of the books I read by copying the pages that I highlight when I take it back. When I make my school connection thing, I am going to offer awards through contests for whole classes, perhaps schools, to collect information for me. All I need is a way to get my hands on a lot (that is a correction that took) of money. So my problems don't bother me, i'll get better.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

But you did. When you advocated "throw it until it sticks" teaching. That theory is the educational equivalent of the perpetual motion machine; all the people who have done their homework know unreservedly that it doesn't work, yet there are those who refuse to do their homework and try to build the thing, inevitably without positive results.
Advertising got it to work.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Light, you really have a distant, uninformed view of education circles which makes you see it as an 'us versus them'.
You feel "dissed" when I say "teachers don't" and I feel the same way when I hear "parents don't".


In truth, the educational profession is constantly in a dynamic state of discourse. There is no external threat - there are groups within the profession who prefer various methodologies and all have evidence to support their views.

Pedagogy is like any other science in that respect as it is constantly being assessed by academics and practitioners in what works and what doesn't.
If it is too expensive, or does not improve things much, stop doing so much of that. With all the different school districts available, there should already be a test case for everything.

Your ideas aren't ludicrous for discussion value; it's simply that they have been discussed and found wanting already by those who study these things.

If I had said nothing, I would not have found out that technology is being used overseas, and working. I would not know that homeschooling works, that some schools have their cirriculum on line. All I want is a watered down version of that sort of thing used as a homework, and vacation time tool.



What you're saying is the equivalent of a person suggesting an idea for perpetual motion to a group of physicists, then suggesting his opinion is no less worthy because he isn't a physicist, and then wondering why he is getting a cold reception.
Cold is good, if that is how you feel. You may want to note that nothing I have said is that far off, and is being done. You may see it that way, but some of that depends on you. How can I be that far off if what I say is being used, and working?


Again, many school already have their own wikis which do just this. The one I use in my school is based on a program called 'peanut butter wiki', developed and used by a number of US schools.
Like with the textbook thing, the job can be done better if they combined their effort. Is what students need to know so different from place to place-here?


Challenging something is only effective when you understand what it is you're challenging.

Athon
I understand enough for what I am saying, and I did guess right about some things. A guess based on known conditions.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2892555]

As a website designer, I pay attention to connectivity statistics. In the US, broadband (including satellite internet) household penetration is about 40%. 35% of households use dialup, and the remaining 25% of households do not have internet.

However, the relevance to education is important, because these percentages look different for lower-income families, which are exactly the groups that would benefit from your proposed enhancements. 70% of households below the poverty line in the US have no internet at all.
There is a cybercafe/store in my neighborhood that sells internet access. If only the school could afford to fund homework centers like that. Or, if that cybercafe did that, the school pays them.

These numbers have reached some sort of threshold, as most people in broadband-ready areas have upgraded already. In fact, this year marks the first set of consecutive quarters where broadband sales have levelled off.
It would climb if the school system increased their demand... if only.

The US is less connected per-capita than most developed countries, because of the geographic logistics. A significant portion of the population still lives outside major metropolitan areas, in contrast to Europe or Asia, where the population densities are greater, and broadband penetration is much higher. Canada shares the same problem.
My first concern lives in the city.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Not the same textbooks? I am waiting to be contacted, the site didn't say much.
Turns out I didn't know what I was doing, the site's demo is fantastic. And from what I understand, the cost is free. Though that must be under certain conditions. They have to make something. But even if students lacked internet access, I dare say most schools should have already been linked to (or created) something like it long ago, as a supplement.
It does not appear costly to make, or maintain. They could have used the data collection resources of teachers alone, to build a huge database by now. Who says i'm wrong? What happened? Computer presentations should have naturally followed films, then followed the students who had computers, home.

[NobbyNobbs]

If it is too expensive, or does not improve things much, stop doing so much of that. With all the different school districts available, there should already be a test case for everything.



This sounds much like the claim that the patent office should be closed because everything that could be invented has been.

That claim, by the way, was made about a hundred years ago.

[six7s]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks

This part of the OP got me thinking about the One Laptop per Child scheme, which is - after years of planning, designing and testing - finally producing machines in bulk

To avoid side-tracking this thread, I have started another: One Laptop per Child (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91441), aimed especially for those interested in education

[athon]

I don't care how they know (they can straighten it out later) I just want them to know as much as possible.

Well I'll be...

The thing is, Light, I do care 'how'. Most people in pedagogy care. Educational academics and developmental pyschologists care. They look at what it is that future citizens need to know and what skills they need to posses, and then examine methods for them to efficiently attain this.

You came out guns blazing one how the system should achieve this and then make this statement. So, Light - do you care how kids learn or don't you?

Its the damnest thing. I heard of don't drink and drive, but I did not know it applied to writing. Its a problem, but if you saw me earlier, I got better. Even sober I am no wiz, but some of how I write is personal. I use commas a pauses, but most people use them like this: "You do not want that, then". I as I talk I would not have paused there. I would write: "You do not want that then"?

At other times, I will use many words to get around spelling a long word. I think that works in my favor, because I intend to be understood by teens.
Finally, at most times, I am in a hurry. Being crazy is not as easy as it may appear.

Haha, I wouldn't assume so.

I meant no slight against you personally, however there is a certain irony in somebody making a call on how people should be educated when evidence of their own literacy is left wanting.

I have a question. Are you guys pulling your replies off the top of your head, or do you have a file system that allows information to be readily available?

The points you are raising are fairly fundamental in education and relate directly to my role in my current profession, so my responses come from direct experience.

You feel "dissed" when I say "teachers don't" and I feel the same way when I hear "parents don't".

Parents who have nothing to do with their child's education yet still feel obliged to criticize bother me. I deal with a lot of parents who respond to my phone calls and emails, who come to P&C meetings, who show up to their kid's school events and parent teacher interviews, and all of them I engage in constant discussion on their daughter's education. If parents remove themselves from the picture, how are they considered to be able to enter an informed conversation with the teacher?

If I had said nothing, I would not have found out that technology is being used overseas, and working. I would not know that homeschooling works, that some schools have their cirriculum on line. All I want is a watered down version of that sort of thing used as a homework, and vacation time tool.

It's not your curiosity that is questionable but your method of inquiry, which presumed knowledge and understanding where there was none. Most people here are more than happy to discuss what we have done already. Yet you have approached this in a rather arrogant way which is inhibitory to you learning more about various education systems and their practices.

How can I be that far off if what I say is being used, and working?

Because you stated it wasn't being done. You've also made other suggestions which are ludicrous, such as the suggestions on downloading entire text books as PDFs, using videos to replace some teachers, to only use multiple choice exams etc. Look back at what you wrote; most of it is rubbish.

Like with the textbook thing, the job can be done better if they combined their effort. Is what students need to know so different from place to place-here?

Building and maintaining a wiki on a particular subject offers students more opportunities than if they all contributed to a single one. It's not just having access to one which makes them useful - it is the research and development that goes into them which offers greater learning opportunities.

I understand enough for what I am saying, and I did guess right about some things.

Most things you said were wrong.

Athon

[Z]

Turns out I didn't know what I was doing, the site's demo is fantastic. And from what I understand, the cost is free. Though that must be under certain conditions. They have to make something. But even if students lacked internet access, I dare say most schools should have already been linked to (or created) something like it long ago, as a supplement.
It does not appear costly to make, or maintain. They could have used the data collection resources of teachers alone, to build a huge database by now. Who says i'm wrong? What happened? Computer presentations should have naturally followed films, then followed the students who had computers, home.

The K12 program can be purchased if needed, but several states have a virtual school program, like OHVA, which supports the students by providing government funding to K12 in exchange for access to the materials and software. I can't imagine what it would actually cost - the school sent a full desktop computer to my son, already loaded with appropriate software - including PeoplePC free internet access (which, being on a cable network, we didn't need, but it was still nice), adult content controls already in place, and all appropriate and necessary software for school projects, etc. They sent a printer, a microphone (for the monthly teacher-student chats), all the necessary materials (you should see the Art and Science kits!), etc.

This year my son is learning to play the recorder - and they sent him a nice, although plastic, one. Last year, it was the tambourine - which they requested be returned - and the slide whistle - which they let us keep. Half of the reading materials did not need to be returned, which thrilled my son to no end. We have a small stockpile of paints and art supplies, as they send him a fresh supply every year.

I'm personally intrigued as to where his science is going this year, as he also got a bag of sand, a bag of gravel, a rock kit, some magnets, a tiny light bulb and some copper wire, etc. Last year they even sent the seeds for his biology project.

And as if all that wasn't enough, we get a check every quarter from the school for ISP reimbursement, because we already had a provider! It's a small check, but it's still a wonderful gesture, and probably a vital help for lower-income families.

As for the social aspects of school, we find other outlets for him to socialize; but even aside from those, the school requires four face-to-face teacher-student meetings per year, which our teachers accomplish by having outings to popular destinations. We've been to the Mercy Healthplex several times, where all the OHVA kids in the area can interact and enjoy sports, swimming, and general tomfoolery. We've had picnic lunches by scenic lakes, outings at the Zoo or the science museum, even a good simple pizza dinner at Chuck E. Cheese. And some of the parents arrange study groups and play groups on top of that.

Personally, I wish the world were capable of letting every student home-school. But in this age of two-parent income families, it's not likely to happen.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Personally, I wish the world were capable of letting every student home-school. But in this age of two-parent income families, it's not likely to happen.
Im happy to here how much of a good time you are having, positive in every way. You sound like you like sharing the experience with your child. Do you think that the experience would be just as great with two kids? How about three?

[Z]

Im happy to here how much of a good time you are having, positive in every way. You sound like you like sharing the experience with your child. Do you think that the experience would be just as great with two kids? How about three?

I have six kids, in fact, although the other five go to public Montessori school. We've decided to handle each and every child's needs according to those needs. It just happens that, at this point, the Montessori system works well for the other five, but not for our SID suffering child.

However, I'm certain it would be easily as enjoyable, even with ten kids in the house. I think back to the early days of schools in the territories, when one teacher managed an entire class which consisted of several grades, even a dozen or more students, all learning and working in the same room.

It's possible.

[drkitten]

However, I'm certain it would be easily as enjoyable, even with ten kids in the house.

As enjoyable, perhaps, but almost certainly less effective.

This is another experiment that has been done :
I think back to the early days of schools in the territories, when one teacher managed an entire class which consisted of several grades, even a dozen or more students, all learning and working in the same room.

It's possible.

The territorial "one-room schoolhouse" model tended to promote a minimal degree of teacher-pupil interaction, simply because a teacher who is talking to the ten year olds about fractions can't also be talking to the fourteen year olds about Greecian verbs or the six year olds about how silent E's make vowels sound different. The effect is a) to promote a lot of self-study (read this book quietly at your desk and solve this worksheet of questions at the end), a method that Light would probably love, because it's every bit as ineffective as the military Scantrons, and b) force students to waste a lot of time listening and reviewing material that they already know quite well. There's a reason that trigonometry was considered a college-level class a hundred years ago, and today is taught fairly early in high school.

Two or three kids I think you could easily handle. I suspect ten children would end up reducing you to shivering fits -- and the kids as well, though.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

As enjoyable, perhaps, but almost certainly less effective.

This is another experiment that has been done :


The territorial "one-room schoolhouse" model tended to promote a minimal degree of teacher-pupil interaction, simply because a teacher who is talking to the ten year olds about fractions can't also be talking to the fourteen year olds about Greecian verbs or the six year olds about how silent E's make vowels sound different.
Actually, a modern school is made up of many "one-room schoolhouses". Teachers are encouraged to develop their own way of teaching, and class size does not let them do a lot of the teacher-pupil thing.

The effect is a) to promote a lot of self-study (read this book quietly at your desk and solve this worksheet of questions at the end), a method that Light would probably love, because it's every bit as ineffective as the military Scantrons, and b) force students to waste a lot of time listening and reviewing material that they already know quite well.
Technology provides interaction, and it can potentially provide an endless amount of new material to keep their interest.


Two or three kids I think you could easily handle. I suspect ten children would end up reducing you to shivering fits -- and the kids as well, though.
I agree with you here, only I think, more than one child may be more than the average person can handle, they are not teachers. Teachers have the advantage of wanting to teach, that and their training to do it.

[drkitten]

Actually, a modern school is made up of many "one-room schoolhouses".

(sigh.) Wrong again, light. The whole point of having individual classrooms is that the whole class is more-or-less focused on the same topic; if one student is being drilled in spelling, or shown a demonstration of how to factor a polynomial, they all are. Even when they're all doing individualized tasks, they're usually doing individualized tasks related to the overal subject of instruction. You will almost never see a fourteen year old studying Grecian verbs at the same time as a six year old studying phonics in the same classroom -- and for good reason.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

(sigh.) Wrong again, light.
The dream is over.

The whole point of having individual classrooms is that the whole class is more-or-less focused on the same topic; if one student is being drilled in spelling, or shown a demonstration of how to factor a polynomial, they all are. Even when they're all doing individualized tasks, they're usually doing individualized tasks related to the overal subject of instruction. You will almost never see a fourteen year old studying Grecian verbs at the same time as a six year old studying phonics in the same classroom -- and for good reason.
But they are often in the same building. Imagine the teacher of the one room school dividing the class by subject, and then dividing herself to teach them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well I'll be...

The thing is, Light, I do care 'how'. Most people in pedagogy care. Educational academics and developmental pyschologists care. They look at what it is that future citizens need to know and what skills they need to posses, and then examine methods for them to efficiently attain this.

You came out guns blazing one how the system should achieve this and then make this statement. So, Light - do you care how kids learn or don't you?
AthonChildren are learning through video and computers already, I just said there should be more of it. The school system knows it has a problem with apathy, computer interaction has proven that it can keep their interest, and teach.

[drkitten]

But they are often in the same building. Imagine the teacher of the one room school dividing the class by subject, and then dividing herself to teach them.

Yes. Note the highlighted part above. The inability of a typical teacher (or homeschooler) to reproduce via mitosis is one of the reasons -- arguably the key reason -- that that particular educational model doesn't scale well to moderate numbers of students.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes. Note the highlighted part above. The inability of a typical teacher (or homeschooler) to reproduce via mitosis is one of the reasons -- arguably the key reason -- that that particular educational model doesn't scale well to moderate numbers of students.Then do the next best thing, get other teachers to help you, and rotate the students.

[Z]

Actually, I feel that ten students, given a multi-media-based education system, would be as easy for me to handle at different age groups, as ten students would be for a traditional teacher at the same age group. Presentation of material is often handled by the media itself, and direct presentation is usually only an issue for the K-2 age grades, or when the subject matter is particularly difficult. Much of the instruction is done via Flash programs, video tutorials, etc; the parent-teacher's purpose is as often as not reinforcement and more detailed instruction, when needed.

Of course, I'm assuming ten kids as intelligent as Wolf... If I had to deal with, say, ten horrid inner-city kids whose parents don't care a fig for their disciplining or education.... I doubt I could manage one of them. :D

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Actually, I feel that ten students, given a multi-media-based education system, would be as easy for me to handle at different age groups, as ten students would be for a traditional teacher at the same age group. Presentation of material is often handled by the media itself, and direct presentation is usually only an issue for the K-2 age grades, or when the subject matter is particularly difficult. Much of the instruction is done via Flash programs, video tutorials, etc; the parent-teacher's purpose is as often as not reinforcement and more detailed instruction, when needed.

That is good to hear, I knew the technology was there.

Of course, I'm assuming ten kids as intelligent as Wolf... If I had to deal with, say, ten horrid inner-city kids whose parents don't care a fig for their disciplining or education.... I doubt I could manage one of them. :DKids in the innercity have a faster set of problems, but they don't produce the guns, drugs, or the education system that often fails where they are, they are just left to deal with it.

[athon]

The dream is over.

But they are often in the same building. Imagine the teacher of the one room school dividing the class by subject, and then dividing herself to teach them.

This is where you simply fail to understand - teaching is not a uni-directional effort, where the teacher projects information that the student absorbs. It is bi-directional and interactive, ideally having the student negotiate their own learning through communicating with a teacher and their peers. A video does not do this.

A computer has limited means of interaction. Perhaps one day when they can pass a Turing test it might offer the same resource as a teacher. Until then, they don't come close.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is where you simply fail to understand - teaching is not a uni-directional effort, where the teacher projects information that the student absorbs. It is bi-directional and interactive, ideally having the student negotiate their own learning through communicating with a teacher and their peers. A video does not do this.
That is what you simply want to believe. A video projects one way, and it is ideal for "here is what we will be talking about". This will allow the student to have their questions ready.

A computer has limited means of interaction. Perhaps one day when they can pass a Turing test it might offer the same resource as a teacher. Until then, they don't come close.

AthonMaybe it can't pass that test-yet-but until then, lets use them for the things that it can do. No one is talking about replacing teachers. Maybe when they are able to pass a Turing test.

[drkitten]

Maybe it can't pass that test-yet-but until then, lets use them for the things that it can do.

I would prefer to use the computer for the things that it can do that will benefit the students. At a minimum, we should use the computer for the things that it can do that will not actively hinder the students.

Your insistence in refusing to limit the use of the computer in this way is one of the reasons that no one is taking your pseudo-insights seriously. The fact that the computer can be used as a blunt object to cause concussive brain damage to the students does not mean that we should encourage such use.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I would prefer to use the computer for the things that it can do that will benefit the students.
Yes, of course... lets use them to benefit students. Should I have added that it would not be benefical to eat one?

At a minimum, we should use the computer for the things that it can do that will not actively hinder the students.
Where do you see it being a hinderance?

Your insistence in refusing to limit the use of the computer in this way is one of the reasons that no one is taking your pseudo-insights seriously.
Not be you. You are too busy worrying about what can go wrong to see any benefit. I guess you missed where I suggested "blockers" so that students could not go anywhere they want?

The fact that the computer can be used as a blunt object to cause concussive brain damage to the students does not mean that we should encourage such use.
Oh right... students should not use computers to hit each other with. Silly me, I thought they would have figured that out for themselves, but you are right.

[drkitten]

Where do you see it being a hinderance?

By encouraging the use of techniques that are known to negatively impact student learning. For example,


The overuse of machine-graded (and gradable) evaluations such as ScanTron tests
Reliance upon video as a teaching medium, thereby encouraging passive reception of information instead of active participation and knowledge construction by the student
Useless and ineffective repetition of poorly understood information -- "Throw it until it sticks"


... all of which are active hindrances to learning, and all of which you have actively championed on this thread.


I guess you missed where I suggested "blockers" so that students could not go anywhere they want?

No, I didn't miss it. It's simply not relevant. I'm not worried about what might go wrong. I'm pointing out what will go wrong, because the entire classroom that you suggest is wrongly directed. Students in a classroom equipped and run as you propose will perform worse than students in a "typical" modern classroom. Putting "blockers" on to assure that they pay attention to the material from which they aren't learning will not cause them to learn from it. The students' best hope, ironically enough, is that they get a poor enough teacher that will be unable to follow the lesson plans you've written, because at least random activity on the part of a bad teacher will be more effective than the deliberately-laid out course of failure-to-learn that you have constructed.



Oh right... students should not use computers to hit each other with.

They did. Evidently you didn't.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

By encouraging the use of techniques that are known to negatively impact student learning. For example,
Anything could have negative impact if it is used wrong, or too much.



The overuse of machine-graded (and gradable) evaluations such as ScanTron tests I just said I wanted to use it, when did I say I wanted to overuse it?
I have already stated that the military course had involved: read the book, take the test, perform the task, and write down what you saw. It is just one part.



Reliance upon video as a teaching medium, thereby encouraging passive reception of information instead of active participation and knowledge construction by the studentYes, use video as a teaching medium, channel 13 thinks it is okay. And before computers, teachers used films. I know you heard of training films? Someone thinks that they work. I have seen videos about everything, (and they work) I want to see one that directly impacts school work.
Passive reception can help active participation, give them a preview of what is going to happen. Besides, classes of 30 do not get all that much interaction. They get a "live" performance, and they have the chance to ask question-something some pass on.



Useless and ineffective repetition of poorly understood information -- "Throw it until it sticks"I have seen some interesting stuff, and I am sure more can be made. And sometimes, you have to do something till you get it right. "You don't understand it?" "Read it again." What is wrong with "watch it again"?


... all of which are active hindrances to learning, and all of which you have actively championed on this thread.
Not the way you imagine.



No, I didn't miss it. It's simply not relevant. I'm not worried about what might go wrong. I'm pointing out what will go wrong, because the entire classroom that you suggest is wrongly directed. Students in a classroom equipped and run as you propose will perform worse than students in a "typical" modern classroom.
Actually I have been talking about getting "direct impact" information on the web, make the course mobile, but I remember leaning on that "smart class" thing.


Putting "blockers" on to assure that they pay attention to the material from which they aren't learning will not cause them to learn from it. The students' best hope, ironically enough, is that they get a poor enough teacher that will be unable to follow the lesson plans you've written, because at least random activity on the part of a bad teacher will be more effective than the deliberately-laid out course of failure-to-learn that you have constructed.
Again, I said nothing about lesson plans. Comment on what I actually said, try and leave your imagination out of it, that would help both of us.



They did. Evidently you didn't.[/quote]

[drkitten]

Anything could have negative impact if it is used wrong, or too much.

Yes. And you're suggesting using a lot of things wrong.



I just said I wanted to use it, when did I say I wanted to overuse it?

"Throw it until it sticks" is pretty much the definition of overuse.




Yes, use video as a teaching medium, channel 13 thinks it is okay.

Yes. Baby Einstein thinks that watching videos makes babies smarter, too. And RJR Reynolds things that cigarettes are harmless. And you know what? Companies will lie to you, if necessary, in order to make money.


I have seen some interesting stuff, and I am sure more can be made. And sometimes, you have to do something till you get it right. "You don't understand it?" "Read it again." What is wrong with "watch it again"?

The same thing that's wrong with "You don't understand it? Read it again." If someone didn't get it the first time, they're better off being presented with the material in a different way than being presented with the exact same material over and over again.

There's a reason that math books often have fifty different problems illustrating the same concept. Because solving the same problem fifty different times isn't as effective as solving fifty related ones.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What are the teachers supposed to be doing that they're not? Using on-line materials in their teaching? Most do, subject to the equipment limitations.

Making all homework online only?
I never say only.

It can't be done with the current state of technology; among other things, the security isn't good enough and there's no practical way to prevent collaboration and outright cheating. Put curricula on the Web? Also not practical; the universities have shown that it takes as much or more time to develop a course for on-line presentation as it does to develop one for face-to-face presentation; you would need to double the number of teachers at any given school or district.

What are the schools supposed to do. Put the textbooks on the Web, in violation of the author's copyright?
This shows a "don't want to attitude.

The people making the 'prediction' were computer geeks who didn't know anything about education. They were wrong, basically. See: Silicon Snake Oil by Stoll.
I didn't hear you, what you had to say about OLPC? Do you support it let the only one of you who ventured into the OLPC thread? Scared of Six7s?

All the technology and teaching methods have not really changed the US education system. When I took a class in teaching methods, I was laughing inside during the whole class. The keywords and tricky phrases were mesmerizing (sp?).

A good teacher needs a piece of chalk, subject matter and the ability to make it interesting and a classroom of reasonable students. The internet and computers are tools...tools still need operators. A teacher that can understand how to show the relavance of what is being taught so students become infected with the desire to learn will not do that better with the internet or any other modern teaching method.
This shows a person biased against technology.

A true revolution in education in the US would require the culture to change. Until parents and students consider education of primary importance, we will have to deal with students' preferring Paris Hilton over Einstein. There will be no revolution. A bunch of wheel spinning, but no revolution.
Sure there will.

And just what do you know about it? Are you a teacher, publisher, copy editor, or author?
This shows an unwillingness to accept advice outside of professional circles.

Of course channel 13 says that. They are in the video business. Do you expect them to say, "What are you doing sitting here watching TV? Go read a book!"
If "13" can be biased, why can't the teachers, against technology? What do you think of OLPC?

[drkitten]

Evidently LOL had so much fun losing the argument and making himself to be a fool the first time he wants to have a re-run.

[athon]

Evidently LOL had so much fun losing the argument and making himself to be a fool the first time he wants to have a re-run.

Re-runs bore me. Even if it was a sequel it wouldn't be as much fun as the original.

Good luck to anybody else who wants to go a round. I've got drying paint that needs watching.

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Evidently LOL had so much fun losing the argument and making himself to be a fool the first time he wants to have a re-run.
Did you already know about what Six7s said? Do you support OLPC? Athon at least came to the thread, and thought it was a good idea.

[drkitten]

Did you already know about what Six7s said?

Yes.


Do you support OLPC?

Yes, mostly because (unlike in your proposal) they're developing technology to support pedagogy, not simply changing the pedagogy to a model that we know doesn't work in support of old technology.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes.
Have you pushed its development?
I mean, if the smart man, the educator, and the crazy man, think it is a good idea, maybe it is.

Yes, mostly because (unlike in your proposal) they're developing technology to support pedagogy, not simply changing the pedagogy to a model that we know doesn't work in support of old technology.
Video works every place else, and I am all for test case development. Just test it first, and if it does not produce a big change, leave it.

[drkitten]

Video works every place else

... except where it doesn't, and where it actively makes things worse.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

... except where it doesn't, and where it actively makes things worse.

Where was that again?

[six7s]

Where was that again?

Where content takes a back seat and presentation is the driver

One of the WWWs (self-proclaimed?) gurus, Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/), has much to say on this subject. Alas, his sermons are delivered at the other extreme - where presentation is so mind-numbingly dull that his content is rather difficult to decipher... a professor from the 'do as I say, not as I do' school of thought?

Information: that which informs
Technology: any tools that were invented after I was

Hands up those who haven't endured a powerpoint(less) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=powerpointless&btnG=Search&meta=) presentation where considerable time and effort has been spent developing a 'resource' that failed to deliver, simply because the pace and direction of the lesson has been hard-coded into a static 'show' without the flexibility to accommodate dynamic queries

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Where content takes a back seat and presentation is the driver

One of the WWWs (self-proclaimed?) gurus, Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/), has much to say on this subject. Alas, his sermons are delivered at the other extreme - where presentation is so mind-numbingly dull that his content is rather difficult to decipher... a professor from the 'do as I say, not as I do' school of thought?

Information: that which informs
Technology: any tools that were invented after I was

Hands up those who haven't endured a powerpoint(less) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=powerpointless&btnG=Search&meta=) presentation where considerable time and effort has been spent developing a 'resource' that failed to deliver, simply because the pace and direction of the lesson has been hard-coded into a static 'show' without the flexibility to accommodate dynamic queries
I wish I was as prepared to "deliver" as you are. The main reason I want more technology in the class room is to add excitement. I remember how I felt when we got to see a film. The available technology should not only be able help fight apathy, it should be able to do a good job teaching. If it doesn't, it must be being used wrong. Put the lesson into a story line-like Hollywood does. As I have seen done in training films.
That thing I said about "throwing it till it stuck", had nothing to do with chaining anyone to a chair and forcing them to watch. I am just fine with "three throws, then change the pitch".

[blutoski]

I wish I was as prepared to "deliver" as you are. The main reason I want more technology in the class room is to add excitement. I remember how I felt when we got to see a film. The available technology should not only be able help fight apathy, it should be able to do a good job teaching. If it doesn't, it must be being used wrong. Put the lesson into a story line-like Hollywood does. As I have seen done in training films.

Yeah, but it's not the technology you're responding to - it's the entertainment content and the variety. In a video-based educational program, the 'relief' would be a real teacher. Would it be different if the 'break' was a play, instead of a movie?

I hated the movies, because we had to stop talking and just sit on our hands for half an hour.

Not everybody's a technophile. Somewhere around grade eight, the technophiles separate themselves from the majority of the students.




That thing I said about "throwing it till it stuck", had nothing to do with chaining anyone to a chair and forcing them to watch. I am just fine with "three throws, then change the pitch".

How does a recording 'change the pitch'?

[blutoski]

Where content takes a back seat and presentation is the driver

One of the WWWs (self-proclaimed?) gurus, Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/), has much to say on this subject. Alas, his sermons are delivered at the other extreme - where presentation is so mind-numbingly dull that his content is rather difficult to decipher... a professor from the 'do as I say, not as I do' school of thought?

Information: that which informs
Technology: any tools that were invented after I was

Hands up those who haven't endured a powerpoint(less) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=powerpointless&btnG=Search&meta=) presentation where considerable time and effort has been spent developing a 'resource' that failed to deliver, simply because the pace and direction of the lesson has been hard-coded into a static 'show' without the flexibility to accommodate dynamic queries

I have attended Neilson's lectures on more than one occasion. He's not really focused on the education market - more on usability, commerce, and specifically portables such as handhelds these days.

Part of his rationale for very simple visuals in his publications is a compromise for Blackberries, Treos, MotoQ &c. It's a leftover from the advice he would give during the early days of the web when bandwidth was so limited. Now, those restrictions do apply to these devices, and it's history repeating itself.

[six7s]

...Neilson's...not really focused on the education market - more on usability...

My opinions of Neilson would be better discussed on a Conspiracy Theory thread

<ctRant>

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox of July 23, 2007 (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/dialog-box.html) was summarised as
Interaction techniques that deviate from common GUI standards can create usability catastrophes that make applications impossible to use.


To illustrate his point, he picked on IrfanView - a very fast, small, compact and innovative graphic viewer for Windows 9x/ME/NT/2000/XP/2003 that is hugely popular, open-source, free-for-non-commercial-use and costs €10 for commercial use

He did not pick on Micro$oft - which is not only equally guilty of crimes against usability, but commits them on a much wider scale... with a proportionally large fund of lawyers? ? ?

CTer? ? ? Me? ? ?
</ctRant>


The reason I thought of Neilson was that he, an industry expert, continues to make egregious errors in his own field:
<geekSpeakRant>


only one stylesheet in his files - with no attempt to accommodate the various media types (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-types)
the use of unnecessarily large (byte-wise) images (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/dialog-box-no-ok.png) to illustrate his point

</geekSpeakRant>


So... it is no surprise to me that today's classrooms- with teachers trained and proficient in trad. pre-digital methods - are not benefiting from the much-hyped revolution

I suspect that the educational benefits of the digital revolution won't even begin to be realised until a few years after significant numbers of digital natives (http://www.digitalnative.org/Main_Page) have graduated from teachers' college, equipped with an array of trad. tools, methods, skills, etc. and those we digital immigrants today regard as technology

[drkitten]

So... it is no surprise to me that today's classrooms- with teachers trained and proficient in trad. pre-digital methods - are not benefiting from the much-hyped revolution

I suspect that the educational benefits of the digital revolution won't even begin to be realised until a few years after significant numbers of digital natives (http://www.digitalnative.org/Main_Page) have graduated from teachers' college, equipped with an array of trad. tools, methods, skills, etc. and those we digital immigrants today regard as technology

Quite possibly. Indeed, that almost qualifies as obvious -- if using techology to do old things doesn't work (as we've been learning for forty-odd years), any benefits will have to come from using technology for new things. The problem is when people think that they can jump to the benefits without figuring out what the new things are going to be.

There have been fortunes made and lost in educational technology. There will continue to be fortunes made and lost in educational technology. But few people will shell out a dime for an attempt to re-bottle genies and bring back the glory days of filmstrips....

I think that part of the problem with LOL's "proposals" can be summed up in the following quote:


The main reason I want more technology in the class room is to add excitement. I remember how I felt when we got to see a film. The available technology should not only be able help fight apathy, it should be able to do a good job teaching.

The problem is that "exciting" isn't "educational"; if it were, we could just put the entire class onto a roller coaster. Getting the kids hyped up isn't the same as getting them engaged -- and a lot of times, it's the exact opposite. Excitement can actually hinder critical thinking, as Hollywood knows well. Put some dramatic music and flashy special effects into a plot, and the viewer won't realize until he gets out of the theater -- if ever -- that the plot was thinner than cheap hotel sheets and about as full of holes.

[six7s]

Quite possibly. Indeed, that almost qualifies as obvious

If only 'common sense' was common and sensible

[drkitten]

If only 'common sense' was common and sensible

And, of course, if it were, this forum would be a tenth the size it is -- if it existed at all.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

There have been fortunes made and lost in educational technology. There will continue to be fortunes made and lost in educational technology. But few people will shell out a dime for an attempt to re-bottle genies and bring back the glory days of filmstrips....
I said films were nice, they provided a "zing" to a mostly zingless experience. There is nothing wrong with a little zing. Good teachers are accredited with giving zing to a zingless experience.

I think that part of the problem with LOL's "proposals" can be summed up in the following quote:

The problem is that "exciting" isn't "educational";
Sure it is. Or it can be. Good teachers can literally "animate" lesson plans. Only problem with that, it is a personal experience, lose the person and... things get boring again.


if it were, we could just put the entire class onto a roller coaster.
What about museums? They are educational roller coaster rides. Can you measure how much students learn on that one day? The walls of every school should try and duplicate the experience.


Getting the kids hyped up isn't the same as getting them engaged -- and a lot of times, it's the exact opposite. Excitement can actually hinder critical thinking, as Hollywood knows well. Put some dramatic music and flashy special effects into a plot, and the viewer won't realize until he gets out of the theater -- if ever -- that the plot was thinner than cheap hotel sheets and about as full of holes.
Education is best when it is entertaining, ask any teacher.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Quite possibly. Indeed, that almost qualifies as obvious -- if using techology to do old things doesn't work (as we've been learning for forty-odd years), any benefits will have to come from using technology for new things.
Technology is used to do old things all the time. Doing old things better, is the drive behind the search for new technology.

The problem is when people think that they can jump to the benefits without figuring out what the new things are going to be.
There is an attempt to jump with each new thing, today though, you believe that the OLPC thing is a good idea, and it has a good online program. Home-schooling works in Ohio, and if it works at full strength, my thing would work because it would only be a water downed version. It would just put homework on line, allowing anything learned the night before to directly impact the next day.

[drkitten]

Sure it is. Or it can be.

Yup. And right there is the problem.

I say that "exciting" isn't equivalent to "educational." You say that it is.

I say "we need to make sure that education is actually eduational." You say "no, just make it exciting."

I say "what does it matter if the kids are excited, if they're not learning anything." You say "they'll learn automatically if they're excited."

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yup. And right there is the problem.

I say that "exciting" isn't equivalent to "educational." You say that it is.

I say "we need to make sure that education is actually eduational." You say "no, just make it exciting."

I say "what does it matter if the kids are excited, if they're not learning anything." You say "they'll learn automatically if they're excited."
You are the master of out of context. I never said any of that. Why on earth would "exciting" be equal to "education"?
No matter what, you just hear what you want to hear, don't you? "Houston, I think we found the problem."

[NobbyNobbs]

The main reason I want more technology in the class room is to add excitement.

And here's the first problem. The main reason to have more of anything in a classroom should be to add education.

I remember how I felt when we got to see a film.

You know, you've made me stop and think back to my time in school. And you've made me come to a realization.

I don't remember one, single, solitary, damn thing that I was shown in a film during class.

When I think back to all the memorable "teaching moments" I had as a student, every single one of them involves an activity, generally a get-out-of-your-seat-and-interact activity, and every single one of them involves a dynamic teacher who was excited about what they were doing. As a result, that excitement was infectious.

Not a single memory about a video. Not one.

You have enlightened me. Should I ever teach again, I know what to do...use the videos sparingly, if at all.

Thank you (sincerely).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And here's the first problem. The main reason to have more of anything in a classroom should be to add education.
Fine, that is the main reason. But education is best when it is interesting.


You know, you've made me stop and think back to my time in school. And you've made me come to a realization.

I don't remember one, single, solitary, damn thing that I was shown in a film during class.
How long has it been? Most memories do not stick around forever. I have been out of school for 30 years, and yes, much of the details of what went on there are gone. I do however remember one film, it was an anti-drug film where the addict poured the drug into open sores. That stuck with me.

Not a single memory about a video. Not one.

You have enlightened me. Should I ever teach again, I know what to do...use the videos sparingly, if at all.

Thank you (sincerely).
You welcome, but you were already leaning away from technology anyway.
By the way, how do you feel about OLPC?

[NobbyNobbs]

Fine, that is the main reason. But education is best when it is interesting.

And good teachers make it interesting.


How long has it been? Most memories do not stick around forever. I have been out of school for 30 years, and yes, much of the details of what went on there are gone. I do however remember one film, it was an anti-drug film where the addict poured the drug into open sores. That stuck with me.

My point was not that I don't remember anything from school. I most certainly do, quite a bit, in fact. And the parts that stick with me most were what I described above. The parts that stick with me least..that is to say, not at all....were the films.

Actually, though, I do remember one thing about films. I remember that every time we saw the teacher setting one up, our first thought was, "Cool! Now he'll turn the lights out and we can sleep!"

You welcome, but you were already leaning away from technology anyway.

You assume much, young Padawan. I am not leaning away from technology; in fact, I used quite a lot of it in my classroom. As an aid to teaching, not a substitute. Each student had a a laptop. We used Vernier sensors and Logger Pro software to measure experiments. I used accelerometers, spectrographs, websites, powerpoint, incubators, vacuum chambers, and so on.

At no point did I put on a video and say, "Here. Learn this."


By the way, how do you feel about OLPC?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And good teachers make it interesting.
Right. They are tasked with animating books. I have no problem with them. Technology can help them.



My point was not that I don't remember anything from school. I most certainly do, quite a bit, in fact. And the parts that stick with me most were what I described above. The parts that stick with me least..that is to say, not at all....were the films.
Fine. they weren't that good. I thought that the next step in technology could do better.

You assume much, young Padawan. I am not leaning away from technology; in fact, I used quite a lot of it in my classroom. As an aid to teaching, not a substitute.
I have nothing against teachers.


Each student had a a laptop. We used Vernier sensors and Logger Pro software to measure experiments. I used accelerometers, spectrographs, websites, powerpoint, incubators, vacuum chambers, and so on.
And technology works, right?

At no point did I put on a video and say, "Here. Learn this."
No one said you did. But, good teachers can't go home with their students, video can.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
You seen the thread about it, what do you think?

[six7s]

By the way, how do you feel about OLPC?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

OLPC: One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit organization with the mission to help eradicate world poverty by providing every child access to knowledge and modern forms of education, even if that child lives in the most rural and primitive environment

JREF forum discussion with links to the OLPC main site and wiki (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91441)

[NobbyNobbs]

No one said you did. But, good teachers can't go home with their students, video can.


*sigh*


You seen the thread about it, what do you think?

Perhaps if you mentioned what OLPC stands for, I might be able to give you an opinion on it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

*sigh*
What do you have against teachers going home via video? With all the pressure on parents to do the things that teachers do, what could be better than teachers (or the lesson) making the trip to help them?



Perhaps if you mentioned what OLPC stands for, I might be able to give you an opinion on it.
By the way you said that, you already know.

[NobbyNobbs]

What do you have against teachers going home via video? With all the pressure on parents to do the things that teachers do, what could be better than teachers (or the lesson) making the trip to help them?

Because a video can't answer questions. It can't follow diversions. It can't explain using different words. It can't look for the multitude of non-verbal cues that a teacher recognizes when a kid doesn't understand. It can't stop someone from cheating. It can't go into more detail.

All it can do is rewind.




By the way you said that, you already know.

Wow. How did you possibly get that from this?


Perhaps if you mentioned what OLPC stands for, I might be able to give you an opinion on it.

I wasn't familiar with the acronym. Now that I know what it stands for, I realize I am moderately familiar with the program. Apology accepted.

One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit organization with the mission to help eradicate world poverty by providing every child access to knowledge and modern forms of education, even if that child lives in the most rural and primitive environment

Bolding mine. Have they thought about how children in the most rural and primitive environments will have access to electricity and wi-fi? Perhaps they should concentrate on feeding them, first.....

[six7s]

Have they thought about how children in the most rural and primitive environments will have access to electricity and wi-fi?
Yes. They have done more than think :)


Links:

Electricity http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Battery_and_power
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Battery_and_power)
Wi-fi: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Wireless
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Wireless)

Perhaps they should concentrate on feeding them, first.....
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Our_mission Isn't this project just a techno-Utopian dream? A band aid when more serious surgery needs to be done?
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Our_mission#Isn.27t_this_project_just_a_techno-Utopian_dream.3F_A_band_aid_when_more_serious_surg ery_needs_to_be_done.3F)

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes. They have done more than think :)


Links:

Electricity http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Battery_and_power
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Battery_and_power)
Wi-fi: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Wireless
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Wireless)


http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Our_mission Isn't this project just a techno-Utopian dream? A band aid when more serious surgery needs to be done?
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Our_mission#Isn.27t_this_project_just_a_techno-Utopian_dream.3F_A_band_aid_when_more_serious_surg ery_needs_to_be_done.3F)


Excellent. I'm glad for that. I guess when I read "the most rural and undeveloped areas", I was thinking about those ads on TV with Sally Struthers where you sponsor a kid for a nickel a week. Looks like they're targeting slightly more affluent areas than that.

For LOL's benefit, by the way, here's a pertinent FAQ they asked at that last link.

Is this project really about getting computers to kids?
The answer is an unequivocal yes! But it doesn't stop there. We also want to get millions of textbooks to kids and give them an excellent education as well. This is an education project, not a laptop project.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Excellent. I'm glad for that. I guess when I read "the most rural and undeveloped areas", I was thinking about those ads on TV with Sally Struthers where you sponsor a kid for a nickel a week. Looks like they're targeting slightly more affluent areas than that.
One step at a time.

For LOL's benefit, by the way, here's a pertinent FAQ they asked at that last link.
As long as you think you are helping me. I have never been against textbooks, or thought anything about laptops replacing them. My problem is that they are not available to all students-and they should be. Lack of textbooks has hindered education, I experienced it. There were cases where we had to share, and in other cases, parts of a textbook had to be copied for those who didn't have one. If some school textbooks was online, perhaps they (or someone else) could download it. And I would not give a damn if that is considered stealing-have the publisher bill their school system.

[Z]

One step at a time.

As long as you think you are helping me. I have never been against textbooks, or thought anything about laptops replacing them. My problem is that they are not available to all students-and they should be. Lack of textbooks has hindered education, I experienced it. There were cases where we had to share, and in other cases, parts of a textbook had to be copied for those who didn't have one. If some school textbooks was online, perhaps they (or someone else) could download it. And I would not give a damn if that is considered stealing-have the publisher bill their school system.


Where and when did you go to school? I lived in horribly poor rural areas, in places where paved roads were up to 20 miles away, where the entire neighborhood might have to share one beat up used pickup truck - and our school (which was situated in a number of small trailers in an open field) still had textbooks for all. I went to high school in a town where they offered six years of agriculture class, because they expected the average student to take six years to get from ninth grade to graduation, and because over half the class would drop out before grade 11 to go work on the farm - and we had all the textbooks we needed, too.

You must have lived someplace VERY pathetic....

[NobbyNobbs]

One step at a time.

As long as you think you are helping me. I have never been against textbooks, or thought anything about laptops replacing them. My problem is that they are not available to all students-and they should be. Lack of textbooks has hindered education, I experienced it. There were cases where we had to share, and in other cases, parts of a textbook had to be copied for those who didn't have one. If some school textbooks was online, perhaps they (or someone else) could download it. And I would not give a damn if that is considered stealing-have the publisher bill their school system.


Based on tidbits from here and there in your posts, and especially this one, it sounds to me like you are a bit disgruntled not because of problems in the system in general, but because of one specific problem you personally encountered in your past.

You may have not had good access to cheap textbooks. You may benefit from bringing a video home. That does not mean that the same is true for the system country-wide....or even county-wide. You can't generalize the need for "a revolution" based on one anecdote from Bob-knows how many years ago.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Because a video can't answer questions.
Couldn't they ask the teacher when they see them? And what if the video is clear enough to be understood? You do know that there is a vast "how to" video market out there. Why is the school so different? It is the one place where questions about what is seen, can be actively entertained.

It can't follow diversions.

It can't explain using different words.

It can't go into more detail.

Different videos could. So, are you saying that unless something can "do it all" it can't be used for anything?

It can't look for the multitude of non-verbal cues that a teacher recognizes when a kid doesn't understand.
In classes of 30, teachers miss those anyway. A personal teacher is of course ideal, but they are in short supply, they can be overwhelmed, and they can't follow the student home.

All it can do is rewind.
How many things allows a person to review like that?

Wow. How did you possibly get that from this?
Just a feeling.


I wasn't familiar with the acronym. Now that I know what it stands for, I realize I am moderately familiar with the program. Apology accepted.
See, I was right. Really though, I thought you seen it when Six7s mentioned starting that thread.

[drkitten]

Just a feeling.

"Why is this night different from all other nights?"

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Where and when did you go to school? I lived in horribly poor rural areas, in places where paved roads were up to 20 miles away, where the entire neighborhood might have to share one beat up used pickup truck - and our school (which was situated in a number of small trailers in an open field) still had textbooks for all. I went to high school in a town where they offered six years of agriculture class, because they expected the average student to take six years to get from ninth grade to graduation, and because over half the class would drop out before grade 11 to go work on the farm - and we had all the textbooks we needed, too.

You must have lived someplace VERY pathetic....
It was a rough neighborhood, but no one was hijacking school supply trucks. We should all have had school books, that is what was pathetic. As I understand it, the money spent to educate Newark children is among the highest in N.J., but the product still leaves much to be desired.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Based on tidbits from here and there in your posts, and especially this one, it sounds to me like you are a bit disgruntled not because of problems in the system in general, but because of one specific problem you personally encountered in your past.
That is what you want it to sound like. "One specific problem" was that all it was? You would do better to analyze yourself. I shared that situation with the rest of the school. I am just the one here talking about it.


You may have not had good access to cheap textbooks. You may benefit from bringing a video home. That does not mean that the same is true for the system country-wide....or even county-wide.
Get real, this is not all about me. Ask Athon, parts of the American school system have a problem. Textbooks are a problem, and so is the nonuse of the available technology.


You can't generalize the need for "a revolution" based on one anecdote from Bob-knows how many years ago.
Some N.J. schools are still failing, today, that is the problem. I am not here crying about what happened years ago, its still happenning, that is a reason to cry, yell, and/or try and do something about it.

[NobbyNobbs]

Do you have any teaching experience? Have you ever talked with a teacher about this?

Couldn't they ask the teacher when they see them?

No. It's surprising when a student can remember a question until the end of class, or a break in the lecture, much less hold on to it until the next day.

And what if the video is clear enough to be understood? You do know that there is a vast "how to" video market out there. Why is the school so different?

Understood by whom? Each of 30 kids? Do you really think that the way to teach is to tell someone something one way, and then they've learned it? Is that what you think teachers do all day? The tell, and retell, and rephrase, and paraphrase, and digress, and regress, and review, and link to other topics, and take advantage of "teachable moments", and answer spontaneous questions, and encourage.

Videos can't do any of that.


Different videos could.

Show me one.




In classes of 30, teachers miss those anyway.

/sarcasm/ Oh, there's a good reason. They're missed anyway, so don't worry about it? /sarcasm/

How many things allows a person to review like that?

Human beings.

Just a feeling. As I suspected.


See, I was right.

Um, no. You weren't.

That is what you want it to sound like. "One specific problem" was that all it was? You would do better to analyze yourself. I shared that situation with the rest of the school. I am just the one here talking about it.


Get real, this is not all about me. Ask Athon, parts of the American school system have a problem. Textbooks are a problem, and so is the nonuse of the available technology.


Some N.J. schools are still failing, today, that is the problem. I am not here crying about what happened years ago, its still happenning, that is a reason to cry, yell, and/or try and do something about it.

You are giving one example of one school system years ago where the students had to share books. It's the only concrete evidence you've given inthis whole thread, and even so you don't mention dates or places. Based on that, we are supposed to revolutionize the system?

[Z]

Oh, so we're talking NJ years ago.

You do realize, things have changed since then? Not everywhere, and not always for the best, but they HAVE changed.

[fuelair]

MONEY.
Not sufficient to even start the idea. And intellectually dysfunctional/educationally dysfunctional material floods the internet (I am certain Sturgeon's Law holds here in spades!!)

[uruk]

I kind of zipped through this thread so I don't know if anybody has already addressed these issues.
I'm assuming that the OP is refereing to the primary education system.
There are problems with total e-education on the primary level.

I teach at a community college. We have several on-line curriculum. Theoretically you could get your degree without actually setting foot on our campus.
We use a system called WebCT for on line testing and dessemination of lectures and assignments that the student logs onto (after he's paid his tution). Most of us usually post our lectures on itunes and direct downloads.

Our book store provides e-book and pdf versions for almost all the textbook we use (usually provided by the publishers).
Oh BTW, Textbook prices are usually high because they target a niche market and new books have to compete with used books.
On the primary education level, the governmet already provides the textbooks to the schools.

The problem with this system is any class that requires lab work. i.e. Science class, nursing and vocational classes, Any class that requires hands-on experiance, are not practical to have as an on-line class. .

We also notice that there is a low passing rate amoung the students who first try to take on line courses. The on line course requires alot of self-motivation and self-guidence. ( on-line classes are not for everyone) Not alot of children of primary school age have a whole lot of self-motivation or self-gudance. There has to be someone to make sure that the they pay attention and get thier work done.

Someone also mentioned that education is a two way process between teacher and student. This is VERY true. Especially in the primary education system.
Children require alot of hands-on guidance. Also, everybody is different. Not everybody learns the same way or at the same rate. Some in-class learnig mode accomodation has to take place in real-time. That is something that a one-way video lesson plan cannot provide.

There has been some success with a two-way video conferance style system for children who have to stay at home for health reasons.
Also, few children have the attention span or motivation to sit infront of thier TV or computer long enough to go through a full one-way class video. (cartoons and comercials not-withstanding)

For children, there has to be some sort of direct human feed back. That is why a full e-class cirriculum is not viable on the primary education level.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Oh, so we're talking NJ years ago.

You do realize, things have changed since then? Not everywhere, and not always for the best, but they HAVE changed.
Of course they have, yet I see the same problems. And why not? Plenty of systems are still doing things the same way, and are not making use of the available technology. Lots of people in education still believe that all they need is a blackboard and chalk, while their students are moving with the technology.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do you have any teaching experience? Have you ever talked with a teacher about this?
Teachering is the one profession where everyone has an idea of what they are doing, we sat and watch them for the better part of a day, for 12 years. From that a person can get a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses, most of us experienced them. As for me, I did not just get up yesterday with this stuff, I am in fact concerned, and you are not the first to hear them. Look at it this way, this is a forum with education in its name, yet, this section is among the least visited-but I'm here.


No. It's surprising when a student can remember a question until the end of class, or a break in the lecture, much less hold on to it until the next day.
You sound like you are talking about 3rd graders. By the 11th and 12th, students have a good handled on it, even if they do not ask all the questions they should. And perhaps by then, they may have even learned to write them down.

[drkitten]

Teachering is the one profession where everyone has an idea of what they are doing,

Yeah, that's part of the problem. Everyone has an idea of what teachers do -- most of them erroneous (as your suggestions have amply demonstrated).

And here's another example.
By the 11th and 12th, students have a good handled on it, even if they do not ask all the questions they should.

Perhaps they should. But they don't. And there are fairly good psychological reasons for this, related to attention and "short-term memory."


And perhaps by then, they may have even learned to write them down.

Why should they have learned this, if no one has bothered to teach them? Teaching students good "study habits" is one of the hardest parts of education in general -- and this specific behavior is not only not taught, it's specifically discouraged under modern educatino theory... and for good reasons. A good teacher should be prepared instead to
interrupt her activity at more or less any point in order to address questions immediately and on the spot.

There are several good reasons for this. The first is that a student who fails to understand an important concept in minute five of a forty-minute lesson is not going to get as much out of the remaining thirty-five minutes of the lesson. At best, they will sit there in polite incomprehension and disinterest -- and just wasted both your time and theirs, (Theirs because they're not getting anything out of the lesson, yours because you will have to present the material again so that they can get a handle on it.) At worst, they will become detached, disinterested, and unmotivated and you've lost them for the rest of the class.

The second is that asking questions immediately gives the student a chance to get an answer equally immediately, when the concepts are fresh in their mind, and thus the answer is most likely to be understood and retained.

The third is that writing down questions is bad, because if you're concentrating on writing down a question, you're not paying attention to the new material being presented during that time period. Even note-taking is a skill, and a lot of people find that their understanding improves as they take less notes, since they're paying closer attention to the lecture, demonstration, or activity and less likely to miss important points now because they're writing about what happened three minutes from now.

Finally, as any teacher can tell you, students -- at all levels -- never ask enough questions; in a classroom setting, you can be confident that if one student is confused enough to ask a question, several others are confused but silent. Stopping to address the question, possibly to engage in discussion, is a very easy way to cement the understanding of the entire group.

That's one reason why the notion of "teachable moment" is stressed in so many educational theories and practices. Because students learn best from immediate feedback, something you can't get from a video. And, of course, when I say "best," I mean "best by a substantial magnitude"....

Once again, you have an educational theory that appears to have little basis in either pegagogy, psychology, or reality.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Understood by whom? Each of 30 kids?
No one method is not enough to reach everybody. Which is why other options are needed, and available.

Do you really think that the way to teach is to tell someone something one way, and then they've learned it? Is that what you think teachers do all day? The tell, and retell, and rephrase, and paraphrase, and digress, and regress, and review, and link to other topics, and take advantage of "teachable moments", and answer spontaneous questions, and encourage.
Doing all that consistently can overwhelm teachers. In high school, what teachers do is repetitive, technology can help them "rewind" when they need to, without doing it themselves.

Videos can't do any of that.
If you taped a teachers best teachering session with their students, wouldn't that be a video doing all the things you referred to above?
If the student watched that teacher/tape the day before, wouldn't viewing that tape give students a hint of what is to come?

Show me one.
There are none, (that I know of) about lessons, but I know there are some about other things. Teachers have not felt the need to make them-that's the problem. Don't worry, I'll help.


Human beings.
Human beings used technology to their advantage.

Um, no. You weren't.
You did know.


You are giving one example of one school system years ago where the students had to share books. It's the only concrete evidence you've given inthis whole thread, and even so you don't mention dates or places. Based on that, we are supposed to revolutionize the system?
:confused: :( :eye-poppi I thought I mentioned something about computers, the internet, and online courses? You are another one who hears what they want to hear. I am starting to think that that is a defensive reflect. Confuse, divert, and bogged down. That won't work on me though, I'll just put on my helmet, and keep coming. The longer you persist, the sadder you will look.
Hey, would you help push the OLPC program where you are? Since you do think it is a good idea. I would hate to see it go the way of so many other good ideas where people say it is nice, then ignore it to death.

[drkitten]

If you taped a teachers best teachering session with their students, wouldn't that be a video doing all the things you referred to above?

Hmmm. Let's check that list again:


Do you really think that the way to teach is to tell someone something one way, and then they've learned it? Is that what you think teachers do all day? Theytell, and retell, and rephrase, and paraphrase, and digress, and regress, and review, and link to other topics, and take advantage of "teachable moments", and answer spontaneous questions, and encourage.

Note the highlighted bits. A video can't usually do any of those, since those aspects can't be predicted in advance. You don't know until you see them what will be a "teachable moment" or how best to address it; you don't know what the spontaneous question will be until you hear it, and the best encouragement is given on-the-spot in response to genuine instance of student accomplishment. Attempts by videos to be encouraging almost always come across as stagey, fake, and insincere....

Now, a video can certainly tell and retell, but until you can actualy read the faces of the class in front of them, you don't know what part of the lessons need retelling or what kinds of paraphrase are most likely to be effective. So although a video can certainly tell the same story more than once from slightly different point of view, it's not going to be able to do so nearly as effectively as a human teacher.

Nobby seemed to have gotten it spot on:


Videos can't do any of that.

So back to your suggestion:


If the student watched that teacher/tape the day before, wouldn't viewing that tape give students a hint of what is to come?

If you're going to take up an hour of student time with watching a lesson, why not give a real hour's lesson, instead of just "a hint of what's to come"? If this is supposed to be classroom hours, then the teacher is available and can be genuinely teaching. If this is supposed to happen at home ("Here, take this video and watch it,") there are a lot more effective uses of "homework time" that involve the student in active problem solving (do these problems yourself instead of watching me do them) instead of passive reception, for much better learning.

It's not that there's anything bad about watching video itself. I mean, if the other choice were going home and shooting heroin, watching an educational video is probably a better idea. But we also know of a lot of other things that are better methods for home instructional supplements even than watching educational videos. Why should the schools spend lots of money to completely revise the curriculum when they've got a substantially better system in place that is largely paid for?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yeah, that's part of the problem. Everyone has an idea of what teachers do -- most of them erroneous (as your suggestions have amply demonstrated).

What, they can't see? "It only appears that way, to the untrained eye."

Perhaps they should. But they don't. And there are fairly good psychological reasons for this, related to attention and "short-term memory."
So you are saying that they are simply not able. You need for them to ask, they should ask, they are simply not able. So what good is the method if they are "simply unable"? Just hope enough of them are able to get it?
By the way, I don't believe any of that for a second. Most of that chatter you hear coming from them between classes, has to do with the movies, malls, internet, and countless other things they remember from days gone by. They are just talking about them so fast that it only appears chatter. If what you are saying is right, we would be working on fitting them with recording devices. The thing is, they remember most, what they want to-or have to-remember. Lets make them want to.

Why should they have learned this, if no one has bothered to teach them?
I thought teachers were?

Teaching students good "study habits" is one of the hardest parts of education in general -- and this specific behavior is not only not taught, it's specifically discouraged under modern educatino theory... and for good reasons.
They are doing decent reports by 10th grade, and I have witnessed the attempt to teach them study habits at 5th grade.

A good teacher should be prepared instead to
interrupt her activity at more or less any point in order to address questions immediately and on the spot.
Immediate is best, but the class is only 40 minutes long.

At worst, they will become detached, disinterested, and unmotivated and you've lost them for the rest of the class.
What if they could rewind the class?

The second is that asking questions immediately gives the student a chance to get an answer equally immediately, when the concepts are fresh in their mind, and thus the answer is most likely to be understood and retained.
Most likely to be, fine. But from what I see here, you aren't even encourging writing a question down. It can't be immediately always.

The third is that writing down questions is bad, because if you're concentrating on writing down a question, you're not paying attention to the new material being presented during that time period.
So it is bad. They divide their time everyplace else. And there is a lot of "dead air" in any lesson seesion. They don't have to hang on every word. Besides, if they were watching a video at home, about the lesson, they could pause it.

Even note-taking is a skill, and a lot of people find that their understanding improves as they take less notes, since they're paying closer attention to the lecture, demonstration, or activity and less likely to miss important points now because they're writing about what happened three minutes from now.
Hit rewind.

Finally, as any teacher can tell you, students -- at all levels -- never ask enough questions; in a classroom setting, you can be confident that if one student is confused enough to ask a question, several others are confused but silent. Stopping to address the question, possibly to engage in discussion, is a very easy way to cement the understanding of the entire group.
Of course. No one said anything about not stopping to answer questions. Hit pause.

That's one reason why the notion of "teachable moment" is stressed in so many educational theories and practices.
What they need is a way to "preserve the moment".

Because students learn best from immediate feedback, something you can't get from a video. And, of course, when I say "best," I mean "best by a substantial magnitude"....
Immediate is best, but not always possible. What's the next best thing?

Once again, you have an educational theory that appears to have little basis in either pegagogy, psychology, or reality.
In your reality students are too dumb, and there is no technology. At least none that can come close to "chalk and blackboard".

[Z]

One of the biggest problems with using video is that, even though you can rewind and play parts over and over again, if the material isn't presented in a way you can understand it - perhaps, not in-depth enough, or glossed over a seemingly minor point - replaying it over and over isn't going to change the presentation, and you still won't understand what's going on.

One of the nice things about the K12 program via OHVA is that not only does my son get the direct interaction from me - assuming, of course, that I understand the material myself - but he also has a teacher accessible via phone, email, or direct internet chat if I can't help him with a problem.

No matter what, you just can't replace a teacher with a video.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

One of the biggest problems with using video is that, even though you can rewind and play parts over and over again, if the material isn't presented in a way you can understand it - perhaps, not in-depth enough, or glossed over a seemingly minor point - replaying it over and over isn't going to change the presentation, and you still won't understand what's going on.
Fine. If the video is bad. What if it isn't? If the school's experts worked at it, I am sure that they can make good ones. I got that kind of faith in them.

One of the nice things about the K12 program via OHVA is that not only does my son get the direct interaction from me - assuming, of course, that I understand the material myself - but he also has a teacher accessible via phone, email, or direct internet chat if I can't help him with a problem.
Yes, of course, direct interaction is best, but a child reading on their own is not direct interaction, and it helps.

No matter what, you just can't replace a teacher with a video.Nobody wants to replace teachers, but they can use, video, internet, and computer help. Since all children don't learn the same way, having other options has to be good.

[six7s]

I am sure that they can make good ones. I got that kind of faith in them.
Faith is all well and good but if, as I suspect, your faith isn't based on personal experience as a teacher then - with all due respect - it don't amount to a hill o'beans

Sure... teachers could make videos... but, and its a big BUT, if they aren't as proficient in video (scripting, directing, editing, distribution, etc, etc) as they are in 'current' methods then it will NOT be an efficient use of their finite time and effort

Since all children don't learn the same way, having other options has to be good.

Of course... BUT if developing one new option costs the same (or more) than one (or more) other option(s), then its unlikely to be worthwhile

If you do have personal experience in teaching with and/or without technology, please describe what you have learned... I imagine that I am by no means alone in being interested in tips/advice from those who have something worthwhile to share

Otherwise, I think it might be better if you redirect your efforts towards a field where you do have expertise

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Hmmm. Let's check that list again:
I didn't expect it to do everything-its a video-but it can do some. It can show students asking questions, and being answered. And like you said, if one ask a question, many others are confused about the same thing, so the child on the tape, would be helping the child viewing the tape. The child viewing the tape, has the time (press pause) to write down any additional question they may have, to ask the teacher when they see them.


Note the highlighted bits. A video can't usually do any of those, since those aspects can't be predicted in advance. You don't know until you see them what will be a "teachable moment" or how best to address it; you don't know what the spontaneous question will be until you hear it, and the best encouragement is given on-the-spot in response to genuine instance of student accomplishment. Attempts by videos to be encouraging almost always come across as stagey, fake, and insincere....
Fine, they have limits, but they can help. Ask the makers of "how to" videos, they work, though they are unable to give the viewer a hug.

Now, a video can certainly tell and retell, but until you can actualy read the faces of the class in front of them, you don't know what part of the lessons need retelling or what kinds of paraphrase are most likely to be effective. So although a video can certainly tell the same story more than once from slightly different point of view, it's not going to be able to do so nearly as effectively as a human teacher.
Not trying to replace teachers, just help them.


If you're going to take up an hour of student time with watching a lesson, why not give a real hour's lesson, instead of just "a hint of what's to come"?
A hint can prepare for the real lesson. It would be like teaching the lesson twice. You know, it does not always take the first time.

If this is supposed to be classroom hours, then the teacher is available and can be genuinely teaching.
Video can help teach when the teacher is unavailable, like at home, or doing the summer.

If this is supposed to happen at home ("Here, take this video and watch it,") there are a lot more effective uses of "homework time" that involve the student in active problem solving (do these problems yourself instead of watching me do them) instead of passive reception, for much better learning.
Of course that is best, video can help explain what is to be done, and even provide some examples.

It's not that there's anything bad about watching video itself. I mean, if the other choice were going home and shooting heroin, watching an educational video is probably a better idea.
By all means, if the tape can keep them away from the needle. It may also come in handy if they are unsure of something and need to "rewind", or want to move ahead, or even if they simply wanted to learn something. Hell, they may even want to watch it with their parents, perhaps even ask them what their teacher meant at certain places.

But we also know of a lot of other things that are better methods for home instructional supplements even than watching educational videos. Why should the schools spend lots of money to completely revise the curriculum when they've got a substantially better system in place that is largely paid for?
The system needs help, video can clone teachers, give them more time for direct interaction. Of course it won't be as good as the orginal, but it can help.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Faith is all well and good but if, as I suspect, your faith isn't based on personal experience as a teacher then - with all due respect - it don't amount to a hill o'beans
My faith is in the fact that people have shown that they can do anything they put their mind to. They can also hinder, anything they set their mind against.

Sure... teachers could make videos... but, and its a big BUT, if they aren't as proficient in video (scripting, directing, editing, distribution, etc, etc) as they are in 'current' methods then it will NOT be an efficient use of their finite time and effort
I didn't mean that teachers should, they have enough to do, but I suspect their input is vital. Though if a some teachers made such videos, it need not involve them all, or all that much school time-especially if they did it over the summer. Perhaps even a retired one could. I'll see. With enough time and money, something can be worked out. I'll make them-and if they work-i'll attack school systems for not using them. I suspect, that while the "professionals" don't like them, parents and students might. "Get ahead of your class, watch the video." I want to videoize textbooks.


Of course... BUT if developing one new option costs the same (or more) than one (or more) other option(s), then its unlikely to be worthwhile
If.

If you do have personal experience in teaching with and/or without technology, please describe what you have learned... I imagine that I am by no means alone in being interested in tips/advice from those who have something worthwhile to share
I don't believe that everything should be left up to "the professionals" sometimes they act in their own interest, sometimes, they are even wrong. At other times, they think they know so much, that they become hard of hearing.
Here is what I see: video is everywhere, children watch videos, videos can help teach children. It is a simple observation, but a valid one. From what I have seen, it is not like schools have tried them, and they failed, its more like they reasoned that they would fail, so they didn't try.

Otherwise, I think it might be better if you redirect your efforts towards a field where you do have expertise
With all due respect, I don't give a damn about what you-or anybody-think I ought to do. I will handle things here. Afterall, I am the most qualified in that area.

[Z]

Fine. If the video is bad. What if it isn't? If the school's experts worked at it, I am sure that they can make good ones. I got that kind of faith in them.

Even the best videos are going to lose some kids. Some concepts take some very creative work on the parts of teachers to get through to some kids.

Yes, of course, direct interaction is best, but a child reading on their own is not direct interaction, and it helps.

But only when the child can ask questions to someone who can help them.

Nobody wants to replace teachers, but they can use, video, internet, and computer help. Since all children don't learn the same way, having other options has to be good.

Which is exactly what already happens. Hence, your entire OP is pointless.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Even the best videos are going to lose some kids. Some concepts take some very creative work on the parts of teachers to get through to some kids.
Even the best teachers are going to lose some students as well. Should we stop using them where they do work, because of that?


But only when the child can ask questions to someone who can help them.
Duh, I said it helps.


Which is exactly what already happens. Hence, your entire OP is pointless.
Not to me. It is not being used enough, and this thread has shown me why. Some of the experts-in this country-don't feel they need to keep up.

[Jeff Corey]

1.Even the best teachers are going to lose some students as well. Should we stop using them where they do work, because of that?


2.Duh, I said it helps.


2. Not to me. It is not being used enough, and this thread has shown me why. Some of the experts-in this country-don't feel they need to keep up.
1. Yes, but teachers give and get feedback. Videos don't.
2. It would have been more appropriate if you had said, "Doh!"
3. No.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

1. Yes, but teachers give and get feedback. Videos don't.
I am not trying to replace teachers, how many times do I need to say that? Is that the issue here, you all think they are threatened? I don't see why. Video is just a learning tool, like books, computers, a chalked boards, etc.


2. It would have been more appropriate if you had said, "Doh!"
I'll go with what I said.


3. No.
:confused:

[uruk]

I am not trying to replace teachers, how many times do I need to say that? Is that the issue here, you all think they are threatened? I don't see why. Video is just a learning tool, like books, computers, a chalked boards, etc.

I'll go with what I said.

:confused:

Videos work great on an adult education level where there is a desire to learn and a greater level of self-disipline.

Video only education is not so successful on the grade school level because children lack the self-disipline to sit through and pay attention to the whole video. It hard enough to get children to sit and pay attention in class when there is a teacher present.

People also have different learning modalities. Some people learn better by reading or visual demonstration (videos and text), some learn better by auditory direction (lecture), and others by physical demonstration (hands-on lab oriented).
By the time we become adults we discover what modalities we learn better under.
Children in the grade school levels have yet to discover what modality they fall under. That is where realtime feedback is necessary. A teacher has to be there to identify the modality an individual student responds to and modify the lesson plan accordingly.

You can't get that kind of response or accomodation from an instructorless environment.

[six7s]

Videos work great on an adult education level where there is a desire to learn and a greater level of self-disipline.

I was recently on a full-time course (on a 'remote campus') that had two 50-minute video lectures (from the 'central campus') scheduled per week... every student in the room had a genuine desire to learn and the 'local' lecturer had a genuine desire to teach... but... after about the sixth video, we all agreed that we were wasting our time - so we ditched the videos in favour of what evolved into a series of roundtable discussions supplemented by student-based research presentations with the lecturer serving initially as a facilitator and then, after a few weeks, as a participant! :)

[uruk]

Sorry it did not work out for you guys.
We've had success and great experiances with teleconfrence classes.

I regularly use video tutorials to learn graphic software

[Tokenconservative]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them, and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need, even though it is making good profits. Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.
What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet, and students connected to their homework through their computers? Computers are cheap, the students are on the internet. It is the school that is not making the connection. Why do you think that is? Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?

A great deal of this is owning to reluctance of older teachers to use these "newfangled contraption."

A lot has to do with the power of the text book companies (it's immense).

There's no threat of computers displacing teachers; the teacher union would never permit that to happen. The other issue is, however, cost. The reality is computer technology was, just a few years ago changing virtually weekly, and all those schools that went out and spent $4000/per on systems for their kids, found the things utterly obsolete within a year and found that they could by a much better machine for 1/4 of the price...they have been understandably reluctant to run out and buy more every 6-8 weeks.

Now that changes in the technology have slowed, and the prices have dropped into the basement, there really is no excuse other than the genral resistance to change you see in any large organization, and especially in the schools.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Not if students have to still share them.

I'm thinking about a smaller, more lively version.

It should happen in more.

In high school students have about 7 classes a day, each repeating about the same thing to a new group of students. It appears to me that some of that can be done with video. Ask your questions to a real teacher at the end.

1. I agree regarding textbooks. If they are going to be required, then every kid should have them. However, keep in mind that it's no longer 1957, when the vast majority of kids were enthralled by the idea of "my very own textbook!" and instead are today, only too happy to destroy the book as quickly as possible...and this attitude has been prevalent since (I feel I am repeating myself...because I am) the mid-60s when we were all told to rebel.

2. You are unlikely to get anything smaller and lively in a school system. That's not what they do.

3. Yes, lots of things should happen in more schools. Learning of any kind would be a nice start, and then work up to things like 100% saturation with the 'net and whatnot.

4. You have got to be kidding. One of the problems today is too little teacher interaction (because of poor-quality teachers who can't stand their students, AND because they spend so much of their time doing administrative stuff rather than...well, teaching). This might be appropriate to some AP and other upper level courses in 11th-12 grade, but most kids in school have neither the maturity nor responsibility to work in this way and have parents who are more than happy to let their kids behave like animals.

Tokie

[six7s]

...The reality is computer technology was, just a few years ago changing virtually weekly...

<snip/>
Now that changes in the technology have slowed...

Hi Tokie,

Please explain

NB. I'm not arguing, I simply don't understand what you mean, in light of what I see and read

8 new gizmos for 2007 (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0701/gallery.thirdscreen.cesgadgets/index.html)
When it comes to splashy doodads, the Consumer Electronics Show hasn't disappointed. Here are just a few of the gadgets arriving soon in a store near you.

NTEN: The Nonprofit Technology Network: The Myth of Bleeding Edge: Tue, 02/13/2007 (http://www.nten.org/blog/2007/02/13/the-myth-of-bleeding-edge-vs-basic-needs)
It's easy to get wrapped up in the excitement of bleeding edge tools. But what social change organizations really need is enterprise class software that meets their needs at affordable prices. That doesn't require bleeding edge technology. But delivering that at prices that nonprofits can afford, now that would be bleeding edge.

[Tokenconservative]

Hi Tokie,

Please explain

NB. I'm not arguing, I simply don't understand what you mean, in light of what I see and read





Yes, there are always lots of new gizmos. And yes as well, there are always newer, bigger, faster, get-whites-whiter changes in the technology. However, you get to a point in utility of such machines for kids to surf the net for research data or photos to plug into a paper where all the gizmos and all the increased speed and such mean nothing.

It's like Hollywood and CGG...it looks so real at this point that in the original Shrek (a few years ago, mind you) they had to dial-back the appearance of Princess Fiona because they'd made her look so "real" it freaked out test audiences. While you may have known that the Nazgul in The Two Towers were not real, you simply could not tell they were not real on the screen...

At what point do all the geegaws stop having utility at this level (not talking about computer classes, or some specialized graphics class or some such...talking about doing a research paper in an English class). I submit we've already surpased that level, several years ago.

All schools should have an ample supply of computers by now and should stop making excuses; those responsible for buying computers should stop sitting on their thumbs waiting, should tell their customers (parents) even the geeks out there, that good enough is good enough for what they are doing. Specialized computer classes should get what they need, on a regular basis, but library and even general computer labs don't need the latest Cray. Those who were "ahead of the curve" by getting a top Pentium system schoolwide in 2001...don't really need new computers and should stop blaming the computers. I work on one of those every day. Works fine. I am not going to create the next Shrek on this computer, to be sure, but I wouldn't be doing that on the latest whiz-bang computer, either.

Tokie

[six7s]

Yes, there are always lots of new gizmos. And yes as well, there are always newer, bigger, faster, get-whites-whiter changes in the technology

Is that your explanation for this?

Now that changes in the technology have slowed

If so, I'm no wiser

All schools should have an ample supply of computers by now and should stop making excuses; those responsible for buying computers should stop sitting on their thumbs waiting, should tell their customers (parents) even the geeks out there, that good enough is good enough for what they are doing. Specialized computer classes should get what they need, on a regular basis, but library and even general computer labs don't need the latest Cray. Those who were "ahead of the curve" by getting a top Pentium system schoolwide in 2001...don't really need new computers and should stop blaming the computers

That's quite a few shoulds

Do you have any suggestions regarding the who, what, where, when, why and how (etc) aspects?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

A great deal of this is owning to reluctance of older teachers to use these "newfangled contraption."
My thought exactly. The old order is often hostile to anything new.

A lot has to do with the power of the text book companies (it's immense).
They think, "why ruin a good thing?"


There's no threat of computers displacing teachers; the teacher union would never permit that to happen.
Oganizations tend to work in their own interest, sometimes even unconsciously.

The other issue is, however, cost. The reality is computer technology was, just a few years ago changing virtually weekly, and all those schools that went out and spent $4000/per on systems for their kids, found the things utterly obsolete within a year and found that they could by a much better machine for 1/4 of the price...they have been understandably reluctant to run out and buy more every 6-8 weeks.
The OLPC program has beat the cost thing, I don't know if it is designed to take on upgrades though, computers like that are what are needed.

Now that changes in the technology have slowed, and the prices have dropped into the basement, there really is no excuse other than the genral resistance to change you see in any large organization, and especially in the schools.
Unions are good at working in the interests of its members. The problems is, they can view competing interests as hostile, even when those interests are thoses of their charge.
We need a law like the one mentioned to be at work in Denmark, forcing all school systems to make use of technology.

[Jeff Corey]

My thought exactly. The old order is often hostile to anything new.
They think, "why ruin a good thing?"
...Oganizations

Yes, us old farts would like students to spell things correctly. I guess you think it's "new" two ues recative speeling.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That's quite a few shoulds

Do you have any suggestions regarding the who, what, where, when, why and how (etc) aspects?
I know I don't. It only recently dawned on me that the people who really should have been doing those things, have little intention to. At least little intention to provide those things to all who need them. Something that leaves it to some very much less qualified people (like me) to try and do something to move things along.

[Tokenconservative]

Is that your explanation for this?
If so, I'm no wiser

That's quite a few shoulds

Do you have any suggestions regarding the who, what, where, when, why and how (etc) aspects?

I can't help the state of my own wisdom, much less yours. Sorry.

Yes, it is quite a few "shoulds." Most "should" be changed to "would" if it were not for the fact that the teachers are more interested in how much money they can get from the system. I don't begrudge them a decent wage, by the way....but it's an ongoing mystery where all the money we pour into our schools goes. Meanwhile, teachers continue to argue that there need to be ever more teachers who are paid more and more. I wonder how it is that in the 40s and 50s, we managed to turn out much better educated (have you ever looked at the difference between textbooks from "back in the day" and now? I have. I have a collection of old school texts and some from "junior high" look a lot like the ones I had in college...) Americans with much less money in classes (urban) that typically saw a teacher:child ratio of 1:40 or 50?

How come a typical graduate coming out of NY public schools in say, 1955 could read, add, multiply and understand the basics of physics, chemistry and biology so much better than do those today, and yet that graduate was often in classes with 40 and 50 students and one teacher?

Who, what, when, why....etc.:
Who: decades of teachers who teach not because they love doing it, but because of the pay and bennies (here it comes: teachers are paid next to nothing!!! Yeah? Outside government, can you name a profession that gets the bennies teachers do?),
What: the teachers unions (primarily the NEA),
Where: um...the United States. Most other developed nations don't have these problems,
When: begining in about the mid-60s when a wholesale revolution took place among "educators" as their union strove to increase its power and influence (can you really deny that this has happened? If so, can you name a single other labor union that has even 1/10th the political clout of this one?),


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, us old farts would like students to spell things correctly. I guess you think it's "new" two ues recative speeling.

LOL!

My daughters were drilled in spelorating in their private school (handwriting, too!). When I was running a 5th grade class (public) I instituted (outside the curriculum) weekly spelling. These kids had never had spelling tests before.

I did some other things outside the curriculu, too: I taught them how to multiply and to do long division.

I was fired. For probably two years after that experience (I'd been asked by a principal in an "at risk" school to take over a class that had driven its first-year teacher to a nervous breakdown) I'd get calls from grateful parents telling me how well their son or daughter was doing in school...and thanking me--again--for doing what I did when they were in the 5th grade.

You can't buy that sort of thing. So getting fired, if just for the sake a a dozen kids in that class, was worth it.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

My thought exactly. The old order is often hostile to anything new.

They think, "why ruin a good thing?"

Oganizations tend to work in their own interest, sometimes even unconsciously.

The OLPC program has beat the cost thing, I don't know if it is designed to take on upgrades though, computers like that are what are needed.

Unions are good at working in the interests of its members. The problems is, they can view competing interests as hostile, even when those interests are thoses of their charge.
We need a law like the one mentioned to be at work in Denmark, forcing all school systems to make use of technology.


Indeed. I am an old fart and I have to force myself to use these newfangled geegaws and gizmos...like that horseless carriage fad....

Actually, the textbook companies think: let's make sure we protect our very lucrative rice bowl. And that's just what they do.

Unions had better work in their members' interests...and that is most assuredly what the teachers unions do. They talk a good game, but in the end, it's all about more, more, more for their members and screw the kids and their parents.

Our schools are more decentralized than those in Europe, and so such a law is probably not possible here. What we need, is...well, lots of things, starting with the dismantling of the teachers unions. I am a licensed professional (not a teacher) and I don't belong to a union. I know many lawyers and doctors, dentists, engineers, architects, bankers, etc...none of them belong to unions.

Why is it the only "profession" in America that is unionized is, virtually inarguably, the most important one: teachers?

Tokie

[six7s]

I can't help the state of my own wisdom, much less yours. Sorry

If you're being sincere, thanks

Perhaps you misunderstood my request, which is: Please clarify what you meant by the following:

Now that changes in the technology have slowed

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Actually, the textbook companies think: let's make sure we protect our very lucrative rice bowl. And that's just what they do.
Even though I don't know the details, I know that this has to be true-because money makes a lot of people think that way-no matter who they are charged to serve.

Unions had better work in their members' interests...and that is most assuredly what the teachers unions do. They talk a good game, but in the end, it's all about more, more, more for their members and screw the kids and their parents.
Teachers do deserve much, but the aim of unions, are designed to work in the interests of their members.

Our schools are more decentralized than those in Europe, and so such a law is probably not possible here.
Then why is the "top" able to dictate? In a centralized setup, that would work, why should the top be able to tell the entire structure to, in a sense; "interpret what I say in view of your individual situation"?

What we need, is...well, lots of things, starting with the dismantling of the teachers unions. I am a licensed professional (not a teacher) and I don't belong to a union. I know many lawyers and doctors, dentists, engineers, architects, bankers, etc...none of them belong to unions.
I believe that once, teachers did need to work in their interest. They were not being payed enough. They needed to unite in their own interest. The problem is, "enough" is relative. Did the union "compel" them to think too much about their own interests? Did it "shield" them the the "burden" of learning/using new technology?

Why is it the only "profession" in America that is unionized is, virtually inarguably, the most important one: teachers?

Tokie
Is that true?

[Tokenconservative]

Computers were suppose to be available to most students, connecting them to the world, and reducing the problems associated with textbooks. Instead, the teachers still don't know how to use them, and the textbook industry is still not meeting the need, even though it is making good profits. Schools have computer classes, after that, no farther contact with them.
What happened to ideas about the school's cirriculum on the internet, and students connected to their homework through their computers? Computers are cheap, the students are on the internet. It is the school that is not making the connection. Why do you think that is? Is the school system looking more to job security, than it is to education?


Many rural schools took immediate advantage of this at the very outset of the public web.

My kids' school makes heavy use of it and is pushing greater use under the false auspices (why they need to make this stuff up is beyond me) of "saving trees."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Even though I don't know the details, I know that this has to be true-because money makes a lot of people think that way-no matter who they are charged to serve.

Teachers do deserve much, but the aim of unions, are designed to work in the interests of their members.

Then why is the "top" able to dictate? In a centralized setup, that would work, why should the top be able to tell the entire structure to, in a sense; "interpret what I say in view of your individual situation"?

I believe that once, teachers did need to work in their interest. They were not being payed enough. They needed to unite in their own interest. The problem is, "enough" is relative. Did the union "compel" them to think too much about their own interests? Did it "shield" them the the "burden" of learning/using new technology?

Is that true?

Textbook publishers are "old" thinkers. They could just as easily publish online versions and get paid for it. Worse may be parents who like to see their kids hefting a heavy textbook believing that a nice heavy text like that MUST be teaching them something!

Yes, that's what unions do...work in the interest of their members. Or at least that's what they used to do. That's not the case for most unions today, that work only in the interest of their top bosses. The teachers union, giving it its due, does what it is supposed to do, virtually to the exclusion of anything else, despite yearly proclamations of their dedictation to "the children."

Understand that "the top" in US public education is the union, followed closely by federal $$ and then state $$. The union dictates without question. So do the feds and states by promising (not threatening, of course) to withhold funding if XYZ school does not toe the line.

Teachers have always been paid well. This is a a myth. Even "back in the day" teachers (not Wild West schoolmarms, but in modern teaching) in rural areas, teachers were frequently the "richest" people in many areas, and thier income, unlike that of some tenant farmer, was guaranteed...as was their job.

The problem in the last 20 years is that teachers, while they are primarily drawn from the lowest quintile of college graduates, found themselves teaching the kids of moderatly wealthy to wealthy people and felt that they should be earning more, without DOING more (like...educating kids). So they used the power of thier union "promising" to withhold funding to various politicians who did not toe the line for them.

It worked. Most teachers in urban areas earn a very decent living these days, and they are VERY careful when talking about thier salaries to avoid mentioning the quite simply in this day and age amazing bennies package they all get: 70-80% of their salary at retirement, full medical, vision and dental and mental health (you know of ANY plan that covers MH these days?) coverage.

"Is that true."

Well, it's arguable whether this is the most important profession, but most arguments saying no, are just wrong. As to the union question, yes, a few other professions have unions...nurses for example, but most unionize nurses work in city/state hospitals, and so are more properly classified as "government workers." Most nurses are not unionized and therefore negotiate on thier own for their salary. Teachers proclaim--constantly--that they are professionals in the same mold as say, doctors, dentists, nurses, and lawyers, etc., and yet anytime you mention doing away with the union, it's like telling a Global Warmingist that humans add only about 3-5% of the "greenhouse gasses" to the environment. It goes over like a dump truck speeding through a nitroglycerin factory.

Kids would cleraly be much better off with teachers who must compete for their jobs and schools that must compete for the best teachers, but the union and many teachers would not be better off, and since that union is the most powerful in the country that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Tokie

[genesplicer]

Not much, and good computers sell for $200.
Your post here shows one of the major reasons why things are not moving along, the people involved are too busy looking for reasons why they can't.

I teach at a poor school. 75% of the families that send kids to my school can't afford the $1.75 a day for lunch, much less $200 for a computer and more for Internet access.

Just so you understand the numbers, my school has about 1000 students. about 750 are on free lunch. That means, assuming you can get a serviceable computer for $200, that it would cost us $150,000 to outfit our poorer kids with computers... Our school just last year finally managed to make sure each classroom has at least two computers. In my case, one is a fairly good laptop, the other is a pentium III. I take that back. I also have a 486 back in the store room. The bios is fried, however. These are the realities of dealing with technology in the classroom.


Another point. Our school failed to meet its "No Child Left Behind" expectations last year, so our funding is being reduced. Let me explain how this works. Our school was required to make 6 points of growth in each of 20 criteria. In 19 of the 20 criteria, we made a MINIMUM of 23 points growth, with an average of 36. In one category, we only made 5 points of growth, rather than 6. We failed. Period, end of conversation. Our funding has been cut. No money available to buy computers for the kids.

I'll get out of rant mode before I begin my meltdown, and just say that implementing these things is difficult at best in the real world...

[athon]

I teach at a poor school. 75% of the families that send kids to my school can't afford the $1.75 a day for lunch, much less $200 for a computer and more for Internet access.

Just so you understand the numbers, my school has about 1000 students. about 750 are on free lunch. That means, assuming you can get a serviceable computer for $200, that it would cost us $150,000 to outfit our poorer kids with computers... Our school just last year finally managed to make sure each classroom has at least two computers. In my case, one is a fairly good laptop, the other is a pentium III. I take that back. I also have a 486 back in the store room. The bios is fried, however. These are the realities of dealing with technology in the classroom.


Another point. Our school failed to meet its "No Child Left Behind" expectations last year, so our funding is being reduced. Let me explain how this works. Our school was required to make 6 points of growth in each of 20 criteria. In 19 of the 20 criteria, we made a MINIMUM of 23 points growth, with an average of 36. In one category, we only made 5 points of growth, rather than 6. We failed. Period, end of conversation. Our funding has been cut. No money available to buy computers for the kids.

I'll get out of rant mode before I begin my meltdown, and just say that implementing these things is difficult at best in the real world...

I'm still shaking my head at the NCLB policy. It's one of those things I keep thinking I've misunderstood in concept...and keep being told 'No, that's exactly what it is'.

So sorry you have those conditions. :(

Athon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I teach at a poor school. 75% of the families that send kids to my school can't afford the $1.75 a day for lunch, much less $200 for a computer and more for Internet access.
I know exactly what you are talking about, me, and most of my class mates, were those kids. I hope they still have free lunch programs. Someone here told me that I was basing my experience on things that happened 30 years ago, I knew things haven't changed that much.

How is the textbook situation there?


Just so you understand the numbers, my school has about 1000 students. about 750 are on free lunch. That means, assuming you can get a serviceable computer for $200, that it would cost us $150,000 to outfit our poorer kids with computers... Our school just last year finally managed to make sure each classroom has at least two computers. In my case, one is a fairly good laptop, the other is a pentium III. I take that back. I also have a 486 back in the store room. The bios is fried, however. These are the realities of dealing with technology in the classroom.
While $200 dollars is still a lot, its less than it was. And I am looking to the school system to purchase computers, not students-somehow or another. My thoughts had to do with only computerizing the 12 grade, working downward as conditions permit.

Another point. Our school failed to meet its "No Child Left Behind" expectations last year, so our funding is being reduced. Let me explain how this works. Our school was required to make 6 points of growth in each of 20 criteria. In 19 of the 20 criteria, we made a MINIMUM of 23 points growth, with an average of 36. In one category, we only made 5 points of growth, rather than 6. We failed. Period, end of conversation. Our funding has been cut.
How can anyone expect that less funding will produce better results? Punishing the school, is punishing the students.

A while back, after ten years, here in N.J., a woman won a case where the court ordered that poor districts get more funding. Until then, the state screamed about not having the money, but once the court ordered it, they found money enough to give to all districts-because they wanted to be fair. As it turned out, the richer districts were better prepared, and sucked most of the money up. Status quo, still the same.

No money available to buy computers for the kids.
That appears to be part of the plan.

I'll get out of rant mode before I begin my meltdown, and just say that implementing these things is difficult at best in the real world...I know that things are difficult to change/get started, (Tokie can explain it better) but something has to be tried.

[Tokenconservative]

I teach at a poor school. 75% of the families that send kids to my school can't afford the $1.75 a day for lunch, much less $200 for a computer and more for Internet access.

Just so you understand the numbers, my school has about 1000 students. about 750 are on free lunch. That means, assuming you can get a serviceable computer for $200, that it would cost us $150,000 to outfit our poorer kids with computers... Our school just last year finally managed to make sure each classroom has at least two computers. In my case, one is a fairly good laptop, the other is a pentium III. I take that back. I also have a 486 back in the store room. The bios is fried, however. These are the realities of dealing with technology in the classroom.


Another point. Our school failed to meet its "No Child Left Behind" expectations last year, so our funding is being reduced. Let me explain how this works. Our school was required to make 6 points of growth in each of 20 criteria. In 19 of the 20 criteria, we made a MINIMUM of 23 points growth, with an average of 36. In one category, we only made 5 points of growth, rather than 6. We failed. Period, end of conversation. Our funding has been cut. No money available to buy computers for the kids.

I'll get out of rant mode before I begin my meltdown, and just say that implementing these things is difficult at best in the real world...


Hmmm...this first statement indicates a...failed understanding of how the "free lunch" program works.

You don't have to try to hard to get onto this, and since the more heads on it in a school/district/county/state, the more Fed money comes to the school, it's in the school's best interest to serve as many "free" lunches as possible. Where I live, they will serve a "free" lunch to any human who can enter a school...they even do this all summer long, and ADVERTISE that they are doing it in local newspapers, and on radio and TV and of course in send-home stuff with kids.

How come you failed to meet NCLB? You hand out free lunches (and probably breakfast, as they do here...to double the Fed handout)...for decades teachers have been telling us that if only kids were well-fed at school, they'd do sooo much better!

Seems a bit of a dichotomy to me.

Which is it? Are these kids not doing so well because they are getting free lunches, or because each of them does not have a computer.

I know families that forego new cars for decades, have one or even NO TVs, VCRs, etc., don't take vacations, buy 2nd hand clothes (any of the kids in your class with their baggies and Paris Hilton short skirts do this?), don't have pets so they can afford to send their kids to a private school...and ALL of them have at least one computer in their house.

Where do you live? Camaroon?

Tokie

[drkitten]

Hmmm...this first statement indicates a...failed understanding of how the "free lunch" program works.

And once again Tokie rummages around in his imagination for a description of the real world.

[genesplicer]

Hmmm...this first statement indicates a...failed understanding of how the "free lunch" program works.

You don't have to try to hard to get onto this, and since the more heads on it in a school/district/county/state, the more Fed money comes to the school, it's in the school's best interest to serve as many "free" lunches as possible. Where I live, they will serve a "free" lunch to any human who can enter a school...they even do this all summer long, and ADVERTISE that they are doing it in local newspapers, and on radio and TV and of course in send-home stuff with kids.

How come you failed to meet NCLB? You hand out free lunches (and probably breakfast, as they do here...to double the Fed handout)...for decades teachers have been telling us that if only kids were well-fed at school, they'd do sooo much better!

Seems a bit of a dichotomy to me.

I understand the free lunch situation. You don't understand economics. I stated that these families could not afford lunch. That's why the program exists. What I was trying to get across to you is the fact that if a family can't afford food, computers are even further out of reach. I probably understand the culture of poverty better than most who are not in the middle of it, simply because I have studied it and deal with it on a daily basis.

Ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need? Interesting idea. In simplistic form it says that if your basic needs (Food, shelter, clothing) are not being met, you can't go to the higher levels. A couple of examples: If Timmy is living out of his mom's car, he will probably have a difficult time understanding why quadratic equations are considered a big deal by the teacher. If little Suzy has not had any food since lunch the previous day and is now in third period, she may have difficulty focusing on why the cell membrane is such a significant part of cell structure.

To answer your tongue-in-cheek question regarding feeding kids and passing tests, we feed kids to help meet their basic needs. I guarantee you that if you removed the free lunch program, our scores would plummet like a stunned falcon.


Which is it? Are these kids not doing so well because they are getting free lunches, or because each of them does not have a computer.

Computers would help, because they are access to information. The more information, the greater the chance of gaining understanding. However plopping a kid in front of a computer and saying "learn!" isn't going to do squat. They need to be taught how, and more importantly, why the information they are using is important.


I know families that forego new cars for decades, have one or even NO TVs, VCRs, etc., don't take vacations, buy 2nd hand clothes (any of the kids in your class with their baggies and Paris Hilton short skirts do this?), don't have pets so they can afford to send their kids to a private school...and ALL of them have at least one computer in their house.

Good for you. I know families who live in one-room apartments and have to provide for 6 people on less than $800 per month. Kinda hard to pay for rent, food and clothes on that, much less anything else.


Where do you live? Camaroon?

I teach in Riverside, California. The poor part of town, right near the University.





I know exactly what you are talking about, me, and most of my class mates, were those kids. I hope they still have free lunch programs. Someone here told me that I was basing my experience on things that happened 30 years ago, I knew things haven't changed that much.

How is the textbook situation there?



The textbook situation is great right now. There is a law on the books called "The Williams Act" that requires schools in California to have, among other things, adequate books for every student and classroom. Since we just adopted new science books this year, we had to buy new texts. That means about 1400 books at a cost of $55 per book. Thats $77,000 we had to spend this year to get our new, required-by-law textbooks. Another reason we could not get computers. Not that computers are the answer, just one more tool that may help students learn.
.

[Tokenconservative]

I understand the free lunch situation. You don't understand economics. I stated that these families could not afford lunch. That's why the program exists. What I was trying to get across to you is the fact that if a family can't afford food, computers are even further out of reach. I probably understand the culture of poverty better than most who are not in the middle of it, simply because I have studied it and deal with it on a daily basis.

Ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need? Interesting idea. In simplistic form it says that if your basic needs (Food, shelter, clothing) are not being met, you can't go to the higher levels. A couple of examples: If Timmy is living out of his mom's car, he will probably have a difficult time understanding why quadratic equations are considered a big deal by the teacher. If little Suzy has not had any food since lunch the previous day and is now in third period, she may have difficulty focusing on why the cell membrane is such a significant part of cell structure.

To answer your tongue-in-cheek question regarding feeding kids and passing tests, we feed kids to help meet their basic needs. I guarantee you that if you removed the free lunch program, our scores would plummet like a stunned falcon.

Good for you. I know families who live in one-room apartments and have to provide for 6 people on less than $800 per month. Kinda hard to pay for rent, food and clothes on that, much less anything else.




You are quite correct. I don't understand economics...better put, I understand that the Keynesian economics (and Malthusian) on which leftist base all their "reasoning" in these matters don't work and never did, and have been so thorougly repudiated over the past hlf-century I really don't understand how some people (on the left) can continue to operate as if these are viable economic models.

No, you don't understand how "free lunch" works. First, you actually believe it's "free." Well, no...actually it's not. A "free" lunch where I live costs about $4. Part of this comes from a state fund, part from the feds. I have no problem with feeding the truly hungry, but let's call a spade a spade.

Now, let's discuss the "free lunch" program. Some maintain the lofty belief that it is a purely humanitarian effort. Others (more rational) know that it is actually a means to another end: gaining more money. The more "free lunches" a school is able to show it is handing out the more money it gets to feed the hungry chilluns!

Since it's very clear you have almost no understanding of modern economics: Where I live the "free" lunch actually costs about $1.75 to produce/distribute...the school is paid, howmsoever, a little under $4 by the "free lunch" program to produce that lunch--about $3 for "free breakfast!" Now, I don't know much about quadratics myself....but I can figure out that $4 is um...more, than $1.75...I guess they use the remainder to buy condiments, huh? I mean, you can't have a breakfast burrito without salsa! And whoever heard of a venti soy latte without cinamon sprinkles! Horrors!

But ARE these kids really starving? If you teach science or social studies you might try this as an interesting little class experiment: Question: Do any of the "free lunch" recipients look underfed? Let's compare: Get some old photos of starving children in Ethiopia, bring them to your school and as a class, go to the cafeteria at lunchtime. Now hold the photos up near the cafeteria line and contrast and compare the kid in the photo and the ones in the line.

Maslow...Maslow...no, dun't ring a bell. Wun't he a prize fighter in the 40s?

And of course you needs must rely on the SOP "worst case" scenario and ignore the fact that stavation simply does not happen in America and that your model (Little Jimmy in the car) is such a rare occurance (and so temporary when it does happen) it is statistically insignificant. You virtually cannot starve in America unless you are in a comatose state and court orders it, or you are a Hollywood celeb.

That said, yes...there is _malnutrition_ in America. You live on Cheezy Poofs and Snacky Cakes and soda...you are going to be malnurished--fat as a little piggy, but malnourished. And these snack foods cost a lot more that good foods, so unless you are truly wealthy, you find yourself making a choice between good, healthful foods and these at the grocery store. During a push to raise food stamps for "the poor" here, our local welfare boss showed that she could not live on a mere $20 in foodstamps a week. Putting aside the bad science (nobody lives on ONLY foodstamps), she found that her expensive cheese and deli coldcuts, Starbucks coffee and frozen diet dinners were a stretch on $20. Really!? I wronte to her and challenged her to go shopping with me. With that same $20 I showed (in the letter) that I could in fact feed a family of FOUR for a week. Yes, my wife and kids call me "cheap." They can't figure out why dad drives a $50k truck to buy groceries and then comes home bragging about how he saved $50 bucks with his wad of coupons.

Oh..the Welfare boss? She never wrote back for some reason.

Are you an administrator at the district? Then "you" do not feed these kids for _any_ reason. And it's clear you have NO understanding of why schools do this. What the public was sold (and by the way...in some areas, this was true in the 1960s and before--but we are talking 1970s to today) was that kids were coming to school "hungry" because single-mommy had to choose between paying the heat or buying food.

As a Good Leftist, you of course believe this, and believe it to be true today as well. Have you been to the homes of any of these "free lunch" kids? How many VCRs do they have to go with thier widescreen TVs? How many late model cars are parked in the drive? How does Starving Little Jimmy know so much about Halo 3!? And why does he show up for school wearing more $$ on his back than is the worth of my entire wardrobe?

This is about CHOICES. Not a lack of $$. Little Jimmy's mom has made the CHOICE that spending $60/month on cable TV (so she can watch Oprah) is more important than using that same $60 to feed her family. Now, that's not Jimmy's fault, true. But neither is it mine, simply because I make (or used to, anyway) sacrifices to make sure my kids are fed.

I don't mind feeding REAL Little Jimmies who REALLY need it. YOU don't understand that feeding kids is about $$ and power in the schools and has NOTHING to do with feeding starving kids.

And please don't make assumptions. You have no proof that you "understand the culture of poverty" better than me. You know nothing about me, how I grew up or what I've experienced in my life. LOOKING at the "culture of poverty" from behind the teacher's desk is not the same as living it.

Tokie

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

But ARE these kids really starving? If you teach science or social studies you might try this as an interesting little class experiment: Question: Do any of the "free lunch" recipients look underfed? Let's compare: Get some old photos of starving children in Ethiopia, bring them to your school and as a class, go to the cafeteria at lunchtime. Now hold the photos up near the cafeteria line and contrast and compare the kid in the photo and the ones in the line.
I remember the first president Bush comparing conditions here with those of Ethiopia to show how good things were here. And I remember thinking that Americans have American standards to live up to. Remember when the government was explaining why jobs were going to Japan? How the Japanese were just smarter than us, so it was only right that companies went there? Then came Taiwan, Mexico, and now China, showing that it was all really about their profits.

And of course you needs must rely on the SOP "worst case" scenario and ignore the fact that stavation simply does not happen in America and that your model (Little Jimmy in the car) is such a rare occurance (and so temporary when it does happen) it is statistically insignificant. You virtually cannot starve in America unless you are in a comatose state and court orders it, or you are a Hollywood celeb.
I think it is hard to stave here, but some people have a harder time getting what they need, afterall, this is America, and everybody is not equal-even today. Welfare in the suburbs, pays a lot more then welfare in the city. Somehow, the government thinks that they should pay them in accordance with the life of the surrounding community.



That said, yes...there is _malnutrition_ in America. You live on Cheezy Poofs and Snacky Cakes and soda...you are going to be malnurished--fat as a little piggy, but malnourished. And these snack foods cost a lot more that good foods, so unless you are truly wealthy, you find yourself making a choice between good, healthful foods and these at the grocery store. During a push to raise food stamps for "the poor" here, our local welfare boss showed that she could not live on a mere $20 in foodstamps a week. Putting aside the bad science (nobody lives on ONLY foodstamps), she found that her expensive cheese and deli coldcuts, Starbucks coffee and frozen diet dinners were a stretch on $20. Really!? I wronte to her and challenged her to go shopping with me. With that same $20 I showed (in the letter) that I could in fact feed a family of FOUR for a week. Yes, my wife and kids call me "cheap." They can't figure out why dad drives a $50k truck to buy groceries and then comes home bragging about how he saved $50 bucks with his wad of coupons.
Due to the success of marketing, people actually feel poor if they can live up to the projected image. Somehow, mere survival does not seem like enough.

[Tokenconservative]

I remember the first president Bush comparing conditions here with those of Ethiopia to show how good things were here. And I remember thinking that Americans have American standards to live up to. Remember when the government was explaining why jobs were going to Japan? How the Japanese were just smarter than us, so it was only right that companies went there? Then came Taiwan, Mexico, and now China, showing that it was all really about their profits.

I think it is hard to stave here, but some people have a harder time getting what they need, afterall, this is America, and everybody is not equal-even today. Welfare in the suburbs, pays a lot more then welfare in the city. Somehow, the government thinks that they should pay them in accordance with the life of the surrounding community.

Due to the success of marketing, people actually feel poor if they can live up to the projected image. Somehow, mere survival does not seem like enough.

That's true...the first Bush was presenting a false dichotomy. But that's not the point. The point is that kids do not starve in America. The last case of starvation in this country, not caused on purpose (someone starving themself or another by locking them up or some such) was in the 1930s. Our nation was so shocked by this at the time, that we instituted massive, far-reaching and very effective programs to make sure it never happened again. And it has not.

What the left today is shrieking about can be described as "malnutrition." No doubt about that. Lots of kids whether they live in a $3million dollar house or the projects are malnourised. That's because of diet choices. If you live on nothing but Cheezy Puffs and Snaky Cakes...you are going to be malnourished. But in America, today..that's a choice.

By the way, there really has not been a famine not caused by politics anywhere in the world since the one in China in the 1930s.

Yes, I do remember when jobs were going to Japan. That, by the way, was not jobs, but production. Jobs were simply going away, here. Our heavy industries, not having been rebuilt entirely after 1945, were failing to keep up with lowered production costs and, frankly, quality in Japan. Do you remember American cars in the late 70s and 1980s? Did you buy one? Were you sorry? This was very different from what is going on now with so-called "outsourcing."

It is not "hard" to starve in America, it is virtually impossible if you do not actively decide to starve (see Denise Ritchie and that Olsen twin) or if you are not forced to starve (see:all sorts of child abusers).

You don't understand much about population trends in the US today, and that's not your fault. Since our cities are no longer, for the most part, pits of heavy industry with all the problems that brings, they are being re-gentrified at a fantastic rate. With the rise in real estate prices in core cities, "the poor" (always a relative thing in the US, as people move in and out of this economic rating all the time) are being forced into cheaper housing in the 'burbs...and of course, this means that more "Welfare" is going to these suburban populations. Welfare is not paid based upon what your neighbors drive, but upon what you can show you do/do not earn.

This has nothing to do with anything. I live in a suburb. Once my kids are in college, I will move into the city because NOW (not when I lived there in the 80s, before my kids were born) it is a MUCH nicer place. Currently, I live near the private school they attended K-8,9th.

I should hope that "mere survival" would not be enough for most people. Yes, advertising and other images in our media play a HUGE role in our perceptions of what we should "have." This is intentional, on both the part of the advertisers AND those who produce music and TV shows and magazines and all those things that make their money from the advertising. It hardly makes sense to run an telling someone they are dirt if they do not own a Lexus on a TV show extolling the virtues of frugality.

How long would Toyota take out ads on such a program?

Tokie

[Henners]

But in America, today..that's a choice.


Is that story about the "old folks eating dog food" bogus, then?