Recently in Education Category

{originally posted at Technosailor.com]

So, has anyone else been watching Wall Street do the 2000 style dot-com dance while the TechCrunch-watching, TechMeme-obsessed crowd throws parties like it's 1999? I feel for the guys at Lehman and AIG, some of them my age, now out on the street. In fact, I feel even more sorry for them than I did for the guys caught in the dot-com bust.

Those guys in 2000 had skills but no one to pay them. These guys in 2008 have no skill except moving non-existent money around. Now don't get me wrong. I feel awful watching people clear out their offices. I've had to do it when I've been laid off. It's no fun. You pack up the place where you spend a third of your life (8 hours a day, right?) into boxes. You turn in keys. Sometimes a guard has to walk you out. Company policy, you know.

Lehmen's situation is so bad they're not even doing that, they're too busy trying to cash in their scrip at the company cafeteria to get a few meals before the food runs out. And it's horrifying because some of these people have spent their careers at places like Lehman and Merrill Lynch, moving up through the ranks by selling and being able to sell more and more, faster and faster. They worked long, long hours. But they got huge bonuses. They got rich. I'm not so concerned about the ones who got the massive bonuses (unless they blew it all on cars and stereo gear), but I am worried about the guy at Lehman's London office who signed a lease and now has no job. That could be me.

And that was many of the people I know in the tech industry, who are warily watching a new host of companies get huge and valuable. Google is always the example, with their buses and meals. Facebook is another one. Even smaller companies like Twitter and Qik are getting new digs and cash infusions. And the fear among many is that we're in another dot-com bubble.

We're not, but we could be if we're not smart. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing overseas while the financial sector...just disappears. But Silicon Valley is doing O.K. for now.

For now. There are some monumentally stupid things that need to happen if we want to keep the tech sector, which has become our economic lifeboat, floating:

1. The 111th Congress must pass an Immigration bill that has fewer H1-B visas. That's right. Fewer temporary visas for high-tech workers. Strike that provision. Replace it with a fast-track process to give those workers green cards, and fast-track them to citizenship.
2. You've heard this before, but our immigration policies around universities are insane and must stop. When I was an undergraduate, I was on the rowing team at the University of Wisconsin (this year's national champions, fyi). I had a teammate who was a Chinese national. He had gone to high school in the U.S. and came to Wisconsin for college. Each year, we went to Texas for a winter training trip during our (long) winter break. Before that, people generally went home for Christmas, and went back home for another week and a half after the trip. But this kid had to stay in Wisconsin. Because if he left, it would take months to get permission to get back in. Unconscionable. My teammate couldn't go home for 9 months. It's harder to get a student visa than ever, when we should have more of them. Harvard and Yale and Caltech and Stanford and Wisconsin and Michigan are competing with the Indian Institutes of Technology, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne and like 50 universities in China that are churning out engineers and coders and inventors and entrepreneurs like mad. Want to come to the U.S. and study something cool? Great! Got a degree? Stay for another! Got that one? Here's a green card! Get a job! Start a company!
3. Google and Microsoft and H-P and the entire U.S. tech sector needs to give up their dirty little secret -- their Chinese and Indian R&D labs. Bring some of those people back here. I know how much money you spend on lobbying, and it's not enough when it comes to immigration. Throw your weight around and get it done. It's OK to have people overseas, but you should keep your base here. Keep the mindshare here.
4. The U.S. must have more broadband access nationwide, both fiber and wireless. Sorry Comcast, but caps won't cut it. You need to do more. And the Government? We need a true National Broadband Strategy. Whether financed by private capital or not. The railroads powered the boom of the 1800s, the Interstate made the 20th century's success possible. And I'm sorry to bring back this metaphor, but Broadband is the Information Super Highway. And we need it to get built, NOW. We need it built with the enthusiasm of the transcontinental railroad, the transatlantic telegraph cables, and the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower got the idea from Hitler's autobahns, but who has been watching Korea's broadband network? Japan's bullet trains? Our infrastructure must be reinvigorated with technology, like broadband, and real transit. Let people and information get around. Fast. We need more speed.

What am I saying? Lehman and Bear Stearns collapsed because there was nothing underneath. There was no product. Just empty credit and "irrational exuberance."

Despite our fears, our Web 2.0 economy is producing something. The struggle to "monetize" will fade as platforms allow products to be built. Products. Look at the iTunes App Store. Those products are selling. How many are American-coded? Stop thinking about monetizing and advertising and start thinking about creating something of value and selling it.

The factories need workers, and the products need a way to get to the customers.

No more hollow shells. No more Webvans. No more Lehmans. They were selling each other air.

To survive, we need to attack the information age like the industrial age. 2008 is 1958 is 1888. The opportunity for innovation can keep our economy going if we develop products.

I know some will say that I'm insane, the paradigms have shifted, and we can't exist in a vacuum. The world is flat, blah blah. If indeed the world (and the country) is flat, that flat ground is perfect for digging foundations and building new factories for new products in a new economy.

My hometown paper, The Washington Post, has a (for once) terrific and thoughtful article on the public policy and employment law implications of social networks: that which you have done in the past but recorded for your own memory, can now be easily used against you. Quoth the Post:

It's almost like Googling someone: Log on to Facebook. Join the Washington, D.C., network. Search the Web site for your favorite school system. And then watch the public profiles of 20-something teachers unfurl like gift wrap on the screen, revealing a sense of humor that can be overtly sarcastic or unintentionally unprofessional -- or both.

One Montgomery County special education teacher displayed a poster that depicts talking sperm and invokes a slang term for oral sex. One woman who identified herself as a Prince William Countykindergarten teacher posted a satiric shampoo commercial with a half-naked man having an orgasm in the shower. A D.C. public schools educator offered this tip on her page: "Teaching in DCPS -- Lesson #1: Don't smoke crack while pregnant."

Sarcastic? Yeah. Unprofessional? I'm not so sure. I think the danger begins when you identify yourself by your employer. While we were all proud to post that first job on Facebook, many of us neglected to take down photos or change profiles. And then they caught on. I saw an old employer's H.R. director on Facebook. As much as I considered her a friend, there were parts of my life I wasn't comfortable sharing. So, I blocked her. I also went through the trouble of blocking the network of another employer from viewing this sight. Hindsight being 20/20, many of them have written to me since unblocking it in complementary terms, but I did out of an abundance of caution, not to mention never making a single reference to where I worked or what I did for living. I live a very public life (or as my friend Andy Beal says, a Radically Transparent lifestyle - BUY HIS BOOK!).

I know that employers will look at that page, and I need to be more careful," said Webster, adding that other Prince William teachers have warned her about her page. "At the same time, my work and social lives are completely separate. I just feel they shouldn't take it seriously. I am young. I just turned 22."

many school systems are wrestling with the problem, as teachers are in a way, public figures, and certainly role models. To the credit of some systems, they aren't reacting in a knee-jerk fashion. Pulled on one hand by the need to maintain reputations, but on another by the need to recruit quality teachers who are enthusiastic about their jobs (anecdotal evidence shows young adults with healthy personal lives have better interpersonal and workplace skills) they are walking a fine tightrope, and to some, it may come down to a Justice Potter Stewart-style "I know it when I see it" mentality which some smart employment lawyers are going to have to codify.

Local school officials say they have no policies concerning social networking pages or blogs kept by teachers. But they said that online improprieties would fall under general guidelines requiring proper behavior in and outside school and that sketchy Web sites would be handled case by case.

"I hate to think of what's out there. . . . There's so much out there that it's hard to know what's there," said Ken Blackstone, a Prince William schools spokesman. "But as public employees, we all understand the importance of living a public life above reproach."

Above Reproach? Get thy recruiter to a nunnery, Mr. Blackstone! Here is the sad truth, you will find eager young men and women who want to be teachers. Inspired by one of their own, or driven by a calling or desire to help or do good, they apply for underpaid, overworked positions which are afforded little respect by parents or the institutions which they serve. 

As anyone who has a mobile phone will know, kidz cnt wrt well whn txtng all the time.

The AP says it's true.

MIDLOTHIAN, Va. (AP) -- On a screen at the front of a classroom, Gene Fishel flashed an online social-networking profile of "hotlilflgirl," which said she was 15, enjoys being around boys and wants to meet new people.

The next image revealed the real "hotlilflgirl" -- a mug shot of a 31-year-old man who was convicted of sexually abusing 11 children he met online and was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

"Not little, not fly and not a girl," said Fishel, a Virginia assistant attorney general. He warned his audience about the dangers of sharing personal information on the Internet and agreeing to meet Web acquaintances in person.

Fishel's presentation at James River High School recently was one of many being held this school year in the state, the first to mandate that public schools offer Internet safety classes for all grade levels.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea (it's a great idea) but can we do without the scaremongering? Sean Aune at Mashable sums it up, but I've got reservations. He says:

The Virginia program is attempting to safeguard the children by educating the students as well as the parents. To the children, they are trying to explain never to meet anyone you meet solely online, as well as trying to remember that anything you post today could come back to haunt you years from now when applying to a university or a job. For the parents, they are trying to explain that they should install filtering software as well keeping computers in common areas of the home so they can monitor their child's activities while online.

So, they're telling kids that anyone on the 'net will hurt them if they don't meet them online, even if it's via a social network based around their own community or interests (user groups, meetups, etc)?  I can understand the whole "audit trail" thing but I think the focus should be on how to be a responsible contributor, not a fearful lurker. Parents keeping an eye on the little ones is never a bad idea.

While I've never been a major fan of the concept of "school as parent" in teaching children what they should really be learning at home, this is one time where it is quite possible the school would know more than a parent. Nonetheless, as the oldest member of the Mashable staff, I am happy to say that education officials are at least trying to school parents on the need to pay greater attention to their technological responsibilities when it comes to their children. The most effective defense will generally be for parents to get involved in their child's activities, whether they be online or off.

I'm sorry, but you missed a point that this effort is being (at least in this case) led by a law enforcement official, an Attorney General. NOT a trained teacher. 

If education officials want to teach online safety and responsibility (the two go hand in hand, I think) than TEACHERS need to be trained. This isn't a law enforcement problem.

Further, can't schools train teachers to point out the bad by emphasizing the positive applications of social networking and related technologies? If the message is fear, it will fail. Weapons grade fail.  

Lawyers should be in courts, not classrooms.

...now that this guy pictured here - State Sen. Joe Simitian, (D-Palo Alto) wants to require Califonia's science cirriculum to cover Climate Change (or Global Warming, if you're not Frank Luntz).

From the Mercury News:

Reading, writing and . . . global warming?

A Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill that would require "climate change" to be among the science topics that all California public school students are taught.

The measure, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would mandate that future science textbooks approved for California public schools include climate change.

"You can't have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn't deal with the science behind climate change," Simitian said. "This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon."

That's fair enough, I suppose, I just worry about Kansas-like antics over "alternate theories" 

The state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, Jan. 30 by a 26-13 vote. It heads now to the state Assembly. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken numerous actions to reduce global warming, but he has yet to weigh in on Simitian's bill. Other Republicans in the Capitol, however, are not happy about the proposal.

Some say the science on global warming isn't clear, while others worry the bill would inject environmental propaganda into classrooms.

"I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, during the Senate debate.

Yeah, great idea. Remember what happened to all those "Intelligent Design" advocates in Kansas who wanted a "critical analysis of all sides" of Evolution? The voters fired them... the rest of the article is after the jump.

 

From the Washington Post, regarding the current state of affairs at T.C. Williams High School

Last September, we moved into a new $98 million building in Alexandria, one of the most expensive high schools ever built. Natural light floods the classrooms, and each one is equipped with a ceiling-mounted LCD projector, which transfers anything I can put on my laptop computer -- from poetry readings at the Library of Congress to YouTube interviews with Toni Morrison and other writers -- onto a large screen at the front of the room. Students' behavior seems much improved: A cafeteria that looks like something out of an upscale mall has had a curiously pacifying effect on them, as has the presence of 126 security cameras.

Sounds cool.  They've got a bazillion dollar campus and projectors that were previously reserved for boardrooms and universities.

The latest is the "school pad" -- a hand-held device that allows a teacher to roam around the room and underline whatever the LCD projects onto the screen. In other words, it saves teachers from walking a few feet to their desks to click the computer mouse. The school system ordered 77 school pads for T.C. at $495 apiece, even though one teacher said they reminded her of "the Magna Doodle pads we had as kids. It's another way to waste money for people who are too lazy to write on the board."

Wait.  Seriously?  I don't remember having a single teacher who would wander around the room while they were presenting something on the blackboard or overhead projector (which, by the way, is gone at T.C. Williams).  I certainly remember art teachers walking around to see what we were working on.  I even recall teachers roaming the rows of desks during tests, on the lookout for cheaters.  This seems a little goofy if for no other reason than the school spent $38,115 on these stupid pads.  That's enough money to pay a 1st-year teacher's salary (based on figures from 2005) and still have over $3,000 to spare.

I understand that every school wants to be the best.  In our current society of quick fixes it seems like an easy solution.  "Hey, let's buy the newest fanciest equipment out there and we'll get the best results."

But is this really making anything better?

More than ever, he [a social studies teacher] says, "our students want to push a button or click a mouse for a quick A, B or C answer. Fewer and fewer of them want to think anymore because good thinking takes time."

I have to say I agree.  Any idiot (myself very included) can throw some numbers into a calculator, but it doesn't mean that they've  learned any math.  I have spell check (grammar, too) but that sure as hell doesn't make me a better writer.

The human voice and face-to-face contact have been replaced by e-mail and Blackboard, a computer program that allows teachers and students to communicate via the Internet. I've always thought that in some ways schools should be like families, but as one experienced teacher puts it, "We're becoming like a correspondence school where all communication is faceless."

If they're this big on technology why even have the kids come to school?  Why not just have everything offered as an online class?  I mean, if you want to prove that your school is the most technologically advanced what better way is there than to abandon the traditional classroom altogether?

Maybe it's because because my schooling was finished before this insane technolust took over, but I can't even imagine a class where discussions and debates are replaced with message boards and chat rooms.  Of the few collegiate courses I've taken the one that I learned the most from was my Television Production course.  I honestly believe, in hindsight at least, that this was because there was so much more direct interaction between us and our professor.  This was the class where we watched the fewest video presentations (ironic?) and spent the class talking to each other.  We weren't shown a PowerPoint presentation on how to frame a close-up versus an extreme close-up.  We were told how to by an experienced professor and then shown how to do it using an actual television camera.

When used as a tool technology can be fantastic.  But when we try to substitute technology for actual substance we run into trouble.  Over these first couple of weeks we've been as guilty of it as anyone, and I'm sorry.  I really am.  We have, on more than a few occasions, thrown (often hilarious) videos at you in place of actual commentary and information on technology and the policy that surrounds it.  Did doing that make us any better than any of a thousand other websites?  No.

That being said, is the same methodology of replacing substance with technology going to improve our schools?

...without your vice-principal getting all up in your face about what you ate for lunch?

CAMDEN (Feb 1): The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for flatulence is brief: "flatus expelled through the anus." And while it's a natural bodily function, it seems some Camden-Rockport Middle School eighth-grade boys are taking it to new heights and making a game of seeing who can expel the loudest and grossest flatus. According to this week's Fire Cracker school newsletter though, the joke's on the boys as the penalty for "intentional farting" is now a detention. "Strange, but true, thanks to a bunch of 8th grade boys, intentional farting has been banned from CRMS," the newsletter said. "It started out as a funny joke and eventually turned into a game. This is the first rule at CRMS that prevents the use of natural bodily functions. The penalty for intentional farting is a detention, so keep it to yourself!"

Ok, I'm going to bed.