Topic: UKIP Idiocy

[Ken B]

Moonfish, I taught high school math and science. 

[North Star]

ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.

If anything is a priority, Ravel is! And don't you dare tell me otherwise.   

Moonfish, I taught high school math and science. 

When was this?

[Ken B]

If anything is a priority, Ravel is! And don't you dare tell me otherwise.   
When was this?

Early 80s.

[EigenUser]

ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.

Well, this one goes in the filing cabinet.

I'm generally not interested in politics. When I am, I'm moderately conservative. So, nothing to add here.

See you in the Ravel thread, Ken.

[Ken B]

Well, this one goes in the filing cabinet.

I'm generally not interested in politics. When I am, I'm moderately conservative. So, nothing to add here.

See you in the Ravel thread, Ken.

Curses foiled again!

 

[Moonfish]

It's the food, sillyWell yeah, the scores have already dropped. And the students' skills, activity & motivation have decreased enormously during the past 20 years, lately particularly boys'. Gaming consoles, Internet, mobilephones and now smartphones, and probably other things, like the 90s' depression, and this new one, have had a huge effect, and education needs to change. Taking the Internet connection, smartphones & Play Stations away from the kids isn't a solution, so education will have to adjust to these changes and embrace technology, and at the same time we need to make them read long texts (books, articles, etc) because the ability to read more than a Twitter post has decreased dramatically in all demographies during this century.I have taught half of a chemistry course in jr. high school, and also followed sat in classes following all sorts of lessons in jr. & sr. high.
I agree with you, culture is a huge factor, and I don't think most educators have any idea of the magnitude of the changes the new technology has caused in our brains.

Mmm, Finnish food is good! I wouldn't mind some pulla and coffee!!!

It is true with technology. Students use smartphones to take picture of items in their labs and to capture images/diagrams etc from class at an unprecedented level.  I think a pilot program in Massachusetts (?) issued laptops to the primary grades and surveyed their performance over the next five years. The found no difference between that group and the control so the program was terminated.  Of course, it was expected that the technology would greatly improve the performance of the students.  Of course, many factors were at play. Students (and adults) seem to get more distracted by technology (including us being on GMG  ) and time easily flows into non-productive activities. Certainly it seems to be a trend that it is harder to focus on a topic for longer time periods. People often say that technology helps them to become great at multitasking, but recent studies demonstrate that "multi-taskers" actually perform at a lower level compared to a control group. It is interesting to see and try to understand how technology affects education. In addition, I am quite convinced that from an environmental perspective it will be impossible to sustain the use of this technology over an extended time period.

[Moonfish]

Moonfish, I taught high school math and science. 

And you still subscribe to the idea that the content in those classes should be mandated by the local community???     

[Ken B]

And you still subscribe to the idea that the content in those classes should be mandated by the local community???     

Yes, otherwise it will be environmentally impossible to maintain the multiplication table over a long period.   

[Moonfish]

This is a farrago of nonsense Moonfish. For one thing, I said nothing about local communities setting curriculum. I said nothing about curriculum at all. Curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

The whole idea of vouchers etc is to make private schools available to the poor. The rich already have them.

Another is to inject accountability and responsiveness into the delivery of schooling. Right now you cannot fire bad teachers. With a competitive market you could. Firing bad teachers makes a huge improvement. Just one example of how curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

Flory's point is that he denies even professors of marine biology the right to dictate to far away parents, even plowman or plumbers, how they educate their kids. Right or wrong that is anti elitist. I think he states too strong a case as I said before, but that isn't relevant.

Further Flory said he values other things MORE than he does equality, so your misreading of him there was what I asked about. It's like saying, Ken B I thought Ravel was one of your favorites  ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.

Did I mention the difference between curriculum and choice? That they are orthogonal questions? Remind me to do that next time.

Your degree of sarcasm and insulting remarks do not suit you, Ken. I find your posts in this thread filled with political and misdirected gibberish as well. This is a standard symptom of the internet era, since this would be an unlikely phenomena in a regular face-to-face conversation. In a similar fashion I doubt your would refer to what I wrote as nonsense in such a situation.
Your statement about teachers is also foolish (as anybody that has been in the classroom should know). The current debate in the US focuses on the accountability of schools and teachers, although very little is devoted toward student accountability, culture, poverty and other socioeconomic and psychological issues which affect education.  I think the statements made by you and Flory are unrealistic and based on a misconstrued view of "liberalism" and democracy.  Besides, I am sure Flory can argue his own "liberal" views without a bulldog by his side.

I do not have a very high opinion of private schools and certainly do not think that they are the solution to the problems faced by education in the developed world today. Curriculum and choice are connected. That you do not see connection is bizarre.

[Moonfish]

Yes, otherwise it will be environmentally impossible to maintain the multiplication table over a long period.   

Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!   
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!

[North Star]

Mmm, Finnish food is good! I wouldn't mind some pulla and coffee!!!

It is true with technology. Students use smartphones to take picture of items in their labs and to capture images/diagrams etc from class at an unprecedented level.  I think a pilot program in Massachusetts (?) issued laptops to the primary grades and surveyed their performance over the next five years. The found no difference between that group and the control so the program was terminated.  Of course, it was expected that the technology would greatly improve the performance of the students.

If I got to choose, calculators wouldn't be used before sr. high.

Of course, many factors were at play. Students (and adults) seem to get more distracted by technology (including us being on GMG  ) and time easily flows into non-productive activities. Certainly it seems to be a trend that it is harder to focus on a topic for longer time periods. People often say that technology helps them to become great at multitasking, but recent studies demonstrate that "multi-taskers" actually perform at a lower level compared to a control group. It is interesting to see and try to understand how technology affects education.

That sort of 'multitasking' can indeed be rather treacherous and unfruitful, and as technology will become more and more important in education, it will be intersting, so say the least, to see how these things will change.

In addition, I am quite convinced that from environmental perspective it will be impossible to sustain the use of this technology over an extended time period.

I hadn't thought about that, but some of those elements used in electronics are indeed rather rare. I can't say offhand whether there are other materials developed that could be used instead, but the recycling of those rare elements is improving all the time, and as computers develop, I'd think less of them are needed for the same tasks than now.

[North Star]

Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!   
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!

We should organize a Smart Board burning some time..

[Moonfish]

If I got to choose, calculators wouldn't be used before sr. high.

I agree! I see my own kids reach for the calculator to e.g. divide 32 with 2!   Same thing with looking things up in a book versus Googling something. 

I can't say offhand whether there are other materials developed that could be used instead, but the recycling of those rare elements is improving all the time, and as computers develop, I'd think less of them are needed for the same tasks than now.

True, recycling can improve, but the environmental costs are far reaching ranging from extraction of resources to pollution when discarded. In addition the internet/www world calls for a very large amount of energy to power the devices. A considerable amount of power is also used to maintain/run servers 24/7. Currently I think there are close to 4 billion cell phones in use with a replacement rate of about 3-5 yrs. Consider all the desktops and the larger screens that were used since the 90s. Where are they now? It is a critical issue as our modern world is starting to rely heavily on this technology.

There are a fair number of reports about e-waste on the web. A serious issue. Here is a 60 minutes clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M</a>

[North Star]

I agree! I see my own kids reach for the calculator to e.g. divide 32 with 2!   Same thing with looking things up in a book versus Googling something. 

True, recycling can improve, but the environmental costs are far reaching ranging from extraction of resources to pollution when discarded. In addition the internet/www world calls for a very large amount of energy to power the devices. A considerable amount of power is also used to maintain/run servers 24/7. Currently I think there are close to 4 billion cell phones in use with a replacement rate of about 3-5 yrs. Consider all the desktops and the larger screens that were used since the 90s. Where are they now? It is a critical issue as our modern world is starting to rely heavily on this technology.

There are a fair number of reports about e-waste on the web. A serious issue. Here is a 60 minutes clip:

Recycling is indeed full of all sorts problems.
E: And particularly serious are all those hazardous compounds that end up in our bodies - particularly dangerous to embryos, fetuses & children.

[Ken B]

Your degree of sarcasm and insulting remarks do not suit you, Ken. I find your posts in this thread filled with political and misdirected gibberish as well. This is a standard symptom of the internet era, since this would be an unlikely phenomena in a regular face-to-face conversation. In a similar fashion I doubt your would refer to what I wrote as nonsense in such a situation.
Your statement about teachers is also foolish (as anybody that has been in the classroom should know). The current debate in the US focuses on the accountability of schools and teachers, although very little is devoted toward student accountability, culture, poverty and other socioeconomic and psychological issues which affect education.  I think the statements made by you and Flory are unrealistic and based on a misconstrued view of "liberalism" and democracy.  Besides, I am sure Flory can argue his own "liberal" views without a bulldog by his side.

I do not have a very high opinion of private schools and certainly do not think that they are the solution to the problems faced by education in the developed world today. Curriculum and choice are connected. That you do not see connection is bizarre.

As I recall, the only thing I said about teachers was it was hard to fire bad ones. http://nydn.us/1fnQfns

I am sorry you find "nonsense" insulting, but curious why "gibberish" isn't. In any case you seemed to read me as advocating allowing a free for all in curriculum. Maybe Flory does but I do not.

[Ken B]

Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!   
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!

Your comment was about the environmental impact of technology, not its effect on school budgets. My jest was intended as a gentle jibe at that,  as a peace offering in a series of exchanges that seemed to have gone awry.

I think we are done here Moonfish.

[North Star]

As I recall, the only thing I said about teachers was it was hard to fire bad ones. http://nydn.us/1fnQfns

Raising the teachers' salaries, decreasing class sizes & improving teacher education are of importance too, in addition to firing the bad ones. 

[Ken B]

Raising the teachers' salaries, decreasing class sizes & improving teacher education are of importance too, in addition to firing the bad ones. 

Depends where you live really. Teachers salaries in Ontario are pretty high. In Georgia, where I taught, they were suckass low. In a lot of places they need to be higher as long as you are keeping only the good ones. Have to be willing to pay a good teacher well.
Improving education certainly, and related to salary. Also related to useless education degrees you need to get. In ONtario they are two years, everyone hates them, but the union insists, as a way of restricting entry.
Class size really does not seem to be a strong factor. Surprising but true.

[Moonfish]

Your comment was about the environmental impact of technology, not its effect on school budgets. My jest was intended as a gentle jibe at that,  as a peace offering in a series of exchanges that seemed to have gone awry.

I think we are done here Moonfish.

Always the last word, eh?

[Florestan]

I thought you stood for equality?

You misunderstood me. I specifically said that in case of conflict between equality and liberty, I chose liberty.

Private schools are not elitist? Are you claiming that a democratically elected government is elitist?

Any government is elitist by its very nature, because it consists of a few people who impose on the vast majority of others their own views on economics and society, on the presumed idea that they are better qualified than the people at large to do just that. With regards to education, I know nothing more elitist than to say "Hey, Joe, look!, since you're a plumber and as such not quite qualified to know what your children need to learn and how, nor do you have the time to busy yourself with their education, and even if you had you wouldn't be able to do it properly, you must let ourselves, enlightened and benevolent men of the government as we are, do it. What they learn and how is our sole business and believe us, it is so for their own good."

(And that applies not exclusively to homeschooling --- which for the record I'm not quite supportive of, except in extremely fortunate circumstances, but if the parents so wish, it is nobody's else business and least of all the state's, except in cases of abuse and misconduct on the part of the parents. I can bet that, given the most complete freedom of options, most parents would still choose to send their kids to school, only this time they will have complete control on what school they wish their kids to attend --- but that, of course, would spell ruin to all the educational bureaucracy whose only raison d'etre is to manage, control, supervise and influence the whole educational process nationwide, and to all those teachers who are not accountable to anyone but their own trade unions, and that's already too much vested interests that stands in the way of educational freedom.)

I do not think it is advantageous for education. It would promote anarchy as well as a lack of education. You would get localized flavors reaching from extreme creationism to extreme atheism, from complete scientific illiteracy to science geeks.

So what?

It seems like you want everybody, everywhere, to learn exactly the same things, in exactly the same way, thus ultimately leading to everybody everywhere thinking alike. That is educational totalitarianism, nay, it is totalitarianism, period.

You accuse me of not being a true liberal yet all your posts imply that government should do that, government should do this, government should provide, government should see to it that, government should and would... Government should do nothing but let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't infringe upon the equal right of others to do the same. I'm sorry but I can't go any more liberal than that --- and it is not my fault that always and everywhere governmental power went far beyond its natural limits. In this respect a democratically elected government makes no difference; it is immaterial to me that I am patronized by, and have my life ruled by, one, a few or the majority. And actually, against a tyrant or against a self-appointed oligarchy there is always the appeal of reason, justice and conscience that can condemn their conduct, while against democracy there is no such appeal, because the democratic dogma is exactly that whatever the majority decides and enacts is ipso facto reasonable and just and woe to any heretic who doesn't subscribe to it.