School 2.0 - "inherently self-contradictory"

From a post here, Stephen says:

"Given that the shift in focus from authority (such as schools) to empowerment (such as for students) is at the very core of the whole concept of '2.0' the idea of 'school 2.0' is inherently self-contradictory. It stands for the very *opposite* of what its public posture presents."

Stephen is right.

And here is a manifestation of that contradiction. The smoking gun is "Teachers earn a share of advertising revenue". Paying teachers through advertising revenue is unwise pedagogy. The site says that "tteach is essentially School 2.0". Apparently, School 2.0 is really about placing profit over students. As Stephen says, the "very *opposite* of what its public posture presents."

a chuckle...

Original image here. License here.

pushing His buttons

Uh oh.

Methinks Kansas has left His grace by pissing Him off. I bet Topeka is now added to His crosshairs and will receive a rainfire of destructive meatballs proving Pat right.

But seriously...

the "parental right" to brainwash

Robert Sinsheimer, attorney for two couples of school-aged children in Boston, Massachusetts, has taken on a case to fight the discussion of sexual orientation in schools. Apparently, the couples are upset that their children are being taught the fact that love is not only expressed through heterosexual behavior.

According to the article, the couples claim their "parental rights" have been violated. They say their "religious beliefs" place the gender of sexually intimate beings on the "moral" stage.

To top this already absurd lawsuit off, Sinsheimer states that -

"What [the parents] fear is that their children are being brainwashed"

Missing From the Stack?

Glyn Moody, author of Rebel Code (a thorough and entertaining must read for those interested in the origins of free and open source software) points us to an emerging stack represented visually by this diagram.

There's a problem though. It feels like something is missing. Not sure what it is though. It's picking at my conscience...ugh. What a nuisance!

I Second That

Tom calls it right. Just read the last paragraph. That is, if you're a masocheducator who enjoys a good stomach churn.

OLPC CTO - A Dream Job

Here's an article on Mary Lou Jepson, CTO of the One Laptop Per Child project. I admire those who have helped turn this project into reality. It takes determination and vision to ward off attractive but useless free (as in beer) offers from proprietary operating systems vendors. Those heading the OLPC project must be human-centered and down-to-earth. I found Mary Lou's take on academic credentials (specifically, her Ph.D.) to exemplify the way many must think who are involved in this project. She says -

"It’s a union card; that’s all it is. Just get the stupid union card. So that’s what I did."

And now she's traveling the world, working on a project that directly helps bridge the global digital divide. Kudos to Mary Lou, all other OLPC contributors, and especially all FLOSS developers who have provided the software these machines will run.

Visit Planet OLPC to meet others helping make cyberspace a better place. The site also has a RSS feed to subscribe to.

Top edublogs?

Update: Scott McLeod has commented on this post below. His misinterpretation of my point has led me to clarify this post. The old has been struckthrough.

Lately, I'm noticing a fair number of so-called "edu-bloggers" fussing over Technorati ranking, awards, number of hits and links. This is, apparently, in an effort to identify the top "edublogs". Recently, Scott McLeod created a chart breaking down the best-of-the-best and added,

"I unapologetically admit that I care about my Technorati ranking. Why? Because I'm trying to make change. The bigger audience I have, the more readers I reach directly and the more people I can influence indirectly through those readers. I'm on a mission. Aren't you?"

To be blunt, caring about one's Technorati ranking is self-indulgence and has no relationship to "influence". Of course, self-indulgence is not necessarily a negative thing and admitting it is healthy. But to defer that admittance to a higher reason by claiming that care for ranking to be reflective of capacity better enables one to carry out a "mission" to "change" society is nonsensical.

Hits, ranking, number of links...all of these are meaningless in the context of "making change"...unless you're talking about $pocket change$. However, in the context of social change, these stats are...well, dangerously irrelevant.