pedagogy?

I wasn't there. Therefore, I don't know all the details. But this certainly appears to be "poor judgment".

accountability in education

I'm not against accountability in education. I don't want to "leave children behind". While I have a strong opinion on what accountability means, this post isn't intended to travel down that road. But to be clear, my understanding of "accountability" has no relationship to the quantified results of standardized tests mandated by authorities outside of a school (e.g. district, city, state, country).

Accountability can take many genuine forms (e.g. parent involvement). Kimberly Moritz's suggestion is certainly one that fits my understanding of "being held accountable".

"Seems to me we need a superintendent’s blog."

Read her post here.

OLPC Nigeria

Nigerian students try out their green machines.

More pictures and commentary here.

free software: the best pedagogy

Miguel asks "others to speak up". Here's what I have to say.

Schools should spend their money on free software. When money is spent on proprietary software instead of free software alternatives, schools are choosing the pedagogically inferior option.

What makes free software the right choice for schools are educational and economic opportunities provided for students/citizens. Free software provides students the opportunity to learn how software works and to contribute improvements back to the project. As students age and increase their participation as citizens, some will continue honing their programming skills and the best can receive pay for working on free software. That software can then be utilized by the country without any foreign dependency. This process sustainably feeds itself as money (and talent) is not siphoned to an outside (i.e. proprietary) entity. Indeed, the product is global and therefore includes the country and school making the original investment.

Unfortunately, when schools implement proprietary software they discourage curious students wanting to know how such tools work. This discouragement comes about as students are typically not allowed to get a copy of the source code. The inquisitive are told to go hack on free software tools while their peers use a different set. This segregation is pedagogically unsound due to its inherent opposition to curiosity and peer relationships.

"Peer relationships?" one may ask. How so?

Really want to tap the talent some students possess? Have them hack the tools their friends use. It's well known that part of the joy of programming is recognition. Imagine the teen who puts a new feature or design into a program her entire school uses. By contrast, imagine the teen who puts a new feature or design into a program nobody in his immediate community uses. If you were an educator, parent, or student, which would you like to see happen in your community?

1:1 computing in education a step closer

Tom Hoffman points us to this article and advises schools to "Hold Those Purchase Orders!"

I was just writing a little on this not too long ago. I wasn't expecting progress quite this rapid. Good news indeed.
---------------------------

Update 1: Digital Rights advocator Russell McOrmond says

"[...] an inexpensive laptop that is designed from the ground up to be lower-powered and run FLOSS is important to me."

and points us to another article by Ryan Paul here.
---------------------------

Update 2: Bill Kerr says

"The mere existence of the OLPC is changing the way we think about what is possible"

and points us to another article by Ron Teitelbaum here.

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."

Am I a Religious Zealot?

A question was asked the other day - "Why do you support free software?"

Here's a recent quote by rms that I agree with wholeheartedly and without question -

"Fundamentally, the use of a non-free software program gives somebody power of the kind that nobody should have. And therefore software should be free. Computer users should always have the freedom to control their computers. And they should be free to cooperate with each other in doing so."

The proprietary world has an interesting way of dealing with this view. They call it "religious" and brand those who see the fundamental necessity for humanity to use computing technology in freedom as "zealots." Painting a picture of extremism is a common tactic. As an educator currently working to implement Free Software in a school setting I was once told by a colleague -

"Basically, you're making us all suffer because of your philosophy."

Generally, this is not the reaction I get when fellow colleagues take time to listen to the facts. When people understand the facts, they realize that "suffering" is different than the absence of a particular feature. For example, suffering is dealing with spyware, worms, back-doors, and obfuscated e-voting machines. Suffering is not being able to share a program with a friend. Suffering is being told when, how, or how often you can watch your movies or listen to your music. In a nutshell, suffering is when code fundamentally controls the operations of your machine and your data.

Of course, it's up to each individual to decide how their values stack in regard to the use of computers. Unfortunately, many define "suffering" as a lack of convenience ("That 'Linux' machine won't run my games!", "I need iTunes!") rather than the absence of freedom.

As the technology coordinator of a school, I am largely responsible for the direction computing technology takes. By switching a school's machines to a Free Software platform, am I doing what's right for the school? Or am I committing an act of intolerant "religious zealotry" by making colleagues "suffer" due to my "philosophy"?

Am I a "religious zealot"?

The Best Defense is a Good, Um, Er... Belief?

Update: The CNN article seems to be deleted. Fortunately, the Internet Archive had a copy.

The Intelligent Design circus has recently made headlines in California. With "ID as science" proponents having their buttocks kicked in a variety of locations, it seems the strategy has changed. ID is now being proposed as a "philosophy" with social studies teacher Sharon Lumberg attempting to offer a "Philosophy of Design" course to her students.

Personally, I have no problem with a discussion of "intelligence". Such discussion would blend well with philosophical discourse. "What is intelligence?" is a tremendous question. But when it's framed as the intelligence of "That - out there" - not simply intelligence itself - folks, we have strayed far from science or philosophy.

The most telling part of this article is when CNN states that Sharon Lumberg "defended" her course with the following argument...

"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach"