I'm not totally even sold on the idea of segregating people based on skill level all the time. Humans learn well from seeing and mimicking. Having kids (whether older or younger) tutor other kids would be awesome.
Of course you realize that unless classrooms are made up of randomly selected kids from 5 to 18, they are going to be separated in some fashion, be it age, skill level, previous education, and so on. So the question becomes how to you group kids rather than if you group them.
Now if you want to do away with classrooms altogether, and have each kid study separately, and then play or interact based on who lives in the neighborhood, you could do that, but otherwise, kids are going to be grouped in some fashion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No universal agreement on educational methods
My comment wasn't about unions, it was about the ability to teach children differently, based on their talents and weaknesses. We have the technology and it allows for this.
But, do you realize that some of the educational systems favored by some parents discourage the use of technology? The very concept of using computers in classrooms or at homes goes against some educational philosophies. That's what I've been trying to point out. Not everyone agrees on what schools are supposed to do.
I can guarantee you that if the Kahn system turns out better educated students for little or no cost, it will catch on. Home school kids will use it. Schools that want to greatly increase the staff/student ratios will use it.
The reason these systems haven't done better in the past is that the results haven't lived up to expectations. Maybe this time will be different. There are enough people wanting to eliminate teachers that it will get its trial. This whole discussion about the "old guard" is essentially unnecessary because if the results are there, you'll have millions of parents and thousands of school districts clamoring for it.
Do you think that parents who want to give their kids an extra edge wouldn't use it if they think it will work? Imagine how many kids are going to be put in front of a computer in evenings or on weekends by parents wanting them to improve their test scores so they can get into better colleges. So, folks, chill out. If it works, it will be embraced.
We've had a number of recent for-profit experiments where people are convinced they can run a school better than what is currently in place. So some cities have brought in these for-profit companies to fix their worst schools and the results haven't been much better than what was there before.
As I said earlier, I have been following education trends since 1968. I'm always interested in reading what is currently being advocated. And I have shopped around for schools for my kids and for other family members. I've sat in on classes, read the parent reviews, looked at the test scores, etc. If there was one approach that clearly bettered everything else, I can guarantee you that every school would adopt it. But there hasn't been that one approach. In fact, that's why there are always new ideas, because whatever everyone tried before didn't quite work as well as planned and now they want to try something else.
And I'll toss this out. Let's say it is a college, either a private institution like Harvard, or a public one like UCLA. Should the slots go those with the highest test scores? Or should the slots be put up for bid and sold to the highest bidder, no matter the academic qualifications? Should students be selected to intentionally add diversity, with some scoring better than others, but the lower scoring students coming from a different geographic location or demographic group?
There are just so many factors that enter into educational systems that I think we have to look at it as a complex societal issue.
Let's say that the bright kids want to be going as fast as they can. While at the same time, the parents of the special needs kids want their kids to be mainstreamed and not put into special classes. Who's to say which approach is better and which kids' needs should take priority?
At a Montessori charter school I'm familiar with, the word was going around that this coming year one of the new incoming kids is severely autistic and disruptive. The school is small and noise travels from room to room. The parents are apprehensive. By law they can't keep the kid out, but on the other hand, accommodating the child is going to affect the other kids.
I don't think coming up with workable educational solutions is always an issue of old methods versus new methods. It's also trying to find a way to accommodate a variety of different needs within a community.
Re: Re: Re: No universal agreement on educational methods
Back when I was a kid, schools started tracking, putting kids in different classes based on ability. But then there was a backlash, with people saying that it kept some kids permanently behind. So then the schools went to mixed classes again, with people saying that the smart kids benefited by being able to help the slower kids. Then there was a backlash against that, because the smarter kids were bored. So then there were talented and gifted classes, but some parents said those kids didn't need the extra attention and funding and that the special needs kids were the ones who needed the attention and the funding. And so on.
Now that schools are cutting funding, expect to see more kids per class. There have been many experiments over the years hoping to replace teachers with more online education, but not everyone has felt it has been effective. I think if you can show that you can save money and get better results by using more computerized education, it will be embraced. But for as many different approaches that have been tried over the years, I don't think it has been established that if you set up a particular program, you will get dramatically better results.
That's why I think we might be better off having a mix of school types so kids and parents can pick and choose what they think is best. Of course, if no one wants to fund education, that choice will be less sustainable.
Re: Re: No universal agreement on educationl methods
It isn't about teachers unions. It's more about parents ad what they want, given the choice.
Some parents want parochial schools. Some want Montessori. Some want Waldorf. Some want back-to-basics. Some want experiential schools. Some want arts-focused schools. Some want science-and-tech-focused schools.
You could have the most advanced systems in the world, but some parents will want a classics-bases system that looks pretty much like education has looked for hundreds of years.
I've been a follower of educational trends since the old Whole Earth Catalog days -- as far back as 1968. I've read about Summerhill, about the New Schools movement, open class rooms, etc. There's always something new. Sometimes the ideas work. Sometimes they don't. So I think you're going to have to offer lots of choice and let people pick what kinds of schools their kids go to.
There is no "right" system of education. There are a variety of different methods being used in different schools and in different countries. And not everyone agrees on what kids should be learning. So I don't think it is possible to create one system that satisfies everyone. It's probably better to have lots of different kinds of schools and let parents, kids, and communities pick the ones they like best for their particular needs and expectations.
I hope more people get involved in the political process
The article is a great look at how competing special interests influence Washington priorities. I've said before on Techdirt that complaining about IP isn't going to get you very far. It's not a hot button list for voters. So if you want laws changed you either need to turn it into a hot button (which means pushing it ahead of all the other things voters care about) or you need to change the lobbying process and campaign funding.
I hope articles like this bring more members of Gen X and Gen Y in political activism. If you want to have as much influence as the Tea Partiers, you are going to have to get organized in a significant way. Talking music piracy isn't going to do it. Campaigning on lower drug costs, DNA ownership, and GMO issues in food are better issues to energize voters (not that the voters themselves will be able to do much alone; corporate money is what still matters most). Form your own lobbying organization and start paying politicians yourselves to back the laws you want.
I posted a copy of the contract that many musicians sign with MTV. MTV gets all non-exclusive rights and doesn't pay for them. The artists don't have to sign it, but many do figuring it is in their best interests to have music on MTV.
Many musicians have signed this with MTV. The musicians don't get any money from MTV (or in this case, they get a $1), and give MTV permission to use the music however this wish, now and in the future.
These days the shows just ask for all future rights in whatever medium. That means they have the right to use the music and reproduce the show in media no one has yet thought about. In the past they didn't think to ask for a comprehensive license so they had to back and renegotiate for new uses of the show.
They are smarter now about licensing music. If the rights holders don't agree, they just don't use the music. And there is so much music available, an uncooperative rights holder is no longer an obstacle. They just find someone else. It's buyers' market now for music licensing. People will give it away for the exposure.
Yes, there are tons of musicians who will license music to MTV for free. In fact, that's the standard agreement with MTV. You allow them to use your music in their shows, and they don't even tell you when they use it. True, they have to pay ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the other performance rights organizations to use music, but that's a deal for songwriters. The recording artists don't get any money from that arrangement.
He's thinking "Avatar" big or "Harry Potter Franchise" big. But Kevin Smith would never make anything resembling that kind of crap.
I wouldn't call Potter crap. Rowling has created something that few authors have ever done -- a complex seven book series which stands by itself, which, as an additional aside, has been translated into multiple media forms. Several generations of my family has or is reading the series and seen the films and we are all impressed with it. I think she's a genius. Historically I think she'll stand up against Dickens, Twain, and others of comparable stature. She didn't brand herself, but she has branded Harry Potter, so if you want the ultimate example of creative branding, she's done it.
I think it is smart for a celebrity to think of himself or herself as a brand. But sustaining that brand over the long haul is a challenge.
Three celebrities who have branded themselves and have lasted are Oprah, Martha Stewart, and the Olsen Twins. Oprah is unquestionably the most successful of the bunch. Stewart exemplifies the problems of personality branding (i.e., the image of the entire brand can be damaged by the missteps of the celebrity). The Olsen Twins are interesting in that they have successfully managed to go from tween idols, followed by an awkward transition period, to reinventing themselves as heads of a luxury fashion company (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, America's Next Billionaires).
If you stop to think about the number of musicians or actors or TV personalities you continue to be interested in for more than a few years, it's likely to be very small.
Pay the professors and then make the work available
I'd like to think that if taxpayer funds are being used to support research, then that research would be freely available. Unfortunately that system is breaking down because more schools are needing to find other sources of revenue rather than taxpayer money. So it is probably understandable that universities were hoping to make some money this way.
Maybe everyone here can brainstorm about alternative fundraising systems that support research and researchers while at the same time making the information widely available.
If those boarding "private planes" don't have to go through the TSA security measures, what's stopping someone from buying a plane and filling it with "friends" who are actually paying customers to avoid the law? Or a terrorist who wants to do the same?
There are services selling seats on private planes, so it is being done now.
As for terrorists on private planes, sure, they could do it, but they wouldn't be risking the lives of hundreds of people on the plane like they would with a commercial airliner. As for terrorists using private planes to blow up buildings rather than passengers, yes, it could be done, but it is one step removed from blowing up a plane full of people while trying to blow up a building.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you realize that unless classrooms are made up of randomly selected kids from 5 to 18, they are going to be separated in some fashion, be it age, skill level, previous education, and so on. So the question becomes how to you group kids rather than if you group them.
Now if you want to do away with classrooms altogether, and have each kid study separately, and then play or interact based on who lives in the neighborhood, you could do that, but otherwise, kids are going to be grouped in some fashion.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No universal agreement on educational methods
But, do you realize that some of the educational systems favored by some parents discourage the use of technology? The very concept of using computers in classrooms or at homes goes against some educational philosophies. That's what I've been trying to point out. Not everyone agrees on what schools are supposed to do.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Kahn school
The reason these systems haven't done better in the past is that the results haven't lived up to expectations. Maybe this time will be different. There are enough people wanting to eliminate teachers that it will get its trial. This whole discussion about the "old guard" is essentially unnecessary because if the results are there, you'll have millions of parents and thousands of school districts clamoring for it.
Do you think that parents who want to give their kids an extra edge wouldn't use it if they think it will work? Imagine how many kids are going to be put in front of a computer in evenings or on weekends by parents wanting them to improve their test scores so they can get into better colleges. So, folks, chill out. If it works, it will be embraced.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Khan Academy
As I said earlier, I have been following education trends since 1968. I'm always interested in reading what is currently being advocated. And I have shopped around for schools for my kids and for other family members. I've sat in on classes, read the parent reviews, looked at the test scores, etc. If there was one approach that clearly bettered everything else, I can guarantee you that every school would adopt it. But there hasn't been that one approach. In fact, that's why there are always new ideas, because whatever everyone tried before didn't quite work as well as planned and now they want to try something else.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Here's a scenario
There are just so many factors that enter into educational systems that I think we have to look at it as a complex societal issue.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Here's a scenario
At a Montessori charter school I'm familiar with, the word was going around that this coming year one of the new incoming kids is severely autistic and disruptive. The school is small and noise travels from room to room. The parents are apprehensive. By law they can't keep the kid out, but on the other hand, accommodating the child is going to affect the other kids.
I don't think coming up with workable educational solutions is always an issue of old methods versus new methods. It's also trying to find a way to accommodate a variety of different needs within a community.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re: Re: No universal agreement on educational methods
Now that schools are cutting funding, expect to see more kids per class. There have been many experiments over the years hoping to replace teachers with more online education, but not everyone has felt it has been effective. I think if you can show that you can save money and get better results by using more computerized education, it will be embraced. But for as many different approaches that have been tried over the years, I don't think it has been established that if you set up a particular program, you will get dramatically better results.
That's why I think we might be better off having a mix of school types so kids and parents can pick and choose what they think is best. Of course, if no one wants to fund education, that choice will be less sustainable.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Re: Re: No universal agreement on educationl methods
Some parents want parochial schools. Some want Montessori. Some want Waldorf. Some want back-to-basics. Some want experiential schools. Some want arts-focused schools. Some want science-and-tech-focused schools.
You could have the most advanced systems in the world, but some parents will want a classics-bases system that looks pretty much like education has looked for hundreds of years.
I've been a follower of educational trends since the old Whole Earth Catalog days -- as far back as 1968. I've read about Summerhill, about the New Schools movement, open class rooms, etc. There's always something new. Sometimes the ideas work. Sometimes they don't. So I think you're going to have to offer lots of choice and let people pick what kinds of schools their kids go to.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
No universal agreement on educationl methods
On the post: The Story Of Patent Reform: How Lobbyists & Congress Works... And How The Public & Innovation Get Screwed
I hope more people get involved in the political process
I hope articles like this bring more members of Gen X and Gen Y in political activism. If you want to have as much influence as the Tea Partiers, you are going to have to get organized in a significant way. Talking music piracy isn't going to do it. Campaigning on lower drug costs, DNA ownership, and GMO issues in food are better issues to energize voters (not that the voters themselves will be able to do much alone; corporate money is what still matters most). Form your own lobbying organization and start paying politicians yourselves to back the laws you want.
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Re: Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
http://www.3858backup.com/.../MTV%20LICENSING.doc
http://www.entertainmentlawchicago.com/m usic/BUNIM-MURRAY%20Synchronization%20License.pdf
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
https://www.indie-music.com/downloads/MTV_MasterSyncBlanketUsageAgreement.pdf
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Re:
They are smarter now about licensing music. If the rights holders don't agree, they just don't use the music. And there is so much music available, an uncooperative rights holder is no longer an obstacle. They just find someone else. It's buyers' market now for music licensing. People will give it away for the exposure.
On the post: New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
Re:
On the post: Kevin Smith Shows The Importance Of Building A Brand As A Part Of CwF+RtB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't call Potter crap. Rowling has created something that few authors have ever done -- a complex seven book series which stands by itself, which, as an additional aside, has been translated into multiple media forms. Several generations of my family has or is reading the series and seen the films and we are all impressed with it. I think she's a genius. Historically I think she'll stand up against Dickens, Twain, and others of comparable stature. She didn't brand herself, but she has branded Harry Potter, so if you want the ultimate example of creative branding, she's done it.
On the post: Kevin Smith Shows The Importance Of Building A Brand As A Part Of CwF+RtB
Longevity is a challenge
Three celebrities who have branded themselves and have lasted are Oprah, Martha Stewart, and the Olsen Twins. Oprah is unquestionably the most successful of the bunch. Stewart exemplifies the problems of personality branding (i.e., the image of the entire brand can be damaged by the missteps of the celebrity). The Olsen Twins are interesting in that they have successfully managed to go from tween idols, followed by an awkward transition period, to reinventing themselves as heads of a luxury fashion company (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, America's Next Billionaires).
If you stop to think about the number of musicians or actors or TV personalities you continue to be interested in for more than a few years, it's likely to be very small.
On the post: University Of Copenhagen Giving Away Patents For Free... If You Have A Credible Plan
Pay the professors and then make the work available
Maybe everyone here can brainstorm about alternative fundraising systems that support research and researchers while at the same time making the information widely available.
On the post: New Documents Raise More Questions About Safety Of TSA Scanners
Re: TSA scanners
There are services selling seats on private planes, so it is being done now.
As for terrorists on private planes, sure, they could do it, but they wouldn't be risking the lives of hundreds of people on the plane like they would with a commercial airliner. As for terrorists using private planes to blow up buildings rather than passengers, yes, it could be done, but it is one step removed from blowing up a plane full of people while trying to blow up a building.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?
Is there? Someone people, like Richard Florida, tout the value of diversity. So is there more value in having the same culture, or multiple cultures?
Thoughts?
Next >>