Sep 6, 2008
Posted | 5 comments
First, I’ve never - not once - met a single person in public education who knew what Walter Reed did, so let’s start with that.
Med students usually know about him; Walter Reed is famous for his work on understanding the transmission of yellow fever [around the Span-Am War in Cuba, this mattered quite a lot, and then allowed us to finish the Panama Canal]. That’s why we’ve named a hospital after him and a few other things - including the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood.
I’ve seen it, it’s nice.
Reed’s a neat guy to name a school after. He finished his medical degree when he was 17. WRMS carries a tradition of serious academics, and I think they’re still the only middle school to offer AP Physics.
My high school, which wasn’t a terrible one, didn’t even offer AP Physics.
The LA-Times blog, The Homeroom, links to… yes, TalkingPointsMemo, to explain the potential picture mix-up at the RNC.
Yawn.
I don’t really care about the photo - I didn’t look at them anyway. What concerns me is this bit from WRMS principal Donna Tobin:
“Permission to use the front of our school for the Republican National Convention was not given by our school nor is the use of our school’s picture an endorsement of any political party or view.”
No endorsement? That’s fine to point out.
But “permission… was not given by our school”? Since when does someone need permission to take and use a picture of a public school - or any public building?
Grow up, Donna Tobin, and since you’re so concerned about weird marketing, you might want to take Wikipedia’s advice on the entry for your school: “This article is written like an advertisement.”
Sep 4, 2008
Posted | 4 comments
Over on the Teacher Magazine forums, they’re talking about learning styles.
It seems that the learning styles debate didn’t penetrate very deeply. Or, to be more realistic and more charitable, that it has a long way to go.
Here are some snippets from the discussion:
“As a special education teacher, I am constantly frustrated in professional development. I chose the profession of teaching because I require conversation, movement and relevancy to learn. I need concrete examples and activities that involve practicing the skill. I sit through powerpoint presentations for 3 hours or more at a time where I am talked at about concepts, such as, “multi-modal learning”, “differentiating instruction” and “universal design.” It takes every bone in my body to not stand up during the weeks of inservice prior to day one and shout “practice what you preach.”"
That commenter sounds fairly… inflexible, perhaps like a child who insists on eating hot dogs and only hot dogs for every meal.
The conclusion of the learning styles video made it clear that good teaching - which doesn’t include 3 hours of PowerPoint viewing - is what matters. The issue in that comment isn’t learning styles, it’s bad teaching.
Why he/she doesn’t stand up and question it is beyond me. Go for it, it’ll make your school better.
The commenter continues:
“I cannot sit for extended amounts of time. 30 minutes for a TV show is difficult for me, a 3 hour inservice is like torture.”
3 hours of PowerPoint is about 170 minutes too many - I’m with you there - but is sitting through a 30-minute sitcom difficult? Really? Thank God the commenter isn’t in the military - he’d likely shoot up the platoon 5 minutes into encampment out of sheer boredom.
The hardship of it all!
Professor Willingham jumped into the [short] debate, but no one seemed to care. Another commenter says:
“Shuler’s [the first commenter that I quoted above] response implies the use of verbal and kinesthetic learning styles, plus opportunities to try out what s/he has learned (guided practice?).”
From what I’ve read on Jim Horn’s blog, “education profiteering” is an epidemic. How I missed that Rethuglican boat is beyond me. I guess I’m overdue.
My idea? A ‘learning styles’ Kool-Aid type drink mix. Apparently the stuff is out there, with thousands of gallons consumed daily, so why not slap a label on it and profit, profit, profit? See ya in Tahiti, suckers!
The final comment [at the time I'm writing this post] is a decent one:
“I agree that a lot of Professional Development does not engage teachers in the way they think they like to learn. I always do a debrief with teachers when they return from a conference (sometimes ridiculously short) but the biggest reason, for the prod [prod = "professional development," apparently] not being successful tends to link to their mental set. The teachers went to prod that they were either encouraged to go to or that was something close to what they thought they were looking for. As a result of all the concerns, we put in a committee that helps vet all the professional development in our school and helps find opportunities that relate directly to the teacher’s needs. Teachers now seem to be putting up with a different approach to their learning style if the topic relates directly to their need or interest.
One resource that our teachers use is, at the moment, a noncommercial site http://www.educatorsprofessionaldevelopment.com which lists prod from around the world and helps them see the myriad of opportunities that exist.”
Apparently some teachers don’t think that sitting for 30 minutes is cruel and unusual punishment.
The point of it all? Good teaching, good communication, a good attitude and good follow-up/analysis goes a long way toward good professional development.
This is why I like to use the phrase “common sense” re: this debate.
Sep 3, 2008
Posted | 5 comments
Thinking of those college Democrats got me in the mood to post Che Mouse. Countdown to Gretchen Wilson at the RNC? About half an hour.
Sep 3, 2008
Posted | 3 comments
If ya know what I mean.
I’ve subscribed to the Boston University College Democrats e-mail list for some years now. I was never involved in any political groups when I was a student there, but I knew a few who were. It’s good to stay abreast of what the other folks are doing - not out of stool-pigeon-y creepiness, just for information’s sake. As I wrote in the comments over at NYC Educator, everyone should go to as many events on the other side as possible.
And everyone graduate should subscribe to his alma mater’s political lists because, well… occasionally there’s some top-notch entertainment. From the BUCD:
“Hey! Hope everyone is as excited as we are to start a new year of college democrats fun!”
Well, I know I’m ready. Are you?
Our first meeting will be on this Thursday (That’s tomorrow!!) at 7PM in CAS 316.
Subliminal nanny-statism. These College Democrats don’t even trust that I know that since today is Wednesday, tomorrow is Thursday.
“We will be meeting each other…”
Were you planning to get together to meet… other people?
“… for some mixers and a bit of discussion on what events we have on the radar this semester as well as what we want our goals for the year to be.”
31 words to say “set the semester’s and year’s agenda.” Very college democrat. But here’s where it gets laughable:
“Freshmen get excited!”
You bet they do! Does the University still offer WR 150? If so, do they cover the comma?
“Freshman representative elections are coming up! Freshman representatives are in charge of getting new members, keeping regular members active, and have the opportunity to see how the BU college democrats is run first hand!”
… and there’s the comedy. Freshmen are enslaved’n'indentured, not unlike a really cruddy frat, to do all the grunt work - with the lure that they’re “seeing it all first hand [sic].” If that doesn’t describe the elitist wing of the Democrat party, nothing does.
“It’s an excellent experience and a great way to get involved.”
Just in case you might’ve thought it was a raw deal, there ya go.
“Finally, this Friday we will be holding signs for John Kerry visibility.”
Really? John Kerry needs “visibility” in Boston, Massachusetts? Is the BUCD afraid that Kerry might slip below an 80% favorability rating in MA? Good Lord, what a waste of time. The BUCD could be out campaigning in small, contested local races, or even just doing some community awareness/public service, but no - they’re making sure that John Kerry’s visible.
I pasted their paragraph to a friend who thought it was a joke statement written by the College Republicans. Seriously.
“You can meet up with the group in Marsh Plaza at 8:00 AM. Look for a cute blond girl with a sign.”
Despite my noted objections, I’m sold.
I try not to criticize without providing a little value to the target, so I’ve got a treat for the BUCD. Feel free to right-click and ‘save as’ the jpeg logo in this post. I optimized it for the web - for you, for free! It went from 46kb to 5kb.
Reducing bandwidth by 90% without any loss of quality? That’s how Reagan would’ve rolled it if he’d had Photoshop.
Sep 3, 2008
Posted | 1 comment
Over at the GlobalScholar Blog, I commented on Jay Mathews’ piece about great teachers vs. great buildings. Mathews is right that instructional quality matters the most, but as several links and quotes in my entry show, we can’t neglect buildings, either.
Oddly enough, Mathews’ article - and the support/criticism of some of his points - are an argument for increasing online and distance education efforts because they nearly eliminate overhead on structures, grounds and upkeep.
The public education system is notoriously bad [read as "slow, ineffecient and ineffective"] at taking developments in the private sector and translating them into working practices. There’s a practical example right under education’s nose.
Consider online poker rooms, which bring gaming into one’s home [for the purposes of this discussion, ignore morality arguments and gaming privacy/safety/integrity arguments]. Walking from the bedroom to the living room is a shorter and cheaper path than the driveway to the local casino.
Before the financial transaction legislation that hamstrung the industry, online poker rooms brought to gamblers:
Flexibility - the ability to play cards from anywhere, anytime. No commutes, no overhead [other than the monthly fee to their ISP that they were paying anyway]. Total comfort.
Efficiency. Live poker play gives about 20 hands per hour; online play gives about 60 hands per table, per hour. Most serious players are on a few tables at a time.
Cheaper for the consumer. Poker operates on something called the rake, which is a percentage of each hand that goes directly to the casino. Live, brick-and-mortar facilities have overhead that includes paying a dealer for each table, a never-ending list of physical plant construction/maintenance, etc. Online poker rooms just have an IT team that ensures secure software - and then that software is verified as secure by independent gaming authorities.
Live rake is usually 10% of each hand with a cap of $5; online rake is, at its worst, about 5% with a cap of $3. For players, that means more money staying in players’ pockets - and because of the efficiency [3x more hands per hour] and low overhead, the online room can afford such a friendly setup.
Captures the basics. There are certain charms to live play - the sounds, the conversations, the pace of the game. Right now, those elements can’t be replicated by online gaming. The essence of the game, though - the strategy, the skill, the luck - is captured accurately. There are few sectors that innovate, analyze and restructure at the pace of gambling entertainment [hop to Las Vegas if you don't believe me], so I have no doubt that within 5 years, online gambling will inch even closer to an experience that a stale, no-talent Ed.D. might call “authentic.”
Some folks get this [consider IndianMathOnline and GlobalScholar, for example]. They realize that significantly less overhead means that it’s easier to commit to and reward better instruction - and the savings, like friendlier rake, is passed on to the consumer.
Others are stuck in a debate about how much and how best to bloat property taxes and capital projects.
