The issue at The Quick and the Ed, and on Flypaper’s radar, is affirmative action. TQ&tE, in discussing Obama’s take on the issue, says:
“I’m in favor of racial preferences in college admissions as long as the goal is to help minority students who come from substandard K-12 schools and have to live with legacy of historical racism along with discrimination that still exists today.”
I’d go with cultural/intellectual diversity [useful] over racial diversity [useless], but I understand what Mr. Carey is saying. Flypaper is unimpressed.
A few years ago, I applied for a job at a well-known education bastion in New York City. I overheard one of the interviewers say to another that I was “too country.”
A year before that, I had a similar interview in Los Angeles, where an examiner expressed concern that a rube like me just wouldn’t be able to “fit in” in LA and that I “wouldn’t be happy in a big city” despite anything on my CV or in my testimony that might suggest otherwise. I wish that she’d told me about my happiness before leaving for the interview - it could have saved me a 3,000 mile trip.
Yes, maybe it was a mistake to wear overalls and a straw hat to these interviews. Maybe I should’ve brought my own spittoon, too, because the interviewers balked when I spat load upon load of tobacco juice on their carpets. And maybe the Hawken blackpowder rifle strung over my shoulder presented a mismatch with their cultures [really, it was only a .32 Davy Crockett squirrel gun - I figured a .50 or .58 would seem too aggressive, though I think they failed to make the distinction].
Ok, ok, the attire/accessories part was an exaggeration, but all the rest is true.
I’m not suggesting equivalence between different types of discrimination. We do, however, see suboptimal decisions made for all types of goofy reasons, whether in hiring, college admissions or routine social situations.
It’s an imperfect system, and some get the short end of the stick far more often than others, but it’s better than a doubly-goofy fix based on which racial box you check on an application.
Thank you so much for the recent submission of your presentation proposal for the upcoming K12 Online 2008 Conference. We appreciate your interest and the time you spent creating your abstract.
The review committees had a tough time making their selections with so many quality submissions from which to choose. Unfortunately, your abstract for the Kicking it Up a Notch strand, was not selected for this year’s conference.
One of the new features of this year’s conference is something we’re calling “Not K12 Online Conference”. While we don’t know exactly what it will look like, we want it to be a space where anyone can present and share. Unlike the formal conference, there will not be any restrictions on these presentations. We see this as a complimentary space and would love to have you share here. While we recognize the value of a formal conference with strands and limited presentations, we think there is tremendous value in developing this space. Please consider sharing here. If you have any questions about this part of the conference, contact Bud Hunt ([email protected]) who is chairing the oversight committee for notK12 Online 2008.
We do hope you will join us by participating in the conference and will consider attending one or more of the live events that are scheduled. We look forward to getting to know you and collaborating together online.
Sincerely, Darren, Sheryl, Wes, and Dean
K12Online Conference Conveners
http://www.k12onlineconference.org/
As per Wesley Fryer’s comment, I’ve put together a proposal for the K12 Online Conference, 2008.
The topic is ‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology’ and draws on both past analysis and the excellent dialog re: NECC 2008.
Before submitting, I’d like to get some feedback on this proposal from those who participated in NECC, are actively involved in K-12 new media and/or take an interest, public or private, in education technology.
I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance. For reference, please see the proposal guidelines.
5. Please share a short bio about yourself and your role as it relates to your presentation topic.
Matthew’s background includes work in higher education, executive recruiting, consulting and government. He consults on graduate/professional school admissions, academic media and educates privately. He writes out of Cooperstown, New York.
6. For which strand are you submitting this proposal?
‘Kicking It Up a Notch’
7. What is the title of your proposed session?
‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology’
8. In less than 250 words, please describe what you plan to share and do in your presentation. Clarify how you plan to produce your presentation (podcast, screencast, video, PPT, etc.) Remember, your presentation must be submitted in a downloadable and convertable file format, and have a length of 20 minutes or less. Please refer to the online call for proposals for additional requirements.
With Web 2.0 technologies and digital media comes criticism – the good, the bad and the ugly. Ed-tech professionals face a host of challenges: convincing peers that new ventures have unique value; selling communities on the benefits of fiscal obligations; combating centuries of education practice and theory, etc. Education technology professionals, in short, are steering a ship into uncharted waters, and they must take care not to make its passengers seasick, or worse – tipping it altogether.
Such a complex undertaking necessitates a new approach to criticism – an authentic, honest approach that addresses proactively the challenges, both conceptual and factual, to education technology programs. I plan to explore how bloggers, podcasters and other practitioners of new media can seek out and make use of the criticism of peers and the community at large to add value to their programs.
I will present an audio podcast that draws upon relevant examples of criticism in education media – what works, what doesn’t, and how education technology professionals can develop an outgoing, forward-thinking regimen for criticism and eliminate the worry and weight from even the most brash analysis. I will include some personal criticism - some that I have given, some that I have received - and examples from various education professionals [anonymity and/or consent of the authors will be required] so that we all might benefit from our diverse experiences.
9. Goals.
Purpose: To re-evaluate the role of criticism in education technology; to present an honest examination of everyday assessment.
Goals: To encourage K-12 new media authors and education technology professionals to re-examine attitudes toward criticism and embrace the benefits of criticism/analysis from a host of constituencies.
Objectives: To provide a brief summary of the role of public criticism in education; to discuss strategies for drawing upon the talents and offerings of various stakeholders in K-12 education; to examine strategies for coping with and utilizing public criticism.
Outcomes: Listeners will come away with a solid reflection on the role of public criticism in their own professional and personal capacities in K-12 education; they will be equipped with new strategies for inviting and channeling criticism so that it works for, rather than against, themselves and their projects..
10 Justification.
An important part of ‘Kicking it up a notch’ is developing the resilience necessary to withstand serious challenges from both the inside and outside, as well as utilizing strategies to take the bane of many professionals’ existence - criticism - and re-channel it into a feedback system that, over time, increases the value of the offering and the impact of the individual. Too often the perspectives of those outside the K-12 establishment are avoided; rather than marginalize those stakeholders, we must discuss approaches that encompass their feedback and make use of their insight.
As we amplify our efforts, so do our critics - and the result can be either a symphony or cacophony. It is necessary to examine the complex relationships between the differing visions of K-12 education - the administrator’s, the teacher’s, the student’s, the parent’s, the taxpayer’s, those of boards of education - and the common ground shared by all those stakeholders. With the proliferation of Web 2.0 and technology use in classrooms, friction increasingly develops between these players; the effect of our ‘amplified possibilities’ rests on our ability to make use of those challenges.
From The Homeroom, the LA Times’ Southern CA Schools blog: The misnomer that is ‘teacher.’
One thing that education blogosphere is wonderful at is saying something and meaning nothing. Take, for example, this re-definition of ‘teacher’:
The problem with the label that educators have cornered themselves into is that it doesn’t provide a clear picture of what a teacher does. New teachers, student teachers and still developing teachers can teach until they are blue in the face and –- if they aren’t engaging their students –- not actually have a class of young people learning anything.
As a result, much of the beginning of the year, my classroom interaction with students is such that I try to make it clear to my students that we are a community of learners, committed toward common thematic and academic objectives. As such, I am aiding these students in their quest toward literacy and content proficiency.
Perhaps instead of framing the job as a “teacher” a new phrase would be more appropriate. I’m happy to hear your proposals. For now, I think I’ll try out “Learning Practitioner.”
… or you could stick with the unpretentious “teacher,” which works just fine. Relax, do your job, and the professional respect follows.
From InsideHigherEd.com: “The Innumeracy of Intellectuals.”
Professor Orzel, who blogs at Uncertain Principles, has a remarkable ability to restrain himself:
Ignorance of math can even be a source of a perverse sort of pride— the bit of the blog post that reminded me of this is a call-back to an earlier post in which he relates his troubles with math, and how he exploited a loophole in his college rules to graduate without passing algebra. To me that anecdote reads as more proud than shameful— less “I’m not good at math” and more “I’m clever enough to circumvent the rules.”
It’s not entirely without shame, of course.
Not without shame, indeed.
When I was in a Ph.D. program in the social sciences, I was floored by the innumeracy of my peers [and, at times, professors]. If I were a dean or provost, I’d expect that those to whom I awarded a doctorate would have a command of 10th grade math.
… and I’d be sorely disappointed.
From the Freedom of Information Committee Blog: “Cheap e-mail archiving software eliminates technical barriers to access.”
In some states - like New York and Florida - e-mail communications between public employees/servants are in the public domain. You can FOIL them because you’re entitled to them.
And if you ever request this information, you’ll likely get two reactions:
1. “What?” After which you explain that the information is public, and that you’d appreciate it in a timely fashion pursuant to the regulations in your State;
2. “What?” Followed by a litany of excuses, one of which is usually, “… but that’s too hard/costly to be practical.”
Sorry, public employees, but Waterford Technologies just eliminated your reliance on #2. For $99, a public institution can have unlimited licenses for e-mail archiving software.
#1, however, will still present itself nearly every time - such is life.
Fred Klonsky, not to be confused with that darling of the Communist Party, his brother Mike [or lookalikes Dennis Farina or Wario] gives the eyebrow-raiser of the day.
Everyone knows by now about Michael Savage’s comments on autism. Savage, apparently, has a partner in crime over at Scholastic.
Fred Klonsky thinks that Alexander Russo is one of those mean-spirited autism deniers because he said:
“How do you diagnose a case of autism? Good question. I (and most teachers) have no idea.”
Then Russo linked to a brief post in Slate about…. you guessed it: diagnosing autism.
Case closed, a sensible person might say. There’s no reason to expect an education journalist or a public school teacher to have any experience diagnosing autism. Do some, like F. Klonsky attests, encounter autism more regularly than others, and have a better understanding of what they’re observing? Yes, I suppose, but I wouldn’t expect it [and to be honest, I'd rather have a professional making diagnoses].
If you aren’t satisfied by Russo’s tiny blog bit - the one where he said he didn’t know about diagnosing autism, then linked to information about diagnosing autism - and you have a penchant for unhinged lunacy, you can read F. Klonsky’s analysis of Russo’s realintentions:
“Russo’s implication is clear. Is there really such a thing as autism? That’s not the point of the Slate article, by the way. It points out that diagnosing autism is most often done by using a check list of symptoms. It describes it as a spectrum disorder, in that is has a range of symptoms and degrees of severity.
That fact that Russo has no idea how to diagnose the disorder is hardly evidence of anything other than his own ignorance. That most teachers don’t know how to diagnose autism is not supported by facts nor is it hardly relevant since regular classroom teachers are not asked to diagnose anything, let alone autism. Teachers are asked to report behaviors. Doctors diagnose.
But Russo appears to line up with the crazy Savage in this nasty little couple of sentences. Shameful.”
Klonsky’s rabid argument makes no sense, and Wario The Younger doesn’t do readers the courtesy of linking to Russo’s original post. You might think there’s more in the original - there isn’t. One line, one link, that apparently suggests Russo has discredited claims of autism and considers it a “make pretend condition” [yes, it was awkward to type that phrase as an adult].
In that most charming form - that sinister wit and pseudo-strength that the Klonsky boys seem to think they have - F. Klonsky winds up his masterpiece:
“Notice I didn’t call Russo an “asshole.” Just ignorant.”
Fred, I’ll call you both - and I’ll throw “illiterate” in to boot, since nothing in your post suggests that you were able to comprehend Russo’s 17 words.
