Tom Hoffman has an edu-tech wish-list for 2004, and its an excellent list. (I personally love the first one — let’s get schools demanding control of their own data — and the fifth one — hey Six Apart, how about an educational version of MT that is tailored a bit more to school needs? Oh…and keep it free. Hm. Maybe I’m asking a bit much.)
But I’ll add a few more:
- More school systems — especially New York City — understanding that schools are content-providers and let schools host their own services. Give more teachers and students and administrators email and web tools.
- More understanding of how technology is a progressive educational tool. Let’s get more programs like blogging that encourage student writing, student creation, student-centered learning.
- More university projects like Berklee Shares where universities share their knowledge with the general public (even if there’s a cost for the higher-level stuff.)
- An increase in e-rate monies — and a change in its funding equation — so that schools can upgrade their hardware.
- More school-business partnerships that are true partnerships, where the businesses aren’t just looking at the school as a possible target market.
- More teachers and students and administrators blogging. Let’s read more about the experiences we all share in our schools.
Happy 2004 everyone!
Not a surprise, but a Washington Post article today reports that NCLB funding is being disproportionately distributed to right-wing groups. Again, this isn’t a shock, but it should make people realize how — in addition to everything else that NCLB does — Bush’s block grants can be used to push a very specific educational agenda.
And isn’t it funny how NCLB money is funding groups that favor home schooling and vouchers?
So Joe links to a NY Times article today about the salaries of college football coaches. Is it right, the article asks, that a football coach might make five times as much as the university president? For me, the answer is clearly — no. But here was the quote that caused me to write today:
"Is Alex Rodriguez worth $250 million to play baseball?" said Skip Bertman, L.S.U.’s athletic director and former baseball coach. "Of course not, and it’s not a question of whether a baseball player or a coach is worth that much. The issue is what is the market value."
No it’s not.
Happy New Year, everyone… may 2004 be a joyful, successful, thoughtful year for you!
I said to Kat last night, this is the last new year we will spend just the two of us.
For the New Year, Wired Magazine has published its 101 Ways to Save the Internet, and it’s an interesting list. It’s got suggestions for just about everyone from Apple to Microsoft to the government… although, I was wondering where the Linux suggestions were, especially with the all the changes going on with Red Hat.
It does make you wonder… what is the next phase for the internet? Clearly, WiFi is already here to stay. With the cell-phone, picture camera, does-the-dishes PDA devices, no one thinks that using the internet means being changed to a desk anymore (as I type this from my laptop with a wireless router, sitting in a comfy chair…), but what is next?
For me, blogging represents my continued hope that the internet can be used to increase the amount of real communication that can happen between people. Perhaps more powerfully, as we saw the first internet wave of individuality get overrun by the same corporate culture that existed in the "bricks and mortar" world, we now see blogging as a way that alternative voices are getting heard again. Do we live in a segmented world where we all surround ourselves with voices that reinforce what we already believe? Perhaps. That’s my concern, but at least there are different segments this way.
Beacon alumnus and technology administrator extrodinaire Danny Markovic has entered the world of blogging. Welcome Danny!
The Democratic race is getting ugly, and Howard Dean is making a few mis-steps, I think. Yesterday, Dean suggested that his supporters might not back the nominee if it’s not him. That’s all kinds of not good, and Joshua Michael Marshall explains why:
I don’t care if Dean says he’ll endorse whoever wins. He’s playing the defection card. And that crosses the line.
I don’t doubt that it would be hard to reconcile some Dean supporters to another Democratic nominee. But that’s not the point. By saying it, he’s leveraging it, and encouraging it.
The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats’ support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can’t sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party’s nomination.
Marshall is spot on right. This isn’t the way the game gets played. I think, right now, a Dean-Clark ticket is the best chance to beat Bush, despite my personal affinity for Kerry. (Who, by the way, had this to say about Dean’s comments.) But I think that the primary season may be more interesting than some of the pundits are predicting.
I just hope that it battle-tests the nominee, rather than weakens him. The goal here is to take back our country.
For folks who haven’t read Fast Food Nation yet, (and why haven’t you?) a really amazing post (and comment afterwards) looking at why Mad Cow is just the start of the problem.
And here’s to John Kerry — still my favorite candidate on the issues — for addressing the issue of the total lack of accountability in meat inspections. This is a real issue, and Kerry is the only issue that I’ve seen who has thought to draw any kind of connection between agribusiness, lobbying and the rise in problems with our food industry.
From Brad DeLong who found it on someone else’s site, evidence that the U.S. is recycling PR spin… and that our press isn’t even checking to see when they’ve been fed the same line over and over again.
Needlenose: They really do lie about everything, Part CCCXXVI: An Associated Press article today quotes Lt. Col. Steve Russell of the 4th Infantry Division on the progress we’re making against the guerrillas in Iraq:
At the same time, the cost of recruiting attackers is thought to have gone up, Russell said. Gunmen and other fighters that were rumored to be paid somewhere around $250 per attack are now said to be demanding as much as $1,000.
On a hunch, I did a quick Google search, and found the following in an article by a different Associated Press reporter in August, quoting Russell’s boss in the 4th Infantry Division, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno:
The success of the raids has also made it more difficult for guerrilla leaders to mount attacks on U.S. troops, Odierno said. Guerrilla organizers have been forced to increase the amount they pay for attacks on coalition forces to $1,000 from $250.
”The pay has significantly gone up, which is a good thing because it shows they’re starting to have trouble recruiting people,” he said.
I wonder if the AP knows it’s getting recycled spin that’s at least five months old … or what they would do if someone brought it to their attention…
At what point do you think the press gets tired of getting lied to so completely that they actually start questioning what they are getting fed? Or am I asking too much?
From Kerry’s Blog, here’s Paul Krugman’s rules for political reporting in 2004.
By and large, these are smart, sensible rules that, honestly, really aren’t asking too much. And the stakes are really high this year, as Krugman writes:
I don’t really expect my journalistic colleagues to follow these rules. No doubt I myself, in moments of weakness, will break one or more of them. But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election.
So here’s my thought… what the political / educational blog community took up the call for a better media? Brad DeLong calls for it all the time. Let’s all pick up the call. Is it so much to ask that our political reporters actually report rather than just echo the PR releases that campaigns — usually the GOP campaigns — release?