|
Thanks for an Adam Sandler meme. Got any water boy quotes next?
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The thing is, school budgets are millions of dollars, multimillion, hundreds of millions. The costs are big infrastructure stuff. But people always go after classroom things. They want to look around a teacher's room and say "it's this, this is what the school spent too much on and this is why the school is poor" and they always point to things that are rounding errors on a decimal point on the school's budget. You know that public school budgets are a matter of public record, right? And that nobody here is saying 'they blew all their laptop money on bulletin board paper!' but rather 'holy poo poo they're barely keeping up with facilities costs, don't try to add more infrastructure that needs maintenance'.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Thanks for an Adam Sandler meme. Got any water boy quotes next? Dunno, you going to say something even dumber than you did last time, making one necessary?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
The fact that people will say with a straight face "No, the solution to poor education outcomes isn't feeding hungry children, it's giving them a laptop instead" is loving incredible.FilthyImp posted:Story time! Around 2009 the hot poo poo in Education was SMART BOARDS -- pressure-sensitive boards (that you couldn't write on with a dry erase marker) that paired to a work computer through USB or Bluetooth, and that used a projector to display interactive SMART work. You could also get a pack of 4-button QuickResponse joysticks with the system that allowed for instant pop-quiz response and analysis, or color-coded SMART PENS that allowed students to work on problems together. Hah, I remember those. They hit Australia in 2005 and the school I was working for got one as part of some government program. loving hated those things because they never worked right, and were a massive waste of time and money. The teachers gave up and just used a projector pointed at a normal whiteboard if they wanted to annotate stuff shown on screen.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Also the thing that got glossed over was that the original article criticizing the iPad program specifically pointed out that they blew ~$750 a piece on a shitload of iPads when they could have bought cheaper tablets for young kids and chromebooks for the older kids and it would have been much better and cheaper. They did iPads because it made for better headlines or maybe allegedly straight corruption. That's the problem. Flashy solutions get picked over "boring" regular fixes. My area has the non-tech version where the school boards keep wanting to build cool looking lobbies and facades instead of just focusing on internal improvements with their school bonds. Parakeet vs. Phone fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:Also the thing that got glossed over was that the original article criticizing the iPad program specifically pointed out that they blew ~$750 a piece on a shitload of iPads when they could have bought cheaper tablets for young kids and chromebooks for the older kids and it would have been much better and cheaper. They did iPads because it made for better headlines or maybe allegedly straight corruption. Well and the $200 per device in licensing fees for software that turned out not to exist.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
I have an MSc in education, with a specialisation in learning and technology. Every time a new fancy bit of tech was invented, all the way back to the radio, there were great bold claims about how this would revolutionise education and mean that schools aren’t needed, we will need fewer teachers, and so on. This has never panned out because all the attempts were just tossing the tech into the environment and expecting it to make things better, without taking into account the reality of education and the schools more specifically. The electronic white board example posted is a great recent example of this. You can absolutely use technology to vastly improve learning, but that involves investment to make it work in all parts of the educational system, especially basic things like giving teachers the time to developing teaching plans around it. This is not really what tends to be proposed, as it doesn’t fit into the start-up expectation that you can just throw tech at a problem, and that tends to be the mindset that comes with the private funding for these initiatives. Should we have more technology in schools? Yes. But in a political environment where getting any educational funding increases is difficult, it’s not the most impactful use of what funding you can get. If you look at more adult formal or informal learning environments, like online universities, corporate learning platforms, or even just YouTube, you can really see a lot of gains from technology enabling learning approaches. But these are settings that do not have the basic funding problems of many school systems, or the social problems more widely affecting learner ability.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
TheHeadSage posted:Hah, I remember those. They hit Australia in 2005 and the school I was working for got one as part of some government program. loving hated those things because they never worked right, and were a massive waste of time and money. The teachers gave up and just used a projector pointed at a normal whiteboard if they wanted to annotate stuff shown on screen. They hit New Zealand around the same time, and it sticks out in my memory as yet another massive boondoggle that my school went all-in on despite having crumbling buildings even though it the buildings were only a few years old. Terrible place. e: I volunteer to help teach a class of sorts each week introducing young kids to code through Scratch, a drag-and-drop game cration system, and I teach Python to some of the older kids. They recently got a big pile of new toys too, like some little wheeled robots and microcontrollers. As neat as I think the toys are, I don't think that just throwing technology at kids is helping there. Even though the kids are electing to be there, most of them are only picking up things with one-on-one time. I'm no real educator by any stretch of the imagination, but even as someone who used a crapload of computers in school, I can't really see tossing more computers into classrooms really helping without there being a specific lesson plan in mind and teachers that are completely on board with it. I can see more, better-paid teachers making a world of difference. I'm also pretty dubious about chromebooks helping to teach skills other than typing. Anticheese fucked around with this message at 10:04 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
As a meta point to the current discussion about giving students laptops: You cannot argue against a technical solution* by bringing up specific technical details, even if those details are intrinsically part of the fundamental problem that is unrelated to the technical solution that you want to argue. When you bring up these details the techno-optimist sees someone who believes in the premise, that the technical solution will ameliorate or outright fix the problem, but is obstinately arguing trivialities. This is why the techno-optimist almost immediately devolves in to proclamations of confusion, admonitions to simply try the solution, and calls of luddite. Because it is plain you see the value of the technical solution, but it also clear that you don't want it. What other answers can there be? You must be a luddite, a technophobe, or some octogenarian wishing for bygone days of running around barefoot unlike "kids these days." Further, God help you if you are wrong on the technical details. One of the goals of arguing for technical solutions is to shift the conversation from subjects the techno-optimist knows little to nothing about (or simply would rather not discuss) to a subject where they have a certain level of expertise. They want to argue these details, because they know something about them, or think they do. At this point in the discussion the techno-optimist sees you are merely playing around the edges of a solution that everyone agrees will work. Maintenance blah blah, power cords this, community penetration that, wifi something-or-other. When you leave behind the technical details, you'll find your arguments are almost entirely ignored by the techno-optimist. In the rare case they do engage with the argument, they will attempt to switch it back to the technical details: "I know you believe that schools have crumbling/old infrastructure, but laptops don't require much power!" Or, they will attempt to argue that the problems you bring up cannot be changed by the people in the room, so we should focus on things that we can do. This is so that they don't have to discuss the underlying problem(s). You can choose your own adventure as to why. This post is now long and I think I've made my point: don't take the bait and argue technical details. * I use "technical solution" here very broadly to mean everything from laptops in schools to FinTech (think microloans, RobinHood, etc) to organizational technology (data science inflicted on teachers and the like).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
Isn't RobinHood where you take cash from welthy districts to help poorer ones?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Isn't RobinHood where you take cash from welthy districts to help poorer ones? It a program/app that allows people to "[i]nvest in stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptocurrencies, all commission-free, right from your phone or desktop." It is billed as a technical solution to the fact that some gigantic fraction of Americans have no investments (this article says only 39% of Americans have more than $1000) and their argument for their app is that the commissions brokers charge are too high and that is keeping people from investing. Their origin story is that they saw Occupy and thought they should be working for the little guy instead of the finance companies they worked for at the time. But the only thing they know is finance, so they... started another finance company.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:It a program/app that allows people to "[i]nvest in stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptocurrencies, all commission-free, right from your phone or desktop." It is billed as a technical solution to the fact that some gigantic fraction of Americans have no investments (this article says only 39% of Americans have more than $1000) and their argument for their app is that the commissions brokers charge are too high and that is keeping people from investing. Their origin story is that they saw Occupy and thought they should be working for the little guy instead of the finance companies they worked for at the time. But the only thing they know is finance, so they... started another finance company. They also attempted late last year to make their own checking and savings, which was a massive boondockle that didnt even have FDIC insurance (or the SIPC they said they would have) at launch which promised a 3% interest rate. It basically was a money market account under a false name that they would lose money on in the hopes of getting volume to counteract losses. All of this was done with almost no regulatory approval which was even more  as you imagine it never got past the announcement stage into the open market.https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/15/18142319/robinhood-finance-startup-checking-savings-product-backtrack-criticism-cash-management-sipc
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 11:03
|
|
|
Ruffian Price posted:Dumb middle management tricks in public education (sure, this new form to fill every week should solve everything) always have that "trying to copy Finland" excuse (probably hoping no one will actually look it up) when the Finnish solution is just more teachers focusing on fewer students at a time for more money. Imagine that Have to add to this from two days ago; it's like the Finnish model for solving homelessness, which is - you may want to sit down - arranging homes for homeless people. Finland: solving problems by putting money into the obvious solution.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:Have to add to this from two days ago; it's like the Finnish model for solving homelessness, which is - you may want to sit down - arranging homes for homeless people. I'm so jelly of those plucky Fins.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You know that public school budgets are a matter of public record, right? And that nobody here is saying 'they blew all their laptop money on bulletin board paper!' but rather 'holy poo poo they're barely keeping up with facilities costs, don't try to add more infrastructure that needs maintenance'. The point is: the sum total of objects in classroom make up minuscule amounts of the actual budget. 1 or 2% often. But end up hyper micromanaged by people's dumb half thought out austerity. Where people say "how can we buy markers when we don't have a roof!" with no actual plan that somehow some savings from markers will eventually add up to 700,000 dollars to fix a roof. It's the thing people do to poor individuals where they find a poor person that has an xbox or nice shoes or something and say if they had simply eaten gruel that in 350 years they'd have saved enough to lift themselves. Like there isn't a number of years kids can not have laptops where that adds up to enough to fix [big problem facing school] the scale of money is too different. Same with markers and art supplies. Even when you look in a classroom and see old rotten text books the text books themselves aren't a major expense, the school could probably afford to replace the BOOKS the expense is the huge purchased curriculum that the text books go with. Like, if a poor guy doesn't but an xbox like, he does have 350 dollars he could spend on medication or education or whatever, but that is such a dumb point. You can only not buy an xbox once. Once you have not bought it you've exhausted that funding source and it wasn't enough to ever change circumstances. But people demand it over and over, this thread says computers are the thing to cut, someone else says library books or art supplies, it's all the same. Basic necessities that cost tiny amounts that people think need to be handed out very carefully as if they are the thing the budget hinges on.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
"identifying discrepancies in capital vs operational budgets is basically just classist poor-shaming" is a breathless hot take. you never fail to impress with how hard you can win staring contests against your own bunghole, ooccOwlofcreamcheese posted:But people demand it over and over, this thread says computers are the thing to cut, 0 people said this. when you're ready to rejoin us on planet earth we would be welcome to have you
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
TheHeadSage posted:The fact that people will say with a straight face "No, the solution to poor education outcomes isn't feeding hungry children, it's giving them a laptop instead" is loving incredible. BTW, Bernie's education plan addresses this.  also loling that this thread took several pages back-and-forthing with someone with terrible English only for them to realize he's not American and doesn't know poo poo about how the American education system works
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is saying "Don't put computers in the classroom until the roof is fixed." We're saying iPads will never be the silver bullet people think they are. Necessary yes, but a complete waste without more funding in more important areas. If I were dictator I'd find a way to do both, knowing that the benefit of technology would be maximized when families aren't hungry, have adequate shelter, aren't stuck paying for basic supplies, and have good health care. Until then, anyone pushing for ONLY new tech while ignoring structural efficiencies is completely missing the point. anonumos fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
This whole argument is rooted in the neps assertion that rich schools without laptops have worse education outcomes and I'd really like to see him show what he's basing that on.nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:And yet those schools for rich kids usually perform on par or worse than normal public schools, once you apply proper accounting for thing like "all children at this school are rich" and "rich kid school students all get much more opportunity for learning". How do you even "properly account for" the kids who aren't getting breakfast? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
original post which started derail: elon musk gives money to competition designed to replace teachers with technology in poor schools in africa pages later: "why do you luddites want to ban computers from american schools"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I don't think anyone is saying "Don't put computers in the classroom until the roof is fixed." What if we use the iPads as roof shingles?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
The issue is not the laptops, smart screens, triple-articulating dildos, literacy applications or any of the other ideas about bringing technology into the class room. The problem is these things are floated as ways to fix low literacy rates or poor test scores or truancy or "skill mismatches" or any number of problems the education systems in the US and the world are facing. There is an entire industry devoted to analyzing these problems with an eye towards market solutions and coming up with supposed solutions within that framework that has failed for decades, if not longer. Gates and Zuckerberg failed not because they didn't have the right technology (including organizational technology) but because they haven't addressed the fundamental problems: these schools that fail to properly educate their students are doing so because the schools do not have enough money and neither do the students and this is, too frequently, intentional. There are also battles with racism, sexism, health care, nutrition and a whole host of other fundamental problems. Addressing these problems is not considered serious because they will not make anyone money (in fact, it will cost them a great deal), so the people investing in these charities aren't interested. Moreover, an honest discussion about the root of some of these problems will show that the people trying hardest to "fix schools" come from the very same class of people that made them lovely in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This whole argument is rooted in the neps assertion that rich schools without laptops have worse education outcomes and I'd really like to see him show what he's basing that on. I would think not having computers *IS* the negative outcome. computers are already just a fundamental basic tool in almost every job in 2019, they aren't going to decide they aren't anymore in like 2029 when current little kids are leaving highschool. If it's a real rich district I imagine it'll be rare any kid really lacks any experience with computer use their actual entire life. More kids will use computers at their job than trigonometry, but like, you don't need to cut math and replace it with computers class. Just using computers for different things gets kid on the right page pretty fast. Prodigy or IXL is absolutely no better than math worksheets were (more fun though, prodigy is legit fun), but it's learning two things to do them. The math worksheet stuff, and basic computer competency. And it's not like math worksheets were free either.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
personally, i think they should ban books
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
What in the flying gently caress is so difficult about feeding children? Why are you folks so loving obsessed with your toys, such that any mention of any non-technological solution is taken as a direct attack on your drat toys?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What in the flying gently caress is so difficult about feeding children? 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What in the flying gently caress is so difficult about feeding children? Why are you folks so loving obsessed with your toys, such that any mention of any non-technological solution is taken as a direct attack on your drat toys? Even hungry kids usually have some actual literal toys. Kids need lots of things, and when there isn't enough people do their best to spread things out over all the needs, instead of just making some cold calculated list from top to bottom not starting on the first item and not moving to the second until the first is totally finished. Poor schools have poor lunch and bad art supplies and old computers and bad plumbing. But they all do their best to avoid just canceling plumbing till lunch is done then only having art classes when the plumbing is fixed forever and then only buying computers when art class is state of the art or something. Everything gets budgeted at once. To the best it can be in each category. Homelessness is more important to the student than math class, but you can't just defund all math education and put it into homelessness, gotta do both.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
so you're just going to keep asserting that "banning computers is bad" despite the only person itt talking about banning computers is youSolkanar512 posted:What in the flying gently caress is so difficult about feeding children? Why are you folks so loving obsessed with your toys, such that any mention of any non-technological solution is taken as a direct attack on your drat toys? there are some people who get so upset at the idea of having critical thoughts about Friend Technology that they lose the ability to read or think in the face of such Perilous Ideas
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Gates and Zuckerberg failed not because they didn't have the right technology (including organizational technology) but because they haven't addressed the fundamental problems: these schools that fail to properly educate their students are doing so because the schools do not have enough money and neither do the students and this is, too frequently, intentional. There are also battles with racism, sexism, health care, nutrition and a whole host of other fundamental problems. Addressing these problems is not considered serious because they will not make anyone money (in fact, it will cost them a great deal), so the people investing in these charities aren't interested. Moreover, an honest discussion about the root of some of these problems will show that the people trying hardest to "fix schools" come from the very same class of people that made them lovely in the first place. This. Also Gates and Apple failed because they said to the schools, "Here is this big lump of cash you can use on our technology. And on training to use our technology." They confidently assumed that learning to use their technology would solve educational problems. They wouldn't give money for food, or libraries, or teachers, because that's not a flashy use of technology/their products. They had A Solution, which they knew from their lives as technologists, and it was the solution that the schools would benefit from. I have no idea what went wrong with the Zuckerberg clusterfuck; didn't it all get spent on consultants?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I have no idea what went wrong with the Zuckerberg clusterfuck; didn't it all get spent on consultants? it's the same old "research backed personalized learning platform" aka "sit down and take these multiple choice quizzes at your own pace after studying the packaged material" nonsense that has been around for decades https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/01/17/summit-learning-research-harvard/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/technology/silicon-valley-kansas-schools.html Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 15:33 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:so you're just going to keep asserting that "banning computers is bad" despite the only person itt talking about banning computers is you I mean, people talk about that constantly, computers, classroom budgets, art class, music, extra curricular stuff. They are the constant scape goats. If some poor school gets a grant to get a 300 dollar 3D printer or something it is always instantly descended on as proof the school is frivolously throwing away money and the 3D printer is the reason the roof is leaking and whatever else. People don't just passively complain, they crab bucket that any nice thing any school gets by any means is now proof forever the school could have bought whatever. Like a ton of my job is richer schools donating stuff to poorer schools (with none of the schools being rich), There isn't even a way some of the stuff even could have been converted into dollars to go into anti-homelessness in the poorer district, but people still go after that stuff nonstop.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, people talk about that constantly, not in this thread though If you just want to freestyle against arguments happening in your own head go nuts but at least stop trying to rope other people into your imaginary debates
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:it's the same old "research backed personalized learning platform" aka "sit down and take these multiple choice quizzes at your own pace after studying the packaged material" nonsense that has been around for decades (has SRA flashbacks)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Corbolan posted:BTW, Bernie's education plan addresses this. Broken English is usually a sign someone might have had contact with the US educational system.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:not in this thread though You were demanding that poorer schools shouldn't have computers because it would take 300amps of power(????), which the school power system could not provide(????) and that would be dangerous because you would need power cords going outdoors(?????). Which is an insane counterfactual nonsense argument on like 10 levels. Which is the exact sort of bullshit hand wave people in real life try to give on why poor schools can not have things, even things they plainly can afford. People cut budgets but deprivation is part of the goal and even if the budget supports kids having stuff this sort of moon logic comes out to tell them they shouldn't have it anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You were demanding that poorer schools shouldn't have computers because it would take 300amps of power(????), i was not you can't read dont' quote me
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You were demanding that poorer schools shouldn't have computers because it would take 300amps of power(????), which the school power system could not provide(????) and that would be dangerous because you would need power cords going outdoors(?????). Which is an insane counterfactual nonsense argument on like 10 levels. Which is the exact sort of bullshit hand wave people in real life try to give on why poor schools can not have things, even things they plainly can afford. People cut budgets but deprivation is part of the goal and even if the budget supports kids having stuff this sort of moon logic comes out to tell them they shouldn't have it anyway. The things that people have been saying from the start is that the X dollars spent on a grant for 300 iPads would be better spent on 300000 meals or whatever the conversion rate is. It's not to say that iPads are useless, but that you have to start from the bottom of the hierarchy of needs when deciding how to allocate resources. If food, shelter, and clean water aren't already accounted for, the iPads aren't going to be the most efficient way to improve outcomes. To make a video game analogy, it's like rushing the tech tree for carriers when you are actively being zerg rushed. You have to put out the fires before you start trying to rebuild. Edit: And, to clarify, that isn't to say that schools shouldn't apply for those sorts of grants where they exist or that they are morally wrong for making the best out of a poo poo situation. The blame lies with the tech companies and their CEOs' charities who make grants for iPads or Chromebooks but don't make grants for school lunches, because the first is free advertising and even their "charitable" motivations are selfish in the end. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You were demanding that poorer schools shouldn't have computers because it would take 300amps of power(????), which the school power system could not provide(????) and that would be dangerous because you would need power cords going outdoors(?????). Which is an insane counterfactual nonsense argument on like 10 levels. Which is the exact sort of bullshit hand wave people in real life try to give on why poor schools can not have things, even things they plainly can afford. People cut budgets but deprivation is part of the goal and even if the budget supports kids having stuff this sort of moon logic comes out to tell them they shouldn't have it anyway. None of this happened. BougieBitch posted:To make a video game analogy, it's like rushing the tech tree for carriers when you are actively being zerg rushed. You have to put out the fires before you start trying to rebuild. This is good. LH- "We're out of Vespene Gas! We need more Probes!" OoCC- "Why are you saying that carriers are useless" nep- "Why don't you just upgrade your refineries to auto-refineries" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:18 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Charity from a system that relies on having “rich schools” give to “poor schools” does not address the underlying issues that create the problems. Access to basic educational materials should not be dependent on the whims of the rich, and even less so when those whims come with constraints that prevent any true benefit from being actualised. This is the same as wanting to ban all computer because ???
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
The one thing all the educational reforms (no child left behind, common core etc.) have in common is abject failures.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:30
|
|
