--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCJ00026 Date: 08/14/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 07:00pm \/To: MICHAEL MARTINEZ (Read 4 times) Subj: Re: Ivan Illich MICHAEL MARTINEZ spoke of Re: Ivan Illich to DAN TRIPLETT on 08-14-96 MM> -=> Quoting Dan Triplett to Michael Martinez <=- MM> MM> MM> MM>But you're missing the point. You'd also be well-rounded without MM> MM>the schooling and educational experience, in a non-schooled MM> MM>society. You'd be learning from all kinds of teachers who have MM> MM>skills to offer that are easily accessible and autonomous. MM> MM> DT> Not necessarily, I wouldn't have studied many of the thing MM> DT> required of me to get certified. I studied many subjects MM> DT> because I had to take required courses and along the way MM> DT> developed interests that otherwise I never would have developed MM> DT> (most likely). MM>You see the kinds of words you're using, though? "Certified" and MM>things like that. We shouldn't have to be certified. Things should MM>be easily accessible, like open-air marketplaces. Sounds like a familiar cry: "It's not fair!" Often the battle cry of those who don't like to have to work to prove themselves or "pay their dues" as they say. Life is not fair. Never has bee completely fair. We shouldn't have to be certified? But we do -- learn to live with it. As I read your post on Illich I am brought to wonder just how much change needs to happen in our society as a whole in order for the structure of schools to change. I am also made to wonder, that if Illich's ideas are so great, there where are his followers. As far as I can remember, I have never heard of him in any serious vein before. Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCJ00027 Date: 08/14/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 10:43am \/To: ALL (Read 4 times) Subj: Standards Movement From the August 8, 1996 Daily Report Card: -> *4 MARCH OF PROGRESS: A REPORT ON THE STANDARDS MOVEMENT -> The American Federation of Teachers this week issued its -> second annual "Making Standards Matter" report, a 50-state -> examination of efforts to develop student learning standards. -> "There's a lot of promising activity on standards, but quality -> remains a problem," said AFT President Albert Shanker. He added that -> most standards "are not specific enough or sufficiently -> based on academic content to be useful." -> The report analyzes state standards according to the AFT's -> criteria for high quality standards. The criteria include: Are -> standards based in the four core academic subjects (English, -> math, science, social studies? Are they clear and specific -> enough to provide the basis for a core curriculum? Are they -> benchmarked against exemplary standards from other countries? -> Will standards be linked to assessments for students? Will there be -> stakes for students attached to meeting standards? -> Findings from the report include: states are committed to -> improving academic standards and basing them on the core academic -> subjects; most state standards are still not clear and specific -> enough or adequately grounded in subject-matter content to form the -> basis for a core curriculum; most states realize that high- quality -> standards should compare with the best in the world, but only a few -> have looked at student standards in other countries -> and none has done a thorough job of international benchmarking; -> forty-two states are developing student assessments linked to -> standards, but the insufficient attention to academic content -> means that these assessments will rest on a weak foundation; and less -> than half the states plan to make their standards "count" -> for students by linking them to promotion or graduation. -> The report noted that nine states -- Ohio, Va., W.V., Fla., -> Ind., Del., Mass., Calif. and D.C. -- have standards in one or -> more subjects that the AFT deems exemplary for their clarity, -> specificity and grounding in academic content. -> Several recommendations are attached to the report, -> including the creation of a national research institute that -> would translate materials from overseas and help states benchmark -> their standards to the best in the world. -> Copies of the report, "Making Standards Matter" (Item # 265) -> are available for $10 from the AFT; Public Affairs Department; -> 555 New Jersey Avenue NW; Washington, D.C. 20001; 202/879-4458. --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCJ00028 Date: 08/14/96 From: STEVE AMBROSINI Time: 04:01pm \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Creative needs . We have an old Mac IIe lab and wonder of anyone has found uses for the computers other than using the monitors in a video lab. Can any of the later technology make them useful? CD Stations perhaps? --- Squish v1.11 * Origin: Emerogronican BBS (1:141/666) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00000 Date: 08/15/96 From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 09:01am \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: ILLICH HIMSELF After reading Michael's latest quote of Illich, I'm led to believe that Michael's representation of Illich's thoughts may not be exactly the same as the thoughts themselves... Michael says that everything one needs to know is learned outside of school - Illich did not say that (in any quotes I saw), but suggests that anything one needs to learn CAN be learned outside of school. No one here would dispute the second phraseology. Most, or all, of us here would dispute the inference that anything anyone needs to learn WOULD be learned outside of school... Illich and Michael believe this would happen; I strongly doubt it... Illich seems to feel that the existing educational structure has a hidden agenda or curriculum: That learning can only happen in school. I disagree; while "schools" do not disabuse this notion, neither do they actively foster it. It is simply a misconception that people, in general, have; much as many believe that science has all the answers, can fix all ills, and supplies immutable facts. That people believe such things is unfortunate, but if we spent time debunking EVERY misconception people develop, there would be time for little else... Illich believes there is a distinction between learning and education, or more accurately, that they are not inextricably linked... I don't think anyone here would disagree... Illich seems to believe that people learn best when allowed to pursue the things in which they have an interest... I don't think anyone here would disagree. He further believes that this would be sufficient to their needs - I have serious reservations on this point. He feels that the existing educational system is manipulated by various power centers, governmental, financial, industrial, to further their own agendas... I'm sure that's true to various degrees, and that they would LIKE to have a greater control... This would obviously NOT be a good thing to encourage, and one way of doing this is to maintain or expand the autonomy of the educational system. Michael and Illich believe that certification through the educational system is a bad idea and that we could do without it... I'm not sure that we could do without it, and I'm not sure that society in general would ALLOW a system to function which DIDN'T certify. I see no indication that Illich extends this concept to other areas, but Michael says he does. The same criticism applies; our society, which is technological, is not going to accept noncertification. A good many people WANT to be led; preferring that to taking the time and energy to understand and draw their own conclusions (they may say otherwise, but their actions imply something different). If a system of certification didn't exist, someone would create one by acclaimation and make a fortune with it... Finally, Michael and Illich believe that one can have the fruits of a technological society without certification of knowledge or enforced education... I strongly disagree, as, I suspect, do most people here. I believe that we would end up with a handful of technologically functional people, and a vast number of nonfunctional people. While this is the case at present as well, it MUST change for the society to move in a technological direction (which I consider to be FORWARD). The only way around this, imo, is the development of artificial intelligence (thinking machines) "who" can understand FOR us and care for our needs. I'm not sure I care for that alternative! If they decide we're all a bunch of deadbeat, pain in the transistors, they may decide to cut our rations... ;-) At bottom is the philosophy of the individual vs group... Illich is firmly on the side of the individual, and this is certainly understandable for a person trained as a cleric. Their focus is not on the here-and-now in the FIRST place, and is MUCH more concerned with the individual, soul, and what comes after for the INDIVIDUAL (I'm speaking mainly of the Christian view here, as Illich is/was a priest). On the contrary, society is concerned about the good of the whole, and what happens to the SOCIETY after... This fundamental difference in philosophy is largely irreconcilable, imo.. So...... Illich presents some valid observations, but, imo, draws some flawed conclusions from them... ___ * MR/2 2.26 * "OS/2 is destined to be the most important OS" - Bill Gates --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a * Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00001 Date: 08/15/96 From: KATHLEEN WEAVER Time: 05:17pm \/To: SHEILA KING (Read 3 times) Subj: AP Computer Science Hello Sheila! Replying to a message of Sheila King to Kathleen Weaver: SK> with the Long Integer Case Study. Frankly, I was even thinking of SK> doing some instruction on binary (it seems necessary to discuss the I don't, because I think binary (and logic) is best taught with hardware. SK> underpinnings of the computer hardware and how it operates), and I SK> was considering such assignments as programs that convert binary SK> numbers to decimal or a program that adds binary numbers, or SK> something like that. What do you think? Do you teach binary? Carey In a way it does, though, because boolean, which is on the test, is just binary. I'm thinking about figuring out how to teach boolean with hardware, since I didn't get the operations that well until I did that in college. SK> I suppose it will. I was flabergasted last week at how ill-prepared SK> some of the teachers are who've been asked by their school to teach SK> this course. There was this one guy, really nice and all, but he SK> couldn't do some very simple things. He was trying, he was asking SK> questions and getting help, and I'll bet he learned a lot. But he SK> looked at some of the recursion application programs I was working on SK> in almost disbelief. I said, that if I expected the kids to be able SK> to do these programs (and it is part of the APCS curriculum) then I'd SK> better be able to do it too! Good for you! Yeah, it's a shame, who gets picked sometimes, and then they wonder why their scores are low. SK> It certainly does underscore some of the points Stever Ambrosini (sp?) SK> has made about administrators in the schools not understanding SK> computers or computer curriculum. I know mine don't. Neither do mine, but have the wisdom to leave me alone. SK> Comp Sci majors in the schools. I just see a real disaster looming SK> for the APCS scores in 1999. You're undoubtedly right, that anyone SK> panicking about the language switch is teaching the wrong subject. SK> But some of them didnt' exactly seek out the position (myself SK> included). Yeah, that's true... And unforunately it's hard to get in good people. Kathleen --- FleetStreet 1.17+ * Origin: Texas K9 Police Assn BBS (1:124/4220) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00002 Date: 08/15/96 From: MICHAEL MARTINEZ Time: 03:17am \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: some ideas on the alphabet This quotation gives you an idea of what Illich's _ABC:Alphabetization of the Popular Mind_ is about. The quote itself is from his _In the Vineyard of the Text_. "We sometimes forget that words are creatures of the alphabet. The Greek language originally had no word for 'a word', singly identified. Greek had only various terms referring to sounds and other signals or expressions: utterances could be articulated by the lips, the tongue, or the mouth, but also by the heart when it spoke to the friend, by the "thymos" (which we might call "gal") which rose in Achilles and drove him to battle, or by the onrush of a wave of blood. Our kind of "words", like the other syntactic parts of speech, acquired meaning only after they had been hatched under the alphabet during the first centuries of its use. This is one first obvious reason why, before the fifth century, a string of "words" could not have been learned or retained. We can fix our minds on such units, and cull them from our mental dictionary, because we can spell them." This is great stuff. And he continues: "The symbol of preliterate memory was the bard, who stitched together the rags of the past. That is the reason why he was called *rhapsode* : stitcher. According to Plato, he was simply inspired to utter that to which the muse impelled him; not by rule of art but by divine grace he sang (Ion 533). ... The rhapsode makes "one man hang down from the other, like the links of the iron chain that hangs from that stone in the dome of Heraklea that Empedokles calls 'the magnet' " (ion 535) " The bard, and the act of weaving an epic, the mental act of this, we're given a good run-through on in _ABC_. It makes you think different about what language is. It really impresses on you that we really *think* different about language from the people who used language eons ago. -michael --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] * Origin: LibertyBBS Austin,Tx[512]462-1776 (1:382/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00003 Date: 08/15/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 11:24am \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 4 times) Subj: Whole Lang 1 Hi Chuck, In your post about "Whole Language" there was a quote: -> when Dr. Edmund Huey published a book called "The Psychology and -> Pedagogy of Reading". He was an incredibly influential educator who -> pushed the whole word method pursuasively and relentlessly. A quote -> from his book gives a glimpse of the techniques for reading he -> advised: -> -> "Even if the child substitutes words of his own for some that are on -> the page, provided that those express the meaning, it is an -> encouraging sign that the reading has been real, and recognition of -> details will come as it is needed. The shock that such a statement -> will give to many a practical teacher of reading is but an accurate -> measure of the hold that a false ideal has taken of us, viz. that to -> read is to say just what is upon the page, instead of to "think", -> each in his own way, the meaning -> that the page suggests. Inner saying there will doubtless be, of some -> sort; but not a saying that is, especially in the early reading, -> exactly parallel to the forms upon the page. .. Reading to be -> truthful, must be free of what is on the page." Reading must be FREE of what is on the page????? I thought the whole point to reading was to interpret WHAT is on the PAGE? Recently another teacher posted remarks VERY similar to these in k12.chat.teacher newsgroup. She suggested that kids should learn through the context, by looking at pictures and substituting words for the ones on the page that had nearly the same meaning was OK. I guess I was a bit hard on her. I was pretty much shocked, and indicated it in my follow-up message to her suggestions. Unfortunately, the way I wrote my piece, she felt attacked and sent me an e-mail thanking me for "teaching" her about how one must be prepared to stand behind their beliefs when they state them in the newsgroups, since others (such as me!) will tear them to shreds. :-( Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00004 Date: 08/15/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 11:30am \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 4 times) Subj: Whole Lang. 2 -> Good readers don't read word by word Goodman argued. "[t]hey -> construct meaning from the [entire] text. Indeed, accuracy is not an -> essential goal of reading". Arrgh! Accuracy is not an essential goal of reading? I would think that discussion in this conference alone would demonstrate how incorrect that statement is. We nitpick over words here. And when reading medical works or law, isn't accuracy important? When I took my literature courses, we often discussed the significance of a single word, and how the author's choice of that one word was very deliberate and conveyed certain images, connotations, etc... Anyone who thinks that the accuracy of a single word is not important in teaching reading is IMO simply wrong! Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00005 Date: 08/15/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 12:09pm \/To: KATHLEEN WEAVER (Read 4 times) Subj: AP Computer Science Hi Kathleen, -> SK> I flipped through the 1992 Computer Science "A" exam after -> SK> reading this message from you a few nights ago, and I didn't -> SK> really see a heavy emphasis on math. -> Well, personally, I think the students are going to have to -> understand how addition, subtraction, multiplication and division -> work, extremely well. I envision them having to multiply, divide, or -> some other routine. No doubt. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "heavy math". Somehow I figured something more complicated. I think it is pretty much a given that they are expected to know how to implement division with the Long Integer Case Study. Frankly, I was even thinking of doing some instruction on binary (it seems necessary to discuss the underpinnings of the computer hardware and how it operates), and I was considering such assignments as programs that convert binary numbers to decimal or a program that adds binary numbers, or something like that. What do you think? Do you teach binary? Carey Matsuoko says that he does, although it is not in the official AP Comp Sci curriculum, and because it is not in the APCS official curriculum, he does not include any materials for that topic in the curriculum materials he has developed. -> I know enough C++ to realize that the folks who are panicking over -> this are probably teaching the wrong subject. It will definately -> seperate the wheat from the chaff. I suppose it will. I was flabergasted last week at how ill-prepared some of the teachers are who've been asked by their school to teach this course. There was this one guy, really nice and all, but he couldn't do some very simple things. He was trying, he was asking questions and getting help, and I'll bet he learned a lot. But he looked at some of the recursion application programs I was working on in almost disbelief. I said, that if I expected the kids to be able to do these programs (and it is part of the APCS curriculum) then I'd better be able to do it too! I know he felt overwhelmed. Comes out that he took computer programming many years ago _and never liked it_!!! This floored me. Why would you want anyone to teach something they didn't even like. They are likely to confer that same attitude to the students. Well, he said that the teacher who used to teach APCS at their school left, and he was the staff member with the most programming experience after that. So the admin asked him (told him?) to teach the course. It certainly does underscore some of the points Stever Ambrosini (sp?) has made about administrators in the schools not understanding computers or computer curriculum. I know mine don't. While I certainly am capable of learning C++, I'm not sure that I want to spend the amount of time it would take me to become as comfortable with it as I feel I should be before teaching it. And I KNOW the school won't compensate me for such time I spend. I'll be lucky if I get them to spring for the cost of the instruction. Most teachers in the schools today are not familiar with the concept of OOP (Object Oriented Programing), and I bet there are very few Comp Sci majors in the schools. I just see a real disaster looming for the APCS scores in 1999. You're undoubtedly right, that anyone panicking about the language switch is teaching the wrong subject. But some of them didnt' exactly seek out the position (myself included). Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DCK00006 Date: 08/15/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 12:31pm \/To: RUTH LEBLANC (Read 4 times) Subj: Whole Language 2 1/2 -> You give a child a spelling test of specific words when -> they are learning to write/spell and you give them the same spelling -> test over a period of time. You can give this same test to children -> anywhere in any country that speaks English. What you will find is -> the same spelling constructions being made and the same development -> occurring. -> -> All children do not learn at the same speed etc. but you will -> see the same development - as in anything else anyone learns. If you -> want details I have a paper somewhere that describes this in more -> detail - talking of spelling stages and writing etc. Hi Ruth, I don't know about Chuck, but I'd sure be willing to hear more specifics on this, because...largely I don't believe it. I've not seen that much inventive spelling work done by kids, but I've seen some. Some, kids used letters that made no sense whatsoever and bore no similarity to the word they were attempting to spell. Other kids seem to have little difficulty from day 1 with spelling. -> Just think if we told children every word you write has to spelled -> perfectly the first time! Children would never put a pencil to paper. This is a valid point, and a good reason to allow errors in rough drafts or journals, as you point out. -> At the beginning of grade one I usually say to a child something like -> "you really tried to spell these words and I can "read" what you -> wrote - now which ones would you like to know how to spell." Or I -> will suggest a few they might like to know because the words are ones -> they use a lot. What do you do with a very bright child who is more than capable of learning to spell the word correctly, but feels no need to exert the effort because the teacher has essentially given her permission to misspell the words via the method you cite above? My daughter thought spelling was unimportant in her homework assignments this past year (2nd grade) because of the mixed messages she was getting from her teacher. I would ask her to correct spelling on her homework, and she would tell me that the teacher didn't care! (These were not journal assignments that I'm talking about. I did respect the teachers concept of a "journal" and never commented on my daughter's spelling in her journal.) Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804)