I don't think ignorance is the right word. Certainly there's taste and the reality that some people just care about other things, but just as we should educate people to at least understand the possibilities of participating in other forms of civic life we should be doing the same thing here.

If you read the study, many people weren't interested in using the internet because they felt overwhelmed, or they felt as if the new technologies were more a burden than a tool. This, I think, is really only true if you don't have the technical proficiency to make things work the way you want them to work. Don't like email but still want to use it every once and a while? Set up an auto-response that says "I may not get back to you, feel free to call." Feel like you're drowning in formation? Try a google homepage or bloglines?

There are a lot of great tools for consolidating and controlling information in a way that makes everything more accessible and meaningful. The problem is that not everyone has the proper tools to find the tools that will make it all possible.

Interesting...

Maybe I didn't read the linked pieces close enough, but it seems to me like this isn't really "digital divide," but more a divide between those into the newer "web 2.0" practices versus plain old web browsers. Most people, in our country at least, have access. It's just they're not blogging, etc.

Which is fine. I doubt we'll see anything close to 100%. But we don't necessarily need that (of course it would be great) to build a better democracy. Not everyone, for example, has to be a journalist. And yet journalism (in theory...heh heh) moves our democracy forward, and everyone benefits.

In the same way, if what TPM Media, for example, does -- through a lower-cost model than newspapers and TV news, through engaging citizen journalists to gather local stories that turn into national ones -- is provide a check and balance on the established news media, and pushes journalists to do better journalism, than everyone in our democracy benefits.

Two other thoughts. First, this "problem" is also a young/old thing. You're hard-pressed to find kids today that don't "interact," whether it's myspace or text messaging, etc. Perhaps there is some economic division there...I really don't know. But there is a generation of kids today that does not know life without a cell and a computer.

Second, the idea of collaboration and interactivity -- "prosumerism" it has been called, the idea of production and consumption collapsing into one -- that's seen in more than just the context of computers, and even web 2.0. TV shows like American Idol or Lost are media with which (within which?) audiences interact.

And, yes, it's not "democracy," but I see them as connected. It's building a "mindset" where we become more than consumers -- we're active participants in determining outcomes. Whether it's voting for the best Democrat, or voting for the Worst singer on Idol.

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

It would be a tragic irony if the technology that offered the greatest possibilities for destroying inequality actually expanded it

computer technology is agnostic and that's why it spread around the world!

the other day, I was listening to radio stations in spain and mexico, trying to learn a bit of spanish!

as a student teacher, I saw the gap (IMO) coming from one thing: the students desire to strive towards literacy.

for those who strive towards literacy, more and more knowledge domains become accessible.

as howard noted, the internet now allows students to pull down peer reviewed articles from their libraries and when I did that last year, as part of my studies at the U of M, I was left shocked at how efficient the process had become! in the past, I had to go to the library, look through mountains of indexes and, finally, find the items-- and I remember this process took a lot of time-- especially if I wanted things copied!

poor folks never had it better because, instead of spending their time commuting and searching for things at the library, they can now use that time to earn money!

this sounds silly but, as an example, my home gym paid for itself quickly because I used to spend at least an hour traveling to the local gym. Now, in that same amount of time, I can workout at home!

a majority of the country, and a vast majority of the world, have seen little or nothing at all of this radical new future.

my "ability to earn money" didn't change until I changed. I went through my sixties stage, when I was young, but-- as an older adult, I became motivated to work and I was able to transition because of literacy.

lately, I'm adding things into my life to increase my literacy, like playing the piano and making sure that I read a few books each month.

I know this sounds "republican" but people have to work hard to change themselves! I have a lot of friends who "don't want to" and I smile when they tell me that their "traveling around the world," instead of work, makes them a better person.

To boldly go...

One emerging technology is Internet over electrical power lines, which might set up interesting confrontations and market models between power and cable companies.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I'll have to hunt for them -- things I've read are technical. The key economic factor is that while there would need to be changes in the outside transmission system, little or no expensive rewiring would be needed in houses.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I think it may be true right now, but your concern about lack of participation sort of defies everything we know about technology.Ten years ago, a plasma TV cost thousands of dollars. Now you find them in housing projects. When I worked at a TV station in 1996, 4 or 5 people had huge, bulky, expensive cell phones. Now, you buy one at 7-11, use it for 20 minutes and throw it away. There is no reason to think that technology will stop at a certain class.

Now, CARING about blogging or participating cannot be legislated or imposed. People have a strong apathetic streak that all the blogging and podcasting in the world ain't gonna fix. The only time people respond is when they see a concrete, and usually economic, affect on their lives.

This is sort of a generational thing as well. My parents generation are all scared of the internet and computers in general. It confuses them and makes them feel stupid, because their grandchildren know more about it.

my 90 year old grandmother uses the internet everyday and views photo DVD's of her great, great granddaughters on her MAC. she plays scrabble with my brother too, she lives near NYC my brother in california. and, she loves printing out things on her color inkjet and thinks it's way easier than her old, and more expensive, flashbulb camera.

To boldly go...

Read the study friends! We don't have to go by anecdote, Pew has tons of good research to reference.

It would be a tragic irony if the technology that offered the greatest possibilities for destroying inequality actually expanded it, or was simply prevented from realizing its potential by preexisting economic, educational and social inequalities.

I don't understand the premise of this statement. The Internet was never built to reduce inequality. Yes, it gives easier access to information, but it puts a premimum on literacy and geekiness. This partly explains its segregating effect along age, class, and gender lines.

Why the surprise? How can one think that costly, high-skill tech designed and built for the elite would be an agent of equality?

Sorry, this just seems like a "doh!" moment to me.

First, the line about the younger generations being "connected" because they are somehow "online" strikes me as the comment of someone completely disconnected from youth. Most youths are "online" in the sense of playing MMP games, connecting to music and video and putzing around in "social" sites like MySpace. They are not information aggregators and above all, they have limited interest in the functioning of the modern world.

Forty years of rightwing propaganda about how the individual cannot affect the operations of our government and society are partly to blame. But so is an ethos that lays too much emphasis on "personal salvation" and not enough on social responsibility. And that ethos permeates nonbelievers as much as it does believers.

Second, I've been online since 1990, first in FidoNet, then CompuServe and finally, the "internets." I find online activity less and less interesting. Most of the negative prognostications broadcast ten years ago, when uncontrolled commercialization of the network began, have come to pass. Most activity, even in places like this, is now silently controlled by major media companies. If you do anything controversial or offensive, you can really be putting yourself in danger. 80% of "online activity" is now commercial transactions. Buying and selling.

Finally, most sites like this one make assumptions about their readership that are self-fulfilling prophecies. You think anybody is reading this site regularly on a dialup connection? Hahahahaha. No, the site designers assume you have a fast DSL, cable or T1 connection. Think I'm kidding, try reading any TPM site on your PDA some time, just to revisit that old experience. And the PDA will actually load the pages somewhat faster than a 56K modem.

Just by spewing out bloated 200k pages, you guarantee that people with slow connections will never access your information. All the major blogs are that way, as are the major news sites (with the possible exception of BBC News).

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

MHO (as if),

I'm finding the Pew Report just a wee bit suspect.  Well, a lot of suspect, if truth be told.  I'm always wary of any categorical system which (a) uses names which connote as well as denote, and (b) describe things which are not discrete.  These usually suggest some bias on the part of the conductor of the study.  I think I detect both of these in the titles and descriptions of the principal members of the
"high end" sector.  Take, for example

• Lackluster Veterans: the thrill of information technology is gone--if it was ever there to begin with.

• Productivity Enhancers see information technology as a way to give them an edge in their professional and personal lives.

Aside from the misplaced modifier, lackluster, what is this description really trying to tell us?  (I suspect that the author means that the technology lacks luster to these veterans, and not that they themselves lack luster).  The thrill is gone?  Hmmmm...sounds like a topic for Cosmo:  30 ways to put the thrill back into your technology. "...if it ever was there to begin with"  True Confessions time:  "I faked my first techno-orgasm and got away with it."  My point is that the title conveys an attitude toward the group described, and good researchers try not to do that.

As for  my second objection, I don't see these categories as very discreet.  I blog a bit, obsess over TPM Café, make web pages for my classes, use a digital camera quite well, do a little photo-shopping, not quite so well, and own a cell, which I don't carry around with me except on the road.  If it wasn't made by elves for elves (I have massive hands) I might use it more, but it just ain't something I slobber over.  So where do I fit?  Where do most of the readers here think they fit? 

Last, one might ask how many Americans owned a car in 1913, twenty years after the first Duryea (first gasoline-powered car built in America) was built.  For that matter, how many had ridden in one?  I'd bet less than the 51 % high end and middle of the road technology users on the info highway.  Be a little patient.  The rest will catch up before one knows it.

aMike

I'd love to see more of this kind of self-reflexivity among "denizens of the blogosphere."

But on the "Bonus Thought": I would be careful of characterizing Negroponte's $100 laptop project as an initiative aimed principally at bridging the digital divide. From what I understand, the computers of One Laptop Per Child (his org) are billed as "learning tools designed expressly for children in developing nations," that just happen to come in laptop form. Boosting literacy, access to information (especially useful for kids who lack the basics of formal schooling, like textbooks), and opportunities for creative expression seem to be the chief objectives. And OLPC does an especially good job of building 'computer literacy education' directly into the product itself (I've had the chance to play around on one of their models; it was pretty enthralling).

Point taken, though, that computer access alone guarantees neither interest nor sophisticated tech literacy. Do you have a sense of any encouraging emergent collaborations in the States between education and New Media circles?

Increasingly, these posts give me the sense that "digital access" is more and more like the proverbial blind men and the elephant. Given that I go back, in online access, before resource-sharing networks such as ARPANET and Internet (with various side excursions such as Alternet), and then in the early, restricted-access resource-sharing networks when they were both a gated community but also a vital tool of one's profession, I grew up with the technology rather differently than the newer users of today.

Ironically, I constantly advise consulting clients not to use bloated pages that do not contribute to information flow rather than content. It's one thing to have a large amount of data when one is sending a series of DICOM-standard images making up a mammogram, and quite another when one is simply trying to buy a book.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Yes, but your comment itself rests on questionable premises. One of them is the potential of technology to be a "destroyer of inequality." Inequality has 99% to do with politics and 1% with technology. And if one must pick a technology, I would say cheap public transportation is a better candidate than the Internet.

In fact, common sense suggests that the Internet's more likely potential is to increase, not decrease, inequality.

If you're saying that there's a digital divide, that's fine but I think that it's simply because of priorities and what people value.

"Work To Welfare" was a popular political initiative because most people seemed to think that those on welfare should get off their butts and do a days work like they do.

If people want to "be digital," they'll do that but a lot of people would rather watch TV or do other things and this is fine too.

My apartment manager, who isn't a college grad, wanted to make the leap and is currently running win98 to play online poker and sell things through craigslist.

Of course, being digital isn't all that important if you're a reader, like to play "high skill games," etc...

My apartment manager loves playing scrabble, for example.

The bottom line is: "get literate" first and then "get online."

To boldly go...

Howard, if someone like you can't handle some of the basic maintenance software having to do with safe internet surfing, how promising is it for most people? Look at how you were blocked from participating here for weeks and no one could figure out why.

I have no access to TPM cafe numbers, but I will still be willing to bet anyone that ratio of people lurking to people participating with comments and other posts is at least 10 to 1. Some of them don't want to post, but others are intimidated by figuring out how to do it, not just the logistics but the etiquette, etc.

It's simply too much trouble. We all forget how long it took us to learn how to use the various type of websites that we eventually learned to use. Those spam emails about learning how to use ebay have a market, that's why they are there. Majorities will not join in until it's vastly easier. Some people being labeled incurious or unintelligent for not joining in this "revolution" are maybe wise enough to think that they will wait a while until it's easier.

Software is the problem. The longer one stays away from it all, as I have the last few months, the clearer it becomes: this whole thing is still in its infancy. The newspaper/magazine/TV thing is still vastly more efficient, quick, real quick. You can see a paper map sooooo much better and quicker than those mapquest or google maps. Sure the directions are nice but they are often wrong. (Just recently, it took me a long time to get directions in North Carolina because mapquest insisted that there was no such street. I should have just called, it woulda been much faster.) If you have a lot of stuff to sell, and you have nothing special, a rummage sale is much faster than weeks of posting on ebay and Craigs List. Currently, this internets thingie is for people who like to join things, who are looking for a "club" that shares their interests. They have to have a passion enough or enough need to access data to overlook how much work it is.

I hate maintenance of my computer. I hate having problems with surfing the internet. You don't have to do virus scanning and defragging and spyware checks on a TV. You don't have to continually update the newspaper's software. Yes, one does have problems with the cable TV at times, but someone eventually comes and fixes it for you. And you don't have to keep updating the operating system in order to get the basic features.

Lackluster Veterans: the thrill of information technology is gone--if it was ever there to begin with.

*raises hand*

I OFTEN feel part of this demographic! I must admit it waxes and wanes.

The databases and other websites I used to happily use change too often, often to their detriment. The ones that are pay service are getting worse in quality and more expensive all the time, it is all about labor costs and garbage in, garbage out. Currently the blogosphere I frequent seem to be one a trajectory to lowest common denominator, very Amero-centric, and, as much as many on them complain about Anna Nicole Smith et. al., they talk about all the same things that the MSM is talking about. It's become a chicken/egg question who is feeding who these days, and ya know what? I don't care. If everyone's covering the same stuff, then I will take the newspaper and cable news (MSNBC, CNN, BBC World, PBS, EuroNews,) the Sunday network shows and the newspapers over the blogs--they are a lot more efficient, and as I said elsewhere, they don't demand software upkeep. Plus their elite are more experienced at what they do than the blog elite.

Productivity Enhancers see information technology as a way to give them an edge in their professional and personal lives.

There is no productivity enhancement in any line of work I can think of due to the internet. The playing field has changed, that's all. You are expected to know more faster, and so is everyone else. It's kind of like how people used to find a business letter with typos covered by whiteout completely acceptable but then when word processors came out, a document was no good unless it was perfect and right justified.

The only people with a true "leg up" get the information that is not available on the internet, whether it's insider stock tips, a 1919 biography of an artist, or the workings of your old furnace that is no longer made.

And also to the contrary, wasn't there a thread a while back here about how internet use during work threatens productivity and concentration on the project(s) at hand? Not that I buy that totally, but still.

one might ask how many Americans owned a car in 1913, twenty years after the first Duryea

Exactly, new products have to be perfected to be user friendly.

The rest will catch up before one knows it.

That depends. User friendly does not always mean more complicated, fancier and with more features. I often wonder when, not if, cars with roll-up windows will become popular once again once people get sick of paying for replacement of fancy window motors with computer chips; I've been surprised to see them in two rental cars I recently used. I've seen lots of complaints lately about just wanting a cell phone that works. If you really have to get up, you will buy the $3.99 alarm clock at Walgreen's, one electric and one wind-up, they are fast to set if you're tired....

Yes, a lot of problems can be laid to the design of the tool. There are options, however: use a Mac; or, put linux on your PC system.

Ubuntu is a linux system that you can download, burn onto a CD and run from the CD as a way to test drive the operating system and interface.

In 1995, I set up a "dual boot" system with linux and Windows 95, to use linux as a way of learning a "unix-like" operating system. Three months later, I realized I hadn't booted the Windows partition in over a month. The modern distributions of linux are powerful, well-organized and provide you with all the tools you need. Linux is faster, more stable and virus-free.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox, now. But, if you want to get off the Windows Update merry-go-round, you can. And without sacrificing functionality.

Online mapping sucks out loud. There are several relatively inexpensive mapping software offerings available -- I use Microsoft Streets & Trips, which is actually one of the few really useful applications the company sells, and probably the cheapest at around $40. If you travel a lot, as I do, it's worth the expense.

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

After going through a teaching program, I'd say that it's not the laptops that are to blame but, instead, a school system which doesn't organize itself to take advantage of what technology offers.

The technologies that survive in the classroom will likely be the ones that put the teacher in front of the students rather than promote student centered learning.

After I finished the "teaching program," I realized that the best thing a student can do is throw the teacher out of the classroom because research shows that "classroom learning" isn't that effective. Lifelong learning demands that the individual take control of his/her learning experience.

In general, technology, to me, is like a musical instrument: if you practice, you'll get good results.

Most of the teachers that I met weren't able to use computer languages, for example, etc..., so they didn't know what happens to your productivity when you use them.

To boldly go...

My being blocked is a good example of what was happening. It was solved by something of a three-part solution. Yes, it involved my taking more ownership of the problems than with a TV set, but I rarely watch TV. The day-to-day benefits I get both from complex computer and Internet services are immensely valuable to me.

In no way am I trying to patronize when I say that you may not know the benefits of having the various computers in the house networked, servers running their routine tasks, etc., but no one in the house but me needs to worry about making them work -- although I do write operating instructions. This is not for everyone, just like setting the VCR clock is not for everyone :-). The nature of cable TV is such that the damn VCR can set its own clock.

1. I went through the Windows-based security tools and changed them until I was satisfied they didn't do anything, about which I would want to know, without my being aware of it. One major problem is that a "hidden" security tool was blocking cookies even though I had cookie control in my browser(s). I now use PCTools Spyware with Antivirus, and it gives me the level of logging and control I need.


2. I was able to engage Andrew in staying on their hosting provider, rather than having the website content manager accept "it's not our fault" from the hosting provider.


3. The hosting provider doing some serious debugging, and finally listening to my detailed suggestions of where to check

1. I grew up with computers and networks needing extensive diagnostics and maintenance, a lot of which I did. For me, there has been so much improvement in the things I see that it doesn't bother me


2. It's fairly automatic for me to do maintenance. I run diagnostics when I wake up and several times a day, tweak the system as needed for best performance, and do bug fixes as required. No, that's not my computer. That's my diabetes.


3. Directed to the computer rather than chronic disease, it's so automatic for me to run maintenance that the most annoying thing for me is not being able to get through customer service. It's been worth my trouble to be going through Windows internals, just as it has been to be on medical mailing lists. Your mileage may vary.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Lifelong learning demands that the individual take control of his/her learning experience."

Yep, that's exactly the philosophy behind OLPC. They designed their laptops not only to be affordable, but to promote curiosity-driven learning and allow for lots of collaboration among children using the machines. From what I can tell, it seems quite different from the typical approach to teaching computer literacy here in the States.

From what I can tell, it seems quite different from the typical approach to teaching computer literacy here in the States.

I think that many teachers either simply see themselves as "better than computers" or see computers as "faster, but the same."

In the "real world," however, computers are viewed as capable of doing things that people can't, like inspecting manufactured parts quickly, accurately and without breaks.

The OLPC project looks interesting but I think that teachers, in the US, would first have to see the PC's as being more than an extension of themselves.

I use my computer, for example, to learn the piano. A teacher who didn't like computers for instruction seemed to think twice after I talked to him about how I use my computer to learn music. The most important thing is to, like people, know where the synergies are.

When I suggest that "PC's" are more than simply extensions I mean, for example, the computer's ability to play a foreign language conversation slowly so a foreign language student has more time to process the conversation.

This sort of capability lets students listen to real conversations instead of "dumbed down" versions in which speakers talk slowly and with familiar words thus, the student is "immersed" in the language and language teachers know that's a very powerful learning environment.

For my piano studies, my computer is great since it can literally read and play sheetmusic via an OCR program I have and, as the teacher I talked to said: "wow! the computer really does do a great job of modeling what a teacher normally does, only it's better since the student is in control." Besides that, I can also do duets with it as well as create more interesting metronomes. It does scaffolding beautifully.

To boldly go...

"Do you know if the OLPC philosophy puts much emphasis on testing?"

The short answer is no. OLPC sells the laptops to developing countries who want them and who agree to saturate their schools with the machines; the program isn't in the business of dictating educational structures or testing practices in sovereign nations.

That said, I think OLPC's philosophy is pretty antithetical to standardized testing models: the whole point is to expand possibilities for creativity through learning. And in regions where there are 90 kids to a classroom with 30 textbooks to share amongst themselves, testing is rather low on the list of priorities, anyway. The XO laptops seem very much in line with the New Media way of thinking (democratization, open access, etc.), and provide a practical challenge to the concept of students as receptacles for teacher-disseminated knowledge, rather than as active, engaged, self-motivated learners.

Not to mention all the B2B productivity gains, web services, etc, etc.

Good to see you back, Art... what's it like out there, anyway?

If you think that a student is just going to magically "learn" without a teacher...

those are the expectations in the real world! sink or swim! the successful student goes beyond the imaginations of their teachers.

some of my best learning comes while I'm walking around the lake by my house.

my life became wonderful when I started thinking for myself and that's what I wish on others.

Classroom instruction is demonstrably effective across a whole range of metrics.

the tests that students take aren't showing that... over 50% of college students drop out and a lot of them enter college by taking remedial classes that they already took in k/12.

in minnesota, the percentage of students who want to go into math and science is under 8% and UsaToday has reported a falling literacy rate.

as I've posted before, studies have showed that you remember 90% of what you teach, so self-led learning is the most effective way to learn.

lecture and reading have under a 50% retention rate.

As you know, the NyTimes also likes reminding us that k/12 teachers come from the bottom third of their college classes.

because my work puts food on the table, I've shifted to self-led study because, at least for me, it's proved to be orders-of-magnitude better than teacher led classes.

in fact, i'd argue that the best teachers become teachers because they're capable of independent study-- that's the hallmark of a phd.

as a taxpayer, I certainly don't want to pay for ineffective learning environments.

and, the last time I was at the university, it was $25,000 a year and that cost structure doesn't support lifelong learning because you'd be bankrupt after a short time so, unless you become effective at learning things on your own, you're doomed.

like howard, I have a group of friends and references that I consult when I'm stuck.

To boldly go...

If you think that a student is just going to magically "learn" without a teacher...

those are the expectations in the real world! sink or swim! the successful student goes beyond the imaginations of their teachers

Phht. You didn't actually address the question, but your answer does follow the previous one in its projection of unfounded platitudes.

This "sink or swim" platitude is so absurdly false, I can't even think of a cogent rebuttal. And even were it true, I would not abuse my children by neglecting them, in order that they would "learn to take care of themselves."

I have a stricter definition of both "successful" and "learning" than you do, apparently.

as a taxpayer, I certainly don't want to pay for ineffective learning environments.

This whining about taxes bores me. I've never done it, even when I was working $8/hr labor jobs. If you are so "successful" at "learning," either get a job that pays enough that you don't have to worry about how much is left over after taxes; or, "learn" to manage your money more effectively.

like howard, I have a group of friends and references that I consult when I'm stuck.

The demonstration of successful learning comes when you are the one being consulted. Sorry, but it sounds to me like you've done more sinking than swimming. My kids learned swimming in classes at the Y. It's a shame you didn't have someone there to help you when you needed it; but that doesn't mean that the system is a bad system; it means that its implementation failed you at the point where you needed it.

My best friend's son didn't become an attorney for an NGO by daydreaming while walking around a lake. And neither will you.

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

The demonstration of successful learning comes when you are the one being consulted.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I have a strong commitment, to my mentors, to "pay it forward".

I agree with this 100%. The problem I have with classroom based instruction is that the mentor relationship gets lost in the bureaucracy of getting "a degree" or "a good grade."

the other day, I told a fried: "I think the means are more imporant than the way."

the big picture, even according to the professors I've talked to, are getting people to see that their courses are "a means" of transcendence instead of "a way" to get a college degree and a good job.

To boldly go...

here are some interesting numbers:

• the number of homeschoolers receiving National Merit Scholarships has increased more than 500 percent: from 21 in 1995 to 129 in 2003.




• The ACT college admission exam scores show homeschoolers consistently performing above the national average. In both 2002 and 2003, the national homeschool average was 22.5, while the national average was 20.8.

as home schooling support matures, I expect to see even better results because home schoolers will most likely be early adopters of cutting edge technologies that let those students accelerate past their peers.

source: HSLDA

To boldly go...

Please believe me when I say I have been greatly unimpressed by the skills imparted by all too many education, and, in particular, educational technology curricula. While I have found cognitive psychologists immensely helpful in developing courses and curricula, all too often, I find the educational technologists so process-bound as to lose all sight of effective learning.

When I was subcontracting to a very major technology company as a subject matter expert and course developer, it amazed me how the managing educational technologists would obsess not on the actual content of material, but that module objectives were properly stated, proper statement defined as "starting with an action verb." They also obsessed over having objectives that lent themselves to testing. Giving primacy to the ease of testing often forced complex systems into multiple choice and other models. Such easy-to-measure questions tend to reward rote memorization rather than understanding.

Where am I going with this?

home schoolers will most likely be early adopters of cutting edge technologies that let those students accelerate past their peers.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

When you speak of a cost of $545, is that the public portion of the cost per homeschooled pupil, or something else? It sounds awfully low for the full cost.

In order to understand the accessibility of homeschooling to people of lower income, what is the estimated range of total costs?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

OK, half-vast.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Half of the Democratic mascot.

--
Howard

Why do Democrats have sex scandals but Republicans have money scandals? Who ever heard of getting in trouble over a piece of elephant?

if a parent stays home (the biggest unaccounted for cost), then it seems reasonable to expect that the cost would be linked to "buying books" which are sufficently cheap.

I recently upgraded my skills, on my own, and, for 10 books, it cost me $300.00. A comparible course would have been around $3000.00 plus course materials.

websites like MIT's open courseware (OCW Website) let students see if their efforts are hitting the "quality mark" and, when students do this sort of thing, they're getting ready to research patents, current research and commercial competitors!

and, because an internet connected computer is essentially required these days, I wouldn't view that cost as driving up the cost of homeschooling-- the parent would want to buy it anyway.

I'll look for that statistic again, or a similar one, and post an update.

To boldly go...

Correct me if I misunderstand, but I am reading your posts as strongly in favor of home schooling. If so, then it would be fair to evaluate home schooling with respect to social policy.

if a parent stays home (the biggest unaccounted for cost),

because an internet connected computer is essentially required these days,

I wouldn't view that cost as driving up the cost of homeschooling-- the parent would want to buy it anyway.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Took me quite awhile for that to click...

hey howard, I loved your point:

Nortel has had an architect-level certification much closer to medical board certification, but it requires extensive individual evaluation by subject matter experts, and won't scale to huge numbers of people.

I'd love to hear what those disinterested parents would say about a statement like this!

Because I know your statement is true, I've started taking it upon myself to worry about quality control and really soul search about what I know and don't.

To boldly go...

I must apologize for my sequence of thoughts, but, as I started to read your post, I first thought you were quoting Hillary's "it takes a village to raise a child," then drifted to Monty Python on the great responsibility of village idiots,, and then to the observation, on looking at American politics and certainly television, "somewhere, a village is missing its idiot."

More seriously, if there is a way to incentivize parents to be involved, I'm all for it. There won't be a single approach. On one hand, the parents might be two-career workaholics and the children are reared by nannies. On another tentacle (I soon run out of hands), a child might have a single parent that does what he or she can, but is time-limited. To some extent, I was in that childhood situation, although my primary adult was in the school system and could do some unusual things.

It's not strictly a language problem, as evidenced by some immigrant cultures where even though the parents might not speak English, they were emphatic that their children studied. There's the special case of where the parents might want to push education, but peers attack it.

My (adoptive) mother was a school social worker, so I suppose I've seen too many parents that had no motivation.

It may be worth looking at some parallels of why low-income people use emergency rooms as primary care. Contrary to popular belief, "free care" isn't the only factor. Significant parts of the problem come from ERs, being 24/7, and, if anything in an area is on public transportation, they will be. Consider parents in jobs without sick/family leave, and without cars.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

No one reasonably could question your conclusion. Yes, you probably would reach some parents by deadpan, not reach others, and certainly not reach those that did not come to see you.

There are many parallels to emergency medicine, and the ER and schools as last resorts. Even short of disasters, emergency facilities can't see people in order of arrival, but in order of the severity of their condition. On one of my emergency medicine mailing lists, a clinician, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, spoke to that subset of ER patients who are drug-seeking. There are plenty of ER patients that are in real pain and need real drugs. I can name a number of conditions that, while not directly life-threatening, are so painful that without appropriate medications, those patients are at signficant and understandable suicide risk.

For example, patients are often asked to grade their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. When a patient announces they have 8/10 or 9/10 as they eat the Big Mac they brought with them as they calmly converse, it's a pretty safe bet they are drug seeking. In like manner, the patient that the paramedics found able only to crawl to the door, drenched in sweat, panting, and only able to communicate with difficulty, may well have 8/10 pain and need strong medications.

Teachers can be the last resort for the students, and possibly patients, that are in extreme situations and also want help. Teachers have very limited resources to help those who will not show up, or that accept peer pressure not to do well in school.

Those parents committed enough, and having the personal (or sometimes community/extended family) resources to home-school do not necessarily have the children at highest risk.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]