The most important thing we've learned,
So far as children are concerned,
Is never, NEVER, NEVER let
Them near your television set ---
Or better still, just don't install
The idiotic thing at all.
In almost every house we've been,
We've watched them gaping at the screen,
The loll and slop and lounge about,
And stare until their eyes pop out.
(Last week in someone's place we saw
A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)
They sit and stare and stare and sit
Until they're hypnotised by it,
Until they're absolutely drunk
With all that shocking ghastly junk.
Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,
They don't climb on the window sill,
They never fight or kick or punch,
they leave you free to cook the lunch
And wash the dishes in the sink ---
But did you ever stop to think,
To wonder just exactly what
This does to your beloved tot?
IT ROTS THE SENSES IN THE HEAD!
IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD!
IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND!
IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND
HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND
A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND!
HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE!
HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE!
HE CANNOT THINK --- HE ONLY SEES!
"All right!" you'll cry. "All right!" you'll say,
"But if we take the set away,
What shall we do to entertain
Our darling children? Please explain!"
We'll answer this by asking you,
"What used the darling ones to do?
"How used they keep themselves contented
Before this monster was invented?"
Have you forgotten? Don't you know?
We'll say it very loud and slow:
THEY ... USED ... TO ... READ! They'd READ and READ,
AND READ and READ, and the proceed
To READ some more. Great Scott! Gadzooks!
One half their lives was reading books!
The nursery shelves held books galore!
Books cluttered up the nursery floor!
And in the bedroom, by the bed,
More books were waiting to be read!
Such wondrous, fine fantastic tales
Of dragons, gypsies, queens, and whales
And treasure isles, and distant shores
Where smugglers rowed with muffled oars,
And pirates wearing purple pants,
And sailing ships and elephants,
And cannibals crouching 'round the pot,
Stirring away at something hot.
(It smells so good, what can it be!
Good gracious, it's Penelope.)
The younger ones had Beatrix Potter
With Mr. Tod, the dirty rotter,
And Squirrel Nutkin, Pigling Bland,
And Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and ---
Just How The Camel Got His Hump,
And How The Monkey Lost His Rump,
And Mr. Toad, and bless my soul,
There's Mr. Rat and Mr. Mole ---
Oh, books, what books they used to know,
Those children living long ago!
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
Got throw your TV set away,
And in its place you can install
A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
Then fill the shelves with lots of books,
Ignoring all the dirty looks,
The screams and yells, the bites and kicks,
And children hitting you with sticks ---
Fear not, because we promise you
That, in about a week or two
Of having nothing else to do,
They'll now begin to feel the need
Of having something good to read.
And once they start --- oh boy, oh boy!
You watch the slowly growing joy
That fills their hearts. They'll grow so keen
They'll wonder what they'd ever seen
In that ridiculous machine,
That nauseating, foul, unclear,
Repulsive television screen!
And later, each and every kid
Will love you more for what you did.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Posted by Michael Stiber | 11/29/2004 06:00:00 PM |
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Central vs. Decentralized ControlFirst of all, let me say that both schools are filled with teachers and administrators who care very deeply about their students and their education. I can detect no difference in their dedication or the time and effort they expend. What is interesting are the significant differences in philosophy, organization, and management in the two systems. In some cases, my family prefers Northshore; in others (though, I must admit, fewer), Alachua county.
The primary matter of difference between the Northshore and Alachua country school districts is that of central control. Alachua county (and, I believe, all of Florida) has highly centralized decision-making; so much so that I sometime wonder what authority Principals here have. Northshore Principals appear to have much greater discretion. Two examples should be informative:
- Our younger daughter's birthday is at the end of September. In Washington and Florida, this is after the cutoff date for admission to Kindergarten. However, in Northshore, Principals have latitude to provisionally admit a student to Kindergarten if they're born before November. There would be an evaluation process beforehand to determine if the child is ready, and there would be a probation period during which the Principal could decide, with teacher input, that it wasn't working out and that the child should wait a year. In Florida, the September 1 cutoff is a hard cutoff, mandated by State law. No exceptions are allowed, even at accredited private schools. Note that there is also a cutoff for first grade; this apparently causes problems for a number of families moving to Florida with young children who have already completed Kindergarten but, under Florida law, must repeat it because they cannot be admitted to first grade. There are some non-accredited private schools around that cater to families in this situation.
- Our older daughter is quite advanced for her age. There
is some local discretion regarding placing her in
higher grade classes for certain subjects. In Northshore, the
Principal interviewed our daughter and had her do parts of a
standardized test, then he had her evaluated by her teacher
and the school counselor. We then met with them and arrived at
a solution we were happy with. The whole process took a couple
weeks --- just long enough for the folks at the school to feel
confident in their assessment.
Here in Alachua county, while the basic idea was the same, the procedure was far more involved and bureaucratic. We first met with the Principal, and a partial plan was outline for testing our daughter. The Principal wrote down a summary of our meeting on a special multi-part form, she and we signed it, and we got a copy (with other copies for the school, county, etc). Our daughter was then placed on the testing schedule and had to wait for the District psychologist to get to her (I chalk this delay up to the differences in the two districts' financial resources). A set of standard tests were performed (the set of tests that the psychologist gives every advanced student), and the conclusion was reached to pull our daughter out of class for the gifted program (which covers only a couple subjects). This decision was communicated to us via a set of multi-part forms, which we had to fill out, initial, etc. We then had a meeting to deliver these forms and fill out other forms, among other things waiving our statutory right to a 10-day waiting period between receiving our forms and the meeting. We then had to schedule another meeting to discuss other subjects, during which an additional round of testing was arranged. This additional testing took place over a couple weeks, involving some sort of computer-based examinations. Finally, our daughter was placed into third grade for mathematics. The whole process took about 3 months.
Testing, TestingAnother difference between the two school systems is the matter of testing. Both districts test students, but Alachua county tests them every week, for an entire day. That's right, every Friday is just about solid test-taking. Now, on the one hand it's probably good for kids to get used to taking tests, learn some of the associated skills, get over any anxieties, etc. But spending 20% of their formal education in test-taking is excessive (actually, it may be worse than this, as they take tests on other days, too). I presume that this is a response to the high-stakes statewide testing that takes place in Spring for students in every grade. In comparison, Washington only has statewide tests for grades four, seven, and ten. There is much less of a phenomenon of the curriculum being geared towards tests. We much prefer that approach. Tests are not ends in themselves, they are devices used to assess student achievement, abilities, and knowledge. They are a tool to help teachers, students, and parents understand where students stand and in what areas they may need work (and also in what areas they have talents). Eventually, they are used by institutions such as universities as a gross indication of the likelihood of success of applicants. Instruction related to testing should be confined to assuring that each student's test results accurately reflect his or her abilities. Anything more is training, not education.
Of course, I understand the motivation behind this focus on test preparation. High-stakes testing (and by this I mean high stakes for the school) send a very clear message that school performance (teacher and administrator performance) is evaluated in terms of getting as many students as possible above some minimum standard. Test training can be an effective means to achieve this goal, but it is achieved at the expense of real learning, and especially at the expense of students who have no trouble exceeding the minimum standard. The over-reliance on such testing in Florida is symptomatic of its centralized, "command driven" educational system, where such testing appeals to the "educational accountants" in the state and federal capitals.
Gifted ProgramsBoth school districts have gifted programs in which students wishing entry take standardized tests and are admitted (or not) based on their results. In Alachua County, the gifted program starts in first grade and is a pull-out program for one or two subjects (the precise subjects differ among grades and schools). In Northshore, the gifted program starts in third grade and is a separate class.
At our daughter's school in Gainesville, approximately 30% of the students are in the gifted program! This is true of many of the schools in the district. As a result, my daughter's gifted class has 33 students in it --- 50% more than her regular class. In fact, so many students are pulled out of the regular classes for the gifted program that the regular classes are significantly smaller during those subjects. If I were of a suspicious nature, I might think that the real purpose of the gifted program was to reduce class sizes for students who may need help getting over minimum standards by moving students who can tolerate the larger class out into the gifted class. However, I think it's more likely that this is just a result of an inflexible staffing formula. I don't understand the rationale behind having such a low bar set for getting into the gifted program. (I'm too lazy to try to figure out the probability that 25% or 30% of students in a district with 28,000 students would score in the top percentile or two in a standardized test, but I'm quite confident that it is vanishingly small --- small enough to be considered impossible.)
The Northshore school district, with over 19,000 students, has a total of six gifted classrooms at the elementary level (grades 3-6) holding around 24 students each for a total of 144 kids. Thus, only about 2% or so of students get into the gifted program (figuring 144 students out of 4 grades' proportionate share the total K-12 enrollment).
CurriculumAs might be expected from the rigid rules, Alachua county schools' curriculum is highly structured. Even the gifted classes have students all working at the same pace. In fact, the second grade gifted program follows the regular second grade curriculum: they just complete each week's work faster, and then move on to additional enrichment material.
Our experience in Northshore was with the PACE (Parents Active in Cooperative Education) program. This program requires 80 hours/year of volunteer work from each family. Grades are paired, with first and second, third and fourth, and fifth and sixth grades together. Ofttimes, teachers work with one half of the class while parent volunteers work with the other half. This gives the teacher a great deal of flexibility, at the price of less structure. It is my understanding that regular classes are more structured, but not to the extent of Alachua county.
Which is better? I believe that depends on the child. Some children will benefit from a highly structured program, in which it is always clear what they are doing right now, what they will be doing next, what is expected of them, and there are no distractions from other students doing different things. On the other hand, for some students this is a recipe for boredom, withdrawal into their own internal world, and poor performance.
ConclusionAs you have probably determined from these two articles, we generally prefer the Northshore school district to Alachua county. It is important to note, however, that some of this relates to our own prejudices and our own daughters' learning styles. In many ways, the two districts are equivalent. For example, Northshore uses the Everyday Math textbooks, while Alachua uses Harcourt Math. Both series are, in our opinion, excellent. Initially, I didn't like Harcourt because of the heavy use of color and cartoons (I usually think that attention to appearance is a sign of lack of substance). But the Harcourt books are in some ways superior to the other; we are quite happy with them.
The biggest difference between the two districts is the freedom (or lack thereof) that teachers and principals have to shape the classroom and school to fit the students. To me, when an organization like the Alachua school district removes almost all discretion from a group of employees for how they do their jobs, this indicates a lack of trust in their abilities. If teachers and principals are truly well educated and trained and carefully recruited, then they should be treated as the professionals they are. They should be empowered to use their backgrounds creatively, rather than just used as instructional deliverers.
Posted by Michael Stiber | 11/28/2004 05:03:00 PM |
Monday, November 15, 2004
- Women are about 20% of the IT workforce.
- Women receive fewer than 28% of CS bachelors degrees, down from 37% in 1984.
- In (other?) engineering fields, women make up only 19% of graduates.
- CS is the only field in which the number of women has decreased over time.
The article raises some factors that may be contributing to this:
- Low expectations in K-12 for girls' performance in math.
- Young girls are especially unfamiliar with career choices, and so from an early age identify with "traditional" options, such as teacher, secretary, or nurse.
- The popular media may affect girls more than boys, leading girls to have unrealistic expectations about their future careers. A recent Lemelson-MIT survey shows that, for teen girls, 32% had career goals of becoming a famous actress (highest ranked goal), 24% wanted to be a famous musician, 22% wanted to be a famous athlete, and 17% wanted to be President of the US. "Inventor" was at the bottom of the list, at 10%. This contrasts with boys, who ranked athlete first (42%), then inventor (19%), actor (18%), musician (16%), and President (13%).
However, these don't explain the decrease in women in IT, because I don't think that many of these factors have changed since 1984. Perhaps the question being asked is the problem. Rather than asking why the number of women in IT is decreasing, we might ask why the number increased in the late '70s/early '80s. Meanwhile, there are things that educators and parents can do. Educators need to do more outreach targeted at teen girls, using examples that show, for instance, that computer games can be more varied (and interesting to them) than killing people and stealing their cars. They need to be motivated to see that they can contribute something unique and important to the profession.
As far as parents are concerned, I suggest two things:
- Get involved with your daughters' education. Talk to their teachers. Make sure you know what they're learning and how they feel about their classes, especially math classes. If it seems that their teachers aren't demanding enough of them because they're girls, make sure their teachers know that you'd like them to demand at least as good performance as the boys.
- Turn off the damn TV. Academic performance is inversely related to amount of TV watched. My own daughters are only allowed to watch about an hour of entertainment-oriented TV per week --- a "TV night", with popcorn and their choice of a kids' movie or any kids' show on the TiVo (Arthur, Magic School Bus, Anne of Green Gables, etc). When there's an interesting nature, science, or arts show, they get another hour, on the weekend. That's it.
Posted by Michael Stiber | 11/15/2004 02:20:00 PM |
Monday, November 08, 2004
The New Scientist article linked from the title discusses the growing (over the last year or so) practice of using "zombie networks" for distributed attacks on web sites or other networked resources. Basically, this approach represents the growing professionalization of hacking. In this case, hackers are using the principles of software re-use and generic programming to create a basic infrastructure for distributed attacks. Instead of writing a special-purpose virus that has to infiltrate computers before all the various copies can initiate a mass attack, a more general virus is written. The more general virus invades systems and installs a "bot", which then goes dormant, except for periodically checking one or more chat rooms for commands. When a command is received, the zombies wake up and start their attacks. I assume that the command could also be used to initiate a transfer of new code, thereby updating the bot or installing code specialized for a particular task, such as generating spam email. A side benefit of this approach is that it allows the hackers who create the zombie networks to effectively "rent them out" for each attack. These days, it seems that most phishing email originates from just a few zombie networks.
Right now, it appears that the only good way to deal with this involves looking for telltale network activity patterns. However, considering my previous article, I imagine that there is ongoing work on detecting zombie network commands directly in the chat rooms themselves.
Posted by Michael Stiber | 11/08/2004 04:31:00 PM |