|
JonathanBoyerFirstPaper 8 - 24 Nov 2009 - Main.EdwardBontkowski
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
**READY FOR REVIEW** | | | | |
>
> |
Jonathan,
As Heather said, this is a very provocative piece indeed. However, given the 1000 word limit, I think it would be in your best interests to possibly narrow the focus of your paper a little bit. My main critique is the section concerning Free Software. As Heather noted, I believe the "achievement gap" occurs when equivalently capable students accelerate at different levels due to various external factors. In any case, this section does quite a bit of speculating about what will happen ONCE all educational software exists for free. What makes you think that there would be a lack of educational software for disabled students? If anything, wouldn't the amount of software for these types of students (deaf, learing disabled, etc) INCREASE with the existence of completely free software because there is no longer a profit incentive to cater to the group with the largest consumer base (your normal, non-disabled student)?
It seems that focusing on what the free software will look like once it exists involves a lot of speculation and might not be as interesting/relevant in comparison to some other routes you could go.
You've got a really interesting piece. Looking forward to your final version.
-- EdwardBontkowski - 24 Nov 2009 | | | |
|
|
JonathanBoyerFirstPaper 7 - 23 Nov 2009 - Main.HeatherStevenson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
**READY FOR REVIEW** | | | | |
>
> |
Jonathan,
I find your piece very interesting, and as I’d guess you intended, quite provocative. I haven't spent much time imagining potential downsides of making educational material free to all, and I really enjoyed reading your ideas. I have a few comments and disagreements that you may find worthwhile to address.
1.Within your first argument about textbooks, you seem to assume that American teachers’ dependence on textbooks is good, or even acceptable.Whether that is the case is, at the very least, debatable. I mention this point only so that you can incorporate it if you so choose; it does not really change your argument about free textbooks generally, but you may want to consider the other ways in which free books, magazines and newspapers (in addition to textbooks) could work within the U.S. education system. The debate over whether teaching from a textbook is a good idea exists even among those who must teach to standardized tests because there are multiple ways to teach similar content.
2. I think many people would argue that the creation of a textbook actually has the potential for a great deal of creativity and differentiation. The focus, organization, pictures choice, textboxes, incorporated activities, etc. all change the textbook a great deal and can be used in order to tailor a textbook to a particular group of students (for example, a textbook for elementary school children who grew up in the city may need to explain “fireplaces” or “driveways,” while a textbook for children in the country may need to explain the “subway”). Books intended to teach literacy are particularly appropriate for adapting to meet the needs of particular students, as children’s reading levels go up the more background knowledge they have about the topic on which they’re reading. [http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/08/27/on-reading-why-content-knowledge-matters/][See this article about content knowledge and reading.] [http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring06/willingham.htm][Or this more in depth article].
3. In your section on Free Educational Software, you seem to confuse the Achievement Gap with children with learning disabilities when you refer to children who are “1+ standard deviations below various cognitive means.” The idea of the achievement gap, at least as I understand it, is that children who started out with similar levels of ability to learn, are not achieving the same thing. Connected to this point, what is a “natural born learner”? A child who learns well from the style that is typically used in American classrooms? One beauty of software is that even putting many children on a computer while providing similar content increases the amount that they learn. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478983/][See this article]
4. I agree with you that free literature/books/software aren’t sufficient to close the achievement gap; however, access to free reading materials may be necessary. Putting a great piece of literature into a poor child’s hands will not teach him to read, but without any books at all, he is guaranteed not to learn. Access to reading material is more than a baby step. While parents can help increase literacy, so can great teachers. I would guess (though I can't prove) that a lot more good teachers would stay in teaching if they didn’t have to fight so hard for basic resources like books. Also, maybe your point about generations of reinforced behavior patterns suggests we should make reading material available to adults as well?
I hope these comments are helpful, and that you don't mind my disagreements too much! | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JonathanBoyer
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JonathanBoyerFirstPaper 6 - 23 Nov 2009 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
**READY FOR REVIEW** | | | Free Reading Material | |
<
< | Backed by the legal argument that all children have a right to read and learn, many contend that all reading material should be void of copyright and thus free to all. As a consequence, underfunded schools would be able to afford sorely needed reading materials, and poor children would have unobstructed access to similar materials at home. Unfortunately, though, better access does not create an automatic conveyor belt to educational consumption. More like a necessary baby-step, free access to reading materials is far from sufficient for the purposes of closing the achievement gap. Without a mutually reinforcing combination of parental leadership and intrinsic motivation, educationally starved children would have solid food but no teeth, or they would rather starve than take the time/energy required to use a can-opener. | >
> | Backed by the legal argument that all children have a right to read and learn, many contend that all reading material should be void of copyright and thus free to all. As a consequence, underfunded schools would be able to afford sorely needed reading materials, and poor children would have unobstructed access to similar materials at home. Unfortunately, though, better access does not create an automatic conveyor belt to educational consumption. More like a necessary baby-step, free access to reading materials is far from sufficient for the purposes of closing the achievement gap. Without a mutually reinforcing combination of parental leadership and intrinsic motivation, educationally starved children would have solid food but no teeth. Or they might rather starve than take the time/energy required to use a can-opener. | | | At its core, the achievement gap in the United States is marked by social, political, and economic realities that have created inequitable disparities between how various sub-groups of children value and consume particular types of information. Although curing deficient access to information is a necessary goal that might also fully address some individual problems, it is overly optimistic to assume that this alone will significantly affect the achievement gap. Ultimately, the theoretical right to read and learn will not be fully vindicated until behavior patterns strongly associated with socioeconomic status -- reinforced through multiple generations -- are transformed so that a fully-stocked public library next door does not go unmentioned in a child's household. |
|
|
JonathanBoyerFirstPaper 5 - 22 Nov 2009 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | **READY FOR REVIEW**
| | | Closing Achievement Gaps with the Free Flow of Information: Challenges Posed by America's K-12 Public Education System
JonathanBoyer
| |
<
< | Since the influential 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, commissioned by the Reagan administration, political and social focus on the disparity of educational outcomes among various racial and socioeconomic groups -- termed the "achievement gap" -- has sharpened. Although debates continue over the cause of, and measurement validity behind, the achievement gap in America, the ongoing effort to close the achievement gap is universally acknowledged as the primary goal of education reform. From one perspective, a critical prerequisite of creating an environment in which every human brain is able to learn is the extinguishing of intellectual property rights afforded to makers of software and authors in general. If this were reality, teachers and students would have entirely free access to textbooks, curriculum plans, educational software, and an endless variety of reading materials. The sections outlined below attempt to explain how various complexities within the American public education system might inhibit these free-access privileges from working their magic in closing the achievement gap. | >
> | Since the influential 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, commissioned by the Reagan administration, political and social focus on the disparity of educational outcomes among various racial and socioeconomic groups -- termed the "achievement gap" -- has sharpened. From one perspective, a critical prerequisite of creating an environment in which every human brain is able to learn is extinguishing intellectual property rights afforded to makers of software and authors in general. If this were reality, teachers and students would have entirely free access to textbooks, curriculum plans, educational software, and an endless variety of reading materials. The sections outlined below attempt to explain how various complexities within the American public education system might inhibit these free-access privileges from closing the achievement gap. | | | Free Textbooks & Curriculum Plans | |
<
< | The presentation of educational material to students in American schools is largely guided by two things: textbooks and curriculum plans. More so than in some other countries, "textbooks are ubiquitous and widely used in classrooms" and are the primary educational crutch of teachers. See How Do Teachers Use Textbooks? Given this entrenched reality, the educational success of a school as a whole (given a normal distribution of teacher quality) largely depends on the quality of available textbooks. When such is the case, it is then exceedingly important to be confident that the absence of monetary incentive to create textbooks, due to lack of property protection, will not reduce the quality of available textbooks. Assuming that "Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday's Law" is correct in that creating things for others is an emergent property of human minds, the broader question is whether this holds true for textbooks as it does with respect to educational software. While software programming is fundamentally creative in the sense that manipulation of language in certain ways produces distinctly new interactive capabilities, textbook authoring is arguably much less creative in the sense that manipulation of language in writing is just that -- manipulation of language -- nothing new is spawned. On this front, then, the narrower question is whether this creative difference between textbooks and educational software is a meaningful one from the perspective of Moglen's Law. | >
> | The presentation of educational material to students in American schools is largely guided by two things: textbooks and curriculum plans. More so than in some other countries, "textbooks are ubiquitous and widely used in classrooms" and are the primary educational crutch of teachers. See How Do Teachers Use Textbooks? Given this entrenched reality, the educational success of a school as a whole (given a normal distribution of teacher quality) largely depends on the quality of available textbooks. When such is the case, it is exceedingly important to be confident that the absence of monetary incentive to create textbooks, due to lack of property protection, will not reduce the quality of available textbooks. | | | | |
<
< | On the assumption that quality of textbooks would not be an issue, the benefits of a free textbook market are fairly obvious: associated costs would no longer be crippling to schools in low-income neighborhoods, and, at least theoretically, more variety would de-handcuff teachers. At the same time, a free database of more creative curriculum plans, as textbook supplements, would allow teachers to experiment with methodologies at no cost. | >
> | Assuming that "Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday's Law" is correct in that creating things for others is an emergent property of human minds, the broader question is whether this holds true for textbooks as strongly as it does for educational software. While software programming is fundamentally creative in the sense that manipulation of programming language in certain ways produces distinctly new interactive capabilities, textbook authoring is arguably much less creative in the sense that manipulation of language in writing is just that -- manipulation of language. Nothing quite as new is spawned. The narrower question, then, is whether this creative difference between textbooks and educational software is a meaningful one under the terms of Moglen's Law. | | | | |
<
< | Challenges arise, however, not because of theoretical flaws but because of legal and administrative constraints. Particularly since the passage of NCLB, education in the United States has become a large-scale enterprise in which the achievement gap is monitored through implementation of uniform standards, evidence-based practices, and strict quality controls. With such a pervasive force necessitating the near universal standardization of educational practice, serious feasibility concerns arise in terms of organizing, evaluating, and distributing an over-flowing free supply of textbooks and curriculum plans. In a regrettable sense, the smaller the political stranglehold over textbook and curriculum markets, the easier it is to evaluate the educational inputs employed to close the achievement gap. Such a large-scale demands a simple formula despite an exceedingly complex problem. | >
> | On the assumption that quality of textbooks would not be negatively affected, the benefits of a free textbook market are fairly obvious: associated costs would no longer be crippling to schools in low-income neighborhoods, and, at least theoretically, a richer variety of materials would de-handcuff teachers. At the same time, a free database of more creative curriculum plans, as textbook supplements, would allow teachers to experiment with methodologies at no cost.
Challenges arise, however, not because of theoretical flaws but because of legal and administrative constraints. Particularly since the passage of NCLB, education in the United States has become a large-scale enterprise in which the achievement gap is monitored through implementation of uniform standards, evidence-based practices, and strict quality controls. With such a pervasive force necessitating the near universal standardization of educational practice, serious feasibility concerns arise in terms of organizing, evaluating, and distributing a potentially over-flowing free supply of textbooks and curriculum plans. In a regrettable sense, the smaller the political stranglehold over textbook and curriculum markets, the easier it is to evaluate the educational inputs employed to close the achievement gap. Unfortunately, such a large-scale demands a simple formula despite an exceedingly complex problem. | | | Free Educational Software | |
<
< | Given a legal regime in which all software is free, it is reasonable to anticipate a re-vitalized software programming environment where are larger pool of programmers have the freedom to collaborate in producing a greater assortment of educational software. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have a negative effect on education as a whole, there are undoubtedly complications in terms of leveraging educational software in a way that could narrow the achievement gap. Beyond the fact that those on the losing side of the achievement gap are typically poor and often lack homes/home-computers, children with inherent neurocognitive deficits and/or unsupportive parents generally present the most complicated educational challenges. Without a sufficient supply of programmers who are cognizant of, and sufficiently understand, these challenges, it is plausible that a free software market would become inundated with programs that are remarkably adept at enhancing the education of natural born learners but less adept at untangling the roots of the achievement gap. In other words, if an educational software market neglects students who are 1+ standard deviations below the mean (in a general sense), educational achievement may be enhanced on average, but the achievement gap may be untouched or even widened. | >
> | Given a legal regime in which all software is free, it is reasonable to anticipate a re-vitalized software programming environment in which a larger pool of programmers have the freedom to collaborate in producing a greater assortment of educational software. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have a negative effect on education as a whole, there would be challenges in terms of leveraging educational software in a way that could narrow the achievement gap. Beyond the fact that those on the losing side of the achievement gap are typically poor and often lack homes/home-computers, children with inherent neurocognitive deficits and/or unsupportive parents generally present the most complicated educational challenges. Without a sufficient supply of programmers who are cognizant of, and sufficiently understand, these challenges, it is plausible that a free software market would become inundated with programs that are remarkably adept at enhancing the education of natural born learners but less adept at untangling the roots of the achievement gap. In other words, if an educational software market neglects students who are 1+ standard deviations below various cognitive means, educational achievement might be enhanced on average, but the achievement gap might be untouched or even widened. | | | Free Reading Material | |
>
> | Backed by the legal argument that all children have a right to read and learn, many contend that all reading material should be void of copyright and thus free to all. As a consequence, underfunded schools would be able to afford sorely needed reading materials, and poor children would have unobstructed access to similar materials at home. Unfortunately, though, better access does not create an automatic conveyor belt to educational consumption. More like a necessary baby-step, free access to reading materials is far from sufficient for the purposes of closing the achievement gap. Without a mutually reinforcing combination of parental leadership and intrinsic motivation, educationally starved children would have solid food but no teeth, or they would rather starve than take the time/energy required to use a can-opener.
At its core, the achievement gap in the United States is marked by social, political, and economic realities that have created inequitable disparities between how various sub-groups of children value and consume particular types of information. Although curing deficient access to information is a necessary goal that might also fully address some individual problems, it is overly optimistic to assume that this alone will significantly affect the achievement gap. Ultimately, the theoretical right to read and learn will not be fully vindicated until behavior patterns strongly associated with socioeconomic status -- reinforced through multiple generations -- are transformed so that a fully-stocked public library next door does not go unmentioned in a child's household. | | | |
|
|
JonathanBoyerFirstPaper 4 - 18 Nov 2009 - Main.JonathanBoyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Closing Achievement Gaps with the Free Flow of Information: Challenges Posed by America's K-12 Public Education System | | | Free Educational Software | |
>
> | Given a legal regime in which all software is free, it is reasonable to anticipate a re-vitalized software programming environment where are larger pool of programmers have the freedom to collaborate in producing a greater assortment of educational software. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have a negative effect on education as a whole, there are undoubtedly complications in terms of leveraging educational software in a way that could narrow the achievement gap. Beyond the fact that those on the losing side of the achievement gap are typically poor and often lack homes/home-computers, children with inherent neurocognitive deficits and/or unsupportive parents generally present the most complicated educational challenges. Without a sufficient supply of programmers who are cognizant of, and sufficiently understand, these challenges, it is plausible that a free software market would become inundated with programs that are remarkably adept at enhancing the education of natural born learners but less adept at untangling the roots of the achievement gap. In other words, if an educational software market neglects students who are 1+ standard deviations below the mean (in a general sense), educational achievement may be enhanced on average, but the achievement gap may be untouched or even widened. | | | Free Reading Material
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|