Kristina Rizga, who writes about education for “Mother Jones,” dug deep into the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiatives’s plan to redesign American education and produced this article.
It is titled “Inside Silicon Valley’s Big Money Push to Remake American Education.”
The title led me to expect that Rizga, a sharp journalist, would bring a skeptical eye to the very concept that Silicon Valley whould take charge of remaking education.
Although she drops in a few cautionary comments by outsiders, the overall tone of the article is wide-eyed adulation for the CZI effort to bring personalized learning to every school in the nation.
As one of those who continues to believe that the most important factor in the classroom is human interaction, I was disappointed by what is virtually a puff piece for “personalized learning.” I expected skepticism about the chutzpah of a callow billionaire who decides he wants to remake American education. Who elected Mark Z?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Nobody should have the right to redesign anything for all of us simply because they have more money or power. We fought the American Revolution because of it. However, our country is lost.
LikeLike
Exactlly!
LikeLike
For learning to be personalized with tech, the direction and pace of a lesson must be determined by artificial intelligence, or in other words, by a lack of intelligence. AI makes mistakes. It makes gaffes. It teaches errors! I have tried multiple AI based programs over the last twenty years. They have been roundly mocked and discarded by my students. There is simply no way around the fact that reducing class size as much as possible is the only real reform in existence. Real education is neither artificial, nor cheap. You get what you pay for. Fact of life.
LikeLike
Yet, what’s happening on the ground in Silicon Valley itself? http://www.businessinsider.com/waldorf-silicon-valley-school-shuns-technology-2017-3
For whose children are taxpayers buying all of this technology? When Silicon Valley execs start to send their own kids to high-tech schools, then let’s talk.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
More evidence of what I believe — that many people from politicians to media in the progressive movement are very friendly to the reform movement. While a very few may be acting as paid shills of the DFER billionaires, many others are simply misinformed and misguided and not corrupt. I believe Rizga reflects an opinion that many in the progressive movement have — certainly there is no political leader in the progressive movement who has been trying to enlighten reporters like Rizga to be distrustful of education reform so why should Rizga have known to be skeptical of this?
Cue to the leftist haters of the Democrats who now will be telling us that you can’t trust Mother Jones, it’s obviously owned and operated by people friendly to billionaires and education reform and this proves that we should all try to put Mother Jones out of business so that some “real” progressive journalism can take its place.
Or maybe it will be a right wing troll posting those things. It’s often hard to tell the difference between right wing trolls and some Democrat-haters who define themselves as progressives.
LikeLike
“…so why should Rizga have known to be skeptical of this?”
Because the number one job of any journalist is to be skeptical of everything.
LikeLike
Incidentally, since you bring it up, yes, Mother Jones is highly neoliberal and corporate-controlled Democratic friendly. During the primary they were known to ban people supportive of Bernie for much less than people supportive of Hillary could get away with. During the general they tolerated absolutely no dissent regarding Hillary. There Is No Alternative. Hillary was The Only Choice.
LikeLike
…sigh…..
LikeLike
For a “liberal/left” publication, Mother Jones has been absurdly credulous about so-called education reform. I stopped reading Rizga years ago, since she clearly has no idea of what the dynamics at work are.
LikeLike
Rather than sighing, why don’t you prove me wrong? Why don’t you find an anti-neoliberal, anti-Hillary piece at Mother Jones?
LikeLike
Today’s business section of the NY Times has an article about how the Oracle Corporationm built a space for a charter (surprise, surprise!) school on its corporate “campus,” so the kids can get a hefty dose of propaganda about what a cool guy Larry Ellison is.
LikeLike
You are smearing Mother Jones for not printing any right wing hit jobs on Hillary Clinton?
Banning right wing or left wing hit jobs is not the same as banning criticism.
But then again, if you had your way, Mother Jones would be shut down as just another one of those corrupt tools. Let’s shut down every mainstream and Mother Jones-type of media source. Because every reporter who writes for them is corrupt ONLY because they are paid to be corrupt, just like Hillary and the DNC.
Meanwhile, every progressive must be given a pass. Tom Perriello can EMBRACE reform and actually do their dirty work carrying their propaganda to the public but he must not be criticized for that little mistake.
The hypocrisy sickens me because it has led to this dangerous position our country is not in.
LikeLike
“Banning right wing or left wing hit jobs is not the same as banning criticism.”
True, but when there is absolutely no criticism of Hillary printed at Mother Jones and commenters get banned for criticizing Hillary, I think it’s safe to say that criticism of Hillary has been effectively banned. I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong.
LikeLike
When have I ever called for any media outlet to be shut down? I’ll wait while you go find that. Otherwise, retract that please.
In fact, I’m all for more voices, not fewer. I just want the agenda behind each voice duly noted.
LikeLike
I admit I didn’t follow Mother Jones comments during the campaign but I’m guessing Mother Jones realized that it was right wing trolls and Russia trolls making many of the anti-Hillary comments and that propaganda was not acceptable.
The reason the Republicans won is that the LIES of the right wing propaganda became acceptable as truth.
And yes, your one-note see only evil characterizations of Hillary Clinton were as much as a lie as any propaganda that would have said Bernie Sanders planned to give Muslim terrorists special access to all our nuclear arsenal.
There is criticism and there is propaganda. And there is making a mistake.
Obama did not say “you can keep your health insurance” because he evilly planned to deceive the American people into supporting a healthcare planned so that they could pay more and get less. Obama didn’t do that to make his friends in the health insurance industry rich. He made a mistake. People do that.
Frankly, if you read this Mother Jones piece, it is not entirely propaganda. It just shows the same kind of view of charters as Bernie Sanders shows. Ignorance.
Painting ignorance as corruption is what corrupt people want you to do. Because no politician is perfect. You are playing their game and helping them win when you pretend ignorance is corruption.
What is sad is that you seem to understand this when it is someone like Tom Perriello who you like. But when your spidey sense kicks in you decide that the same actions you excuse from one politician is evil in another.
LikeLike
So any criticism of Hillary = “right wing smears”. Okay then. I stand corrected. Hillary Clinton is a sinless saint, the Second Coming. I bow to your superior wisdom.
LikeLike
dienne77 says: “So any criticism of Hillary = “right wing smears”.
Why are you inventing facts? I have said over and over again that it is fine to criticize Hillary Clinton for mistakes just like it is fine to criticize Bernie for supporting charter schools and Andrew Cuomo and Tom Perriello for doing DFER’s bidding on privatization.
Here is a “smear” that is suspiciously like the right wing propaganda:
“Anyway, I have repeatedly said why I think Hillary is “evil”. She has the blood of millions on her hands. She is responsible for worldwide suffering because of her relentless pursuit of neoliberal goals….”
She has the blood of millions on her hands? Really? That isn’t propaganda designed to incite?
Can I do that to the politicians you admire and have you say it is legit? Bernie Sanders haas the blood of all the Iraqi women raped by Saddam on his hands for opposing the war to get him deposed? Tom Periello personally harmed thousands African-American 5 year olds who were treated as criminals and humiliated in a way that they may never recover from for his support for reform. Bernie is also personally responsible for their shockingly harmful treatment at the hands of the “good pubic charters”. So is Warren.
But at least it isn’t as bad as the blood they have because Bernie hasn’t been personally calling for us to intervene in Myanmar and arrest their Nobel Prize winner who is responsible for it with the help of his enablers like Bernie Sanders.
I don’t believe a word of the smears I just wrote. Neither do the Russian and right wing trolls faking outrage when a Democrat isn’t perfect. But I believe you do.
LikeLike
I’ll join in the sighing. I have said over and over again why Hillary has the blood of millions on her hands. Starting with her Iraq vote, which she could be forgiven for, except that she made exactly the same “mistake” in Libya and Honduras and was itching to make it again and again in Syria and Iran and even rattling Russia’s cage!
People have also died as a result of her domestic policies like welfare reform and her support of the big banks which crashed our economy.
There is, incidentally, nothing “right-wing” about saying any of this. The right-wing fully supports all of Hillary’s actions in these regards, which is why even right wingers like the Bush family lined up behind her. Since when has the right wing ever cared about casualties of war or poor people tossed out of their homes?
And, further, incidentally, I’m still waiting for you to find where I’ve ever called for any media outlet to be shut down or for you to retract that statement, or for you to at least admit that you do indeed put words in people’s mouths.
LikeLike
It’s funny to hear someone who has posted non-stop that I believe Hillary is perfect and no one should ever criticize her accusing me of “putting words in someone’s mouth”.
Pot Kettle Black
LikeLike
Actually, I’ve only said that once, right here on this thread, and that was in response to your over the top reaction to documented criticism of St. Hillary. If you can find other places where I’ve said that, please do point it out. Otherwise, you know the drill – please retract that statement.
LikeLike
^^I now acknowledge that while you want us all to know that Mother Jones and the NY Times and Washington Post are simply propaganda tools in which reporters simply repeat the propaganda that the DNC allows them to report, including intentionally hit jobs on Bernie Sanders in order to promote the neoliberal agenda, you don’t want them to be “shut down”. You just agree with the right wing that no one should trust a word they say.
LikeLike
dienne77,
If you really believe that was the ONLY time you have accused me of saying that no one is allowed to criticize the great Hillary Clinton who I seem to believe is perfect, then you are living in a world that I am not.
I have better things to do than find the many times in which you accuse me of that. I know this because I have posted the exact same “defense” of your comment many, many times.
LikeLike
“Are things better or worse for the people in Iraq because the US intervened?”
Actually, it’s not that hard to figure out. The vast majority of Iraqis have suffered significantly more since the U.S. invasion than they ever did under Saddam. Especially the million or so we killed.
Anyway, so would things be better or worse for people in Myanmar if we intervened there? If women are being raped (and they are), isn’t it the U.S.’s responsibility to stop it, even if many more need to die?
LikeLike
” I know this because I have posted the exact same “defense” of your comment many, many times.”
Then it shouldn’t be hard to find just one other example, should it?
LikeLike
Sorry, 12:33 post should have been posted below.
LikeLike
You didn’t tell me what you would have the US do in Myanmar?
There is a good chance I’d agree with you. But I want you to tell me first because, of course, if you hate me enough you will tell me about all the evil caused by whatever policy I suggest.
So you go first to explain how YOUR policy is the “good” one and the other is the “evil” one. After all, you are the one who keeps insisting that a decision for the “evil” policy means that you would have blood on your hands.
Unlike you, I don’t think it is as simply to make the “good” choice and not the “evil” one. So I’m not as quick to complain that those who make one choice have “blood on their hands” while those who make the others are godlike and moral and perfect who NEVER have anyone’s blood on their hands.
So tell me what YOU want politicians to do in order for you not to tell the world that they have blood on their hands?
LikeLike
dienne77,
A challenge for you:
If I find another example of you attacking anyone who defends the nasty right wing propaganda attacks you make about Hillary being evil as insisting that there can be no criticism of Hillary, will you finally acknowledge what you are? Will you apologize? Because I will acknowledge my error if I can’t find another example of this directed at me.
By the way, you ALSO did this to Mother Jones! Your original response to this post that made me reply to you was your typical attack that used to be directed at me.
Mother Jones tolerates no criticism of Hillary Clinton. Did I get that right?
LikeLike
“You didn’t tell me what you would have the US do in Myanmar?”
Sorry, I thought I did. If regime change in Iraq was the answer to Saddam raping women and children, then regime change in Myanmar is the answer to rape of women and children there, isn’t it? And just to be clear, this isn’t my solution, I’m just saying it’s the logical extension of the Iraq solution. If the U.S. is charged with defending the women and children of the world, why are we not doing so in Myanmar and Yemen?
The answer, of course, is that it never has been about defending the weak of the world. Iraq wasn’t about humanitarian issues. It was about U.S. strategic issues and the fact that Saddam pissed off GWB. Same thing with Libya and every other place we’ve intervened. We’re not intervening in Myanmar because it has no strategic interest for us. We’re not intervening in Yemen because doing so would upset our ally.
LikeLike
My initial reply was not an “attack” but rather a statement of fact about Mother Jones. They are, and have long been, very firmly an establishment, neo-liberal, pro-Cllinton outlet. I stand by that original post.
LikeLike
“a statement of fact about Mother Jones. They are, and have long been, very firmly an establishment, neo-liberal, pro-Cllinton outlet. I stand by that original post…”
People like you who become useful tools of right wing propaganda, dienne77
Does Mother Jones make mistakes? Of course. Did some writers and editors at Mother Jones like Hillary Clinton? Yes. Did some writers like Bernie Sanders, too? I am sure that they did although I have no evidence so no doubt you would insist they were all out to smear him with lies.
When you have to argue with a so-called progressive that Mother Jones does not serve as a propaganda piece for some neoliberal conspiracy designed to elect politicians who have blood on their hands in order to serve some corporate masters, then those progressives have jumped the shark and just serve as useful tools to the far right wing.
LikeLike
dienne77 says:
“The answer, of course, is that it never has been about defending the weak of the world.”
Remind me again of your view that we were wrong to intervene in Bosnia and should have let whatever genocide happen in order to stand up for those strong moral principles you believe in.
LikeLike
It is disappointing because this reporter wrote the tremendously insightful “Mission High” and recently did a wonderful piece on Summit Schools now she does a puff piece for edtech lunacy. What happened? Did the neoliberals and Mother Jones get to her? Because she is no fool that had the wool pulled over her eyes.
LikeLike
Haven’t read the whole article yet, but Rigza seems shamefully accepting of what she’s being told. She starts off defining personalized learning in a traditionally progressive sense – kids working on individual assignments tailored to their interests and abilities, with room for student input regarding what and how to study. I’m all for that. But she seems quite credulous that that is, in fact, what Summit is providing, rather than just plugging kids into uniform, standardized computer delivered modules that every kid goes through, but just at their own pace. Is there any journalist left who knows how to practice their craft with the appropriate level of skepticism? Why the eagerness to buy into whatever they are presented by people in power?
LikeLike
What’s your theory on the last question you asked? Why the eagerness? Corruption? Bought and sold by her corporate/billionaire masters?
I read this and I thought Rigza made some good points and also seemed somewhat ignorant of some things. Just like many progressives are. Just like many Democrats are.
But no doubt I’m wrong. She’s a representative of the entirely corrupt Mother Jones institution. Surely you have a theory that should lead to us boycotting Mother Jones to put them out of business just like you want to put the Democratic Parry out of business. What could go wrong? Isn’t life right now grand and won’t some progressive parties now be able to easily counter the threat to democracy we are now facing?
And when we destroy all that “corrupt” media like Mother Jones and the NY Times and Washington Post, all will be well, right? We’ll just wait for one of your “approved progressive media” sources to try to counter the right wing propaganda juggernaut.
Sigh…
LikeLike
My theory? ““It is difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something, when [her] salary depends on [her] not understanding it.” –Upton Sinclair
Incidentally, “corrupt” is your word. Mine was neoliberal. If you want to equate those two, well, you have said so.
LikeLike
dienne,
No, you only use “neoliberal” to refer to when people who you believe are corrupt do something.
When Bernie Sanders does something that is similar, you never use the word “neoliberal”. I don’t recall you ever using it to describe any of the things that Elizabeth Warren does that happen to be similar to this reporter.
Neoliberal – in your definition– can only be applied to politicians you don’t like and want to imply are corrupt. When someone you admire does it, they are just mistaken and not neoliberals masquerading as progressives.
LikeLike
^^^”It is difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something, when [her] salary depends on [her] not understanding it.” –Upton Sinclair
So how to you explain why so many progressives like Bernie Sanders’ endorsed DFER candidate Tom Perriello believe it?
Who pays his salary? And who pays Bernie’s salary so he would endorse the guy who you insist is paid by someone nefarious?
What would Upton Sinclair say about Tom Perriello? And why then would Bernie Sanders embrace him?
LikeLike
Show me where I’ve had much good to say about Warren, please. I have never defended her. I think she gets far too much credit for a few pretty words and her (admittedly important) role in starting the CFPB. But I have never minced words about her neoliberal support for charter schools (happy now?). And I think overall, her pretty liberal words are just support and a thin veneer for what is in essence a neoliberal agenda (even happier?).
Bernie is a more complicated case. He too has done too much to support the neoliberal agenda (ecstatic now)? But he was also the first and loudest to call out the neoliberal agenda in words that ordinary Americans can understand and the first and loudest to propose real solutions like breaking up big banks and corporations for starters. While I’m not happy about the way he has thrown his support behind Hillary and the neoliberal agenda, I think he feels it’s the best way to get at least some of the real reforms we need while holding off the worst of Trumpism. I don’t think he’s a neoliberal at heart, but he has made some less-than-palatable deals with neoliberalism hoping for some crumbs.
LikeLike
Read your double standard.
Bernie embraces the occasional neoliberal cause like charter schools for the greater good so it’s okay.
Elizabeth Warren embraces the neoliberal cause because she is somewhat corrupt.
Hillary embraces the neoliberal cause because she is pure evil.
Please name ONE politician who meets your high standards. You think I can’t tear apart some of the positions that Tom Perriello and Jill Stein did and use that to completely smear them as just as corrupt as Trump as you like to do with Dems you don’t like?
When all you want is to tear down candidates you don’t like, it’s easy to do. And your bending over backward to excuse everything Bernie did (who paid him off for his pro-NRA votes, dienne?) is starting to just make you look foolish.
Politicians and reporters are sometimes wrong. Bernie is sometimes wrong. Tom Perriello is sometimes wrong. Hillary is sometimes wrong.
When you are a dishonest judge, you embrace the wrong and pretend that the right never happened. I see you do that with Hillary and other candidates. Meanwhile you pretend that Tom Perriello is somehow okay and everyone who embraces this person is okay.
As far as I can see, you never have any good reason for deciding one politician is corrupt and one isn’t except your spidey sense.
LikeLike
I like how you keep bringing up things I said over and over and over again. Do you do that in domestic arguments too? You must be a lot of fun to live with.
Anyway, I have repeatedly said why I think Hillary is “evil”. She has the blood of millions on her hands. She is responsible for worldwide suffering because of her relentless pursuit of neoliberal goals. War victims, people who no longer have access to welfare supports, people who are incarcerated under “three strikes” and her support of private prisons, her denial of a minimum wage increase in Haiti, her support of the right-wing coup in Honduras, people fraudulently tossed out of their homes by the big banks she supports (and who support her to to the tune of a quarter million for a twenty minute speech), her support of Monsanto and the oil industry. Those things – all documented – go far beyond spidey sense. Many of them are things she bragged about in the hard cover edition of HARD CHOICES until it became apparent that much of the world was horrified and such things were redacted in the paperback version. Again, HER OWN WORDS (which you refuse to read despite your ardent admiration for her).
LikeLike
“She has the blood of millions on her hands. She is responsible for worldwide suffering because of her relentless pursuit of neoliberal goals”
I rest my case. I can’t imagine why Mother Jones didn’t let that “thoughtful” criticism be repeated in comments. It must have been hard for them to distinguish the Russian trolls from the true believers on the left.
We are ALL responsible for worldwide suffering. You don’t get to pick and choose. When you oppose the Iraq War, YOU are responsible for Saddam Hussein’s rape of women and children. At least by your standards.
By your ridiculous standards, it would have been EVIL for the US to join World War II and be responsible for the killing of many innocent civilians in Germany and other European countries. And if someone pointed out that not taking action also means those children die because you insisted that we let them die, then you get to say “I’m such a moral person”. No, you aren’t. You are simply a person who refuses to acknowledge that there are HARD CHOICES.
Sometimes non-intervention kills as many innocent people as intervention. Sometimes non-intervention seems like it doesn’t kill as many because the deaths happen over decades of suffering instead of a few weeks. Sometimes there is no good choice.
LikeLike
“We are ALL responsible for worldwide suffering. You don’t get to pick and choose. When you oppose the Iraq War, YOU are responsible for Saddam Hussein’s rape of women and children. At least by your standards.”
OMG. No, just, no. Please don’t ever talk to me about false equivalence again. That is just patently ridiculous and if that’s the best you’ve got, I’m done. Anyway, I’m done long enough to have a good belly laugh.
LikeLike
^^dienne77,
I really wonder how YOU believe we should deal with the Syria situation? Or Iran? Or any country where many children might be dying?
Tell me your solution and how no one will die and everyone will be happy so you can tell yourself that you don’t have blood on your hands because of your perfect “solution” that those evil people like Hillary who just want to kill lots of people won’t do?
LikeLike
^never mind. I see you refuse to answer. Better to explain how only the people you don’t like have “blood on their hands’ while the people you do like are perfect.
There IS no false equivalency in Syria. There IS no good and bad that is easily discernible. I challenge you to explain it all to me since you seem to believe the choices are EASY.
LikeLike
Every right-wing dictator we have ever installed and propped up has done evil things to their own people. Let me let you in on a little secret: WE DON’T CARE. The only time we saber rattle, drone-bomb, invade, etc. is when said right-wing dictators get it into their heads that they can get away with talking back to their masters (the U.S.). We can’t claim to be on the “good” side when we wipe out a country to “save” them from the maniacs we put there in the first place.
LikeLike
World War II?
By your reasoning, all manner of evil can exist without us lifting a finger to stop it because the US 100 years ago was responsible for it being there.
And then you can admire yourself in the mirror and tell yourself how moral you are as opposed to the evil people like Hillary who only acted to benefit herself and her big donors.
LikeLike
^^PS — YOU are the one who keeps insisting there is a good and bad side.
Hillary wrote about HARD choices. That means there is no obvious choice.
I never said one choice was good or bad. I said that it is possible to understand that there are hard choices and politicians who choose a different path are not always doing it for corrupt reasons.
Why do you think Obama morphed from an anti-war proponent to being pro-war? To please his corporate masters and kill as many children as he could?
Maybe it is because when face with hard choices, he made a choice that he knew people would criticize instead of another choice that the same people could criticize because BOTH choices caused death and destruction.
Stop pretending only one choice does.
LikeLike
The Rohingya are being systematically exterminated in Myanmar under the knowledge and consent of our ally, Nobel Prize winner Aung San Syi Kii. What is the U.S. doing about that? Yemen is being systematically destroyed by our allies the Saudis (whom we armed after they donated to the Clinton Foundation). What are we doing about the atrocities in Yemen? If U.S. intervention is about humanitarian causes, then we are responsible for every rape and every death in those countries, right? When are we going to implement regime change in Myanmar and Saudi Arabia?
LikeLike
Sorry, Aung San Suu Kyi. Oh for an edit button.
LikeLike
“whom we armed after they donated to the Clinton Foundation”
Why, if I didn’t know you purveyed the same right wing propaganda as the right wing pro-Trump trolls who Mother Jones banned, I might actually think the US never before in its history ever armed Saudi Arabia and it was only through the intervention of Hillary Clinton herself — after a huge donation to her foundation from which she secretly gets money or something — that the US policy was to arm Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spent decades unsuccessfully lobbying for support from the US – who said “no arms for you” — but then they realized all they had to do was donate to a FOUNDATION that actually did good work, and they’d get everything they wanted and more.
But then again, I believe in facts and not propaganda.
LikeLike
^PS — is there also a secret agreement between the Israel lobby who owns Hilllary and the pro-Saudi lobby who owns Hillary to arm the Saudis?
LikeLike
So you have nothing to say about the extermination of the Rohingya or the devastation of Yemen. Duly noted.
LikeLike
Duly noted?
What is your point? That we SHOULD intervene and depose the Nobel prize winning leader? Or that we should let that killing happen and pat ourselves on the back for our morals?
Which answer will get me the dienne77 badge of approval for being “moral”?
Are things better or worse for the people in Iraq because the US intervened? Well, it depends whether your family was the one whose wives and children were systemically raped and killed by Saddam and his family, right?
I think these are HARD CHOICES. You don’t seem to believe that as you are certain there is always a good way that politicians must respond in order to prove that they are moral or completely corrupt.
What would you have them do? Ignore it and then say “but we ignored other mass murders so it’s all good for me to say?”
LikeLike
“Well, it depends whether your family was the one whose wives and children were systemically raped and killed by Saddam and his family, right?”
Well, it also depends on whether your family was among the million or so killed, or the many millions more displaced.
Anyway, I’m just trying to follow your logic. If women and children are getting raped in Myanmar, why don’t we have an obligation to intervene there?
LikeLike
Why should I answer a question that you refuse to answer first?
Do we have an obligation to intervene in Myanmar or not?
My opinion is that there are HARD CHOICES and no matter what there isn’t a great choice.
But since you know that politicians who make the wrong choices have “blood on their hands” but politicians who make the right choices do not, then why don’t you tell me what the right choice is so that dienne77 won’t accuse the politician of having blood on their hands the next time that Democrat is running against a right wing Republican?
What is that RIGHT choice that allows you NOT to have “blood on your hands”?
LikeLike
“Do we have an obligation to intervene in Myanmar or not?”
Ah, there’s the question. The answer is simple: no. We didn’t have an obligation to intervene in Iraq either. Intervening in the first place (when we installed Saddam) was what caused all the problems. We need to stay out of other countries’ domestic issues (especially if we’re going to rant and rave when they try to get involved in ours). Dictators do horrible things – that’s the nature of dictators. We know that when we install these horrible people, which is why we need to stop installing these horrible people. How about if we let other countries decide their own leadership and domestic matters, even if they’re not necessarily friendly to U.S. interests?
LikeLike
Which is exactly what the people who would have let Hitler stay in power would have said.
LikeLike
^^by the way, if my kid had a teacher who presented history in this simplistic manner, in which American school children were taught it is very simple to know the right thing to do and those who do not do that simple thing are evil, I would try to get my kid into a different class.
Hard choices. Those who don’t believe there are hard choices vote for fascists who have all the answers.
LikeLike
Want to make a “better” public school? There is only one factor that is present in every single “praised” public school no matter what the philosophy or politics of its funders.
And it was expressed PERFECTLY by Summit student Michelle Villagomez in this article:
“But Summit is not for everyone. You have to push yourself here. You can settle for passing, or you can push yourself to go further.”
As long as you limit your students to the kids who like your school and want to be there, you can run a good school. But we’ve known that forever. We didn’t need to waste billions and billions on overpaid think tank experts who got rich pretending that they needed billions to figure out what a high school student could have told them for $10.
LikeLike
The article was interesting, but it lacked some serious scrutiny of some issues. Computers have long been useful tools, and I can see how computers can fill in gaps where rote instruction is involved, perhaps math, science, or grammar. Computers are a lot less effective in the humanities and social sciences. The fact that no legitimate research has been conducted on CAI, and nobody knows what the impact will be of so much screen time. I recently read an article by a psychologist that believes the increase in depression in adolescents may be connected to smart phones and screen time. The article also failed to address the huge concerning issue of students’ privacy rights. Computers can be hacked, and data will be sold. At this point the laws are behind the technology, and Silicon Valley is delighted to use other people’s children as guinea pigs.
Silicon Valley is poised to cash in on depersonalized learning. The sheer number of billionaires lining up to cash in on this grand experiment is another example of free market madness being imposed on our schools and young people. The current slash and burn climate of public school budgets will entice more school districts to jump on the CAI bandwagon without understanding knowing where it will lead students. The article failed to show any public schools that were getting good results with poor students and ELLs. Public schools with smaller class sizes and interventions to help struggling learners are effective, and I know this from personal experience. Public schools are portrayed in the article as an “efficiency model,” with no exploration of what this means. Instead, the article extols the virtues of Summit Preparatory Charter, a selective charter. The article also stated that Waldorf Schools, a private school that shuns tech gadgets, have endorsed support for depersonalized learning revealing that many people will do anything for the right price.
LikeLike
” Zuckerberg has said Facebook and Summit are pledged to abide by “strict privacy controls to protect student data.” Facebook itself has no business plans for personalized learning, Zuckerberg has said, but he is committed to providing the infrastructure for self-directed, personalized learning for free to all U.S. schools.”
It isn’t “free”. Your time has value and so does your student’s time. There’s an opportunity cost, too. If you do Facebook platform then you are NOT doing something else that might have more value with less investment.
If you upend your school to use this product then it is by NO MEANS “free”
Be wary of people who insist things are “free” when they are not free and instead may be a terrible investment.
Zuckerberg knows all about what time and effort costs. He would never invest his employees time and energy and characterize that as “free” so why is telling YOU that?
LikeLike
Zuckerberg and others like him DO NOTHING FOR FREE. They PROFIT by every move they make.
LikeLike
Their investment as an LLC is priming the pump in order to reap tremendous profit. Students are not the central priority, profit is. Don’t trust billionaires carrying “gifts.” It is a Trojan Horse to gain access to young people.
LikeLike
HMMM… whose children are these computers for? Theirs or other people’s. You decide….
http://www.businessinsider.com/waldorf-silicon-valley-school-shuns-technology-2017-3
And see an earlier story, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html.
When Silicon Valley execs embrace technology in schools for their own children, then let’s talk.
Reposted at http://www.schoollawpro.com.
LikeLike
Just curious what people think about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
LikeLike
Oh, FLERP! I know historians will debate why Hillary lost, but right now the topic has been written about more than enough, and all we have are repetitions of repetitions.
LikeLike
I think FLERP! was being sarcastic. If I am correct, he makes a good point. When I woke up this morning and saw the post, I got excited about an opportunity to hear from all of our deft debaters why tech is not a panacea (or even very useful (or even harmful to neural development)). I am fighting an uphill battle convincing my employer that I can teach English better with books, pens and paper than with Google. I need all the ammunition I can find. Instead, I get another Election 2016 rehash. Disappointing.
LikeLike
Exactly, InService. I finally just scrolled past. STOP!
LikeLike
No one is talking about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
We are talking about whether THIS characterization of Mother Jones Magazine is correct or not correct:
“They are, and have long been, very firmly an establishment, neo-liberal, pro-Cllinton outlet. I stand by that original post.”
And FLERP!, if you don’t have an opinion on that characterization of Mother Jones Magazine and just prefer to attack those who do, then why make a snaky remark?
Why does FLERP! get so offended that someone would have the chutzpah to want to defend Mother Jones as being a tool of the neoliberal agenda?
The only reason I can imagine is that you believe that Mother Jones Magazine is a tool of the neo-liberal establishment yourself and you hate that anyone like me would question it so you hope to use some snark to get me to shut up and just let people who want to make those attacks on Mother Jones be free to make them without anyone challenging them on it.
Maybe there is another reason why you don’t like anyone defending Mother Jones Magazine from attacks that it is simply a neoliberal outlet. Why does it bother you so much that you turn it into talking about Hillary Clinton?
You think it is HELPFUL to what is going on right now to have voices on the left working hard to make Mother Jones as suspect a source of information as Fox News?
LikeLike
“Why does FLERP! get so offended that someone would have the chutzpah to want to defend Mother Jones as being a tool of the neoliberal agenda?”
Why indeed! We must convene a truth and reconciliation commission and get to the bottom of it! And if FLERP! does not defend himself, the commission shall draw an adverse inference and mete out the appropriate discipline.
LikeLike
“Just curious what people think about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders”
Spoken by those who hold themselves “above the fray”.
Maybe you think it is useful to get people to start distrusting Mother Jones as simply a propaganda tool of neo conservatives.
I happen to think that just helps the Trump/right wing Republican agenda that gave us the tax reform that seemed to bother you.
But FLERP!, I don’t know whether the Republicans’ tax reform is a great idea or not. Can you tell me some sources that can inform me that I can trust now that dienne77 has explained how much of the media will intentionally lie to us in order to promote the Hillary Clinton neoliberal agenda?
Now that I am following the acceptable progressive ideas that we can’t trust most media, shouldn’t I just let the Republicans pass anything they want and see whether it eventually pans out to do what those known liars in fake media like Mother Jones tell us?
What can I trust now that dienne77 tells me it isn’t just individual writers, but that the entire organization that they are writing for only allows neoconservative voices who are not interested in the truth?
LikeLike
I think Dienne was characterizing Mother Jones as neoliberal, not neoconservative.
I don’t read Mother Jones on a regular-enough basis to say whether that characterization is correct or incorrect. I would say, however, that even assuming it’s incorrect, that doesn’t mean you can’t trust what you read in Mother Jones or that Mother Jones is “lying” to you. I would say characterize the New York Times as a “neo-liberal” paper (in terms of the ideological sensibilities of its editorial board, and most of its reporters, too), but that doesn’t mean I think the Times is Fake News.
LikeLike
sorry, meant to type “even assuming it’s correct,” not incorrect.
LikeLike
^^^And FLERP’, if your only reply to people who say Mother Jones Magazine is so much a propaganda tool of the neoliberal agenda that they quash dissent in order to promote an evil and bloody handed neoliberal is:
“I don’t read Mother Jones on a regular-enough basis to say whether that characterization is correct or incorrect.”
Then you don’t have to bother to reply.
LikeLike
Too late!
LikeLike
lol FLERP! Our posts crossed.
I’m so sorry you wasted your time. Obviously I wouldn’t want you to try to defend Mother Jones from dienne77’s attacks that it is a neoLIBERAL Magazine that supported the person responsible for the deaths of untold thousands of non-Americans and that Mother Jones completely quashed any voices that would have offered criticism of this murderous and evil politician.
Because it just might be true. How would you know?
Man, you sound just like Donald Trump’s defenders sometimes. “So what if Trump said maybe Ted Cruz’ dad helped assassinate JFK. Maybe he did. We just don’t know for sure if that’s true so you can’t really criticize Trump for suggesting it because it might be true and I just don’t have enough information to judge and certainly wouldn’t want to criticize Trump for saying something that “might” be true.”
LikeLike
What?? I sound like Donald Trump?? This outrage will not stand — I must rebut this outrageous charge!!
But seriously, if you think Dienne’s wrongly accused Mother Jones of being neoliberal, and you think that’s a wrong that must be righted, then go ahead and make your case. I’m not the Defender of Reputations of Magazines I Don’t Read, so this is outside my purview. And obviously I won’t be drawn into such a perverse project by an allegation that I “sound like Donald Trump.”
You’ve burned about 50 comments on this page fighting with Dienne. There’s no need to burn another 50 fighting with me. Just try to have a good evening. (But do look up the definitions of neoliberalism and neoconservativism— it’s good to know, especially if you want to argue with Dienne and Joel!)
LikeLike
” It probably makes more sense for you to defend it yourself, since you’re the one who upset about how Dienne has characterized it.”
FLERP!, I’m so grateful I now have your permission to defend Mother Jones from the suggestion that the ENTIRE MAGAZINE is a neoliberal tool that quashes all true criticism of the murderous evil neoliberal politicians they support.
I only replied to you in the first place because my attempt to defend Mother Jones Magazine bothered you so much.
But so glad you are now willing to concede that while you have no way of judging whether Mother Jones is just as corrupt as dienne77’s posts would have us believe, you are willing to let me try to correct the record so that the right wing cannot say the next time Mother Jones breaks a story:
“See, even progressives like dienne77 know not to trust Mother Jones”
And you wonder why more people aren’t protesting the Republican tax cuts? Why should they believe anything when cynics like you can’t defend anything at all?
What news source should I trust, FLERP!?
LikeLike
^^Never mind, I just read your last comment.
FLERP!, you are the one who got offended with me fighting this battle.
If you hadn’t pretended this was all about Bernie and Clinton with your snarky comment, I would have had no need to reply.
But FYI – if you reply with nasty snark, I will respond. It’s your choice to use it or not.
LikeLike
“…But do look up the definitions of neoliberalism and neoconservativism— it’s good to know…”
Sorry, but that’s such a cop out after you accused me of confusing the two.
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with this, but unless teachers are directly involved and have a voice in any decision that pertains to student’s education, it will fail. I’d also recommend having parents from all neighborhoods and students involved.
LikeLike
When my district chose to pursue new adoptions, the first thing teachers did was to identify the need. Then, we studied the evidence and what schools were using the materials with good results. Then, we did a small pilot, wrote curriculum, and studied again, before we moved to adoption. It was a reasoned, rational way to change that was student, not product centered. We also were mindful of not squander our tax dollars on a lot of hype. We did not accept bribes from outside vendors, but this was before schools were being coerced to believe that the market will solve all our problems. We never allowed our young people to be used as lab rats.
LikeLike
Fortunately, I live in a district that can still do it that way. There has been some ed reform incursion, but all is not lost.
LikeLike
I work with teachers who left teaching and leadership roles at Summit after many years of believing in and building Summit from the ground up. They do not believe that journalists ask the right questions when they visit Summit. There are reasons that teachers leave in high numbers from their schools. There exist deep critiques of the Summit Platform, the charter school model, and the social engagement of students. I am hopeful that another journalist takes up this story. It’s critical that we understand what students lose in order to be hooked up to this platform.
LikeLike
tshirt slogan: Who elected Mark Z, or Who elected Bill G….
LikeLike
I think you could do the whole alphabet on a t-shirt devoted to the billionaires, especially techies, who want to reinvent schools and have little to offer except devices and software.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To tultican at 10:55 AM above–yes, I am disappointed (more like shocked) w/Rizga, as well. I read “Mission High,” & had heard an interview about the book on NPR…important pieces. To Jennifer Berkshire: perhaps you could interview her & get us the lowdown (or down low).
Michael Winrip, where have you gone? Please come back!!!
One last word: in the CPS money windfall I’d mentioned on Laura Chapman’s previous post, today, about E 4 E, CPS “…also seeks &800,000 for ‘software architecture technical expertise’ for the GoCPS universal enrollment website championed by Chief Education Officer Janice Jackson.” (Chicago Sun-Times again, 10/24/17.)
LikeLike
I couldn’t help but note that one reader’s comment began, “Haven’t read the whole article yet,…”
Personally, I just finished reading the entire article and thought that the author tried hard to emphasize the shortcomings of personalized learning. One could complain that these negative comments were in the latter part of the article, so those who would rather spend their time typing comments here instead of actually reading the source article would have been mislead by its first part.
A subtle bias on the Rizga’s part? Possibly, but the comments above are not always unbiased either. In the ever-growing mountain of “information,” we are losing the ability to listen before we react unfortunately….
On a related story about a charter school in my locale, see:
LikeLike
I think I agree with you, David. I thought it was an honest portrayal that didn’t shy away from the criticism of the approach. I would love to get a chance to be a fly on the wall. I wonder at bringing it to scale however. How many public schools are going to give their teachers two months of paid time for training?
LikeLike
I was lucky to get a few days out of a year for “professional development” …
LikeLike