Rest assured that it can be suppressed - it's not the same across China as it is in many other places - but that's the least of it's power. A 12 year old kid who does something meaningful and self-publishes on the net is indistinguishable from an insightful Harvard faculty member with a chair. Unlike the Harvard faculty's publication, in a $45 book with a circulation of, say, 5,000, mostly to peers and libraries, the kid's book, on the net, has a potential readership of about 100,000,000, give or take a few. And it can, could, and sometimes does get reviewed. Sometimes those are "peer reviews" no better or worse than the 5,000 copies (at most) of a university press.
And then there is the shelf-life of an internet publication. It never dies and pops up on mirrors longer than that university press ever imagined. And then there are the translations, the amendments, the blogs and dialogs that publication inspires. And then there are the incentives - or dis-incentives - for plagiarism and the complexities of intellectual property when it's all so freely given, distributed, marketed, and reviewed. Rest assured that, while it can be suppressed, the "it" we're talking about is profoundly different from anything in any culture ever anywhere. And most of those differences accrue to the least cultivated, least elite of the barely educated. While it takes some skills to keyboard a document - which can even be transcended or at least mitigated with Via Voice for $40 or so - it takes a lot less than it does to go through a University publication process, much less the editorial board of something like the New York Times. Suppression is largely irrelevant if a lot of people realize half the potential of the stuff already available at the average community center - whether in Sri Lanka or South Pasadena. The challenge is to use what we have, regardless of how much better it can get. Joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tednellen Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:50 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: RE: [DDN] personal vis social and the academic i have come to the belief that this new iteration in technology is way different from previous technologies. for one thing and most importantly, this technology is interactive. the former technologies were one way: book, lecture, television, radio.. now the internet is interactive. each user is both a consumer and producer. with this new technology all participants have 24/7 access, unlike the former technologies that required physical presence. in this new environment, all are responsible for their own producing as we see it on the web for instance or in a blog...no longer is there one purveyor of all knowledge be it the teacher or the text book. now the learner interacts with the learning environment and no sputnick or "new math" or NCLB can stop this juggernaut. as more and more students and learners understand and take advantage. in the end the reactionaries cant kill it, they can and have slowed it down, but they cant kill it. please remember too the internet was created to withstand nuclear war. since it of the public and for the public and the public has it, the internet and the hopes and dreams it holds cant be supressed. ted On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Joseph Beckmann wrote: > The weakness of the new school movement - of the small schools, the > secondary school reform centered on Gates and the consequent > reorganization of secondary education into small learning communities > - is, very ironically, their own technophobia. And it's a weakness > that will incur precisely the same reaction from very similar > reactionaries who killed the education reform movements of the '60's > and '70's. Those who would not understand the "new math," the "new > physics," and, eventually, the new history, chemistry, anthropology, etc., catalyzed by Sputnik in 1958. > > Just as those reactionaries killed innovation then, claiming it > elitist, abstract, unrealistic, anti-vocational, and, ultimately and > very ironically, anti-intellectual, they are gathering to criticize > its new incarnation. This time the claim is that small schools are - > all those things - as well as incapable of delivering the kind of > specialist knowledge larger schools, with more teachers and more > curricular differentiation, have long gloried in. That specialization > is usually framed (using Lakoff's political framing > concept) as advanced placement, as pre-career specialist knowledge, as > "ability level matching." > > Even more ironically, that last claim coincides with the reaction to > the innovations of the 1930's, when the Eight Year Study devised what > has become the standard secondary education curriculum. Then the > "innovation" was ability level grouping, which was a very polite > strategy to differentiate class and caste via meritocracy. (It was > called the Winnetka Plan, the framework [again that framing language] > for New Trier High School, created by real innovators to support a > pre-college capacity in a high achieving general high school.) It > became something else, particularly as it grew to be applied in more > diverse communities than the generally wealthy North Shore of Chicago. > And it became commonly accepted, just as it was culturally twisted > from a means of accelerating learning in a homogeneous community to a > means of excluding the underclass and lower income from postsecondary aspirations. > > Jumping quickly from the classism (pre-racism) of the middle class > 1940's to today, the argument is that small schools are, in the > broadest term, elitist. That's the Ravitch (soon to be Chester Finn) reactionary response. > And they are right. > > But, like most reactionary (and this is why politics are as critical > as pedagogy, psychology, and other disciplines!) arguments, their case > is incomplete. The elitism of small schools can ONLY be bridge with technology. > That bridge brings the curricular diversity INWARD, just as it > expresses the curricular portfolio of small school students OUTWARD. > It's got almost nothing to do with the concurrent innovations of > curriculum development in small schools, courseware, technology > infusion for its own sake, and many other themes that run in this and > similar listservs. It has everything to do with organizing teachers > and students to find things out and toot their own horns. > > If they don't, they'll lose and the only innovations of this wave of > education will be the intellectual stimulation of a billion Chinese > and another billion Indians. And that's pretty political as well. > > Joe Beckmann (aka Cassandra) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tednellen > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Digital Divide Network discussion group > Subject: RE: [DDN] personal vis social and the academic > > oh i couldnt agree with you more, joe, which is why i have since 1993 > provided web access to all my scholars. > > now to add to the idea of a technophobic academia, again a concept to > which i strongly agree, please add the other technology killer in k-12 > schools > esp: THE FILTER. > > anyway, take a look at what we have done online since 1993: > http://www.tnellen.net/cyberenglish/ > in left column you will find links to ITHS scholars and MBHS scholars > and even to those schools in Queens NY. > > tednellen > > > On Mon, 30 May 2005, Joseph Beckmann wrote: > > > You've hit a topic that is still too largely ignored. Technology > > promises to realize the social liberal vision of transparent > > government, policy, program, business and development. Yet The > > Academy is notoriously technophobic. Diane Ravitch, in the US, has > > recently taken up the argument against small, high tech high > > schools, arguing, for example, that only large, comprehensive > > secondary schools have the curricular variety needed to prepare > > young people for the 21st Century. Compared to a place with a dozen > > teachers and 300 to 400 kids, her argument sounds rational, and her > > allies are massing a substantial counter-reform against the new secondary school tech movement. > > > > Yet there are over 15,000 online college courses and several more > > thousand secondary courses. There is an almost infinite range of > > course material available at subsidies so deep that they might as > > well be free in most US and European school settings, and Taran's > > $480 or so is not prohibitive anywhere, just a little steep many > > places. What is lacking is neither the courseware nor the innovative models. > > > > What truly is lacking is enough evidence of student productivity > > effected by this technology. Schools usually hide their students' > > portfolios, rather than promote them. Students may create their own > > web pages, but have neither the capacity nor, frankly, the need to > > promote those pages adequately to deliver the message of their > > creative portfolio, interdisciplinary, and multimedia products. I > > know of famous innovative schools - in California, Ohio and > > elsewhere - where they have hundreds of disks of student portfolio > > material and > neither promote it nor analyze it for fear of loss of control. > > As in one school I visited where the otherwise sensitive and > > creative tech coordinator claimed that "wifi would have these > > teenagers burn up the bandwidth," to which I asked, "who or what > > else is worth that subsidized bandwidth supposed to be for?" > > > > In other words, the only way to defend technology - the ONLY way - > > is to use it. A lot. And to get kids on it, using it, producing with > > it the best possible intellectual inquiry, and documentation of that > > inquiry, in the history of education. That is, after all, the point. > > > > Joe Beckmann > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom > > Abeles > > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:01 PM > > To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [DDN] personal vis social and the academic > > > > Hi Steve > > > > I want to take my remarks in another direction. The basic background > > is the growing number of conservative academics and students, > > particularly in the United States who are arguing that The Academy > > has a liberal bias making it difficult for dissenting voices to be > > heard from the faculty side and an even more difficult for a voice > > to be fairly heard from the side of the student. > > > > This plays critically in the issues surrounding the digital divide > > where it is an article of faith that the introduction of > > appropriate technology, in this case computers, as the way for > > social change to occur. Both the hope and the vehicles of > > possibilities (technoloty and > > process) are products of a liberal vision (not the Enlightenment > > liberal or libertarian, but social liberal). What makes this of > > concern is that this dogma is also being formalized and propagated > > in The Academy in a somewhat cloistered environment (mostly to > > protect an emerging faith amongst young turks who have to play the > > publish/perish game or who are trying to create sacred liturgy). And > > it is not subject to the critical analysis so needed if substantive > > change is to be > promulgated. > > > > The problem, of course, is that the funds from foundations and > > public agencies are also members of this faith based community and > > dogma apostates are certain to become fiscally isolated whether they > > embrace the liberal social models or the more traditional neo-classical ideals. > > This, of course, paralyzes critical thinking at a time when such is > > badly needed. It doesn't sit well within The Academy because they > > too are fiscally dependent; but more importantly, they are tied to > > peer acceptance as both faculty and students, a powerful pair which > > checks most critical thought, especially if it is seen to > > immediately affect efforts to bring help to the disenfranchised. > > > > thoughts? > > > > tom abeles > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > > To unsubscribe, send a message to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in > > the > body of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > > To unsubscribe, send a message to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > > > > -- Ted Nellen 8-) http://www.tnellen.com/ "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Buckminster Fuller _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
