Learning Aloud

I probably know more than I care to know about the publishing industry. Issues like book buy backs and company mergers fight their way into your attention even when the only thing you really want is to have your book continue as a product.

I guess my interest does have a positive and proactive component. I have become interested in the connection between the text book industry and technology. As an author of a book that attempts to prepare teachers to use technology, it seems critical that the preparatory experiences would include more than a book. At this point, it would seem possible to create a more participatory approach allowing learners, instructors, and authors to communicate more directly.

Our publisher, Houghton-Mifflin, was sold several years ago to Vivendi – a French multimedia corporation (I used to think of Vivendi as something like AOL-Time Warner). Vivendi fell on hard times and sold Houghton-Mifflin to a holding company. Now, the rumor is that Houghton-Mifflin is being sold to Riverdeep. Yep – the same Riverdeep that sells Reader Rabbit. No official comment at this point from either company.

While I was pleased by the changes brought about by yesterday’s elections, I have no idea what the changes mean for the more specific causes that interest me. The analyses following the returns seemed to be focused on attitude, the distinction between the war in Iraq and the war on terror, and ethics. Clearly, these are significant issues that concern the public, but those elected based on such issues (and others that are significant locally) will also shape potential changes in educational policy.

I hope that NCLB will be reconsidered with an eye to those consequences that determine what happens in classrooms. I hope testing continues, but in a way that informs education in a less judgmental manner and with better insight into the circumstances faced by some teachers and some schools. I would hope that assessment would be expanded, because the present focus tends to discourage attention directed toward some content areas and the message is that such content areas are less important. How could it be a good thing that language arts and math in elementary schools receive more attention and science and social studies less simply because only certain areas are the focus of the evaluation that is used to judge schools.

I would also hope that the objectives of such testing be more carefully considered. For example, the logic of arguing that the “failings of American schools” are a concern because low performance decreases the potential for the country to compete economically can be traced to “A Nation at Risk.” The policy of holding schools responsible for the capability of all students to meet minimum standards does not necessarily follow logically from the expectation that schools develop the innovators of tomorrow. How about a substitute goal of helping all students achieve according to their potential? What about the goal of providing all students a quality education in the wide range of areas that will contribute to economic development and personal fullfillment? What about the goal of developing those with special talents who are perhaps those individuals most likely to be the innovators?

Blogged with Flock

Here is an interesting online activity that may serve as a diversion tomorrow evening as you wait for election results to trickle in.

A couple of years ago, Matthew Kane created a mashup that returns data on Republican and Democratic contributors that can be linked to zip codes. Enter your zip code and compare the number of contributors and the amounts contributed (note these data will be dated). Note that the addresses (Google map) of the contributors are also identified. I must admit I find the map locating contributors a little scary, but it does partially explain who gets what phone calls and visits.

Cindy forwarded this URL to me – I see David Warlick also reviews this site.

I encountered this article from C|Net News on China and the Internet. The article addresses concerns that China controls access to the Internet. By chance, Cindy and I are heading to China on Friday. I guess we will have the opportunity to investigate for ourselves. It will be a busy week preparing so that others can cover out responsibilities here. Hopefully, there will then be many interesting posts from there.

Google has acquired another online service. In this case, the company was JotSpot – a provider of free (at the low end) wiki space. As far as I know this is a little different than other acquisitions because the acquired product was free at the level of few users and limited space, but rather expensive at the unlimited end of the continuum (couple of hundred a month). It is true that the higher capability level of Flickr comes at a price, but the upgrade cost is minimal and this is a service to the individual. The high end of JotSpot seems more suited to commercial functions.

Comment by one of JotSpot’s founders.

Will educators find opportunities in this tool? I suppose it depends on the cost and security features that are available. As I understand proposed DOPA regulations, I would also think that this service would be considered a commercial social software site and blocked.