thinglets: Losing Net Neutrality - Bitter Tiers

(This is not my graphic. If someone can tell me the source, I will certainly link to give creator credit.)

[EDIT: Thanks to @640k for providing me the link to the article the above graphic came from. As it's from Gizmodo, I would've found it in my feed later tonight, but I'm glad to update now anyway: http://gizmodo.com/5391707/losing-net-neutrality-the-worst-case-scenario - looks like the original source is here: http://bit.ly/2CT0bm]

Just a great example to explain to people what losing the Net Neutrality fight is all about. In the same way you WISH you could get every channel in a cable television package, but have to pay extra, the picture above shows what the net WILL resemble when ISPs start to package tiers of services ON TOP of your existing broadband speeds.

If there was ever a reason to rally people behind Net Neutrality, the ominous threats of inequity, cost-for-access, and price gouging are just some we need to worry about. I fear the Information Age is going to become laden with explicit Information Tolls.

Ask not for whom the web tolls - it will toll worldwide.

thinglets: Lack of Vision on Canadian Net Neutrality

In as much as some people are praising elements of the CRTC's decision last week when it came to Net Neutrality in Canada, I remain the right cynical bastard lovehatethings readers would expect. As such, I created the following to protest the lack of vision on the part of the CRTC. Please don't upload this to a Bit Torrent site in Canada. Anyone who downloads it will have their bandwidth throttled if the ISP deems it necessary.

lovehate: When Achievement Becomes Anathema to Education

It's not often that I allow my day job to creep into lovehatethings. In fact, I enjoy using LHT to wind down and express ideas outside of work most evenings while hockey plays mute across the room. Tonight though, and partially because I was encompassed by it all day, I want to share the text submission of a presentation I made to the Standing Committee on Social Policy at Queen's Park in Toronto.

The topic was "Student Achievement" and the new legislation (Bill 177) they seek to impose would make it the responsibility or everyone, from teachers to educational assistants to school board trustees, to ensure th at Student Achievement targets were being met. The trouble is, while the Bill (which passed 2nd Reading in the House) actually includes Student Achievement in its title, a definition or standard for Student Achievement is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. In other words, my job performance is now based on something that is undefined.

I realize that this may be boring as sin to any of you who aren't either living in Ontario or tied to public education, but I'm too tired to write anything else tonight.

A couple of quick definitions to start:

EQAO = Education Quality and Accountability Office which is also the group that provides and grades the standardized test at the grades 3, 6, 9, and 10 level.

Deming's Disciples = William Deming, the father of modern productivity and quality control in industrial settings, revolutionized post-war Japan with the work ethic that the country would become famous for. Unfortunately, while his theories hold well for manufacturing concerns, several educational theorists tried to apply them to education in the 1970s and 1980s under the guise of the Effective Schools movement. The major flaw lies in the fact that students are not widgets, and you can't throw away bad ones when they hit the "factory" floor.

 

 

Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy

Hearings on Bill 177 – An Act to Amend the Education Act with respect to School Board Governance and Student Achievement

With the term “Student Achievement” ready to be cast in stone, or at least into the Education Act anyway, as a key goal for all students, education workers and now trustees across Ontario, one should have a concrete definition in order to set goals and know potential risks for job performance.

What then is our clear concrete definition of “Student Achievement”? I suppose one could look to the Education Act and find what the Ministry of Education has deemed “Student Achievement” to be. After all, when Bill 177 passes, school boards will be able to taken over by the Ministry. Locally-elected trustees could be denied their abilities to represent their constituents. You would think the trustees, and municipal voters across the province, might like to know what standards they are being held to. But, alas, no such definition exists in the pages of Bill 177.

In lieu of a provincial definition, perhaps local school boards could define their own parameters for “student achievement” in a clear, concise manner so everyone could easily “get on board”. After all, the term is plastered all over school board websites and PR materials while becoming the blanket defense for every questionable action a board takes. If they close a program or a school, if they add fees for specialized programs, if they seek to segregate students by gender or ethnicity, it’s all under the guise of “student achievement”. Surely they must have a working framework to define the term. Yet it’s nowhere to be found.

In lieu of a concrete definition, which, one thinks, should be required for a term that attained ubiquity across Ontario’s education system, perhaps a teacher is expected to cobble together some kind of amorphous metric of what “student achievement” is on an individual basis. I’ve been told for years that a diploma is important, so let’s include that piece. I’ve been sold on the corporate stock ticker stats of EQAO scores, so we’ll assume those are important too. I could throw credits in there as well, but credits are a subset of the diploma, so we’ll assume you can’t have one without the other. And while EQAO was originally a subset of graduation as well, the Ministry has found ways around that, so we must consider it on its own. In reality then, if we are to parse down “student achievement” for the purposes of this Ministry and this Bill, we are left with two things: a diploma and EQAO scores. 

To test any definition, one should reach for the parameters and exercise the tolerances that constitute it. For instance, if a diploma is our first indicator of “student achievement”, doesn’t that mean a student with ten or twenty marks of 50% on the way to a diploma has met the criterion? Are grades even relevant any longer, or have credits been reduced to pass/fail? Is a student with twenty credits at 50% someone who has “achieved”? If so, the Ministry of Education can incorporate a very simple baseline into a standardized definition. But the Ministry always said that Level 3 or mark in the “70s” is the provincial expectation. Does it make sense that a student can achieve by getting a diploma, yet not meet the provincial expectation? It’s quite unclear as to which direction the Ministry wants to go with respect to including credits in any standard definition. If accumulated credits become suspect, then doesn’t that make the resultant diploma suspect as well?

Credits aside, EQAO scores must surely be an indicator that can fit into “student achievement” definition with little to no fuss. We should simply be able to assume that passing the EQAO tests must be good enough for “achievement”. We should be able to assume that, but we find it difficult to do so, because, as a teacher, EQAO tests are insulting to my profession. The Education Quality and Accountability Office, by its very name, suggests educators are not doing their jobs. At some point in recent history, someone at the Ministry of Education became convinced that teachers, educating students, and evaluating their work by attaching a grade and associated skills wasn’t good enough. Surely teachers couldn’t be trusted with education, and there had to be a way to tell if students really weren’t getting the education they deserved.

There’s a subtle irony in that the EQAO evolved out of fears of inconsistency about education in Ontario. The selfsame EQAO scores which now prompt visions of administrative career advancement and under the guise of “student achievement” goals have prompted a fear on behalf of education workers in Ontario about state of education. 

And so we’ve come to the real crux of the issue: in talking of “student achievement” very rarely does one speak of education. People talk of scores, stats, credits, diplomas and, in the end, far fewer people are concerned with a student’s education than a student’s stat sheet. I’m not a math teacher, but two simple equations are clear to me: Achievement does NOT equal Education, and Data Collection does NOT equal Learning.

I was incredibly disheartened, though not very surprised, upon perusing a draft of the proposed “Learning for All K-12” document that came across my desk a couple of weeks ago. While I’ve never been a fan of “Deming’s Disciples” of education that formulated the Effective Schools movement’s “Learning Communities”, backed “No Child Left Behind” in the United States, and are rife with quotations in the draft document, at least they spoke of “education” and “learning”. Yet, in the document, the Ministry has chosen to place their “Achievement Agenda” language side by side with these sources as if to co-opt their credibility. We cannot make achievement equal education by proximity of words on a page. Achievements are trophies earned at the end of a process. Education IS the process. To place more importance on the trophy than the process is demeaning to all education stakeholders.

Education workers are providers, mentors and facilitators of education. We are not stock brokers trying to maximize a student’s EQAO number so we can “buy low and sell high”. We don’t treat student learning as graphing points; we view it as a process. We are loathe to reduce a year’s worth of dedicated curricular efforts to help educate students down to a data-inspired administrative-mandate of “let them redo one assignment, so you can let them pass the course”. Finally, and perhaps seemingly contrary to tone of my submission to this point, while we don’t really see a need for this soon-to-be-enshrined undefined term, we are actually all for students meeting whichever nebulous definition of “achievement” is the order of the day, as long as it’s measured on the back of true learning and real education and not at the expense of it.

lovehate: How I Never Waste Time Watching TV

Whether its called a time suck, a time killer, or a time waster, people are accused of occupying their time with pursuits that are determined by other "industrious" folk as wasteful.

When I was young my time "waster" was the television. But it was never called the television. It was the "boob tube", the "idiot box" or the "great hypnotizer". And I'll be the first to admit that I spent a whole bunch of time watching television as a child (and still do today), but I never felt it as a waste of time. There's something to be said for passively watching television, which in itself is not a bad thing. When you come home from a long day and need to unwind, there's sometimes nothing better than mindless television to allow a form of escapism.

I have also maintained, later in life, that watching television does not always amount to passive absorption. I believe one can pursue a somewhat active viewing of television that doesn't necessarily involve sitting down with a notepad and jotting down cryptic observations or witty rejoinders. The background one has with the medium allows for an certain internal criticism that is at once both cognitive and evaluative. The ability to establish pattern in one's mind to determine potential plot twists, effective use of camera or lighting and the overall conveyance of mise en scene or role is a skill that needs to be exercised by regular exercise. That's right, I said exercise. I'll not presume to assume that whenever someone watches television they're taking the "engagement" of the mind to heart... and they probably shouldn't.

I also remember that, for some reason, the task of reading, which is equally enjoyable, is somehow thought of as a more lofty pursuit than watching television. In fact, I always found it difficult to understand the continuum of what was considered a "waste of time" when consuming media. I'm not quite sure if it remained the same for all parents with their children, or if the general societal understanding matched the prevailing ranking, but it seemed to go like this:

The Time Wasting Media Consumption Continuum (from Worst to Not-so-Worst):

1) Television (or all of its aforementioned monikers)
2) Video Games (although often interchangeable with television)
3) Web (mostly condemned due to misunderstanding)
4) Reading Comics
5) Movies (though defensible due to the social aspect)
6) Reading Magazines
7) Listening to Radio or Music
8) Reading Novels or News

And I know there are neurological studies that show brain patterns flattening out while watching TV compared to reading, but doesn't that depend on who's brain? There's a common approach to literary criticism called, plainly enough, Reader Response Theory that basically weighs the impressions of the reader above and beyond that of the author's original intention. In other words, even if the author tried to present you with an allegory of the Russian Revolution, but to you it was just a violent story of pigs fighting on some sort of Animal Farm, why should your impression hold any less authority than that of the author. In other words, whatever experience I bring to the experience of consuming media, helps to define the work.

The approach doesn't work any less with television or web content. What you bring to the experience helps to define the it. And it can be a learning experience. Every bad television episode or web page you experience provides a semblance of context around which all others will be judged. File this knowledge to provide context and you've just found a way to give purpose to the time wasting. Be an active consumer of media and you'll always have an excuse whenever someone tells you to "stop wasting time". Of course it's still hard to defend playing Bejeweled on Facebook at work, or defending any "unproductive" activity at work for that matter... but at least you can adopt an educated aire while doing so.

thinglets: A 100 Word Love Story Brought to You By The Letter "A"

Alan Aaronson almost asked an awkward accusation. Although an avowed atheist, Alan admits an assured, albeit, arrested attraction after Alice Alameda. 

Alice, an Air America airplane attendant, asks: "Any additional articles?" admitting at Atlanta. 

Alan, awestruck: "Aaaaah. Again?"

"Any additional articles?" asks Alice again, adding annoyed aires.

"Affirmative," Alan answers. "an alabaster antelope, an azure alligator, and an apple."

"Apple?" aped Alice admonishingly.

"After an amaretto," Alan admitted, "apples are amazing!"

Alice approved Alan's appreciation and amorously articulated: "Any additional... Amaretto?"

Alan acted anxious, allowing an agitated, "aaaaah?"

Alice, assertive, acted.

All about an airplane affair, Alan accepted assault angelic.

thinglets: My Best 90 Second Video Find Ever!

via nfb.ca

The video embedded above is a very cool 27 minute film documenting the first ever game for the newly-baptized Quebec Nordiques in 1972. It is one of a 12 part series produced by the NFB called "Adieu Alouette" and the theme song at the beginning is priceless.

Even if you're not a hockey fan, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE watch the first 90 seconds for the cheesiest, grooviest, theme song about cultural identity I've ever seen - all in glorious period animation. You won't regret it.

Thank you once again nfb.ca!

lovehate: How I Will End Poverty and Why You Shouldn't Believe Me

Note: I'm getting a little bit more serious here than usual. Such is the swing of a lovehatething.

How much of your earnings would you give to end poverty? Pretty simple question - obviously laden with a couple of presumptions.

Presumption One: Poverty can be ended. I personally believe so, but it's going to take a whole lot more than throwing money at it.

Presumption Two: You want to end poverty. I know that this may be a given for most people, much like a "world peace" statement, but just like there are plenty of people who profit on war, there are also plenty who profit on poverty.

Presumption Three: The organization you'd be giving your earnings to could be entrusted to do the job.

So, presumptions aside, I'll lift the question back up from the table: How much of your earnings would you give to end poverty?

If I came up to you and said "If everyone in the country, on top of their existing taxes, gives 10% of their net earnings, in five years we WILL eliminate poverty from the country," what would it take for you to buy in?

Let me preface the rest of the argument by saying that I haven't done any math and do not have any anti-poverty group stats in front of me. I'm simply asking the question.

I'm positive that I could afford at least 10% of my net earnings to devote to such a worthwhile endeavour, but my participation would not come without questions.

1) Why would you believe a single person coming to your door to ask you to do this? What the hell is one person going to do to initiate this?
2) Why would I believe any corporation or arm's-length corporation? Can't do it. Corporations are obligated to make profit.
3) Would I believe the church down the street that I don't attend or particularly share the dogma?
4) Would I believe my government? Should it matter what party is in power?

And so we talk about ending poverty without sacrifice. Sure there can be legislation that helps people when their unemployed, or ensures social programs for children, or provides supports for a stream of ideas, but these are stop gaps. Poverty doesn't end with a handout.

Consider that, while certainly not eliminating many negative social conditions that come with poverty, meaningful employment and a living wage can impact much of the following:

Crime: I don't know about you, but I come up with my stupidest ideas when I have too much time to think about nothing. A good job means I'm thinking about the job and not about how I'm going to feed myself or my family by ripping off my neighbour.

Education: Although many of the "No Child Left Behind" and "Failure is Not an Option" proponents will tell you "every child can learn", they certainly learn a whole lot better with healthy food on the table every morning and heat in the house the night before. If you don't believe socio-economics are a strong determinant of test scores, explain why low test scores (a vile substitute for assessing a child's education anyway) most often occur in areas of dense poverty.

Health: Families and individuals who can maintain a healthy diet and stay educated about hygiene become less dependent on healthcare packages (socialized medicine or otherwise).

As I said earlier, these aforementioned problems don't get nullified when poverty is eliminated, but they certainly get alleviated. Within this new context, crime is radically reduced, education is radically enhanced, and health is improved greatly for everyone. I get to feel more secure about my safety and walking down the street at night. I get to know that when my children are going to school, resources are being used to enhance education instead of worrying about improving test scores in a ward where impoverished children often stand little hope of success without massive supports just to help equalize the playing field. I get to know that when I feel good about my parents or grandparents being able to live their retirement years out, healthy, on a pension that was earned through hard work, most other people are in the same boat and not scrambling to subsidize three generations of their family with one job.

If someone could assure you all these things if everyone in you country participated, would you be willing to kick in 10, 20 or 30% of your earnings? As much as we love our money (and our things) what prevents this from being a viable consideration for most people? How about giving up half a work day a week (10% of earnings) and thus eliminating a 10% unemployment rate. (I know, a bit naive economically, but still...)

Is it simply a matter of trust? Let's face it, who are you willing to believe could achieve this even with a seemingly viable plan in place? In the US the polarization of Red and Blue states would make any suggestion by the "other" party anathema to half the country. In Canada, would I believe my fiscally Conservative Party Prime Minister is actually asking for a "donation" from everyone to help end poverty? Would I believe my fiscally conservative Liberal Party leader? Without trust is an end to poverty doomed?

I'm just a guy who writes a lot and doesn't end up making much sense. I'm not claiming to have answers. I'm just at a point where I'm asking more questions. But I think the pondering, in this case, is worthwhile. Because while I have some trust issues, I'm getting more ready to believe someone with a good idea than good PR.