Addendum to Technology post

I'm adding this article that I saw today on MSNBC.com as a bonus post to go with the one about technology. It is about how the Internet is destroying all the old models of doing business.

http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/a-decade-of-destruction.html

The first decade of the new millennium saw the rise of a supremely disruptive technological force: the Internet.

By Daniel Lyons

• 
  

The Internet is everywhere

Richard Bangs / Business Wire via Getty Images

The past decade is the era in which the Internet ruined everything. Just look at the industries that have been damaged by the rise of the Web: Newspapers. Magazines. Books. TV. Movies. Music. Retailers of almost any kind, from cars to real estate. Telecommunications. Airlines and hotels. Wherever companies relied on advertising to make money, wherever companies were profiting by a lack of transparency or a lack of competition, wherever friction could be polished out of the system, those industries suffered.

Remember all that crazy talk in the early days about how the Internet was going to change everything and usher us into a brave new techno-utopia? Well, to get to that promised land, we first have to endure a period of what economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” as the Internet crashes like a tsunami across entire industries, sweeping away the old and infirm and those who are unwilling or unable to change. That’s where we’ve been these past 10 years, and it’s been ugly.

Let’s start with newspapers. You wouldn’t think that in an information age the biggest victim would be purveyors of information. But there you go. Newspapers are getting wiped out in part because they didn’t realize they were in the information business—they thought their business was about putting ink onto paper and then physically distributing those stacks of paper with fleets of trucks and delivery people. Papers were slow to move to the Web. For a while they just sort of shuffled around, hoping it would go away. Even when they did launch Web sites, many did so reluctantly, almost grudgingly. It’s hard to believe that news companies could miss this shift. These companies are in the business of spotting what’s new, right? Yet they were blind to the biggest change (and the biggest opportunity) to ever hit their own business. Watching newspapers go out of business because of the Internet is like watching dairies going out of business because customers started wanting their milk in paper cartons instead of glass bottles.

Newspapers are getting wiped out because the Internet robbed them of their mini-monopolies. For decades they had virtually no competition, and so could charge ridiculous amounts of money for things like tiny classified ads. This, we are told by people who are wringing their hands over the demise of newspapers, was somehow a good thing. Good or no, it’s gone, thanks to Craigslist, which came along and provided the same service at no charge. Whoops.

TV is in the same boat. For decades we had three big broadcast networks. They weren’t exactly a monopoly, but close enough; with so little choice, the networks could aggregate huge audiences and charge outrageous fees for advertising time. Along came cable, which brought in dozens of competitors. This hurt a little bit, but when the Internet arrived, the dam burst. Suddenly the number of “channels” soared as high as you can count. There is no limit. It’s infinite. That sudden surplus has drained ad money from TV networks, which is why TV is now jammed with low-cost junk—reality shows, cable “news” that owes more to Jerry Springer than to Walter Cronkite, Jay Leno on five nights a week in prime time—taking the place of scripted shows, which cost more to make. Basically, TV is on a race to the bottom, cutting costs to stay ahead of the destruction. This may be a short-term fix, but simply putting out a worse product is probably not the way to survive.

The music business has suffered even more. First there was Napster, distributing music at no cost. Apple’s iTunes Store offered a path to survival, but it forced the music companies to cede control of their industry to Steve Jobs. As for music retailers—remember them? Yes, children, there used to be actual stores that you could walk into and buy music, on CDs and even on vinyl record. You don’t see many of those about anymore.

As for the film industry, Apple now offers movie studios the same Faustian bargain it made with music companies: “You just focus on making movies, and let us take care of digital distribution.” But the movie guys remain wary, and at the very least would rather deal with many different digital distributors and not let any single distributor get too powerful. The studios realize that the digital revolution is disrupting their business. The best they can hope to do is slow down the disruption.

But it’s not just stodgy old-fashioned companies that have been hurt by the rise of the Internet, even tech companies suffered damage. Before the Internet came along, Microsoft ruled the computer industry. Tiny software companies lived in Microsoft’s shadow, and they knew that if their business struck gold, Microsoft would offer them an unpleasant choice: either sell your company to us for a pittance, or we’ll create software that mimics your product and put you out of business. Microsoft bullied rivals and business partners alike, until the latter squealed to the U.S. Department of Justice, which brought an antitrust case against the software giant, resulting in a judgment against Microsoft in 2002.

These days nobody fears Microsoft. The company has become a stumbling, bumbling joke. That’s not because of the government, however. What really tripped up Microsoft was the Internet. Microsoft’s business model was based around waiting for others to innovate, then making cheap knockoffs of what others were selling. Microsoft copied Apple to make Windows. They copied Lotus and WordPerfect to make Excel and Word, then bundled those apps into a low-cost suite called Office. They copied Netscape Navigator to make Internet Explorer, and then gave it away free, tied to Windows, and killed Netscape. But then the copycat model stopped working. Why? For one thing, Microsoft got slower, while everyone else got faster. The new Web-based companies, like Yahoo and Google, needed little money to get started and could scale up quickly. Google figured out keyword-search advertising and got so big so fast that Microsoft could not drag it back. Apple rolled out the iPod and then the iTunes store, and by the time Microsoft realized that selling music online was a big market, it was too late—Apple had it sewn up. The same is true of Amazon with the online retail market, and the Kindle, and its cloud-computing services.

Now Microsoft finds itself racing to catch those companies, even as it invests resources and energy into defending its money-making products like Windows and Office. It’s a case study that could have sprung from the pages of Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma. Microsoft is too big to get swept away. But it’s too wedded to the old world to make it across into the new one. It is quickly becoming irrelevant—maybe not as much as the average newspaper, but close enough.

The Internet has changed pretty much every aspect of our lives over the past decade. Is that for the better or the worse? Depends on who you ask.

Lyons is technology editor for NEWSWEEK. He blogs at Techtonic Shifts.

Neoliberalism

The subject of Neoliberalism is a frustrating one because once one understands it, they realize that both Republican and Democrat are working along the same binary, both are starting from the same presumptions, and neither even begins to address the real issues in education. In short, the two parties are busy arguing over how best to arrange the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic.

It is somewhat pointless to even think of this topic in terms of Republican and Democrat. But, as that is the easiest way for me to understand it, that is where I will start.

But first, some definitions:

Pauline Lipman defines neoliberalism as, "An ensemble of economic and social policies that promote the primacy of the market and individual self-interest, unrestricted flows of capital, deep reductions in the cost of labor, sharp retrenchment of the public sphere, and withdrawal of government from providing for social welfare." (Lipman, 45).

Michael Apple states, "For neoliberals, one form of rationality is more powerful and an "ethic of cost-benefit analysis are the dominant norms. All people are to act in ways that maximize their own personal benefits. Indeed, behind this position is an empirical claim that this is how all rational actors act." (Apple, 38).

Both definitions remind me of the insane ramblings of Ayn Rand, a person whose ideas I deeply despise. I'd rather not say any more about her.

Republicans, in general look to the market forces to solve the problems of education. Their solution to everything is to privatize, so that the rich and giant corporations can make a profit. It's already been done with many things that were once publicly controlled, such as the prison system, and to a large part, the military. George W. Bush attempted to do it with Social Security, but luckily America wasn't buying that flim-flam. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration was able to begin the process of privatizing the education system with passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, (which a disturbing number of democrats in Congress also voted for).

It is clear to me, by the rhetoric, platform, and recent candidates for president, that the Republican party is actively at war with education, while glorifying ignorance and disengagement as a virtue (i.e. Sarah Palin). An educated populace will too easily see through the Republicans' lies and ignorant fearmongering, and reject their policies as regressive and destructive to democracy. So, it is the goal of Republicans to make sure education fails as many students as possible. NCLB is designed to ensure that once schools begin to fail (as defined by low standardized test scores). They will have the excuse they need to hand the schools over to for-profit corporations, like this one, called Edisonlearning. Fortunately, it seems this particular company is beginning to be exposed for the scam that it is, as the linked article states:

"Despite initial promises of costs reductions client districts reported higher costs for their Edison schools.^[10] Edison's claims about academic improvement failed to live up to the company's promises. A July 2002 New York Times analysis of Edison's claims found that the troubled Cleveland, Ohio, school system achieved higher gains than Edison's schools when analyzed with the methodology Edison applied to its own schools' achievement.^[11]"

but that is cold comfort, because many more wait to turn education into big business. Schools will tend to their bottom line, and education will be measured in test scores and dollars. They will churn out the model Republican voters -- ignorant, uninformed, gullible and pliable, lacking even a modicum of critical thinking ability, ready to believe Glen Beck's every word.

But all that's fixed now, right? Barack Obama is president now, a Democrat, highly educated, an educator himself, he even "pals around" with the education studies scholar, Bill Ayers. Surely President Obama will repeal NCLB, and put schools on the right track. Well, not so fast, because even the Democrats are married to the neoliberal mindset. While few Democrats advocate the destructive privatization model, the public sector is often little better and bound by the same principles of neoliberalism. The public model still attempts to turn schools into test-mills, reducing education to the raw scores on high stakes tests, which can easily be compared with those of other countries and called success if they are higher. What students learn, the skills, and thinking abilities required to be an informed and aware citizen of the world is still not a factor. It is clear from President Obama's website page for education that only minor changes to the system and to NCLB are in store. This is hardly the new paradigm necessary for sweeping change.

But allow me to be clear, before this post seems too cynical. If a choice must be made between private or public versions of the neoliberal model -- public is by far the preferable. Public schools are bound by law, and must act constitutionally because they are government actors, unlike private corporations, who are only bound by a number of statutes which provide limited protection to "consumers" of education. Politicians are still, to some degree, answerable to the people, unlike the boards of directors who would run schools in a privatization model. Public schools are by far not perfect, but that is the model that has been in affect for over a hundred years. It is a model we have the power to fix, while privatization is merely surrendering education to the market.

Truly, what is necessary is a new model all together, but I have no solutions and no silver bullets for this post.

Technology in the Classroom Post 4 -- but Question 8

I just watched the short films about technology, on Youtube. I write about it now in a blog. The television is on in the background, MSNBC is interviewing an author who wrote a book called Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era. I looked that up on Amazon.com just now, and dragged and dropped the title into this blog window.

Two things on my mind right now: Last week I substituted for an Eighth Grade Spanish class. More than half the class completed the assignment using the Spanish-English Translation Application on their iphones or cellphones. When I was there age, the PC-XT was the state-of-the-art -- it was a glorified typewriter.

I edited this blog, with cuts and pastes, and misspelling are all underlined in red.

"O brave new world, That has such people in't!" -- (I looked up that quote from Shakespeare's The Tempest with a Google search, which refered me to a Wikipedia article. I know Aldous Huxley used the term expressed by Miranda in wonder as the title of his book to refer to the miraculous and terrifying world brought to us by technology. -- I confirmed that with Google as well).

And I looked up this term on Dictionary.com (a program used extensively in a Seventh grade English class I recently substituted for) -- Also copied and pasted into the blog post:


Lud·dite

(lŭd'īt) n. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. One who opposes technical or technological change.

This is the world we live in.

I am moving this post up out of the assigned order, because, at this point, I should have an overarching theme to this blog. I think the subject of technology, and the writings of James Paul Gee, and the "iLife" article by Dana Wilbur, are really exciting and define the theme I would like this blog to have.

It is clear from these articles that in many important respects, students are not getting left behind, teachers and schools are. Gee and Wilbur understand the world in which students live. It is a world of technology, where the internet and its many tools put information at our fingertips, and allow students to communicate and express creativity in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. Even writing is no longer linear, it is three dimensional and fluid, as the "The Machine is us/ing us" video illustrates.

I defined Luddite above, because that is what teachers are in danger of becoming if they close their minds to these tools of technology. There is nothing to fear by these tools, in fact, the ability of adolescents and children to master these tools is uplifting and heartening to this future teacher. As Gee points out, video games are difficult, challenging, complex, and require learning esoteric and detailed language and skills -- But our students willingly learn all these things, for fun! There is a lot to learn from these games.

It seems that students are living in the twenty-first century, readily learning the skills necessary to live in a future we cannot even imagine. But schools are stuck in the past, using techniques and teaching skills to prepare students for a world that is long gone. Our students are using computers before they can walk, but we are still teaching them to use slide-rules. It is not students who are at risk, it is schools that are in danger of becoming obsolete.

This is my theme, technology and the way it has effected teaching. Technology is our way of reaching students, motivating them, and it represents the skills they need. We will continue to teach the core subjects of of Social Studies, English, Math, Science, but all must be taught with an understanding of the tools at our students disposal, and the demands the future will place on our students. I will try to relate these concepts to the other topics going forward.

I will end this post with a short clip from the TV show South Park, which I think illustrates the potential gulf of technological knowledge between teachers and students, if we are not more willing to adapt.

Post 2 -- Trilingualism and multiple literacies

This post will discuss the the idea of "trilingualism" and "multiple literacies", specifically as these are defined by Judith Baker and Michael Stubbs. Personally, I like these ideas because they are useful and specific. It is easily defined what we mean by these concepts and they can be applied to everyday teaching.

First, Trilingualism, refers to the idea that there are three forms of the English language that Americans must learn to be fully literate:

"'Home' -- English or dialect, which most students learn at home, and recent immigrants often learn from peers, and which for the first and second generation immigrants may be a combination of English and their mother language." (Baker).

Important to understand with the home dialect, is that it is not the mother language itself, but the way in which recent immigrants, who were speakers of some other language, speak English, usually among their families and neighborhoods. This might be called "Pidgin-English" or "Broken-English", but I would discourage the use of such terms, because they imply that this English is improper, a result of poor English language skills, or poor education. That is not the case.

Such discussions are necessary in this country because we are a multi-ethnic society. English must be understood as a living, vital, and adaptive language. "Home" English represents one way in which recent immigrants have adapted English to their own use, using it in a way that has meaning for them.

"'formal' or academic English, which is learned by many in school, from reading, and from the media, although it may also be learned in well-educated families." (Baker).

Formal English could be understood as trade language, or a common language, in which we can better communicate across cultures. It is universal, but only in the arbitrary sense of it having been imposed by those in power. Understanding this English dialect allows a student to better communicate outside of his family or community.

"'Professional' English, the particular language of one's profession, which is mostly learned in college or on the job." (Baker).

We are mostly concerned with the first two, and the connection between those two is important, because we must avoid the false choice between the two. Students should not give up home English to learn Formal English. Teachers can build on Home English to teach Formal English.

The next point ties with the ideas of Michael Stubbs. Stubbs discusses the attitudes towards language. Stubbs cites studies that a "speaker's language is often a major influence on our impression of his or her personality." (Stubbs, 67). Furthermore, "teachers evaluate pupils academically on the basis of their voices, and also their physical appearance, even when they have available relevant academic work on which to form their judgments." (Stubbs, 67).

Tying this to Baker's trilingualism, Stubbs is stressing that we should not devalue a students home dialect. The home dialect serves the people who speak it. There is no such thing, as Stubbs tells us, of a Primative Language, with undeveloped grammatical rules and minimum vocabulary. Every language serves the people who speak it, or they would not speak it.

I think that the main points to take away from these articles is that we all use multiple dialects, (Trilingualism) and it is natural to code shift between them. All language and dialect is vital, living, and a part of those who speak it, and serves the people who speak it. We cannot ask students to sacrifice their home dialect to learn formal english. It is important to teach them formal english, but the best method is to build on the home dialect, while respecting and honoring the home dialect.

I will end with a quote from a work that I read for another class. It is about slavery, but I think it touches nicely on the dangers of robbing any people of their home language:

"To be forced to employ the words of another is beyond oppression as such. It represents more than a socioeconomic inversion. It goes beyond the physical. It is a violation of my psychic space, an intrusion into the deepest recesses of my being. To completely acquiesce is nearly impossible, for it would mean the total collapse of the personality. I may therefore learn a few words, and may even speak them, but I will speak them in my own way, in my own cadence, and my own meanings. And I will share this attitude with my children and my children's children. I will subvert this language." (Gomez, Exchanging our Country Marks).

1 -- E.D. Hirsch

E.D. Hirsch Jr, in the excerpt from the list "What Literate Americans Know," (audaciously) attempted to compile an exhaustive list of what is worth knowing. My first task is to compose a post on what is worth knowing, from my own view.

I started out attempting to create a Hirsch-style list of all that is worth knowing for the field of History. I spent some time outlining the different historical period, then looking over wikipedia to get a list of terms, people, events, locations, technology, theories, groups, etc., etc. etc., that was forth knowing. It was all overwhelming. I tailored the list to just American history and started again. I started with something I thought I knew a lot about -- the American Civil War. It was easy enough to create a list of major battles (Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg), and the major generals (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson), a few important politicians (Lincoln, Davis, McClellan). What about others? I added Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman, and John Brown to better include the slavery element before and during the war. What about the social element -- the draft riots in NYC, the role of immigrants in the north. The influence of the British in the South. The blockade, the Western battles that are not as well known? Where was the common soldier whose name is not recorded? Where is the human death toll? Where is the interpretation, the point of view? A list just one event could be infinite, and still would always be incomplete because it would be devoid of context and nuance, and interpretation.

Then I realized that this ludicrous endeavor had already been done. The NYS Social Studies standards is the big list that all social studies teachers in NYS must live by in order to prepare their students for the Regents Exam. It is generally lamented by teachers and future teachers that such a list forces us to "teach to the test." I think that Hirsch would generally approve of this idea, that a finite list of things worth learning has been handed down to teachers from Albany legislators, and that we must follow it because our students will be tested on it. It is not all bad, however. In addition to content-knowledge, the Standards also include skills, such Document-based research, and critical analysis of sources. The standards also help provide a framework on which form a curriculum and create lesson plans. A good teacher, I believe, can use the standards to advantage. It doesn't have to be a straight-jacket.

Recently, I had an interesting exchange with Dr. Tuck on the class discussion board regarding the finding of a middle path between Delpit and Hirsch. I will link this discussion as soon as I figure out how. I got to thinking about Hirsch again and what parts of his ideas I seem to still be clinging to. A part of me wants to defend some of Hirsch's ideas, while rejecting others. I decided to return to the Hirsch reading and see what exactly was it that I want to save, and what do I want to discard -- and once the parts I disagree with are discarded, is there anything left of Hirsch's position. In looking back at Hirsch, I stumbled onto another article by Hirsch on line that I say a little about -- and another educational theorist, Howard Gardner, who wrote a counter essay to Hirsch, whose ideas I like very much.

Those two essays can be found here.

So, taking Hirsch's "Literacy and Cultural Literacy" in a vacuum without considering any of his other writing, what is it that I agree with -- or at least seem to agree with if it's taken at face value?

First, Hirsch talks about the Illiad, and Shakespeare, and Dickens, and US Grant and RE Lee and Greek and Roman Mythology, and dozens of other examples from history and literature. The simple fact is that I like these things. I think they have value. I think that they have value even to learners from diverse backgrounds. We cannot, and should not, eliminate the work and deeds of every "dead white male" just because they are "dead white males". The goal, at least as I see it is to give the dead white males some more diverse company. "Many items of literate culture," Hirsch says, "are arbitrary, but that does not make them dispensable." (Hirsch 1988, 28).

"We know instinctively that to understand what somebody is saying, we must understand more than the surface meaning of words; we have to understand the context as well." (Hirsch 1988, 3). I agree with this, because the context comes from our shared culture. There is nothing that I find in this article that requires an abandonment of heritage culture for shared culture -- cultures can live within cultures, I think. The context comes from the shared part of our history, and it also comes from popular culture.

Hirsch quotes Sociologist Orlando Patterson in saying:

"To assume that this wider culture is static is an error; in fact it is not. It's not a WASP culture; it doesn't belong to any group. It is essentially and constantly changing, and it is open. What is needed is recognition that the accurate metaphor or model for this wider literacy is not domination, but dialectic; each group participates and contributes, transforms and is transformed, as much as any other group... The English language no longer belongs to any single group or nation. The same goes for any other area of the wider culture." (Hirsch 1988, 11).

I cannot see the problem with this idea. This seems inclusive and open-minded to me.

So, what's the matter with Hirsch? Why is he the boogie-man in so many of my classmates online discussion posts, and in-class discussions. Well, his article, linked above, "Finding the Answers In Drills and Rigor", I find very disturbingly wrongheaded. If Hirsch is advocating rote recitations of "agreed upon facts" then I definitely do not agree with him. This is the worst way to teach anything, especially history. In this article, he also defends the use of standardized tests, he states that "these tests, even in their much-maligned multiple choice forms, are highly correlated with each other and with real-world reading skills." -- This is likely only because Hirsch is self-defining the meaning of reading skills.

As I've said previously, I do not have a problem with the content that Hirsch is advocating that students learn, as long as his "list" is open-ended and willing to welcome the content of other cultures as well, on equal terms. This is something that our diverse society will constantly be doing. But, as is clear from his second article, his ideas about how this material is learned, and what we do with it is completely wrong.

The Howard Gardner article makes the important point that content is meaningless, like an unused tool, if we don't know how to think critically about the content, analyze, assess, interpret that content.

Gardner makes a very valid point, that we live in a world where content information is at our fingertips (in 1999 when he wrote this article, but certainly in 2009). We are rarely more than a few feet away from a computer hooked to the internet. Wikipedia, Google, are everyday tools that put content knowledge at out fingertips. We don't have to memorize "facts". Research doesn't require hours in the library anymore -- it requires a simple Google search.

But our technology raises a new problem, unique to the modern age, and I think Gardner's idea of critical thinking skills prepares students much more for this world than does Hirsch. We now have a problem of too much content, from too many sources. Wikipedia for example, is often criticized for being inaccurate because it is an open-community source (studies have been done that show that it is surprisingly accurate however). So what source do we trust? And how do we assess all this information? That is the skill of the 21st century that Gardner is advocating. We need interpretative and analytical skills to make sense of an over abundance of content coming from infinite sources. Those skills are much more useful than the rote memorization of "accepted facts."

So, this post is way longer than I think most of my others will be, but Hirsch has been a sticking point for me from the beginning, and I hope that I have more clearly separated those parts of Hirsch which I agree from those I do not.

Introduction

This is my first post for the graduate course at SUNY New Paltz -- Literacy for the Diverse Learner, instructor, Dr. Jessica Tuck.

The purpose of this blog, is first, to respond to Dr. Tuck's prepared questions regarding the readings for the course. Second, I would like to use of the blog posts to discuss my own understanding of the readings and to try to relate them to my own field of teaching, Social Studies. Thirdly, because it is very difficult to keep up with these blogs week to week and despite my best intentions, I am in a situation of doing a number of entries at once, I am going to try to use that to advantage. Rather than these blogs being my first impression of a weeks reading, I would like them to represent a longer term reflection -- my thoughts and questions after some time of living with the ideas in a particular reading. My initial impressions will likely come out in our weekly online and in class discussions -- I would like the blog to be something a bit different.

For example, I am still struggling, after several weeks, with how I should be thinking about E.D. Hirsch's idea of cultural literacy, and how it ties with the ideas from other readings, particularly Lisa Delpit. So in my first blog, I will try to work out for myself some of these lingering issues -- while still attempting to answer Dr. Tuck's original question for the blog.