Some Propoganda

There are some great pics over on Woot

What are we teaching and why?

A couple more public articles have reported on the announcement that Microsoft are no longer providing MS Office for Mac as part of the MS Software for Schools Agreement with the Ministry of Education.

These can be read here and here. Needless to say it has kicked up quite a storm in both the education community and the Tech community.

So here's my spin on it:
How it all worked - as I remember it, was that the government struck a deal with MS to provide a full range of software to schools - this included Visual Studio developer tools, Windows Server, as well as XP, Office, Publisher & Encarta and the like. Also included I think was office 2001 for Macs. The licensing for this was on a year by year basis, we had to fill out all the forms each year. Of course by this stage a lot of Mac schools were running OS X - and so had to pay extra to get the newly released OS X version of Office for Mac (this was free in the second year).

A few months later Apple struck a similar deal and we were all given OS X Panther and iLife for free - all we had to do was apply for it. Of course when Tiger came out we automagically got sent those disks to. (In fact they arrived at school before anybody knew we were actually getting them - just a couple of disks in a brown envelope).

So what has happened now is that the MS deal only includes the software for Windows and the OS X version of office is no longer included in the bundle. But Apple have already extended their offer to include iWork.

This has created quite a stir in the Mac Ed community. With some for and some against the move.

Somebody who I respect greatly (and is an Apple Distinguished Educator to boot) has a great response to it here

The point the original articles seems to miss (and I have argued this for years) is that the computers - and apps for that matter - that we are using today will probably be nothing like the ones children will face in 10-15 years time when they are ready to join the workforce (although Vista SP2 should just about be ready to ship).

We are not teaching children 'how' to use a computer and its programmes - most of them already know that and those that don't, quickly learn. We are trying to teach children to think and use tools that best help them to think. At least at the most basic level that is what we are endeavouring to do.

So access to MS Office isn't a pre-requisite to be able to function in the workplace - but being able to problem solve (ahh maybe that's where it comes in), think creatively, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, use sound reasoning to make decisions - are all attributes a valuable employee should have.

Unfortunately I think there are forces within the MOE that truly believe the world would be better off without Macs. The really funny thing is - if you go to any Education conference that has an ICT focus and the predominant platform is Apple-based. The movers and shakers in NZ education are the Mac based schools and we're going to take a lot to budge.

Smack Down

Yeah I know it's been a while, but hey, better late than never.

Anyway the main thing that I've been thinking about a lot lately is the so-called anti-smacking bill that is before parliament at the moment. Basically for those who aren't aware of what I'm talking about, we currently have a bill before parliament that is wanting to remove from law a clause (not sure if that is the correct term) that says parents are allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children. There have been a few cases where parents have been acquitted of child abuse because of the clause.

So of course people are up in arms about removing parents' rights to smack their children, about how this will turn parents into criminals, - the proponents suggest it will better enable us to prosecute child abusers and of course deny that it will create criminals of 'good' parents.

Well here's my opinion. I think that the bill is a waste of time, money and energy for one reason and one reason only. That is that the people who commit serious child abuse, and I mean the 'beat them senseless' couldn't give a rat's backside whether it is legal to hit their kids or not. If they did, then they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. The people that do it aren't worried that the kid is going to be taken away from them when they lash out. All they care about is making the defenceless little sod pay for whatever misdemeanor they have committed.

So OK the two major political parties have got together and made an amendment to the bill that means the police can use their discretion on whether to prosecute or not - this is supposed to appease the opposition to the bill. I call political point-scoring on this!! The amendment isn't going to prevent John & Mary Toogood from being investigated by the police and CYPFs when they give young Johnny Jnr a whack on the hand at the supermarket because he just wouldn't stop pulling things off the shelves. In fact if somebody was to complain then the police are obligated to investigate. Hands up here who wouldn't mind being part of a police investigation? Not me, that's for sure.

So once again the people who are generally lawful are going to be punished while those are breaking the law anyway couldn't care less if they have another conviction beside there name. I liken it in some ways to the micro-chipping of dogs debate, which is supposed to give us better control over dogs' whereabouts. From all I've read the dogs that are causing problems are either A: unregistered, in which case they are hardly likely to line up for microchipping or B: registered, in which case the owners are easily tracked down and prosecuted anyway - so the current system should work fine.

So back to the smacking debate. Many years ago we did away with corporal punishment in schools - teachers were no long allowed to strap or cane a child. I can't remember the reasons for this, possibly along the lines of - abusive, violence begets violence, children's rights etc, which are all very honourable reasons. The question I'd like to ask now is: How are we doing with that? Are the children of today more respectful of their teachers and for that matter anybody in authority than the children of say 20 years ago? We hear so much talk about children's rights and protecting children, that we've forgotten that they are children and as such need to understand that some things, although painful, can be instrumental in learning to be an adult that contributes to society and doesn't just take from it. Like falling out of trees, falling off bikes, and a smack on the backside for being defiant of your mother.

When an adult breaks the law, they are dealt with through the justice system and on the whole it does a reasonable job of issuing consequences for the adult's actions, whether it be a fine, community service or jail-time for the more serious offenses. However when a child does something wrong, while we are OK for the misdemeanors, the more serious offenses have been left without an equivalent consequence. As such children quickly learn that the adult they are defying are basically powerless to correct their behaviour and realise that the power has been shifted to them. Are the able to use that power sensibly - the behaviours we see in today's children would suggest not.