[Edu-sig] Postmortem of my OSCON talk

[Kirby Urner]

> Kirby ,
> 
> Bottom line -
> 
> and it sounds like a terrible thing to say -
> 
> I am disturbed by your enthusiasm on these subjects.
> 

Hey that's really OK.  "It is permitted to feel disturbed," as some
benevolent dictator might say.

> Because I am continually feeling myself asked to accept enthusiasm as a
> replacement for jugment - in the area of technology and education.
> 

Note that I attempt to provide a lot of context for my own judgments, in my
blogs for example.  It's pretty clear, in a lot of cases, how I arrive at
this or that position.  I am what's known as a prolific publisher in
cyberspace.

> Enthusiam may be necessary, but it certainly is not sufficient.
> 
> I am not voting up or down.
> 
> I am trying to be an enthusiastic vote for skepticism on these matters.
> Because that, frankly, is where I perceive the hole in the politic to be -
> at least at the moment.
> 

"These matters" is pretty vague, you must admit.  It seemed like we were
debating whether the attribute "open source" was important in the education
sector, and you suggested we rank it about 8th.  I might have agreed, as my
blog entry was about OSCON, the Open Source Conference (and my Fuller School
presentation therein), so of course I was harping on the open source
software (OSS) connection, even if it's not really so central.
 
But I think for other reasons (other than the fact this was OSCON) that the
open source attribute *is* higher than 8 on the list.  Because for kids,
affordability is a big variable in the equation, and translates to access.
Waiting for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to bring Windows within
reach may just not be good enough -- the wait is too long.  Your years as a
young impressionable, able to learn at wildly accelerated rates, are flying
by, and you need exposure to the relevant reading materials and command line
shells immediately.  That's where open source comes in.

Put another way, I think "open source" has always been the way of true
scholarship.  Scholars deeply believe in crediting sources, not
plagiarizing, not fobbing off the hard work of others as one's own.  That's
true in the open source culture as well.  But on the other hand, people
didn't work that hard to then *not* have their contributions used.  People
*want* their hard work to make a difference.  So scholars freely avail
themselves of the scholarship of others.  We help ourselves to one another's
offerings while acknowledging our indebtedness.  The community of scholars
is very much the progenitor of this 21st century culture of free and open
source.

The chief institution of scholars:  the library.  What does a library morph
into when its assets are digital, i.e. unlimited copies are obtainable
without decay?  You get an ongoing service, a source.  Users aren't
"borrowers" in the same sense as in the paper book era, where a failure to
return deprived other readers of opportunity.  However, users may still
"give back" to the service by contributing their own value-added, i.e. the
fruits of their own labor (i.e. private capital).

> Can we provide future generations with the realistic possiblity of
> pursuing *all* options.
> 
> Let's say we are on the same side.  The side of options.
> 
> The option of concluding that technology is unimportant in the educational
> process is the one I see closing fastest and most irretrievably.

We need a definition of technology before we go much further with this.
Paper is a technology, and not a trivial one.  The infrastructure behind
paper is huge.  Might we have education without paper?  Let's say the answer
is yes.  How about ball games?  Most schools feature those.  Aren't balls
technology?  I say they are.

You may think this is all trivial nitpicking, but I say not.

Education should prepare kids to survive and thrive in the environments
they're choosing.  If I'm going to thrive in a fishing village, I'd better
learn to mend the nets, judge currents, steer by the stars and so on.  If
I'm in a highly urbanized environment, I'd better learn to read bus
schedules, fill out forms.  If both my parents go to OSCON every year, I
might want to learn a computer language just because I want to stay in their
world -- because I like it, enjoy the people, think "hey, this is my tribe."

> So I concern myself with its advocacy.  At least until there is something
> more reasonable and substantial to discuss.
> 

I think we have many issues at least as reasonable and substantial to
discuss.  Whether education should feature any technology at all I would
rank below whether this technology should be open source, in importance
(that's in my own inbox -- your ordering may differ, apparently does).

> I think I state this concern fairly, reasonably - and sometimes - even
> without hysteria.
> 
> But I think I am nonetheless sounding somehow strange.
> 
> Which I find strange.
> 
> Art

It is sounding strange, in part because you're not doing the work to define
technology.  What should I picture?  Why would you target computers so
narrowly, as if they're the only technical objects in the room?  Many
classrooms have aquariums.  Why not target them instead?  Let's talk about
gold fish.

If a kid has a cell phone, then the school should help the kid learn how to
use it effectively, even how to program it.  

If it's an established fact that I have a computer, am curious about it,
want to learn more about what I might do with it, then I say I have a right
to expect my school to assist me (I shouldn't have to rely on the Hillsboro
Police Department, although it's willingness to assist has been welcome).  

If the school says "shut up about computers, we're going at our own pace,
covering only topics *we* think are important" then I say I should have a
better selection of schools to choose from, and/or of teachers within the
school.  That too is my right.

Kirby