This article is short and to the point. I'm proud to say we sent it to an elected official who said it's changed their thinking on zoning. This seems good, although I'm not exactly optimistic about anything coming of these negotiations Read the thread if you want to know more, but the upshot is: not only are cryptocurrencies monstrously wasteful, new ones are excellent opportunities to be scammed.
“In person learning is good, we should be moving towards that as fast as possible.”
While I don’t dislike in-person/traditional learning to the degree that people like @webdevMason do, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that educational institutions anywhere have adapted their pedagogy using ideas from home schooling or Montessori. They seem to have taken their existing system and Zoomed it, seemingly ignoring their new context nor adapting to it. The status quo bias is strong with this one.
I don't doubt something is possible over the web, but from an immediate policy perspective, each day of kids not in in-person classes causes real harm.
The pandemic was a forcing function on getting a lot of stuff online, and in many places it worked (to varying degrees) but so far we can see it hasn't worked for K-12 education. If someone wants to experiment further they can on smaller populations, but we shouldn't be using the entire country as our test subjects.
I agree we should be doing more at this juncture to get back to what we had to reduce as much harm as possible. What I'm suggesting, however, is that we had types of education with lots of examples of what could work given the constraints set upon us as a society, but I'm curious what halted larger adoption. Was it that teachers didn't see the benefit? Were administrators forcing them into these Zoom class structures with no leeway? Was there backlash from parents? Was it partially the federal (and some state governments') attitude that we were always a few weeks away from getting "back to normal?"
I am vaguely aware of the constraints here, but I feel that, if we were focused on reducing harm caused by stalling education, we should have been more willing to adopt novel and different ideas. Instead, we seem to have compounded the harm by making education markedly worse in this period and will have to deal with more than just the lost year of education going forward.
I don't see this is as a case of progressive thinkers using children as test subjects; we were in an emergency situation, and we hitched more horses to the cart as opposed to trying out this new-fangled internal combustion engine that seems to be selling pretty well back East.
“In person learning is good, we should be moving towards that as fast as possible.”
While I don’t dislike in-person/traditional learning to the degree that people like @webdevMason do, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that educational institutions anywhere have adapted their pedagogy using ideas from home schooling or Montessori. They seem to have taken their existing system and Zoomed it, seemingly ignoring their new context nor adapting to it. The status quo bias is strong with this one.
I don't doubt something is possible over the web, but from an immediate policy perspective, each day of kids not in in-person classes causes real harm.
The pandemic was a forcing function on getting a lot of stuff online, and in many places it worked (to varying degrees) but so far we can see it hasn't worked for K-12 education. If someone wants to experiment further they can on smaller populations, but we shouldn't be using the entire country as our test subjects.
I agree we should be doing more at this juncture to get back to what we had to reduce as much harm as possible. What I'm suggesting, however, is that we had types of education with lots of examples of what could work given the constraints set upon us as a society, but I'm curious what halted larger adoption. Was it that teachers didn't see the benefit? Were administrators forcing them into these Zoom class structures with no leeway? Was there backlash from parents? Was it partially the federal (and some state governments') attitude that we were always a few weeks away from getting "back to normal?"
I am vaguely aware of the constraints here, but I feel that, if we were focused on reducing harm caused by stalling education, we should have been more willing to adopt novel and different ideas. Instead, we seem to have compounded the harm by making education markedly worse in this period and will have to deal with more than just the lost year of education going forward.
I don't see this is as a case of progressive thinkers using children as test subjects; we were in an emergency situation, and we hitched more horses to the cart as opposed to trying out this new-fangled internal combustion engine that seems to be selling pretty well back East.
Also to be clear I didn't get a chance to read the article, which I will do and get back to this (mostly reacting to the statement).