US/ND-2: re: Professional Development - comments on comments
re: Professional Development - comments on comments
Ronda Hauben (rh120@columbia.edu)
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 06:53:32 -0400 (EDT)
Responding to "Steve Kohn" <NOTES.SKOHN@A50VM1.trg.nynex.COM>
>My wife is a 2nd grade teacher. She doesn't have the time or
>inclination to develop content from resources on the Internet. All I
>do is education, and I don't see a ground swell of teachers interested
>in speeding hours on the Internet first finding data, developing it
>into useful information and then integrating it into curriculum.
But what do you see the Internet as? It has developed because
it is a means of communication, not because it is a means of
"information".
Communication means the discussion between different points of
view, one person building on what another does, someoone asking
a question or sending out a call for help and getting responses
from others, etc..
That is very different from needing someone to develop content.
For example, last term I taught an introduction to Unix class.
I wasn't sure what it made sense to teach as this was the first
time I was teaching the class. I posted on an appropriate newsgroup
and probably 10 different people responding providing me with
various kinds of help.
One person helped to sort out what it was essential to cover.
Another pointed out some www sites where there were helpful
materials I could point students to, etc.
Also, now there is a set of k-12 newsgroups that kids
and teachers can post on.
Students and teachers can regularly utilize the Internet
to communicate with the world on all sorts of issues.
See for example, chapter 2 in our online book "Netizens:
On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
The chapter "The Evolution of Usenet: The Poor Man's ARPANET"
describes how a student turned to the Net for a term paper
he was doing and all the remarkable responses he received from
around the world. It also describes how the Usenet pioneers
began Usenet as a means of poor man's networking. And it
describes how the people online gained from the time they
put into the development of Usenet and in the process contributed
the content that makes up Usenet.
>Of course, like in everything else, there are a few teachers who will
>do this and enjoy it. They might even share with other teachers. Once
>this starts to be come popular you will have companies like Scholastic
>(and they have already started - Scholastic Online) to package Internet
>based content for $$.
This is in opposition to the whole development of the Internet.
I recognize that there are those who want to turn the Internet
into a 500 channel video system or home shopping, but then it
ceases to be the important new educational media that it is.
Those teachers who find the Internet interesting will contribute
back to it. Those seeking to make money from it, can do what
they do, but it isn't that there should be public subsidy of their
efforts.
In the days of the AUP (the Acceptible Use Policy) one was expected
to contribute to the Internet and to help support and promote
educational uses. That is some of what is needed today, not public
promotion of commercializing education.
>Access should not be equated to content!
You might find it of value to read the online book we have made
available "Netizens". As it shows that in fact it is the users
who provide the content and have in the development of the Internet.
I recognize there is an effort today to change that on the part
of those promoting a commercial Internet, but that will lead to
the loss of the great social and educational value of the Internet.
(...)
>I don't know what you are referring to when you say the T.A. "... puts
>providing cut rates to businesses and subsidies to corporate entities
>above providing universal service."
>What cut rates and what subsidies?
The law provides a way for corporate users to get lower rates
as they can and have supported the so called "competition"
whereby they get lower rates.
Home users, however, do not end up with lower rates. Home users,
and in the long term, all telephone users, benefitted greatly
from having a regulated telecommunications infrastructure where
there was the obligation on AT&T to support research into new
technologies. Bell Labs inventions have greatly reduced the price
of telephone service more than any so called "competitive" marketing
will ever do.
We have all lost by the send of support for Bell Labs research.
By the FCC and other government officials supporting the short term
profit considerations of large corporate users, we have lost a
very precious resource.
Now while corporate users can negotiate for lower rates for themselves,
the home user is being left with outdated technology and now the
burden of providing subsidies to libraries and schools so they
get cheaper service.
Instead of the new Telecommunication Act providing an
extension of universal service, it is actually taking away
universal service from the home user.
(...)
>How is minimal access to the Internet being denied to the people of NYC????
>Anyone with a phone, PC, modem and an ISP has access! Most people have
>phone service. There are numerous PCs and modem vendors, and tons of
>ISPs in NYC - so what is the problem you are referring to?
There is a need to have a minimal level of access available so
people can both learn how to get online and learn how the online
communication made possible by the Internet is of value.
Maybe you don't realize that for many people the money charged
for Internet access by ISPs is a barrier to them getting online.
There have been times in my life I couldn't afford $10 a month
for online access (and with the way the economy is going in the U.S.
I anticipate that may again soon be the case.)
I was able to get online because Cleveland Freenet provided
free access and I was able to dial in on a local phone call.
(I lived in the Midwest at the time.) I had heard of Usenet
and how valuable it was, but wasn't able to commit $10 a month
to paying for access.
Others who don't have computers or modems have an even greater
barrier. There are freenets and community network programs that
gather old computers and make them available to people who
don't have computers. And they do the same for schools. Also,
through the freenets and community networks one can learn how
to get online and that makes it easier to ask the questions
of people online toward upgrading ones computer, kinds of access etc.
This is a way to get started.
>> Don't we have to sort out what is important. I recognize that certain
>> minimal sectors of the U.S. were asked what they wanted by Congress
>> when they drafted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but they left out
>> the majority of us and therefore to now go along and only discuss what
>> the telecos asked for is not going to provide what we who should have
>> been involved in the process much earlier need and have been fighting
>> for.
>Reply:
>Senators Snow and Rockefeller orginated the concept of US for Schools
>and Libraries, not the telcos. The telcos are presently meeting with
>most of the major national educational organizations to help develop
>workable US definitions and procedures.
Changing the meaning of universal service from providing access to
the home user, to providing something for schools and libraries,
is an effort to get schools and libraries to support the current
telecommunications restructuring that is at the expense of the home
user. It is not in the interests of the home user, nor of the libraries
or educational institutions.
The interests of the home user are the most important interests
and those are being left out. Therefore the telecommunications
infrastructure in the U.S. will be the looser though there may
be high profits for some teleco's (which seems their only concern,
not providing a public utility) and some cheaper rates for libraries
or some schools.