US/ND-2: re: Professional Development - comments on comments
re: Professional Development - comments on comments
Ronda Hauben (rh120@columbia.edu)
Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
>In reading the response to "creating materials" for the Net, there is a
>critical point that is missing. The K12 environment is not the same as the
>university. Most teachers are responsible for 120 students a day. The
>number of computers with Internet access is small. I would even guess that
But what then are you proposing will be done with Internet access?
In 1988 I went to give a talk on the history of computers at an
educational conference in Cleveland. A Cleveland teacher was assigned
to introduce me and chair my session. In talking with her I learned
that her students had gotten connected to the educational network
on Cleveland Freenet and that they were really excited about being
connected.
>the number of students who have their own email is limited. To suggest
>that this group, under its present setup, is ready and able to take on
>the task of creating materials, is to not consider the school culture
>that teachers and students live in.
Then isn't the objective to increase the number of students who
have their own email? And to increase the number of home users
who have their own email?
What materials are you referring to?
>Therefore when we discuss what "universal service" should look like,
>until we consider the reality of the K12 environment, I worry that we are
>a bunch of outsiders making pronouncements about how teachers should run
>their schools.
>-mario zinga
It seems right that no one here should be talking about "how teachers
should run their schools."
Since you didn't quote what comments in the discussion you were referring
to in your response it is hard to know what you are saying.
I agree for sure that it doesn't seem that the FCC should be concerned
with educational questions. That would seem more appropriately
the purvue of the U.S. Dept of Educ. or the NSF, etc. Are you saying
that there should be provisions made by the FCC to fund commercial
educational packages?
It doesn't seem that that should be within the mandate of the FCC.
Also, the reality of "universal service" has to first concern the home
user and providing access to phones and to the Internet to the home user
at a minimal cost. Otherwise it's not universal service, but something
else. It is also important that the K12 environment get connected to the
Internet, but how that happens would seem more appropriately a concern
for the NSF and the U.S. Dept of Educ.
Instead of commercializing the NSFbackbone and providing all kinds
of financial subsidies for uses for the Internet for business purposes,
the U.S. government should be focusing attention on funding pilots
regarding educational and school use of the Internet.
When I was at the Internet Conference in Montreal in June (INET '96)
there were many Canadian government officials talking about the important
educational importance of the Internet and how they were funding
programs to connect the schools to the Internet. It didn't seem that
they had abolished universal service to the homes and tried to replace
it by discussing how to connect schools and libraries. But they were
raising the issues of how to connect schools and libraries and also
home users.
There is a rich history of how the Net was built to build on with
regard to how to get all sectors of society in the U.S. connected
to the Internet. However, that doesn't seem to be the current
U.S. govt. political agenda and instead there seem to be deregulation
of the telephone infrastructure (and thus deterioration of it) just at
a time there is a need for the kind of broad based regulation
that help spread telephone access in the U.S. to be applied to
the spread of the Internet.
However, instead the phone regulations are being dismantled and
therefore there seems the real danger that Internet access will
become more expensive and difficult as a result, rather than
spreading access.
Ronda
rh120@columbia.edu