The article reveals that there is a new covert social operating system for spies and members of national intelligence agencies using the same types of features found on MySpace and Facebook. A-Space, which stands for Analyst Space, is where members can swap satellite photos of nuclear sites and missile bases, as well as blog about patterns, connections, insurgent activity.
A-Space joins the spook's version of Wikipedia known as Intellipedia where intel officers pool their collective knowledge for sharing and updating.
This begs a difficult question for many within the ego-centric intelligence community who are afraid of being scooped by colleagues and will lose credit for their diligence. Of course, these same critics fail (once again) to recognize how the hoarding of intelligence and critical information leads to national tragedies (e.g., the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001).
What the article unfortunately points out is that the U.S. spy families (e.g., CIA, FBI, NSA) are dysfunctional at best. That is, besides each agency employing different operational protocols, critical information often fails to reach or circulate among those within each agency who need it most.
The hope is that an A-Space will make sharing information easier, linking 100,000 employees in the same way middle schoolers around the globe are linked via MySpace.
A critic of technology, Amy Zegart, a public policy professor from UCLA, believes that the benefits of social networking are overemphasized, and that the "most important fusion takes place inside people's brains." This may be true, but how are we going to get the right information the right people? Zegart keenly argues, given that the intelligence surrounding 9/11 existed before the attacks, what difference will the Web make?
Perhaps it's not so much a technology issue as it is a cultural issue. If a spy culture is used to operating "in the dark," how will social networking opportunities emphasizing openness and transparency change the culture? Perhaps this could be just what these bumbling, secretive agencies need -- a better way to share knowledge and communicate. Of course, just because social operating systems aid communication, it is still a GIGO issue.
Similarly, many insiders fear that a technologic solution will make sensitive intelligence open to hacking, moles, turncoats, and a confusion between "expertise" and "opinion." (Where have I heard this argument before?) Given the current U.S. governments' track record with technology, there is much to fear. Can private enterprise offer more viable solutions? (Now I sound like a Republican -- what is going on?)
I feel like many members of the edublogging community have been proselytizing the values of technology in support of education in a similar vein. Perhaps once a large number of baby-boomer spooks retire, a path will be cleared and new ways of thinking about social networking, information/knowledge management, synthesis and assessment can occur more easily. I know it's not about how old you are, but I regularly confront a generation of educators still angry about technology because they chose to remain ignorant. So I inquire: What are our options?
This video presents a perspective that is often overlooked. It is blunt. It is dripping with cynicism. And it is definitely NSFW (not safe for work).
I have been listening to George Carlin for as long as I can remember. As he has aged, he has gotten a bit more crotchety, a bit more angry. But I have a hard time blaming him for it. While I may not always agree with his views, this video says something important (in graphic detail -- read: lots of cursing) about education, power, and control.
"Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change." -- Economist Milton Friedman
Here is a trailer for a film by Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein called The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
This trailer is quite powerful rhetorically, visually, and emotionally. The authors argue that through disasters, both natural and man-made, the immediate reciprocal "shock" caused by the disaster has the power to reduce us collectively into a child-like state making us open to suggestion and manipulation, and more likely to comply with leaders claiming to protect us.
When products and markets drive every aspect of our lives, we are in deep trouble as a society. The film suggests that through the adoption of Milton Friedman's economic theory of free market capitalism, we, as a society, are reduced to child-like states of helplessness in the aftermath of natural disasters and wars. In the wake of our collective helplessness and psychological stress, laws are passed to enable and extend corporate interests as opposed to the best interests of the people.
Luckily, there seems to be a glimmer of hope at the end of this film. And that glimmer rests in our ability to talk to one another, to communicate, to organize, to publish and share our often under-represented points of view. As Klein argues, shock is only a temporary state. And the best way to resist shock is "to know what is happening to you and why."
The free market is not about freedom and democracy; it's about the economically powerful maintaining control of their power. This is why noted personalities like Tim Berners-Lee (net neutrality) and Larry Lessig (digital rights advocacy) have clearly been arguing much more vociferously as of late. And with good reason. The softer we become to the free market's crusade, the more likely we are to have our rights as individuals and as a society stripped away.
So what can you do? How have you "armed" yourself? I'd be curious to know.
While I do not condone what happened here on the campus of the University of Florida, far too many people are spinning the situation out of control without having all of the facts in front of them (see The Gainesville Sunvideo and comments). This is indeed a complex situation that deserves time and meaningful attention given the ramifications of free speech, human rights, and police brutality.
Luckily for us at UF, this situation will not go away with the next sensational attention grabbing news event (e.g., can the media focus on health care for more than one day?). Here at UF, the media, students, and administrators will continue to work on getting a better sense of what happened, why it happened, and what we can do to prevent something like this from happening again.
I have wanted to speak up yet I feel I need to be careful as I have only a partial understanding of the facts and events surrounding the Tasering of Mr. Meyer. I found the video clip from Stephen Colbert posted above an interesting slant worth sharing. While Mr. Colbert regularly wags his parodic finger, his nod to student indifference in an age of entitlement is rather thought/discussion provoking.
So rather than marching in the streets, I have succumb to blogging about it -- more fodder for Mr. Colbert's canon [sic]. As always, your thoughts and opinions are welcome.
ESchool News points to a story that is bound to raise the hackles of many. Starting with this misleading headline, "Parents, kids don't see need for math, science skills," the article focuses on a report titled, "Important, But Not for Me: Parents and Students in Kansas and Missouri Talk About Math, Science, and Technology Education." The report, commissioned as part of a $25 million, 10-year initiative by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to improve math, science, and technology (MST) education throughout the Kansas City area, suggests that the "2,600" parents and students surveyed clearly understand the importance of math, science, and technology skills -- they simply do not see it as important for themselves.
The report was compiled by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan opinion research organization. They include in their report details of their data collection methods lending a certain level of validity to their findings.
Interestingly enough, I found it a bit odd that Public Agenda offers a video on it's site that argues for the critical importance of math, science, and technology education in Kansas and Missouri:
This led me to wonder why a self-proclaimed, nonpartisan research organization would provide a video outlining the importance of math, science, and technology education on a site offering a "non-biased report" about parents and students being unenthusiastic about math, science and technology skills?
In then struck me that Public Agenda clearly has an agenda on controversial topics. As a matter of fact, Public Agenda has a clear agenda about many topics including abortion, child care, the economy, the environment, gay rights, immigration, medical research, race and many others. I am not writing today to take issue with Public Agenda's agenda, but I am concerned about the credulity of their research given their claim of unbiasedness.
If we look at their methodology section provided with the report, we can see that they based their findings on three data sources: (1) a telephone survey consisting of "over 50 questions" presented to 1,295 participants; (2) 12 focus groups composed of different teacher, student, and parent groupings; and (3) 15 "expert" interviews. What we don't know is how the focus groups were selected, as well as what counts as "expert" status, and who selected the experts.
This then leads me to wonder about the accuracy of the research findings. There is no mention in the report about the triangulation of data. In other words, how do the three data sources combine to support the findings and conclusions?
Luckily, you don't need an advanced degree in science, mathematics, or technology to review the full survey results (.pdf) which are provided on the report's website. Here we are able to see how the questions are framed (e.g., positively, negatively, neutrally) as well as the response percentages.
On page 2 (item 6) of the questionnaire I noticed that the respondents seem to show a strong agreement about the importance of understanding advanced sciences like physics (23% reporting "absolutely essential" and 63% reporting "important but not essential"). A complex issue the report seems to focus on is the categorical distinction between "absolutely essential" and "important, but not essential." Is the notion of importance clearly different from the notion of essential? Well, that depends. Both connote significance and authority, yet "essential" connotes an absolute necessity which is not quite conveyed in the notion of importance. Plus the category clearly states, "important, not essential" so as not to confuse respondents. In this context, essentiality carries much weight. Either science or mathematical skills are critical or not so critical. This framing reminds me of the essential nature of the boiling point of water. At 100 degrees celsius, water is said to be at the boiling point. At 99 degrees celsius, it's near boiling, but not technically boiling. Are they both extremely hot to the touch? Yes. Will they both cook my pasta at about the same rate? Yes. But one is boiling and the other is close to boiling, but not officially boiling. Does this seem relatively banal? Am I splitting hairs? You bet. Does the questionnaire split hairs by asking respondents to categorize answers as "essential" and "important, but not essential"? Perhaps.
For some one who never took physics or never had a good physics teacher probably is not aware of the role physics plays in their daily lives. Thus they might be inclined to down play the essential need of a solid understanding of physics. For some one who had a great physics experience, perhaps then physics would be an essential part of their child's curriculum. Is this splitting hairs or does it point to the situated nature of decision-making?
If asked if I think it is important for my kids to go to school and take advanced physics or calculus, I would ask my children if this is something that interested them. If not, I would say, no, they do not need these courses in high school. If my daughter said she wanted to build bridges for a living, I would think physics and calculus would be quite important for her to understand. Would I expect her high school to do the job of educating her appropriately? To be honest, I would hope so, but sometimes I just don't know if I believe so.
I find that, with the exception of my daughter's international baccalaureate (IB) program, most of the secondary schooling my boys have received has been close to rubbish. I think this can be traced back to the tracks that children are assigned to early on in their academic life. If your child is assigned as "gifted" then education is often framed in terms of being playful and adventurous. If they are assigned to a general curriculum, then make way for a monotonous skill and drill train that regularly takes all the fun and excitement out of learning. Even my children's advanced coursework was relatively tedious overall. Again, with the exception of my daughter's IB program, my sons teachers rarely worked as a team in constructing lessons and activities. It was each teacher for themselves, damn the rest.
Two of my favorite questions, 21 and 22 (page 6), ask, "When compared with other teachers your child has this year, would you say that your child's current MATH/SCIENCE teacher is: especially good, average, below average, don't know." For math teachers, respondents reported 43% especially good, 43% average, 10% below average, and 3% don't know. So what does this say about the way parents and students feel about their mathematics teacher? So-so? How do we judge our children's teachers? Do we spend time in the classroom? Do we take the word of our children? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. I applaud those respondents who report "don't know." This tells me they do not have enough information to make an informed decision. These are the parents whose opinion could potentially be most valid. However, we could also say with some reliability that most people make decisions off the tops of their heads without gathering all the facts, and thus this survey clearly reveals this condition.
In the end, the Important, But Not for Me report shows us that parents have different opinions and understandings about schooling. Surprised? Public education is a complex enterprise where some individuals come out ahead, others behind. Will this ever change? Can it be changed? At some micro and meso levels, yes. But again, it depends on the collective effort of individuals in their community. Regulating education sounds good on paper, but the everyday realities of life make that a much more political and thus difficult enterprise.
The article reveals that there is a new covert social operating system for spies and members of national intelligence agencies using the same types of features found on MySpace and Facebook. A-Space, which stands for Analyst Space, is where members can swap satellite photos of nuclear sites and missile bases, as well as blog about patterns, connections, insurgent activity.
What the article unfortunately points out is that the U.S. spy families (e.g., CIA, FBI, NSA) are dysfunctional at best. That is, besides each agency employing different operational protocols, critical information often fails to reach or circulate among those within each agency who need it most.
I feel like many members of the edublogging community have been proselytizing the values of technology in support of education in a similar vein. Perhaps once a large number of baby-boomer spooks retire, a path will be cleared and new ways of thinking about social networking, information/knowledge management, synthesis and assessment can occur more easily. I know it's not about how old you are, but I regularly confront a generation of educators still angry about technology because they chose to remain ignorant. So I inquire: What are our options? 
Luckily, there seems to be a glimmer of hope at the end of this film. And that glimmer rests in our ability to talk to one another, to communicate, to organize, to publish and share our often under-represented points of view. As Klein argues, shock is only a temporary state. And the best way to resist shock is "to know what is happening to you and why."
ESchool News points to a 
On page 2 (item 6) of the questionnaire I noticed that the respondents seem to show a strong agreement about the importance of understanding advanced sciences like physics (23% reporting "absolutely essential" and 63% reporting "important but not essential"). A complex issue the report seems to focus on is the categorical distinction between "absolutely essential" and "important, but not essential." Is the notion of importance clearly different from the notion of essential? Well, that depends. Both connote significance and authority, yet "essential" connotes an absolute necessity which is not quite conveyed in the notion of importance. Plus the category clearly states, "important, not essential" so as not to confuse respondents. In this context, essentiality carries much weight. Either science or mathematical skills are critical or not so critical. This framing reminds me of the essential nature of the boiling point of water. At 100 degrees celsius, water is said to be at the boiling point. At 99 degrees celsius, it's near boiling, but not technically boiling. Are they both extremely hot to the touch? Yes. Will they both cook my pasta at about the same rate? Yes. But one is boiling and the other is close to boiling, but not officially boiling. Does this seem relatively banal? Am I splitting hairs? You bet. Does the questionnaire split hairs by asking respondents to categorize answers as "essential" and "important, but not essential"? Perhaps. 
I find that, with the exception of my daughter's 
