Difference between revisions of "Classrooms of the Past"
From ThePlaz.com
(finish up 1st draft) |
(2nd draft) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Draft}} | {{Draft}} | ||
| − | [[Haverford High School]] currently has a technology policy which prohibits external electronic devices from connecting to their network and being used during class. This policy is hypocritical | + | [[Haverford High School]] currently has a technology policy which prohibits external electronic devices from connecting to their network and being used during class. This policy is hypocritical because they have accepted over $200 million as part of a "Classrooms of the Future" program to purchase technology for classrooms. However, they prohibit students from using technology which students bring to school themselves. This sends a powerful message of hypocrisy related to the use of technology in school. |
| − | Recently, Ms. Reilly, my [[English 11]] teacher assigned the class to read a passage from a poem. She told students to look up words that they did not know. When I came across a word I did not know, I looked it up on my Nokia N800 internet tablet. The N800 is like a small laptop which fits in your pocket. Ms. Reilly asked me to put it away. She did not care that I was using it for school purposes and following her directions. When I asked her for a old-fashioned "dead tree" dictionary, I was told that there was none, and | + | ==Anecdote== |
| + | Recently, Ms. Reilly, my [[English 11]] teacher assigned the class to read a passage from a poem. She told students to look up words that they did not know. When I came across a word I did not know, I looked it up on my Nokia N800 internet tablet. The N800 is like a small laptop which fits in your pocket. Ms. Reilly asked me to put it away. She did not care that I was using it for school purposes and following her directions. When I asked her for a old-fashioned "dead tree" dictionary, I was told that there was none, and I was to look the word up at home. Ms. Reilly is a recipient of a "Classrooms of the Future" grant. In this case, she was discretionally following orders. | ||
| − | Haverford's policy also restricts students from using electronic devices as personal organizers. Some students have expressed | + | ==PDAs== |
| + | Haverford's policy also restricts students from using electronic devices as personal organizers. Some students have expressed that they wish to carry PDAs or use their cell phones to keep a calender. However, under under current school rules, students are forbidden to organize their lives on electronic devices during school. The school provides paper organizers each year, but electronic calenders can be shared and kept up to date easier. The real power of electronic calenders comes from their ability to be viewed and updated in multiple places. The principal uses an electronic calender to make appointments. | ||
| − | While | + | ==Classroom Distractors== |
| + | While the school's worry about electronic devices in class is understandable, discretion should be allowed according to the current circumstances. | ||
| − | In addition it would up to the students to use | + | In addition, it would up to the students to use their devices appropriately. Just as it is inappropriate for a student to read a book while the teacher is talking, it is unacceptable for a student to be text messaging or surfing YouTube during class. The school does not ban books merely because they could be a potential distractor during class, so it should not ban electronic devices. Teachers should guide students about acceptable usage, rather than prohibiting all useage. Some students already understand what is acceptable. They should not be restricted because others do not know how to behave. |
| + | ==Internet== | ||
Electronic devices should be able to use the school's internet connection to access the internet. Security is concern regrading this. However, student-brought devices contain no additional security risks against network attacks than school-purchased laptops. Any security devices on client machines could be bypassed by using seperate, bootable operating systems. These operating systems could be configured to run the same software which could be installed on non-restricted computers, such as the ones students would bring. | Electronic devices should be able to use the school's internet connection to access the internet. Security is concern regrading this. However, student-brought devices contain no additional security risks against network attacks than school-purchased laptops. Any security devices on client machines could be bypassed by using seperate, bootable operating systems. These operating systems could be configured to run the same software which could be installed on non-restricted computers, such as the ones students would bring. | ||
| + | ===Insecurity=== | ||
In addition, the current wireless network uses out of date, and insecure methods of encryption, or none at all. However any wireless encryption could be bypassed by merely plugging a computer in to a orange Ethernet port. Thus, student-provided electronic devices provide no additional security risk of network-based computer attacks. These risks are better addressed by punishing those who try to take advantage of the system, rather than block it out. | In addition, the current wireless network uses out of date, and insecure methods of encryption, or none at all. However any wireless encryption could be bypassed by merely plugging a computer in to a orange Ethernet port. Thus, student-provided electronic devices provide no additional security risk of network-based computer attacks. These risks are better addressed by punishing those who try to take advantage of the system, rather than block it out. | ||
Additional security measures should not be implemented to further restrict the access of devices to the internet. The network exists at school to help the educational process, not be a model of iron-clad security. | Additional security measures should not be implemented to further restrict the access of devices to the internet. The network exists at school to help the educational process, not be a model of iron-clad security. | ||
| − | Thus Haverford High School should end the hypocrisy of electronic devices and provide a policy in which students, with the permission of teachers, | + | ==Conclusion== |
| + | Thus Haverford High School should end the hypocrisy of electronic devices and provide a policy in which students, with the permission of teachers, can leave the "classroom of the past" and enter into the "classroom of the future". | ||
-Michael Plasmeier | -Michael Plasmeier | ||
{{Personal Philosophies}} | {{Personal Philosophies}} | ||
Revision as of 00:28, 7 December 2007
Only a DRAFT!
May change/be updated - still in progress - may still contain inaccuracies
Haverford High School currently has a technology policy which prohibits external electronic devices from connecting to their network and being used during class. This policy is hypocritical because they have accepted over $200 million as part of a "Classrooms of the Future" program to purchase technology for classrooms. However, they prohibit students from using technology which students bring to school themselves. This sends a powerful message of hypocrisy related to the use of technology in school.
Anecdote
Recently, Ms. Reilly, my English 11 teacher assigned the class to read a passage from a poem. She told students to look up words that they did not know. When I came across a word I did not know, I looked it up on my Nokia N800 internet tablet. The N800 is like a small laptop which fits in your pocket. Ms. Reilly asked me to put it away. She did not care that I was using it for school purposes and following her directions. When I asked her for a old-fashioned "dead tree" dictionary, I was told that there was none, and I was to look the word up at home. Ms. Reilly is a recipient of a "Classrooms of the Future" grant. In this case, she was discretionally following orders.
PDAs
Haverford's policy also restricts students from using electronic devices as personal organizers. Some students have expressed that they wish to carry PDAs or use their cell phones to keep a calender. However, under under current school rules, students are forbidden to organize their lives on electronic devices during school. The school provides paper organizers each year, but electronic calenders can be shared and kept up to date easier. The real power of electronic calenders comes from their ability to be viewed and updated in multiple places. The principal uses an electronic calender to make appointments.
Classroom Distractors
While the school's worry about electronic devices in class is understandable, discretion should be allowed according to the current circumstances.
In addition, it would up to the students to use their devices appropriately. Just as it is inappropriate for a student to read a book while the teacher is talking, it is unacceptable for a student to be text messaging or surfing YouTube during class. The school does not ban books merely because they could be a potential distractor during class, so it should not ban electronic devices. Teachers should guide students about acceptable usage, rather than prohibiting all useage. Some students already understand what is acceptable. They should not be restricted because others do not know how to behave.
Internet
Electronic devices should be able to use the school's internet connection to access the internet. Security is concern regrading this. However, student-brought devices contain no additional security risks against network attacks than school-purchased laptops. Any security devices on client machines could be bypassed by using seperate, bootable operating systems. These operating systems could be configured to run the same software which could be installed on non-restricted computers, such as the ones students would bring.
Insecurity
In addition, the current wireless network uses out of date, and insecure methods of encryption, or none at all. However any wireless encryption could be bypassed by merely plugging a computer in to a orange Ethernet port. Thus, student-provided electronic devices provide no additional security risk of network-based computer attacks. These risks are better addressed by punishing those who try to take advantage of the system, rather than block it out.
Additional security measures should not be implemented to further restrict the access of devices to the internet. The network exists at school to help the educational process, not be a model of iron-clad security.
Conclusion
Thus Haverford High School should end the hypocrisy of electronic devices and provide a policy in which students, with the permission of teachers, can leave the "classroom of the past" and enter into the "classroom of the future".
-Michael Plasmeier
Ideas and Truths I hold about the world
- Just Do It Efficiency
- English: The Primary Language
- Privacy is Dead
- The Essential Separation Between Church and State
- Dangers of Hazing
- Website Mission Statement
- Testing: Class Discussion vs Universal Knowledge
- Classrooms of the Past: Personal Electronic Devices in School
- Wikis: Changing Collaboration for Group Projects
- Change and Risk: Office Politics
- Why Wikis Rock
- more small ones
Email Me
