Massachusetts awarded $ 13 million to track student progress

from Massachusetts Dept of Education feed:

"Gov. Patrick Announces Massachusetts Awarded $13 Million Data Systems Grant" http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=5534

Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) grants awarded through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

Key points of this article:
- SDLS will be used to track student progress from pre-kindergarten through college.
- This will give educators ready access to student performance data. Will enable educators to target students individually, adapt instruction for struggling students, and close performance gaps.
- Will also enable DOE to target schools that especially need support.
- "Educators at all levels are going to be know more about what's working and what's not for their students . . . "
- Real-time access to student performance data is critical to improving overall student achievement in Massachusetts. Will provide more timely information for educators to make decisions.

My Comments:

An SDLS is badly needed. I've seen many students slip through the cracks. I'll be tutoring a 9th grade student in two weeks who is reading at a 7th grade level. SDLS is a great step towards coordinating teaching efforts.

However, I'm not sure if student data alone is enough, especially when it comes to coordinating teaching efforts. As a tutor, I get students who were doing okay with one teacher, but now are suddenly struggling with a different teacher. Same subject - different level.

I'd like to see some sort of data system that tracks student performance in relation to teachers - something that would convey whether the overall GPA of a class goes up or down depending on the teacher. I think that this needs to be factored in and might improve consistency among teachers.

I have a psychologist friend who removed her elementary aged children from the public school system because of inconsistencies among educators in their teaching methods. These inconsistencies resulted in different evaluations of her children from grade to grade. Her children are now in a private school, where they have the same teacher from Grade 1 to 8! This school is known for its academic excellence and innovation. Obviously this wouldn't be feasible at the high school level, but it does signal the need for more research in this area.

Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Not Taking Stand on Net Neutrality

Jimmy Wales' Open Internet Problem
by Art Brodsky
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3132

Apathy of big Internet companies like Google towards open Internet is the key point of this article. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales'response in interview is indicative of this apathy: Asked - Does the Internet's contribution to a new governance structure rest on "everyone having access to broadband and to a non-discriminatory Internet." Wales' response - “I have no idea. I build web sites.” Wales appeared unsure as to whether or not he favored net neutrality.

• Wikipedia would directly suffer if net neutrality not preserved, ie if telephone and cable companies impose service fees to make sure that Wikipedia pages load properly and multimedia content is not slowed down. These obstacles would deter users from contributing to Wikipedia.
• FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s plan needs public and corporate support to ensure that Internet remains open. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn is a major supporter of this plan.
• Writer Jason Rosenbaum notes that (like Wales) many companies, whose livelihood depends on Internet services, are not taking a stand on net neutrality. They need to hire lobbyists to inform Congress of importance of open Internet. Need television ads and online advertising for this cause. Need to spend some money to promote it. AT&T spent $ 6 million in first quarter of this year alone for lobbyists vs. Google spent $ 4 million in all of last year, and this was more than any other Internet company. Content providers need to take a stronger stand before Congress and FCC to protect net neutrality.

My Comments:

Surprised that Internet companies not taking a stronger position on issue of net neutrality. I would think they would, if not for any other reason than their own preservation. Broadband companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast wield a lot of power. Can't forget that the DC Court of Appeals overturned FCC decision to punish Comcast for blocking P2P applications. http://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/comcast-decision-threatens-net-neutrality-fairness-to-consumers-1.1373263#5 This leaves FCC in precarious position of not being able to regulate the broadband ISPs and opens the door for ISPs to abuse consumer use of Internet by blocking certain web applications.

Giving FCC regulatory powers over ISP seems essential to protect an open Internet. It's even been noted that Julius Genachowski's plan may not go far enough.

Comparison of money spent by AT&T vs. Google for lobbying is shocking. Wales' apathy also shocking. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but that's not the point. My freedom to contribute to Wikipedia if I want to is the point.

What Would Happen If the Internet Collapsed?

From "How Stuff Works" - http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-collapse.htm

Communication - The following would no longer be available:

• Text messaging and cell phone services
• Access to most television channels via cable and satellite (need to use antenna instead)
• SNSs - Facebook & Twitter - and instant messaging (need to write letters instead)
• Transferring files between computers (need to use CD or connect computers with cable instead)

Economic Consequences

• Electronic banking & PayPal no longer available
• Google & Amazon would become obsolete; Microsoft would suffer severely
• Manufacturing industry would lose $1.8 trillion worth of business from e-commerce
• Developed countries would suffer more economic losses than undeveloped countries

Political Consequences

• Smart grids (power grids) would be crippled, resulting in huge power outages across a country
• Intelligence agencies would not be able to share information
• Educational programs would suffer
• If military and research computer networks affected, country would be left open to attack

Good News - Internet Unlikely to Collapse because . . .

• Internet Backbone - cables and servers that carry bulk of data across networks - is not centralized
• Protocols (facilitate communication among machines) would have to fail to cause a global collapse -this is not likely
• Asteroid or comet or excessive gamma radiation could destroy Internet infrastructure, but in that case the whole Earth would be destroyed so the Internet wouldn't matter

My Response

Yikes! Hard to believe that only a few short decades ago I lived without all this stuff. I'd have no means of communication. I've disconnected my land line phone and only use my cell phone. I wouldn't be able to take this online course. There goes my master's degree. I wouldn't be able to tutor so many different subjects because I don't own a library of books for each subject and grade level. So I would be out of work. There goes my home. Thank goodness the Internet was designed so skillfully so that I don't have to lose any sleep over this. I'd forgotten how much I depend on it for even the simplest things.

Getting a Handle on the Net Neutrality Debate

I'm trying to get a handle on the pros and cons regarding net neutrality. My initial response was "Of course I want net neutrality. Who wouldn't want a free and open Internet? I don't want the ISPs making it difficult for me to visit the sites I want." But I decided to look into it a little more in order to determine if my response is valid. I went through several articles on the Internet so that I could see the debate more clearly: CNET, Bill Moyers, PublicKnowledge.org, etc. etc. etc. However, for the sake of brevity, I've only listed two articles here that caught my attention. I listed their key points along with my comments in italics. I also used the assigned readings and video as background so that I could state these points more clearly.


"FAQ: The FCC's Plan to Reclassify Broadband"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html

• FCC wants to re-classify broadband services, ie, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Communications, as a Title II service in order to preserve the principles of network neutrality. This would give FCC the right to regulate broadband services. This re-classification was prompted by courts overturning FCC's ruling to punish Comcast for slowing down access to certain P2P networks.
• If reclassified, broadband will not be subject to all the rules that the telephony companies are. Rules will be restricted to broadband transmission.
• Content providers - Google, Amazon, & e-Bay - support FCC reclassification because it supports net neutrality principles. On the other hand, Broadband providers - AT&T, Verizon Communications, Comcast - oppose it, saying that investment in infrastructure will suffer.

My comment on this article: Nice overview of the net neutrality debate. Now that I can see both sides a little more clearly, I'm sticking with my initial response. My access to the Internet should not be at the mercy of broadband providers who want to charge extra fees to content providers who make heavy use of bandwidth. I do not want ISPs determining which sites I can visit based on monetary concerns. Their argument is that they need these fees to support the broadband infrastructure. This article offers an opposing view by saying that net neutrality will enable content providers to invest in new ways to create broadband services in order to prevent their content from being controled by the major ISPs. Interesting point.

"The FCC Steps Up to Protect Net Neutrality. But Does It Go Far Enough?" http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality/

Main argument of this article - FCC's National Broadband Plan does not do enough to ensure competition among the broadband providers. Right now, broadband ISPs have virtual monopolies. Many consumers don't have the option to switch to a different ISP. According to article, the need to create competition among broadband providers makes net neutrality less of an issue because consumers could simply switch to a different ISP in a more competitive market.

My comment on this article: Excellent point. Right now, the only broadband provider that I have available in Sandwich is Comcast. I looked into Verizon, but it's not available in my area. I have not had good experiences with Comcast: Service gets interrupted, tech support is usually ineffective, and I'm paying an exorbitant fee for a slow connection. But I have no choice. It's the only ISP provider available in my area unless I want to go back to dial-up.

Is Open Source Safe?

From PC World - Security and Open Source Programs http://www.pcworld.com/article/197789/open_source_safe.html?tk=rss_howto

IT department won't let Daniel T use open source because they feel that it is a security risk. Experts at PC World reply that it is not a security risk - that it is safer than closed source programs.

Important points from this article:

Open source program (definition):

• source code open to anyone to study or improve upon
• it is free and often public domain
• Linux, OpenOffice, and Mozilla Firefox examples of popular open source programs

2 open source security programs mentioned by author: Password Safe and TrueCrypt "I wouldn't trade them for anything."

Quote from security expert Bruce Schneier (1999): "Public security is always more secure than proprietary security...For us, open source isn't just a business model; it's smart engineering practice."

PC World also notes that security of open source code enhanced because many experts examining it. This would be very expensive with proprietary software because the only people who can access the code are those on the payroll.

Makes sense to me. When I was a programmer for ACS, nobody saw our code except the programming department. When a programmer left the department, then his/her replacement had to become familiar with the code written by the previous programmer. If the code was written very badly, this could take days, weeks even. If the replacement was a contracted programmer (hired only on a job by job basis), then the cost of maintaining/updating the program skyrocketed. Also, we didn't have a lot of people checking the source code of others for quality because we didn't have the available manpower.

My point: I think that the quality of source code can be greatly improved through open source, and, hence, so can the security.