Blurts

Amazon has announced a program, called Amazon Ignite, that will allow teachers to sell educational resources to fellow teachers. Amazon had a similar site some time ago that ended up dealing with copyright issues so the new venture will require that educators go through a vetting process and Amazon will review submissions from those selected. Amazon will take its 30% cut of revenue generated.

The EdSurge release explaining the new Amazon venture also notes that the popular Teachers Paying Teachers service has also been accused of hosting content that violated copyright. Amazon’s commitment to taking more responsibility for the content hosted will differentiate its effort.

I received notice that my Flickr Pro account comes due in about a month. I have used this service for many years. When I checked the cost, it turned out to be $50. I assumed this was for two years as it was the last time I renewed in 2017. Nope. The new owners (SmugMug) have doubled the cost. There is a free account, but that allows only 1000 photos and in twelve years I have accumulated far more images. It is not that I take so many photos, it is that I have accumulated photos over a long duration.

I already have all of my photos backed up in Google Photos. I will have to consider how much I value the full quality images Flickr allows me to store. I guess it is time to look at options. Perhaps I will take the time to outline the options I locate.

Apple executive Phil Schiller recently created a stir by claiming “Chromebooks have gotten to the classroom because, frankly, they’re cheap testing tools for required testing.” He goes on to say that “students who use them are not going to succeed.” Chromebooks have a larger share of the K12 market than Apple even when combining the investment in iPads and macs.

Would I rather use my Macbook Pro than my Google Pixelbook (the cost is close for these two machines)? I suppose, but I can do 90%+ of what I do on my Mac on a chromebook and I have tried far less expensive chromebooks that are certainly capable for my work and for nearly every K12 applications. I think a better comparison is to compare a chromebook with an iPad. For many uses, the touch screen of my chromebook and the quality keyboard meet my needs for “serious work” and efficiency. I have a keyboard for my iPad, but the keyboard in a case just is less effective for those of us who may enter text for hours a day. The touchscreen is also superior for those of us who spend hours doing background work for our writing online. When it comes down to what I do, I prefer my iPad for reading and archiving and anything with a keyboard for integrating and writing. Apple hardware is great, but the power in nearly all my tasks is dependent on access to online services and I can access this power pretty much equally from multiple platforms. The Schiller position is something I would have endorsed in the Apple/Microsoft debates of the 1990s, but online services have changed the relevance of the hardware you happen to be using.

My personal experiences are obviously different from middle school and secondary students. However, as someone who explores the tools (apps) available for both iPads and chromebooks, Schiller’s claims sound more like marketing speak than reality. If schools have purchased chromebooks so students can take standardized tests, the issue is more with the intended purpose than the limitations of chromebooks. Anyway, educators with this limited view are going to move on to inexpensive windows machines if the cost and intended application are the issues. Those of us preparing educators and working with practicing teachers are not encouraging the approach Schiller describes and we recognize the importance of being flexible enough not to promote productive activities no matter the hardware available.

I remain a big Apple fan, but I would caution Apple to come up with a different message. The portrayal of how Chromebooks are used in many classrooms is misguided and simply inaccurate. The message also comes across as elitist and out of touch.

Jimmy Wales, the wikipedia innovator, is trying to create an alternative to Facebook and Twitter. It is early days, but WT:social is up and running. Wales has been a critic and has tried before to create a better news source. That previous effort, WikiTribune, was eventually unable to attract the paid users necessary to sustain their paid journalists. If you try to join WT:Social, after registering, you will encounter what looks like the remains of WikiTribune.

I am guessing Wales believes this is the time to offer an alternative to Facebook and Twitter. The funding models that sustain these services have received a lot of negative press. There have been other efforts to generate alternatives to Facebook and Twitter (Diaspora and Mastodon) and I still make an effort to contribute to both. However, with the huge number of users already involved with Facebook and Twitter alternatives struggle. As an individual, you can move and start over, but the networks each of us have built seldom moves with us. The “network effect” for early successes is very difficult to challenge.

Wales is attempting to bootstrap this effort. He has created a small team and while taking registrations from anyone, immediate participation is guaranteed only to those who contribute. There were more than 21,000 ahead of me on the waitlist and the subscription costs were $10 a month or $100 a year. I subscribe to multiple services, but this seems a little high. As an alternative, I suppose the time users spend on Facebook and Twitter would make this seem a reasonable amount and might even be a way to understand the value of your information to Facebook and Twitter. I did make small contributions to Diaspora and Mastodon, but these were one-time contributions. I understand that these services face a chicken and egg problem, but you have to be a true believer to commit at this time.

I was driving up to the lake a couple days ago. It was a miserable, single-digit, blustery day. As I crossed under an interstate overpass, I saw a couple of guys waving large American flags to draw attention to a couple of Trump banners hung from the overpass railing. I could not disagree more with these guys political focus, but I did admire their commitment. I just don’t understand exactly what it is they are committed to.

This image came to mind when I encountered an NPR story on how classroom educators are trying to engage students over the topic of impeachment. Whether kids watch the evening news or ride in a car on the interstate, they are certainly aware of the situation. My oldest grandkids are in middle school and I know they are aware and they seem to mirror the opinions of their parents. Kids are going be in your classrooms with an awareness and opinions. Are there ways to use this situation as a learning opportunity as presented in the NPR review of teacher opinions. It certainly is an important time for thinking seriously about how our country is governed.

In an effort to offer some suggestions, I tried to find some suggestions from sources focused on integrating the situation into the curriculum.

Here is a resource from the NYTimes Learning Network. These resources both discuss the issue of whether educators should become involved with their students in discussing political issues and offers some suggested classroom tactics should teachers take on the topic.

Here are some lesson ideas for high school classes from Justice in the Classroom developed in 2015, but updated to offer pro and con positions on the Trump impeachment. The suggestions are linked to specific Virginia standards.