RE: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Thinking Ahead.... Notes from a smal l school
I still find this philosophy puzzling. Given that schools ICT involves providing systems for people who, in the main, are several years away from full-time employment, why do some schools feel it necessary to restrict themselves to the systems in use by businesses today?
I am following this thread with interest as someone who uses Linux myself at home and at school, but has stuck *largely* to Microsoft products for most teaching purposes. What follows is a Linux v. Microsoft argument of the sort I'm sure most of you have seen repeatedly. I don't feel restricted: I use lots of products. But if we succeed in educating students to use computers, that implies doing coursework in a whole range of disciplines in school. Key skills and all that? We have two philosophies: those who want to integrate IT into school life, where ease of use is paramount; and those who want to prepare for an uncertain future where it's important to look at alternatives. Given this is a linux-based thread, the latter predominates this group. The problem is simple: most schools don't have time to do both; some don't have enough time or money to do one as well as they'd wish. The decision to base most instruction on particular products is a pragmatic one for many schools. Students wish to work at home, at school, and transfer files about. I work in a boarding school where significant numbers of pupils bring machines into school. We looked at Acorns, Macs, PCs as possible platforms, and came down on the PC side precisely because parents can provide Windows/Office at home. This was of course well before Linux became a viable alternative... However I have some students with Macs and Linux machines, and that's no problem. They know what's going on and are capable of transforming disks and files from format to format. However the lumpenproletariat prefer to stay firmly on the shore (rocky or otherwise). The arguments over Office compatibility are spurious. Yes, Star office can read MS office files. However that doesn't extend to making sense of embedded objects like charts and graphs, making the exchange between the two much less suitable for serious use. [no doubt someone will tell me I'm wrong in this and I just don't know how to do it properly. Please do!] Now for the 'years away from employment' argument. No: some students will leave school and go straight into using IT seriously. We don't have time to teach to professional standards (how acceptable are ECDL and CLAIT or a GCSE?) but what experience such students pick up at school can make a significant difference. Most Universities expect pupils to arrive with sufficient skills to use machines from the moment they arrive. Yes, many more universities use Unix, but we are still referring to basic abilities rather than technical skills. There is just as much reason to teach someone word-processing using MS Word as any other package. Reasons for teaching generic word-processing should not be seen as bashing any one particular product. If you argue that we should not use industry-standard products you are on shaky ground: I have used Word in particular since version 1 and it's recognisably the same product. It's unlikely to change significantly in its next iterations (as far as most users are concerned). I realise exactly the same argument appies to *any* of the popular word-processors. I believe experience my students pick up at the age of 14-16-18 *will* impinge on the early parts of their careers in business or at University. If you deny that, you are saying we might as well use Wordwise on a BBC. </troll> The argument surely isn't about 'industry standard' it's about the functionality and compatibility of product A against product B? There, I feel better now. Feel free to pile in! -- ******************************************************************************** All mail sent and received may be examined to prevent transmission of inappropriate attachments and certain obscenities. Wellington College does not accept responsibility for email contents. Problems to postmaster@wellington-college.berks.sch.uk. ********************************************************************************
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Grainge, Derek wrote:
We have two philosophies: those who want to integrate IT into school life, where ease of use is paramount; and those who want to prepare for an uncertain future where it's important to look at alternatives. Given this is a linux-based thread, the latter predominates this group.
I'd like to claim allegiance to both philosophies, please! They are not mutually exclusive.
The problem is simple: most schools don't have time to do both; some don't have enough time or money to do one as well as they'd wish.
*cough* Managed service *cough* :-)
The arguments over Office compatibility are spurious. Yes, Star office can read MS office files. However that doesn't extend to making sense of embedded objects like charts and graphs,
Does when I've tried it. Many times. Using documents that people have sent me blindly assuming that I will have MS Office.
Now for the 'years away from employment' argument. No: some students will leave school and go straight into using IT seriously. We don't have time to teach to professional standards (how acceptable are ECDL and CLAIT or a GCSE?) but what experience such students pick up at school can make a significant difference.
You seem almost to be advocating training instead of education. If you have taught someone how to use a word processor, they will be able to use MS Word. Ditto spreadsheets and MS Excel, databases and MS Access, etc. The converse is not necessarily true - if, for example, you have only trained someone how to use MS Access then they will not necessarily know how to construct a query using another database access tool.
Most Universities expect pupils to arrive with sufficient skills to use machines from the moment they arrive. Yes, many more universities use Unix, but we are still referring to basic abilities rather than technical skills. There is just as much reason to teach someone word-processing using MS Word as any other package. Reasons for teaching generic word-processing should not be seen as bashing any one particular product.
As far as I recall, no-one has been bashing MS Word. The argument is that since you aim to teach generic word-processing, it is not *necessary* to use MS Word.
If you argue that we should not use industry-standard products you are on shaky ground:
Again, the argument is not that we "should not use industry-standard products", it is that we are not *constrained* to use only 'industry-standard' products. (BTW, it would be difficult to claim that Word has been 'industry-standard' since version 1!)
I have used Word in particular since version 1 and it's recognisably the same product. It's unlikely to change significantly in its next iterations (as far as most users are concerned). I realise exactly the same argument appies to *any* of the popular word-processors. I believe experience my students pick up at the age of 14-16-18 *will* impinge on the early parts of their careers in business or at University.
Yes - if they have been educated (rather than trained) then they will be well-equipped to use whatever systems and new applications are thrown at them.
If you deny that, you are saying we might as well use Wordwise on a BBC. </troll> The argument surely isn't about 'industry standard' it's about the functionality and compatibility of product A against product B?
Well, on functionality I have never noticed any significant differences between e.g. MS Office and StarOffice. Except that one has a well though-out, context-sensitive help system and the other has an annoying little animated paperclip! Compatibility with what? You can't have "compatibility of product A" - on its own; you need something for it to be compatible with. Compatible with applicable open standards? Compatible with the file formats of other applications doing the same job? Compatible with various operating systems? Michael Brown Fen Systems Ltd.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:01:57PM -0000, Grainge, Derek wrote:
I still find this philosophy puzzling. Given that schools ICT involves providing systems for people who, in the main, are several years away from full-time employment, why do some schools feel it necessary to restrict themselves to the systems in use by businesses today?
I am following this thread with interest as someone who uses Linux myself at home and at school, but has stuck *largely* to Microsoft products for most teaching purposes. What follows is a Linux v. Microsoft argument of the sort I'm sure most of you have seen repeatedly.
I don't feel restricted: I use lots of products. But if we succeed in educating students to use computers, that implies doing coursework in a whole range of disciplines in school. Key skills and all that?
We have two philosophies: those who want to integrate IT into school life, where ease of use is paramount; and those who want to prepare for an uncertain future where it's important to look at alternatives. Given this is a linux-based thread, the latter predominates this group.
The problem is simple: most schools don't have time to do both; some don't have enough time or money to do one as well as they'd wish.
Schools should concentrate on providing pupils with a basic understanding of computing allied with some core skills. These core skills should not, as another poster put it, include `turd polishing'. It should include an understanding of file management and portability issues. How many times have I heard of university lecturers complaining that under-grads don't even understand what a directory tree is? How many times have I heard of people losing all their work because they haven't backed it up and they've kept all their work in a single directory which has been accidentally deleted? How many kids can use zip or another archiver? How many comprehend that not all machines can read .docs but they can read ascii?
The decision to base most instruction on particular products is a pragmatic one for many schools. Students wish to work at home, at school, and transfer files about. I work in a boarding school where significant numbers of pupils bring machines into school. We looked at Acorns, Macs, PCs as possible platforms, and came down on the PC side precisely because parents can provide Windows/Office at home. This was of course well before Linux became a viable alternative... However I have some students with Macs and Linux machines, and that's no problem. They know what's going on and are capable of transforming disks and files from format to format.
I understand your pragmatic approach, but if I had my way I'd only allow pupils to use simple tools such as text editors in class to write up work, the same text editor to do their email etc. they can then do their polishing in their own time with machines set aside for the task or at home. You shouldn't have to teach them to wordprocess, they can find out how to do it for themselves either from resources online or from a library; after all, shouldn't they be encouraged to find out for themselves and read documentation? Most kids seem oblivious as to where to find information let alone make use of it.
However the lumpenproletariat prefer to stay firmly on the shore (rocky or otherwise).
These proles need a kick up the arse.
The arguments over Office compatibility are spurious. Yes, Star office can read MS office files. However that doesn't extend to making sense of embedded objects like charts and graphs, making the exchange between the two much less suitable for serious use. [no doubt someone will tell me I'm wrong in this and I just don't know how to do it properly. Please do!]
You say that Office compatibility issues are spurious after advocating the use of it for compatibilty reasons!?! As I say, they shouldn't be mucking around with graphs and other embedded content in class time and they shouldn't be mucking around with a wordprocessor period.
Now for the 'years away from employment' argument. No: some students will leave school and go straight into using IT seriously. We don't have time to teach to professional standards (how acceptable are ECDL and CLAIT or a GCSE?) but what experience such students pick up at school can make a significant difference.
Most Universities expect pupils to arrive with sufficient skills to use machines from the moment they arrive. Yes, many more universities use Unix, but we are still referring to basic abilities rather than technical skills. There is just as much reason to teach someone word-processing using MS Word as any other package. Reasons for teaching generic word-processing should not be seen as bashing any one particular product.
Universities are finding that pupils arrive with an ability to use a word-processor but no basic abilities or technical skills. Cut out the word-processing and teach them *real* skills and employers and universities would be a lot happier.
If you argue that we should not use industry-standard products you are on shaky ground: I have used Word in particular since version 1 and it's recognisably the same product. It's unlikely to change significantly in its next iterations (as far as most users are concerned).
You're wrong, it's not recognisably the same product. The format in which it saves files has changed a number of times to ensure that users are forced to upgrade the product if they want to read the latest format. To be complicit in this scam and encourage people to use the product is negligent, parents and kids should not be wasting their money on it. If they want a word-processor then point them towards a free one.
I realise exactly the same argument appies to *any* of the popular word-processors. I believe experience my students pick up at the age of 14-16-18 *will* impinge on the early parts of their careers in business or at University.
Yes it will impinge on the early parts of their careers, unfortunately what they're picking up at school is how to buff-up turds until they can see their reflections in them. Lets teach them something useful. -- Frank *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* | Boroughbridge | Tel: 01423 323019 | PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 | *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Grainge, Derek wrote:
The arguments over Office compatibility are spurious. Yes, Star office can read MS office files. However that doesn't extend to making sense of embedded objects like charts and graphs,
Does when I've tried it. Many times. Using documents that people have sent me blindly assuming that I will have MS Office.
Sometimes better than the "wrong" version of Office... The problems with MS Office compatibility between versions, even between different installs in the same version are very real.
Now for the 'years away from employment' argument. No: some students will leave school and go straight into using IT seriously. We don't have time to teach to professional standards (how acceptable are ECDL and CLAIT or a GCSE?) but what experience such students pick up at school can make a significant difference.
You seem almost to be advocating training instead of education. If you have taught someone how to use a word processor, they will be able to use MS Word. Ditto spreadsheets and MS Excel, databases and MS Access, etc. The converse is not necessarily true - if, for example, you have only trained someone how to use MS Access then they will not necessarily know how to construct a query using another database access tool.
Or for that matter a different version of MS Access or one which has been customised.
Most Universities expect pupils to arrive with sufficient skills to use machines from the moment they arrive. Yes, many more universities use Unix, but we are still referring to basic abilities rather than technical skills. There is just as much reason to teach someone word-processing using MS Word as any other package. Reasons for teaching generic word-processing should not be seen as bashing any one particular product.
As far as I recall, no-one has been bashing MS Word. The argument is that since you aim to teach generic word-processing, it is not *necessary* to use MS Word.
But it is necessary to consider MS Word on its own merits (including such "baggage" as its licence.)
If you argue that we should not use industry-standard products you are on shaky ground:
Again, the argument is not that we "should not use industry-standard products", it is that we are not *constrained* to use only 'industry-standard' products.
Remember also that the argument that there are "industry-standard products" dosn't have the firmest of foundations anyway. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
participants (4)
-
Frank Shute -
Grainge, Derek -
Mark Evans -
Michael Brown