3 ms·

yes, the government should generally build the software they need to support essential functions for the populace, which certainly can include open-source/colla

yes, the government should generally build the software they need to support essential functions for the populace, which certainly can include open-source/collaboratively-developed software, even the paid kind. we shouldn't allow government to decide to pay for software by gutting individual privacy and liberty. that goes counter to the spirit of our inalienable rights. also, "taxes will go up" arguments are at best naive. taxes (amounts/rates) have little correlation with supporting the essential needs of government. they're primarily employed to generate leverage, (unfair) economic gain, and power. public sector pay is uncompetitive because politicians and bureaucrats don't find competitive pay to serve those purposes. but yes, paper is perfectly fine technology for most educational purposes, relatively secure and private intrinsically.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Due to how education authority is distributed and entrenched in the US, it is exceptionally unlikely they have the competency to build the software tooling they need for essential functions. Khan Academy tried to provide this service, but it appears there's been very little uptake. It's even worse if you’re a startup, with horrendously long and tortured sales cycles and your contract at the whim of career admins and politicians. Charter schools as the developers or consumers of such software, as well as homeschoolers, would see better outcomes imho. Retooling public schooling apparatus is a lost cause (although there is likely some small impact to be realized if you're a technologist in a position where you can deliver disproportionate impact to your local institution).
- clairity 5y ago
  yes, no doubt the challenges are significant, given the centrality of public education in local, state, and even national politics, but policy (slowly, piecemeal) got us into this problem, and perhaps only policy (after a long cycle of learning & debate) can get us out. the main point is that a key (hopefully self-evident) principle is that our liberties shouldn't be for sale at any price. if that means states/localities need to develop software (and software development as a competency), so be it. political winds can change. but as has been pointed out, it's not even clear that we really need much new technology, when existing tech seems to be perfectly satisfactory, if unexciting. the mass distance-learning experiment we just experienced seems largely a failure. turns out learning, while central, is only one of many educational concerns, and computer-based learning is at best augmentative, not primary (unlike, say, school administration systems).

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Due to how education authority is distributed and entrenched in the US, it is exceptionally unlikely they have the competency to build the software tooling they need for essential functions. Khan Academy tried to provide this service, but it appears there's been very little uptake. It's even worse if you’re a startup, with horrendously long and tortured sales cycles and your contract at the whim of career admins and politicians. Charter schools as the developers or consumers of such software, as well as homeschoolers, would see better outcomes imho. Retooling public schooling apparatus is a lost cause (although there is likely some small impact to be realized if you're a technologist in a position where you can deliver disproportionate impact to your local institution).

clairity 5y ago
yes, no doubt the challenges are significant, given the centrality of public education in local, state, and even national politics, but policy (slowly, piecemeal) got us into this problem, and perhaps only policy (after a long cycle of learning & debate) can get us out. the main point is that a key (hopefully self-evident) principle is that our liberties shouldn't be for sale at any price. if that means states/localities need to develop software (and software development as a competency), so be it. political winds can change. but as has been pointed out, it's not even clear that we really need much new technology, when existing tech seems to be perfectly satisfactory, if unexciting. the mass distance-learning experiment we just experienced seems largely a failure. turns out learning, while central, is only one of many educational concerns, and computer-based learning is at best augmentative, not primary (unlike, say, school administration systems).