Formless wrote:What part of "false dilemma" do you not understand, you dishonest prick? You have yet to give a valid reason why the system needs changing, or even what that change would look like besides fucking the poor in a horrible misapplication of "progress", and ignored anything I've said that hasn't fit into that worldview. Computers and labs are supplied specifically for the purpose of equalizing economic differences? Not addressed. The internet does not, in fact, contain all the information that an educated person needs? Not addressed. Even the social functions of school you flatly ignore. At this point you've thrown context out a window with murderous intent so you can grandstand about bullshit only you give a fuck about and which happens to make you look like some kind of Young Republican spambot masquerading as flesh.
I should have known from the "No Child Left Behind" rhetorical cliches that you weren't willing to leave your own headspace for the minute amount of time it takes to read my posts, but this is just ridiculous. Shut the fuck up until you understand that this "debate" thing requires some attempt to engage with the other person and not just fill the page with the most words.
Did you fail to read what I wrote there formless, I've been explaining my POV and why we should make the switch without hesitation. You seem to think I care that you find my idea immoral. Protip, I could care less what you think.
Now, the reason that I said that lessons plans should be designed around laptops in the classroom and with the assumption that a student will have internet access at home is as follows. As it stands, in elementary to high school, if a bright kid who has money and isn't just playing games in class brings in a laptop he most likely won't be allowed to use it to enhance his learning experience because that was never factored into the lesson plan. This stunts that child's ability to grow at the expense of the average or even below average child. However if we incorporate learning tools into the class room we raise the average level of the class and give the exceptional children a bit more room to grow without forcing the smart kids into private schools.
Of course that isn't the only reason to do this. If we look at the real world for a moment how many adults under the age of 50 don't use a computer daily? The simple answer is not many, and for a good reason. Most people use a computer as a major part of their job regardless of the field. Yet computer use is a tiny fraction of what is covered in school and students aren't getting used to using them for note taking, recording lectures, or getting used to having daily and prolonged time spent interacting with a computer, because the school system is archaic. Yet part of the reason we cling to these methods is that we fear leaving people behind and another is that the people at the top often don't realize how much actual computer use there is in the world today.
Yet you seem to think it immoral that I advocate advancing along this path even knowing that government funding can't and won't ensure that every child has access to the same tools. I'm saying that it's more immoral to hold people back for issues of inertia and fear. I'm not creating a false dilemma, I'm simply advocating what I feel is the best way forward and accepting that it fails to include everybody.
