Responding to Haim's posting of Sep 30, 2010 5:34 PM: > GS Chandy Posted: Sep 29, 2010 9:18 PM Plain > > > >"BTDT" ??? > >Sorry to disappoint you, but I am NOT all-knowing as > >you seem to assume. I do know "IMHO", and a couple of > >others - but "BTDT" is unknown territory. > > Search engines also seem to be "unknown > own territory", to you, GS. Enter "BTDT" and both > Google and Ask deliver the answer to its meaning in > the first result. Bing delivers the answer in the > second result. It seems odd to me that you would > spend more time and effort publishing your ignorance > than it would take to discover the answer. > First off, let me thank Richard Strausz for having explained "BTDT" to me as meaning "Been There, Done That".
Second, permit me inform you, Haim, that I do often use Google as a search engine - but haven't been doing so lately as the Internet connection at the farm where I stay is flaky and extremely slow: I do sincerely apologise for any irritation that I might have caused you by not knowing the significance of "BTDT".
Third, you claimed "BTDT" in response to my suggestions as follows: > >May I suggest that a practical way out would be to > >(1)--seek the inputs of ALL stakeholders in the issue > >(students; teachers; parents; school administrators; > >politicians; and even the 'Educational Mafia' if there > >actually exists such a category of stakeholders in > >education); > >(2)-- record those inputs; > >(3)-- then, from those inputs, to develop effective > >Action Planning to help improve the educational > >systems (particularly in math and science where I > >believe the situation of 'after-school tutoring' is > >most severe. > Sorry, your claim of "BTDT" is simply wrong.
You have NEVER effectively "BTDT", as you claim at some length in your response of Oct 1, 2010 4:30 AM to Richard Strausz's explication to me of "BTDT" - mainly because the gurus of management science have not yet learned how to do No. (3) above and it is not yet a part of the 'debating culture'.
The management gurus have, to some extent, shown means to do Nos (1) and (2), but they do NOT know how to do (3) effectively at all - and that has NEVER been done in any public debate on education (or anything else, for that matter).
And UNLESS one is able to effectively "order" the ideas generated through brainstorming and other management tools enabling (1) and (2), then all you get are mere lists of ideas (THINGS TO DO): the difficulty is, these endless lists become cumbersome and unwieldy, and completely usefully in short order - simply: how to know which few ideas to focus at any particular time on from a list of scores or hundreds of even thousands of ideas?
This is precisely the difficulty: you (meaning you and all the other learned debaters on education) may have done various wonderful things, as you claim in your response of Oct 1, 2010 4:30 AM to Richard Strausz (enclosed between ++++++++s for clarity: ++++++++ "I am a middle aged man, and education has been central to the public debate my entire life. 'Stake holders' have done nothing but talk to each other for more than half a century, and some stake holders (the long-suffering, tax-paying public) have been highly solicitous of the needs and desires of certain other stake holders (the Education Mafia).
"Indeed, I must say that the relationship between the tax-paying public and the Education Mafia has been quite like the relationship between The Tree and The Boy in Shel Silverstein's story, "The Giving Tree". The Ed Mafia only demands, and the Public only gives.
"The Ed Mafia wants money, we give them money. Lots and lots and lots of money. These days, many cities (Most? All?) are functionally school districts that coincidentally run some municipal services.
"The Ed Mafia wants smaller classes, classes have been steadily declining in size since 1955.
"The Ed Mafia claims tenure is needed in the service of quality education, teachers get tenure automatically.
"Do they need new textbooks, new curricula, new evaluation criteria, technology in the schools? We provide it all, at great expense.
"Now, some of us have the temerity to ask where is the quality education we have been promised, and for which we have been paying, all these years? And the Education Mafia is outraged by the question." ++++++++
Practically all the public debate about education that you (and other stakeholders in education) have participated in right through your entire life has been of very little practical utility (except perhaps to let people know that various views exist) - and this is very clear indeed from your own responses to the debates at this forum. Most of the public debate is, as I've stated many times previously, simply "running 'round and 'round the mulberry bush", alas! (The same holds for most of the debate right here at this forum as well).
This happens because that public debate (and debate here) has just been generating ideas ad infinitum (and some very useful ideas as well, I have no doubt) but what to DO with those ideas is entirely unknown!
However, in the absence of any practical means to discover how those ideas "CONTRIBUTE TO" each other AND to the Mission of developing an effective educational system, all those ideas are only an unwieldy list. And thus, the "public debate" to which you proudly point has been largely unfruitful.
If one doesn't know how effectively to handle the many ideas that arise in thinking about or discussing any issue (by focusing on issues specifically relevant at each time/situation), then practically all the ideas are useless - even the ones that possibly could be worth something. That has always been the case in all the public debate on education: you have invested money, time, resources - all to very little practical effect. That kind of waste will continue until you learn how effectively to "handle ideas".
The rest of your response to me is pasted for reference below my signature - but I believe there is nothing really to respond to in any of that.
Even more strongly than earlier, I suggest that you should try ingesting, as fishfood for the brain, some of the shrimp that you have been assiduously purchasing for quite some time now.
GSC ("Why Am I Not Surprised?")
> More, you would be a big disappointment to the > the American Education Mafia. One of their principal > doctrines of education is that "mere" facts are > obsolete, and learning "mere" facts is futile. > Rather than learning "mere" facts, better to learn > n how to look up facts. > > GS, in the eyes of the Education Mafia, you missed > sed a look-up opportunity. > > Haim > We're buying shrimp, guys.