[2300] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Wed Feb 5 18:10:24 1992
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 16:06:25 -0700
From: Dave Hughes <daveh@csn.org>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Gordon Cook says:
Richard..... What SHOULD the NSF be supporting in it's funding for
k-12 science applications?
Dave Hughes is teaming with George Johnston at MIT to deliver
actual educational material. ( Chaos Mathematics)...
I imagine that beverly Hunter finds this pretty exciting.
What about it Dave? She should have your proposal by now?
Sorry to disappoint you Gordon (and Richard M too?), but after studying
the pre-proposal review (by some of the same reviewers?) the highly
qualified team of which I was a part, together with a lot of other
'signals' many others have received from NSF for the last 18 months
over this whole matter of implementing innovative projects involving
K-12 networking, decided it was an obvious waste of time to submit a
final proposal now. Maybe ever. It was like ships passing in the night.
Raising questions in my mind just whether the NSF, internally, really
wants to fund such projects regardless of what Congress wants, or the
desperate state of K-12 math/science education in this country. Or even
what Bev Hunter may want.
And this was not the only proposal I was involved with, either in giving
gratuitous advice to others on their proposal, or being asked to be a
part of others in techniques and technologies we are highly experienced
in.
The preproposal review 'questions' were so unhelpful to the point,
purpose and merit of the proposed project, even accepting that any such
proposal would have to be to the NSF end of 'scientific' discovery or
research rather than merely 'developmental' of method and technique.
In fact they were so extreme and obtuse to the proposed scheme that I
personally thought they could have been a deliberate effort to
discourage our particular team from submitting a full proposal. It's one
thing to make a sweeping statement that the pre-proposal does not look
'competitive' to asking a series of questions, the answers to which in a
final proposal would have contributed not one whit to the substance of
the project. For example, the first 6 months phase of the three year
project was to systematically recruit scientists and engineers by the
Plasma Fusion Center, MIT partner to the project, headed by Research
Scientist George Johnston, who would in the middle phase teach, by
telecom, high school science teachers, using the telecom methods we were
proposing. The pre-proposal question asked exactly what scientists and
engineers were were going to recruit, what their qualifications were etc
etc. In other words, answer all the questions in the formal proposal
that we sought to answer *by* and *through* the project!
And I guess we have to go get resumes from the Plasma Fusion Center of
MIT to convince the reviewers that their 300 scientists and engineers
are in fact qualified! A little strange, especially when the actual
research theory of what we proposed simply was not addressed. It seemed
as if their reviewers didn't want a project proposal, but a total
'plan,' which itself would have taken 6 months and about $50,000 in
costs to produce.
And what was the team submitting?
The Plasma Fusion Center of MIT which would have recruited the working
scientists and engineers to deliver the advanced subjects as well as
recruited, supported, and monitored big-city Boston high-schools.
Western Montana College, the lead applicant and administrator of the
grant through its Foundation and the highly successful Big Sky Telegraph
Project, funded to the $400,000 level by US West and which has
transformed the 'distance learning' environment of Montana from the
bottom-up and now needs hard-nosed math-science 'content-specific'
models developed and tested.
WMC would have also recruited, supported, and monitored the 'rural and
small town' schools involved as well as linked the project to the $9
million NSF funded Montana math project that is still languishing for
lack of a project director, and to the MUSENET network built by the
state on our Big Sky Telegraph model which already has 700 teachers
online.
North Dakota State University which, working from the University
Internet, Unix house down has developed the extensive SENDIT project for
the state would have likewise participated, recruiting college level
math and science educators to participate as online mentor-teachers.
Old Colorado City Communications, (us) would have implemented the
'distributed network' linking the Fred/Fido/Usenet and Point Software
running on Macs, MSDOS, VMS, Unix systems to the Internet and Bitnet,
developed the NAPLPS software to support the graphics needs (at the
student-production-up, not just instructor-lesson-down for the math and
science graphical communications needed (displays, charts, math-science
symbols) which would have to be displayable, and generatable by the 'low
end' school computers, and go over networks with different binary
transfer protocols). And OCCC would recruit the middle-sized city
schools from Colorado to participate.
The Fredmail Foundation was also part of the proposal (which was granted
$96,000 by the NSF a few years ago to 'link' Frednet (Apple II-GS
machines which talk to each other by yet another protocol) to the
Internet in order to deal with the reality that 63% of all K-12
computers are still Apple IIs (but perfectly capable of
telecommunicating, generating and displaying NAPLPS graphics, and
through Frednet and the Internet 'distributing' data, conferences, and
e-mail - even if it is at a small scale per machine. But we felt these
low-low-end machine, school, grade-level factors must be fully taken
into account, if for no other reason that Dr. Luther Williams of the NSF
asked loud and clear in discussing an earlier proposal from MIT which
had a few of the same elements this one did, whether '6th grade level'
science was being included, not just 'high school math' because anything
the NSF funds has to have the widest possible application.
And Fredmail would have recruited such level schools from San Diego,
supported and montitored them through the three year project.
The scheme would have taken 6 months to recruit the high-end 'teachers'
(working or faculty scientists) the schools and teachers - which would
*not* be taken from their routine teaching duties, while carefully
selecting and settig up the range of math science subjects, 6 months
after equipping the teachers with the telecom tools to teach them how to
use them efficiently, then 6 months taking the science/math courses from
those higher education and researcher - by telecom itself, and then a
year of applying all that to up to 24 sets of students from small and
rual, medium, and large city, and from 6th grade to 12th grade levels
while evaluating the method, the results, the costs.
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study organization, would have
contributed from its extensive experience in science curriculum,
materials development, participation in prior (Star Schools TERC
telecom) NFS grant, runs their own Fido BBS are on Bitnet and would be
available to undertake their formidible tasks when the grant was
running. Their role (the one which would have been central to the
'research' element of our proposal) would have been to (1) assist in the
selection of the 6-10 math science subjects appropriate to represent the
range of real-science/math subjects (biology, chemistry, physics, math
areas) which would also present a challenge to deliver effectively by
telecom, distributed or no, would require radically different mixes of
text, numbers, graphics, lookup, data bases, collaboration, feedback,
and integration with non-communications activities such as lab work) (2)
set up the extensive data collection system to be implemented by the
other nodes, (3)evaluate both the 'science-learned' and make a
comparative analysis with the same subjects taught 'by other means' (4)
create - which BSCS is expert in - a "Telecommunicated Math/Science
Handbook" out of the findings of the project, for educators across the
land to benefit from the project in language and presentation other than
a formalistic 'final report' to sit on some shelf at the NSF along with
a whole lot of others done in the past that nobody but the participants
ever learned about. And to create a corresponding Video Tape on the
project and what was learned, and to create even a 6 months briefing
team which could visit any organization or board of education and
likewise in a give and take by those involved.
This element by BSCS would be very objective, for their only role was to
evaluate the whole three year intense project measuring just what are
the limits, economics, comparative merits, in terms of what skills and
knowledge the 'students' (some of which are the K-12 teachers
themselves) acquired by the method and the medium. BSCS would have had
no vested interest in proving anything.
While we could not get Apple Corp' telecom library staff directly
involved, they gave us some real help in our element of making sure the
whole element of online-library resources were brought into play.
And even one proposed element to see if using the Supercomputing power
at Urbana Illinois could be used, on a knowbot basis, with Dr Nora
Sabelli's help to exercise and test the idea of remote
educationally-useful access to such power from schools to solve some
real problems unsolvable with local computing power. For example one of
the schools right now taking Dr. Johnstons Chaos III course via telecom
is Liberty High School through our network, physics' teacher Richard
Yanni has gotton a Hovercraft for his bright students to tackle their
real-world problem of noise, backed up by nearby Hewlett-Packard's
engineers volunteering some help, and the Aeronautics Department of the
Air Force Academy - in which, during the project, using remote
supercomputer power would be right to the point. What it takes to do it
would be the task to find out. Doing it would be the reality, not
theory, of direct educational benefit from distance learning nets and
methods. (I know some people who would write a complete grant proposal
just for one such job. But we aimed at much broader, and more important
goals)
Then Dr. Ed Lyell, an elected member of the Colorado State Board of
Education (who has been encouraged to create a Design Team to run one of
the New American Schools Corporation projects - President's 'bypass'
educational reform organization with corporate funds) and who has done
doctorate level work on the economics of education - to do the
'cost-benefit' analysis of our project in dollar and time terms, to
develop the method and data for educational administrators to really
know what a 'distance learning' course in Genetic Engineering (a subject
taught by only one High School Teacher in the nation at Air Academy High
School) really costs in time of all concerned, as well as $$$, against
the same thing done, with all time and $$$ costs - direct and indirect,
to do it in an edifice, localized, classroom setting.
Something nobody knows yet.
So I guess the above serious proposal would have been judged by Richard
Mandlebaum as 'underwhelming' had he reviewed it.
But if anyone in com=priv thinks what he reviewed was an indication of
lack of *interest* on the part of a whole lot of potential applicants,
they have missed the point entirely.
But that might be an unfair statement, cause he never did see our
proposal. I wonder how many other would-be submitters were equally
turned off by the preliminary process, the total absence of any
encouragement to proceed, by utter silence, no hint of understanding the
essense of the project goal, and the distinct feeling that elements of
the NSF, or their reviewers, have no more interest in K-12 networking
than ANS has in linking K-12 telecom to the backbone they control.
Which makes your question, Gordon, interesting. I wonder what he would
consider admirable. I know that there is no 'scientific' e=mc2 to K-12
networking. No magic bullets. But a whole system built around the core
of brain-to-brain telecom. Where there are many more unanswered than
answered questions. And someone is going to have to pay to find the
answers in the near, rather than far, term.
Or could it be that the problem is deeper. That the NSF is really not
very qualified to evaluate or manage such K-12 networking proposals? Or
the reviewers they have recruited. In such 'peer review' of K-12
netowrking who are the peers???
For, from the very beginning of your NREN studies, it has been
abundantly clear that a lot of higher-education types, big network
outfits, large companies, and big Washington buracracies have had the
greatest difficulty grasping just what can be accomplished, or the
potential for K-12 education by vertically-integrated advanced
telecommunications, and all the software, protocol, managerical,
pedogigical, and training that has to be developed.
It has also been clear that a lot of people confuse the medium with the
message. Dr. Johnston's teaching Chaos math/physics over our network is
a rarity. A hell of a lot of people, and lots of money being spent,
talking *about* K-12 educational networking, but precious few actual
hard-reality *courses* being taken in virtual classrooms. I was
astonished to find in a scholarly research publication that I was
credited with teaching the first course for college credit by telecom in
1983. Even then I assumed university people *did* it. But for all the
tons of 'research' about the subject, I came to the conclusion while
everybody knows all about distance learning, damn few people have ever
hands-on done it, as student, designer, or teacher.
I'll tell you this. If I ever am encouraged by the NSF to submit a
proposal (and though I am swamped by requests for advising or
participating or communicating on similar projects aimed at the same end
by corporations, educational-innovators, and some pretty damned central
decision makers, such as Colorado's Commissioner of Education next
week, I have never been so encouraged) I will think twice about
getting so involved.
Quite frankly, Gordon, I have some trouble 'qualifying' Washington to do
much of anything right in this crises of education, and the development
of the future scientists and engineers of this country. While, out of my
own pocket and from very small and remote corners of the country I find
Americans at the grass roots taking matters into their own hands and
solving the problems themselves. While Washington comtemplates it
naval.
But I will bust my ass, and drain my small business's and personal
coffers, and lend my 12 years technical-telecom expertise to help such
places as the Agate, Colorado school district, 79% of whose property
taxes go to their tiny rural school, but whose Board of Education has
technological faith and through they can't afford it with the
direct-dial they have been compelled to use, are participating in a
whole lot of telecom things of direct educational merit - from physics,
and remote library access, to interactive art for elementary children's
skill development.
For I don't need a juried scientific treatise to tell me what is
working, working well, is a model for other places, and is incredibly
cost-effective. (I have 45 years experience making such judgements,
where millions of dollars, lots of long term projects, and thousands of
people were involved - I left that scene when it stopped working).
What I *could* use are the resources to develop new tools and methods
that my experience, judgement, hands on approach, and imagination tells
me would make it even more effective, and applicable to fields and areas
which can't be done now.
Yeah, I have been doing a little peer-reviewing of my own, I don't like
what I see.
