People like words for their power, not their meaning. Take the word "Nazi". It refers to an evil that murdered millions and dragged the world into war in the belief that some people are less human than others. When an angry teenager calls her father a Nazi when he won't let her borrow the car, she is borrowing the word's power.

The trouble is that communication loses its precision. Take a recent statement by one of my colleagues: "We're in a recession." When I challenged this statement, he started to tell me I was wrong and then took shelter in the stock phrase "Well, you can have your opinion."

The truth is, we are not in a recession. I can be confident in saying that because the term "recession" has a definition. We could argue endlessly over whether or not the economy is in a good state right now. However, the term "recession" has such power that people want to use it. It did marvelous damage to George Bush Senior, back when I was in high school and we really were in a recession.

If you're lazy, look up "recession" on the internet. If you have a bit more energy, look it up in an economics book or a reputable website. We need to have two consecutive quarters of negative growth in our GDP. It hasn't happened yet, so we are not in a recession.

Schools need to insist on precision of meaning. I see quite a lot of sloppiness in the writing of my own students. Too many figure that if the meaning isn't clear, they'll just explain it again. Worse, many have no concept of clarity. The act of writing is the end, not the communication that should result.

What teachers can do is change how they teach vocabulary. Cut back on terms and focus on the important terms. Then, because the students can focus, insist that they do more than memorize terms. Have them use the terms and understand them. Yes, have them do some writing.

When they write, insist that they do a good job. It's easy for me (and the student) to simply take off marks. It's much tougher to insist that they actually write well. To do this, the teacher might have to have the student resubmit the paper...possibly more than once. It is not grade inflation to insist on excellence. It is teaching a student to take pride in his work.

Teachers must also pay attention to how they teach writing. Much of what they do allows the student to submit only a first draft. To the student's mind, editing is looking for spelling and grammar mistakes. Worse, the writing portion of the ACT has pushed the value of the first draft. Teachers have responded by requiring that sort of writing. In response, students learn to compose as they write and babble a bit to fill space. My students call it "B.S.ing".

Words have meaning and language must be precise. Our hypothetical teenager doesn't literally think her father killed millions and started a world war. What she means is, "Dad, I really want to borrow the car and it makes me mad that you won't let me. Why won't you allow me to borrow it?" During her emotional meltdown, she won't express this clearly.

What worries me is that this kind of emotion is being allowed to replace rational debate and thought in news reports, editorials, and discussion.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I don't get angry easily. Right now I'm angry. At the moment, I'm blogging rather than doing other action. I want to sleep on it before I contact anyone. It's best to do something after that peak of emotion is gone.

10 years ago, I moved to North Dakota. Two students who were in my 9th grade science class that year are now teachers (or trying to be) at my old school. One even has been hired for my old job!

The one who has my old job does not have a degree in education. She has a degree in some field of science, and the state is allowing her 3 years to get her education credentials. Science is a high need area. I have no problem with this.

Another opening at the school was for history. One of her classmates was contacted for this job. He went to college to be a teacher. He is done with the degree and needs only to pass the Praxis (teacher certification exam) in order to get his license. The trouble is that he didn't pass the test. The school had to do a last minute scramble (literally within a day of the start of school) to find someone else.

I shouldn't know about this.

The trouble is that I just read it all, with names included, in that town's newspaper. The editor of the local paper (who is also the only reporter) was naturally curious why the hometown boy wasn't hired while someone who doesn't even have an education degree was hired. She trotted up to interview the Superintendent and he filled her in on all of this. She then printed it in the paper.

It was wrong for her to publish this information. This hopeful history teacher should expect some degree of privacy. Now he is undermined if he does later try to get this job. He is undermined in other towns as well because his testing difficulties were in the paper.

I am angry at the Superintendent. He absolutely should not have shared that information. He should have said that the history teacher didn't have the necessary qualifications and left it at that. I believe that this superintendent may have actually broken the law.  As a teacher, reading this type of stuff in the paper would make me leery of working for that Superintendent. He has not only done damage to this history teacher, he has done damage to the reputation of the school as well.

I just wanted to post a few reasons why North Dakota is close to Heaven.

1. We have Germanium!  (OK, I don't actually know what it's good for, but it's located near to where I live.)
2. What few students we have who take the SAT score very well. I can't find the link, but we score very well on the ACT as well. That's the test the the majority of our students take.
3. While our AP enrollment may have dropped, our dual-credit enrollment has increased. I'm even teaching dual-credit Calculus.
4. Trees don't block the view.

I'll admit that this is kind of a random entry, even by my standards. Let me just say that, for various reasons, I'm feeling good about the decision I made 10 years ago to move to North Dakota. Life is going well and I'm really happy about the classes I'm teaching this year.

I'll try to post something with a bit more content later this week!

Teachers should take advantage of the great opportunity their job gives them. Teachers can reinvent themselves every year. Even in a small school where you may have the same students year after year, there is a long summer break during which old habits can be forgotten.

Summer was a great time to reflect on what went well and what didn't go so well during the year. How was classroom management? Pacing? Testing? There are many things to reflect on.  Even experienced teachers will spend some time reflecting (one hopes).

A beginning teacher is likely to have many things to reflect on. The idea of improvement is overwhelming. However, bite off small chunks. New or old, look at two major things. Improving these two is likely to help in other areas. For example, classroom management will improve all facets of the classroom: you'll be able to cover more material, the students' learning will increase, and the teacher will have time to focus on struggling students (rather than annoying students).

For this year, my two are:

1. Less lecture
2. Require mastery of material

I don't like lecturing. This year, I'm making a conscious effort to do less of it. I want students to do more. That way I can circulate and help the ones who need it. I can also place responsibility where it belongs. Finally, they're more likely to pay attention to an activity in which they are actively engaged. I improve every year on this, but I'm still not where I want to be.

To require mastery of material seems obvious, but the students tend not to buy into that. Too many will do poorly on a concept and simply write it off. Grades are not a motivator to a large segment of students. Many lack the maturity to understand that if they don't master material now, they won't be able to build on it. Many are practical enough to look at experience. They got by in other classes with a minimum, why is this any different?

Countering that culture of minimal effort will be more work on my part. However, with small classes this year, I think I can devise a system. My plan is to give lots and lots of quizzes during each chapter. This has a research base because students retain more information with more frequent evaluations. The second part of that is that I will require a certain minimum grade on each quiz. Otherwise, they'll do a tutorial on the concept and then take another quiz. The extra work is a stick, and I don't plan to allow any student to sit and spin his wheels, so I'll limit quizzes (and average quiz grades together). However, these two sticks are countered by the chance to learn the material and be more successful (carrot). I recognize that some of my students will choose to fail or not do the extra work. In the end, they still control their destiny.

I also plan to tweak quizzes. I will pay attention to concepts missed on the test. (Minor errors don't count.) They will have an additional quiz attached to their next test based on those concepts.

This year it will be a lot of work. However, I hope to use technology to aid me. I'd like to set up a database of questions for each course. I'd also like to use software to administer tests and quizzes: the software can correct large sections of them for me. I'll still need to read short answers, and I'll certainly allow them to write out mathematical solutions or diagrams. It's easier that way!

Along the way, I'll try to keep up other good habits from past years: organization, staying current with grading, limiting what I grade, and many others. #2 of this year's new innovations will definitely keep me busy!

At one time, I knew all the names, dates, and places of the explorers who came to the New World. I didn't care then, and I don't care now. In college, I learned about why they came. Now there is something useful because it lays the foundation for the current structure of the New World. Ironically, it also makes all those names easier to remember.

This example is my own, but it was inspired by yet another book. (I hope I already published my other book entry.) I'm currently reading Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap. This book approaches the problems in education by looking at the end product. Wagner surveyed college instructors and employers about what skills they wish students had.

So let's pick apart my explorers. It was easy for my history teacher to test the names, dates, and places. I'm not great at memorizing, but I managed quite well. I learned real young that if you just pay attention, most of what you need is right there. Daily, he would read notes to us, and I'd copy them down verbatim. I never looked at them again, but I knew even then that I remember things a lot better if I write them.

In college, we analyzed things like the Reformation and kicking the Moors out of Spain. Dates helped put it into perspective, names made it specific, but the goal was to look at the themes. Do I get to read and interpret the Bible or should I rely on a bunch of celibate men to tell me what it says and means? I'm a lot easier to control in the latter case.

This theme shows up again and again through history. Totalitarian governments control information. That's why Putin has destroyed all independent media in Russia. It's why North Korea is so cut off.

So, should school be about memorizing or working through themes? Wagner summarized what schools should be doing with 7 goals:

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
2. Collaboration Across Networks and Leading by Influence
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
5. Effective Oral and Written Communication
6. Accessing and Analyzing Information
7. Curiosity and Imagination

In my review, I focused on number 1 and 6. Rather than run through the others, I want to conclude by pointing out what is missing here: content knowledge. This is not to say that content isn't important, just that it should know its place. Schools should teach enough content to accomplish these 7 goals. Learning the big themes of Chemistry will come much easier to a student who knows the basic structure of an atom. Most Chemistry books go far beyond this. The course emphasizes memorizing forgettable facts over  understanding how matter works...and using that understanding in new ways.

As school starts tomorrow, the DPI (Department of Public Instruction) has a press release that states the obvious. According to KFYR, the press release informs us all that North Dakota has fewer students than last year, 4 fewer school districts, and some schools haven't filled all their positions.

The DPI was helpful enough to tell schools that if they can't fill a position and school is about to start, they should advertise the position and maybe offer some extra money.

I suppose I'm  a little crabby because it's such a non story. When I started teaching in this state, there were over 200 different school districts. Now we're down to 184. Every year, my classes get smaller. Nothing about all this is a surprise.

I was disappointed with the advice DPI has for schools that can't fill a position. This is exactly what businesses do when they can't fill a position. The only trouble schools run into with it is that the unions fight any attempt to pay someone more. Perhaps it's reassurance for the schools?

School starts for me tomorrow. I wrote two blog entries over the weekend that I'll probably post this week. On the whole, my writing output is going to be cut back to once or twice a week.

Totalitarian societies limit information. Only approved books and movies and ideas are permitted. The rest are banned or even burned. In education, certain types of thought are much more accepted than others. I suggest breaking out of the mold and reading some new books. New thoughts lead to change. While I mock Obama's use of the word "change", I use the word here with an idea of what that change is. I'll get to the change later. Today, I want to identify a few books.

Five Easy Lessons -- Randall D. Knight
Of all my recommendations, this is the least interesting to the non-teacher. Knight has proposed radically altering the teaching of Physics. He suggests less lecture and more of students struggling with ideas and confronting problems that challenge their views.

More responsibility is put on the student: read the textbook, actually take part in class, and stay  awake. Students can take notes on autopilot. Notes are pre-digested and the student doesn't have to change his thinking. A change to student responsibility is awkward for the student and the teacher, but it is worth doing.

Knight does something extra that too many in education avoid. He lays out a general philosophy. However, he backs it up with actual research and actual, specific suggestions. I've run across very few books in education that give me actual practical suggestions on how I can change my classroom.

Disrupting Class -- Clayton M. Christiansen, Curtis W. Johnson, and Michael B. Horn
You may have noticed the term "disruptive change" creeping into my blog entries this summer. Blame this book! Though a little short on specifics, this book does an excellent job in laying out why education doesn't work.

What makes this book different from all the other books that condemn the current state of education is that this one compares education to the business world. Had you asked people of the 1970's whether Apple could topple the mighty computers of DEC, you'd have been laughed at. DEC dominated the computer industry with its enormous machines. If you ask people now if they've ever heard of DEC, the only recognition will come from older people or those like me whose college was slow to abandon that huge machine.

Apple was disruptive because it totally changed the computer industry. Who would have thought a computer could sit on a desk or even in a lap?  The idea of a personal computer was a disruptive change because the computer industry was totally changed.

This story also suggests an opening for disruptive change in schools. Currently, the public school holds a virtual monopoly on education. Any sort of competition is strangled out. However, competion can come from underserved markets. Apple marketed to children. Education can market through online courses. Imagine your rural school wants an obscure foreign language for one student. You won't have a teacher. This is a great way to introduce alternate methods of education.

Consider the experience of one of my colleagues. She was an English teacher and her students were doing group work while she circulated. The principal chose that day to evaluated her teaching. He stood in the door for about two minutes and then told her, "I'll come back a different day when you're teaching." A lot of people think learning only happens with the teacher in the front of the classroom talking. It's time for a change.

Presentation Zen -- Garr Reynolds
Did you ever sit through a boring powerpoint presentation. Everything the speaker says is up on the screen beside him. Worse, he may have run off his powerpoints ahead of time. You think to yourself, "Why am I here? I could just read this."

While this isn't an education book per se, it does say something about education. If the teacher puts his notes up on the board (in any form), the students soon wonder, "Why read the book? Why listen to the teacher? It's all right there." The teacher meanwhile soon wonders, "Why don't they listen to me?" Trust me...experience is talking here!

This book suggests simplifying slides. Maybe a photograph or a simple diagram will underscore what the speaker is saying. Without the speaker it's meaningless. Suddenly, the speaker is important and people are paying attention.

Habit is tough to break. Last year I experimented by putting all my notes in class online. I discovered that many students still religiously copied down everything I wrote, even though they would later print it off. I ask: why?

This book and some of the others are helping me see why. I plan to really cut back on my notes this year. Instead, I want students to DO more. When I do lecture, I don't plan for it to be as notes: more an explanation to listen to. We'll see how it goes.

One of the things I've always appreciated about North Dakota is that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has a wealth of information about each and every school. The drawback is that you need to dig to find that information. It's not easy to find things on the DPI website. Now, the North Dakota Policy Council has put some of that information on its website Sunshine on Schools.

Their source of information is the DPI. I am surprised that, for some schools, the information does not seem to agree with what I've found on the DPI website. For example, certain schools have different enrollments on the two websites.

Now this is a great thing because the public pays a lot of tax money toward schools. They need to know what is being done with that money. This website gives the yearly expenses and income of each school. It gives cost per pupil, tax rates, teacher pay, and administrator pay. These are all good thigns to know.

Now there is a lot missing. At the moment, I can't find anything about test scores or AYP. I can't find square mileage of each district. These would be useful things to know as a family coming into a school. Perhaps they are coming.

A few things puzzle me about the website. I don't understand the graphs of population. A number of schools that no longer exist are listed on the website. A click on those names gives some kind of limited information. Districts that are more recently closed give more information. That doesn't surprise me, but it leads me into what does surprise me.

My own school recently consolidated with a neighboring district. We got their students. Yet, when you click on the name of my district, the graph shows a steady decline. Since it lists our current student body correctly, that makes me ask: do the older numbers include the neighboring district? If so, that's misleading.

I thik this website is a good beginning. It is more user-friendly than the DPI website. However, I want to see more information on it and I want to see some things cleared up.

It's time to come out of the high political blog with U.S. Senators and return to the prosaic world of education. I have described open source software and I have outlined a few reasons why schools have not turned to open source. Today, I want to give a few suggestions for altering the culture.

1. Use open source in your classroom: Nothing speaks louder than success. If your school won't let you install the software directly, tell your tech person you need it so you can work on your files both at home and at school. (It worked for me!)
2. Produce great things with your software. You will wow your audience.
3. Mention what you are using. Don't be a pest, but this is advertising. You can't advertise if you don't say anything.
4. Have CDs of the software available. I've converted several students to OpenOffice this way. Admittedly, most were looking for an improvement on Microsoft WordPad. That brings up the next one:
5. If people are happy with what they're using or comfortable with it, they won't wear down very quickly. Your Open Source software will feel like they've given something up unless you lay the groundwork first.
6. Let your tech people know about it. Some will be utterly opposed, but you may be able to get them to install it on computers at school as an alternative. Your foot will be in the door.
7. Be patient. You are trying to disrupt and entire culture. If you move too quickly, you will face a massive mutiny. I'm still not there in my school, but I've built up interest.

This is a battle worth fighting. Money not spent on software can be spent in other ways. It can be spent on other technology or on other needs that the school has. In the public schools, money can be raised by legalized theft (taxes). However, if you are in a private school, you depend on the free market. Open source software should hold a huge appeal.

It is a battle worth fighting in your own home. I bought the Microsoft Office Suite when I first bought my computer. Even though I got an educator's discount, that little disk cost more than the printer or the scanner. Since then, I have added high level typesetting software and high level photo manipulation software to my computer that has saved me thousands. The short version is that I'd never own that kind of software were it not for open source.

I'm doing more because of open source.

Normally I'm an education blogger. However, when a member of the US Senate speaks in my town, I can't pass up the opportunity to report on it. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) visited my town on Monday, August 4. He spent an hour interacting with the audience rather than giving a speech. I skipped an opportunity to hear John McCain on the same day speak in Sturgis, ND just to hear my own senator.

An American Success

I'm not one of Senator Dorgan's fans, but his life is an American success story. He grew up in Regent, North Dakota and graduated in a class of 9. It was a small town then, and even smaller now. He went on from there to join an exclusive club of 100 people: the U.S. Senate. As a boy, he did ordinary things like restore a Model T Ford. (OK, not so ordinary -- that takes skill and patience, but he did buy the car for $25.)

Though Dorgan is a Democrat, he is not an extremist like Democrats from other part of the country. Our friends in South Dakota illustrated what happens when politicians get too far away from the values of their constituents. Nevertheless, I find myself in disagreement with Dorgan on many issues.

Rather than report the Q&A format of the meeting, I'll group everything into broad categories. I'll try to represent generally what was asked and how Dorgan responded. I'll add my own editorial comments in italics like this.

Energy

A lot of this meeting was about energy. Many people were concerned about high oil prices. It all started with this question: "What's happening in Washington?" Dorgan responded well when he said, "Nothing."

The questions about oil continued. Some were concerned that speculators were driving up prices though they never actually dealt with the physical product. In fact, this question came up many times. Dorgan responded by noting that nothing in the past year justifies the doubling of oil prices. He placed the blame on speculators and suggested that speculation should be taken out of the picture. Then he noted that "we" were unable to get anything passed to change oil prices. Any legislation was blocked. If not blocked, it would be subject to veto.

Dorgan was careful to note, however, that it is important to be able to hedge risk. This suggests he may not be entirely opposed to speculation.

Dorgan is apparently a big fan of alternative energy. In response to some other questions, he suggested that North Dakota should require that 15% of its energy come from renewable sources. He noted that North Dakota is the Saudi Arabia of wind. Dorgan had a lot of faith in the future. He suggested that batteries will improve and that within 30-40 years, we will see hydrogen cars.

This led Dorgan to relate a story from his childhood. As a teenager, he restored a Model T ford that had been abandoned in an old granary near his family farm. Everything about the car was totally different from modern cars, except for one thing: it was still fueled in the exact same way.  This led him to suggest that government needed to play a bigger role in alternative fuels.

Fossil fuels have enjoyed federal tax incentives since 1916.  In contrast, incentives on renewable fuels have been only in fits and starts. He suggested that tax incentives should be more stable, and he suggested that they should be stretched out for 10 years at a time. While Dorgan has a point, I would ask why we're subsidizing any industry: oil, coal, or renewable.

One gentleman made quite a good point about fuel and taxes. He suggested that the government doesn't really want to see any alternative energy because they depend on the tax money that comes from fossil fuels. Dorgan agreed and noted that as efficiency of vehicles increased, the government would need to find other sources of funding. I agree with this. However, he then took it a step further and suggested that the car companies themselves don't want to see any changes. I could not see his logic here and he did not explain it. I could see why he'd believe this about oil companies, but I think all of our car companies have shown a willingness to experiment with hybrids, dual fuel, and other alternatives.

A final question that came up about energy was that North Dakota is actually an energy exporter. Any insistence on 15% renewable energy in the state would actually hurt our own state. Dorgan dismissed this suggestion, but then came up with an interesting idea: an interstate energy transmission system. He compared it to the interstate transportation system and suggested that it reduce our dependence on Saudi oil by 40-50%. (He cited T. Boone Pickens as a source.)

I'll admit that this is an interesting idea. I studied electricity in college as part of my Physics major and it's kind of scary how much energy gets lost in transmission. I also use the interstate highways when I travel large distances because they're fast. I like the idea of government keeping its snout out of private business, but I don't know if private industry would make the investment. I need to think about this issue more.

Dorgan concluded his energy remarks by responding to a question about environmental opposition. He noted that we will always need oil and that people need to do a better job at standing up to environmental groups. Then he reminded him that the energy companies like the way things are.

He's right. Too many people roll over every time environmentalists oppose something. Environmentalists have an advantage when they play the PR game. They get the frolicking bunnies and green fields. Industry has the factories. Nevertheless, I really do think that industry can make its case if it will just be more aggressive. People also like jobs and they rarely realize how clean most industries really are.

Health Care

Some people were concerned about health care. A law student noted that there are thousands of kids in North Dakota with no health insurance that half of her law school class had no health insurance. Dorgan responded by noting that health care for children has been vetoed twice.

He expanded on this by noting that sick children should be able to get health care. He was concerned that for some people, this care could only occur in the emergency room. Then, he expressed the hope that the new president would do something.

This was a frighteningly socialist beginning. However, he then made a few remarks that seemed slightly more freedom-oriented. Dorgan added that people will always want "fee for service" and choice. He suggested Health Savings Accounts because they would retain consumer choice. He added that these should not just be for the young and healthy. He concluded his remarks on health care by suggesting that we should move from  a "sick care" emphasis to a "prevention" emphasis. Health care is a lot cheaper when it catches problems earlier.

Trade

Trade is one of Byron Dorgan's pet topics. He even wrote a book on it a few years ago. At times he seemed to alternate between protectionism and free trade. Dorgan is quite concerned with our huge trade deficit. He noted that it could not continue as is because our trade policies are "incompetent."  Specifically, he said we need to stand up to countries that won't open up their markets.  If they won't open their markets to our products, we should block their products. A specific example he used was cars in South Korea.

Farming

Naturally, there were a number of farming questions. A lot of them overlapped the energy concerns. The rest concerned commodity prices and crop insurance. Dorgan reiterated his distaste for the speculators and noted that we have not yet had a successful farm policy.

I try not to bring it up much in conversation since I live in farm country. However, I wonder why the government needs much of a farm policy. It's time for some disruption to the farming industry. Even Dorgan was surprised to see a farmer who was in his thirties. That's because a real go-getter can't succeed in farming. If the feds would pull out of farming, a lot of farms would fail. The end result would be that the successful farmers would survive. This is such an emotional issue that people with my view are accused of wanting to destroy the family farm.

"Take Care of Me"

The last big category of questions that I heard were from people who were looking to the government to stick its snout into their lives and take care of them. To his credit, Dorgan responded to many of these questions with polite platitudes but no promise of action. After all, there are (or should be) limits on what the federal government can do.

One woman complained about oil companies causing damage to her ranch. She was extremely upset because 9 different locations had been damaged. Dorgan reminded her that she is already protected. If the oil companies are not compensating her for her damage, it was her job to do something about it. He suggested that she get a lawyer if they are not compensating her. The oil companies do cause damage to private property. Sometimes they get workers who just don't care. Usually they will fix or compensate if you call the office. They rely on the good will of landowners. Dorgan was exactly right. It's up to people to know their own rights.

Other people were concerned that fertilizer or other commodities farmers need are too expensive. Dorgan responded politely, but with no promise of action. He responded essentially the same way when someone else complained that they're not getting good wheat this year and the elevators won't buy it. It seems to me that government has no business setting prices. Because it controls prices in some parts of agriculture but not others, it puts farmers in a real bind. Getting government out of agriculture altogether would be best.

The final question made me almost embarrassed. One of our city council members complained that we need federal money to fix and repair our infrastructure: water, sewage, streets, etc. He said that federal money had helped us buid it in the first place 60 years ago. Dorgan actually put him in his place. He noted that the federal government has big problems. It's running a war and will not increase taxes to pay for things. Furthermore, it is operating under a huge deficit. He suggested appealing to the state of North Dakota which, in contrast, is running a huge budget surplus.

Then, Dorgan went onto a tangent about Iraq where we have 950 water projects and have spent $50 billion...while Iraq has raised $70 billion off its own oil. I guess it's clear where Dorgan stands on the Iraq war.

I don't see where it's a federal problem that my town of 1500 has old water pipes and a terrible sewage lagoon. If we need money, it is a state issue. However, we really need to look at our own priorities. Do we need a paved walking path? Do we need to build the Taj Mahal of parks? Do we need to expand the pool? Do we need to move the police out of city hall? I might go on, but as I live here, I start to question the city's priorities more and more. No one sees the water pipes, but they are an issue. We do smell the sewage lagoon. Fixing that would be a great benefit.

Final Comments

I was glad Dorgan came and I appreciate hearing what he thinks. I especially appreciate that he risked a Q&A format rather than simply giving a speech. However, like too many in government he sees government as the solution. Government has a role, but more often, it needs to simply get out of the way so that real people can come up with solutions in the messy private markets.

The short answer to the question in my title is that schools don't like new ideas. Now, that might seem to run counter to what we see in schools: they jump on every new fad. While schools do tend to jump on new fads, the fads aren't too different from current practice. They aren't truly disruptive change that fundamentally alters the way the school operates.

Schools have been slow to implement open source software because:

1. Lack of familiarity: many "tech" people at schools are teachers who fell into the position but have no love for it.
2. Prior Investment: schools are heavily invested in software. To start using open source software is to call that money wasted.
3. Familiarity: People don't like change. OpenOffice may not be much different from Word, but it is different. People have an emotional reaction to it and then claim "it's harder to use."
4. "The Real World": A common claim is that the real world uses Windows, so students should learn it. Funny, when I was in college, we used Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. The year I graduated, the world went on to Windows 98.
5. History: Let's face it, open source software is innovative, but it has been slow to become a competitor to closed source. Its original market was "nerds" who didn't mind that it was difficult to use. Many people still think it is like that.
6. Salesmen: Open source software has fans like me who share it, but no true salesmen. If you look back at my writing, you'll see why I'm a teacher and not a salesman. Closed source has salesmen who visit schools and give gifts to encourage purchase of their product. Open Source gets forgotten beside this glitz.
7. Compatibility: Sometimes open source software is not compatible with what the school already has. For example, my school uses PowerSchool for its grades and attendance. That program is the one reason I still have to use Windows. Nothing in the open source world works with it.
8. Support: This spring, when PowerSchool (on my computer) started popping up random grades for only my Physics students, the tech person called them and was able to get it fixed before the students killed me. With open source software, you are on your own. To many people, that's scary.
   

Open source software is disruptive change. I outlined why schools resist that disruption. Tomorrow, I want to look at how innovators, like me, can get schools to convert to open source.

I saved two popular pieces of open source software for the end. I'm bored with reviewing software, so next week, I'll look into how FOSS (free and open source software) can affect education.

Mozilla's Firefox

The Mozilla Firefox internet browser is an extremely popular replacement for Microsoft's Explorer. It deserves its popularity. It introduced tabbed browsing  years before Explorer. It does a great job blocking pop-ups. It's really helpful (especially on Windows) about blocking spyware.

Additionally, Firefox has a number of add-ons that provide many additional features, as desired. In using Firefox, things may look a little different, but overall, its function is the same as Explorer. It's free, but since Explorer comes packaged with Windows, that's not so much an advantage.

I suggest you try it. If you don't like it, the price was right.

Mozilla's Thunderbird

Mozilla's Thunderbird is an E-mail client. It can be compared to Apple's Mail and Microsoft's Outlook. In all honesty, I like Apple's Mail. I use it to get mail from this blog and for a personal e-mail account. I use Thunderbird for work.

The advantages of Thunderbird are price and add-ons. My favorite add-on is its calendar. I use it for lesson plans at school. That's convenient for someone like me who switches throughout the day between OS X, Linux, and Windows machines. I can fix my lesson plans on any of them.

As far as features, Thunderbird competes well. As for price, it is free. Try it!

Linux

How does one review an entire operating system in a few paragraphs? Linux defies review because it comes in so many different faces. It's not like Windows or OS X. If you use the Fedora flavor of Linux, it's a totally different experience from using the Ubuntu flavor or the SUSE flavor.

After the initial discomfort over "different", you'll find that modern operating systems are quite good. (Except for Windows Vista...though XP was pretty good.) They do what they're supposed to do very well: run software, run hardware, run the display, manage computer memory, etc.

A good operating system is one you don't notice. It should run the machine so well that you focus on your task, not the machine. The infamous "blue screen of death" is what you don't want. All three are good at avoiding this. So why Linux?

Linux is free. You can try it by making your computer dual-boot or even by getting a live distribution that runs off a DVD (or even a floppy). Other than being different, it really won't disappoint.

Linux works well with most hardware. Nowadays, you really don't need to do much customization unless you locate a strange piece of hardware. Linux has a lot of great software available, and most of it will read Microsoft stuff. You can find software for almost anything you want on Linux.

The real advantages, other than price, are security, choice, and speed. I'm no security expert, but Linux has a UNIX base, so it's very secure, like OS X. Windows is getting there. Speed is generally better than Windows, but this is tough to test because usage and individual settings can vary it.

The big one in this list is choice. You can try many flavors of Linux. You can try several different window managers. There are competing versions of almost every piece of software. If you're really good, you can even jump in and create or improve a piece of software. Linux welcomes this!

This was a quick review and barely scrapes the surface of what I use Linux for.

Next week, I want to get into the relationship between FOSS and education.

Finally, a candidate for State School Superintendent in North Dakota has said something practical! I was done blogging for today, but this came up on the news.

Max Laird is trying again to succeed in the race against Wayne Sanstead. Today, Mr. Laird made a suggestion that made sense. He suggested cutting back on testing for AYP. He did not suggest eliminating it. He suggested giving teachers back some class time so that they could actually do their jobs.

Currently, North Dakota uses the CTB test to determine whether schools make AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). This is a paper test. I like it and I've actually helped with writing the science portion of it. What I'm about to say is not a reflection on the test.

The trouble with the CTB is that it is given in October and results don't come until almost the end of the school year. It eats up many hours of time and, frankly, the kids don't care how they do on it. The results come too late to mean anything to them, and the level of performance does not directly affect them. It affects the schools, but that's another story.

Because this test does not help schools improve, most schools in North Dakota have started administering the NWEA. This is a computerized test. It adapts to the level of the student taking the test. It gives instant results, and teachers can log in to the website and get a detailed history of each student: skill by skill. It is given twice a year to show growth (or decline) and it eats up hours of time.

Max Laird asks why we are giving both tests. NWEA gives current information. Both can be used to judge AYP. Both eat up hours of time. If class time is so valuable, why not give it back to the students and teachers. Drop the CTB or get the CTB to offer a computerized version of its test.

As I begin to prepare for the upcoming year, it seems an appropriate time to introduce some educational software. With this article I will save you (or your school district) a small fortune.

Dr. Geo

This piece of software is only of interest to math and possibly science instructors. Anyone who has ever taught (or taken) Geometry discovered that there are a lot of rules in the subject. While they do eventually make sense, they are tough. You look at a static drawing in a textbook and try to make sense of it. If you had an adventurous teacher, you might have done constructions, but that was confusing too, especially for those without artistic talent.

Imagine if you could "grab" the drawings and move parts around. Imagine you could watch how all the angles and measurements change as you adjust the figure. This is the magic of Dr. Geo. Sadly, it is not available to Windows users. However, if you have OS X or Linux, you're in business.

This time, I will confess that it is not as good as its main competitor, Geometer's Sketchpad. It has many of the same features, but it is not as user friendly. However, it is better than Geometry software found on graphing calculators. Of course, Geometer's Sketchpad is reasonably priced: $40 for a student edition and $130 for the full version. For outfitting an entire lab, Dr. Geo might be a more reasonable cost.

Moodle

I've mentioned on this blog that I have an ambitious vision for the future of education. I envision a lot more online education. Students come to school to do labs, take tests, for tutoring, but they spend more time learning from home at their own pace.

No software is as adaptable to the individual student as I'd like. However, online education is a reality. Right now, it's a niche market for homeschoolers and for courses students can't get in their own school. With high gas prices, I see the possibility of my vision for education coming sooner.

A popular option for online coursework is Moodle. It was built on a constructivist philosophy: students construct their own knowledge. No matter your philosophy, it provides utilities for class discussion (forums), movies, a gradebook, handouts, tests, quizzes, activities, and there are many free add-ons for your own particular favorite feature. It is a popular on-line education system. It's used by universities and high schools because it really is easy to use.

The difficulty with Moodle is the same as any on-line software. It needs to be hosted on a good server. My computer could become a server, it could host a little, but it would not be up to hosting beyond my own classroom needs...maybe not even that. You need to set up the server or else pay someone to host it. That said, Moodle will run on any platform, and your students can access it no matter what sort of operating system they use.

The main competitor to Moodle is Blackboard. I had difficulty finding out the cost for Blackboard. From what I've read, a high school of under 3000 students will spend between $10,000-$20,000. I can't find a firm answer, so I'm giving the range I've read. No matter what, this is a big chunk of change, especially if the school just wants to try out the software.

Moodle is the better option, especially if the school just wants to try it out.

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to note that the state of North Dakota has made Blackboard available to all high schools. At the moment, Blackboard is what I use for my own online courses. I'm mostly satisfied with Blackboard and I'm not ambitious or rich enough to set up a Moodle server just so I can be pure open source.