This story is happening in my town. There is a public hearing tomorrow night and I plan on attending.
That's awesome. This is what democracy looks like.
I got hooked attending some townhalls on my pet topic. I've learned so much about politics, policy, etc. these last 8 years.
#1 Show up.
#2 Keep showing up.
#3 Bring your friends.
It's ridiculous how few people shape policy. The upside is adding a few more people to the debate can significantly shape outcomes.
If you become credible (learn a topic well enough to speak to all points), and you pack council chambers with your supporters, you will change policy.
Everyone focuses on campaigns. The real action is in policy. Politics is a dirty, filthy business, but it's still worthwhile.
I strongly recommend Camp Wellstone. There's an "activist" track. Anyone aware of methodology or project management will grok their techniques immediately. The focus is policy vs products.
For election integrity, it was a small group of us vs everyone else. I've testified opposite Mark Radke of Diebold, county auditors, county executives, election administrators, retired generals, people representing the disabled community, etc.
One time, our issue followed the kittens and puppies on the agenda. Something about a kennel. Council was PACKED. EVERYONE showed up for the puppies and kittens.
Whereas it was just me and my cohort representing the interests of democracy. Looking at the turnout for the puppies and kittens, I turned to my cohort and said "We're doing this wrong."
The times we "won", it was either because we packed the hearing or I had better (embarrassing) information.
Stupid, yes. But I think it is likely that the school has a real legal barrier to sharing the survey.
It could be. It could also be that the people who dreamed up this survey saw that legal barrier as a convenience. You can administer an unfair and potentially useless, invasive, survey, to your students, AND you have a "reason" not to tell the media, too! Had I been a student at this school, I would have put my survey directly in the trash.
The idea that a publically funded school is passing out surveys to students, and we cannot read them, makes me rage. If this doesn't anger you, then something is wrong. The reason is irrelevant, they should have thought about that before buying the survey.
When tyranny comes it is not going to introduce itself. No one is going to hand you a pamphlet, entitled: "Your rights, and lack thereof" and roll out the details of how they will all be taken away. It will do so by stealth. It will do so by employing lame excuses. It will come as a trojan horse. Increased security, no more terrorist attacks! This is all secret so we can keep the kids off drugs!
The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
This teacher is a hero.
I bet all that was done was done under the public guise of "protecting the children" (then again what isn't these days...). Privately all that was done was to protect the behinds of the administrator in case some kid does something "crazy" and the school is sued or criticized. They want to have something to point to and say "Aha but we did everything we could, see...! we hired professionals in the field to find troubled teens, if they couldn't don't blame us".
Simple as that.
That is the reason there are so many bullshit business consulting companies. It lets those implementing risky and unsound/unpopular idea to go and point their finger to and say "see we hired professional and they agreed with us, these are world class consultants, if they couldn't predict failure, how could you blame us, simple administrators/executives/board of directors..." stuff like that.
It is all basically about having a scapegoat in the end.
In this case my capacity for outrage is exhausted. I've been through too many permutations of this particular type of outrage that this is in line with my expectations.
And yes, if the survey is as described, the teacher should be commended. Not punished. But that's out of my hands, though if someone gives me someone to email, I will do so.
So, does the early bird get the worm or do good things come to those who wait? We're maybe too inclined to just assert these sorts of things as fact. (This includes me.)
Someone who attributes to incompetence too regularly is one we may call a "chump" or a "sucker" and is an easy mark for charlatans of all stripes. If I don't get taken for a fool occasionally, maybe I could have a little more human faith. If I get taken for a fool all the time, I should get pissed off more.
...wait.
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
It's as if we don't know that it was malicious and recognize that, just perhaps, we should ascribe incompetence first.
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
It's an interesting problem, because the companies involved fund studies to improve the diagnostic power of the test (tweaking the questions and scoring), but then lock up what they find out.
(Here's an example of a commercial psychometric survey: http://www.talentlens.co.uk/select/giotto)
At the same time every individual school will have dozens of people with graduate degrees. Much of those graduate degrees will be based on classes and research about how to acquire exactly this type of data. And yet, they are unable to make these things themselves and go out and purchase them in the most expensive way possible.
The amount of waste involved in the education process is mind boggling.
I was trying very carefully not to say that there's no value in these surveys, because they are designed by experts: PhDs, running statistically significant experiments. Sample sizes on the ones I've looked at are in the hundreds, which is pretty huge for a psych experiment. Just slapping one together based on a few classes you took would be irresponsible and probably not very useful as a diagnostic. My complaint is mostly that since we're publicly funding these experiments anyways (one government body buys them from a company, who gives some money to another government body), we should cut out the middle-man.
As the teacher said, the focus should be on the survey, not his acts. Of course, provided that he doesn't suffer any unfair and ridiculous disciplinary actions.
If the gatekeepers don't provide the information (malicious compliance, obfuscation, foot dragging, denying request), you've got grist for the mill. EVERYONE supports "open government" and will support your efforts.
It's best (PR wise) to get the incriminating information after a long drawn out fight.
Further, if it comes from a company that also offers more conventional achievement kinds of tests, it may come with bloodthirsty NDAs, as a matter of habit for such companies.
Copyright does not stop you from giving a copy to someone, it only stops you from making more copies.
Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full. A sample single question from the test (alluding to illegal activity) would likely be fair-use.
Except that you do not need a license unless you are making copies. The only reason you see licenses with software is that the process of installing software is making a copy of that software. Books do not come with licenses, because you do not copy a book in order to read it.
"Furthermore if members of the press got a copy, they might be forbidden from publishing the test in full."
I am pretty sure that even a full reproduction in a newspaper could be fair use, since it is for purely journalistic purposes and the publishing of the questionnaire would not impact the market in any way (the scrutiny by the press might, but criticism is also covered by fair use).
Essentially, copies made that are inherently required for the expected function of the work (to the HD if required, to RAM, to screen, etc) aren't copyright violations. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
They couldn't keep it online, but couldn't be seriously censured for trying, and they wouldn't be alone.
It's a public school. So copyrights are now more important than parents rights? What a lame excuse.
Maybe that's also why our - so called - Representatives in Congress can't see the Acts they are voting into the Law? Because it's copyrighted by Lobbyists?
What a joke of a country.
The public (parents in particular) ought to have the right to know everything that their kids see.
Some highlights:
- A father who made a point of stating he disagrees politically with Dryden but vehemently supports him and his views on the 5th amendment
- A mother complained the "opt out" email that was sent did not mention the self incriminating nature of the questions. She was concerned about the lack of confidentiality and the overall effectiveness of a survey that kids had admitted lying on.
- A student noted the inconsistency in teaching children about their rights academically, only to deny them in practice.
In the end, I was impressed with this community's response and how this issue managed to bring so many political opposites together in support of our rights.
Too bad it all fell on deaf ears, though.