Over at Education Week, my buddy Patrick Ledesma posts an insightful article about the use of technology, a sense of immediacy, and the implications for [public] education. The idea is that public access to privatized messages from teachers can increase an individual teachers' wealth.
The video, Everything's amazing and nobody's happy, is pretty funny, and Patrick infers that creative teachers can wrangle technology for personal gain. Perhaps.
I appreciate Patrick's insightful perspective -- and I never really liked all those zeros (watch the video). But why is it that we sometimes align the maximization of individual liberty ('...a level of voice...") with economic prowess ("... financial security...")?
I like money, but I want democracy AND sustainable wealth. If we privatize, what mechanisms are left in place to sustain the public democracy AND sustain wealth?
The video, Everything's amazing and nobody's happy, is pretty funny, and Patrick infers that creative teachers can wrangle technology for personal gain. Perhaps.
I appreciate Patrick's insightful perspective -- and I never really liked all those zeros (watch the video). But why is it that we sometimes align the maximization of individual liberty ('...a level of voice...") with economic prowess ("... financial security...")?
I like money, but I want democracy AND sustainable wealth. If we privatize, what mechanisms are left in place to sustain the public democracy AND sustain wealth?
No comments:
Post a Comment