Pages

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

What matters most?

What sort of society do we want to live in? Regardless of your particular persuasion - Christian or Atheist, Muslim or Hindu, this is a question you have either thought about, or ought to have thought about, at some time. And at Christmas time, as stories come out of children who have no Christmas, we see the national past-time of welfare bashing develop momentum ready for the post Christmas frenzy.

Like it or not, we have vulnerable people all around us. I believe the view that you can judge the quality of a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable members.

Apparently it is difficult to attribute the sentiment to any one person. For example:
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying," ~Pope John Paul II
A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

All of these quotes I found with a simple Google search on http://askville.amazon.com/measure-civilization-treats-weakest-members-accurate-quote/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4718239

It is with a paradoxical degree of irritation then that I read and hear some incredibly intolerant views expressed by others in society. News stories of those unable to help themselves regularly evoke responses that range from intolerance to outright belligerence with accusations that include 'idiots', 'bludgers', and other labels I'd rather not print. So how come we have vulnerable people in our society?

So, let's try to put some thinking straight. Here's one perspective.

A common view is that people at the bottom of the 'social heap' simply don't want to help themselves. That's interesting. It assumes that we are all the same. It assumes for example that we all have the same abilities, or the same personality profiles. It assumes that we have the same risk profiles, or the same 'intelligence' (whichever model you prefer to use to identify those measurable attributes that we call 'intelligence'). That's not just tricky, it's downright untrue. At the risk of lecturing, any attribute of a naturally occurring population is spread across that population in a normal distribution.



Without that we wouldn't have this:




or this:


But just as there are those at the top of the pile, so there are those at the bottom. That's why we see this:


and this:


I am not suggesting anything here other than that we don't all have the same capabilities. Some of us are born with more short twitch fibres than long in our muscles making us more suitable to one type of running over another. No amount of training is going to make a sprinter out of someone with the wrong muscle twitch fibres, for example. (See the work of Stephen J Gould in his book 'The mismeasure of man' for an alternative view about the normal distribution though).

There are also arguments abounding about 'nature vs nurture' and the impact of each on our development as adults. And of course there is the argument that birth doesn't have to define destiny, that any of us is capable of changing our position in life with the right application.

L
However, laying blame is the easiest response. You might even label it the 'lazy' response, but it doesn't help the situation in any way shape or form. 

Those in wheelchairs don't chose to be there. I'd also venture the generalisation that those living in poverty don't chose the live that way either. Don't get me wrong. I am not stupid enough to suggest that every person who lives in poverty is incapable of helping themselves. There are always those that choose not to help themselves. 

Consider the accusation that those at the bottom of our supposed social heap should get off the bums and work. Let's get them all to start their own businesses. Well, starting your own business requires a good idea, a huge work ethic, and a risk profile that accepts risk. 

How does that look? It depends on the personality type model that you use. Here's one:


There are many different models of personality type, and argument amongst psychologists on the validity of any or all of these too. The point is that we are different. Not all of us have a risk profile that lends itself to new ventures. There are those amongst us who are risk seekers. There are those amongst us who are more risk averse. It seems reasonable to assume that the willingness to accept risk will be distributed normally across the population, like any other attribute. Why have I never started up a business? I am relatively risk averse, simple!! For some of us simply changing jobs, or even accepting a job, is a 'risk' that pushes us too far.

If we talk about accepting employment from others, the economist might argue that there are no jobs for them, or that there is a mismatch between the skill sets of job seekers and the job market. We could equally argue that the drive, the 'get up and go' required to search out a job isn't equally distributed amongst us all.

However my argument is that we mustn't generalise across everyone in any of our artificial categories. As I said earlier, laying blame is the 'lazy' response, but it is not a helpful response. A more productive response might be, what can I do to help? How could I change the situation? Maybe I 'pay it forward' with a coffee for someone else in the coffee queue. Maybe I donate some long unused clothing to the City Mission. What matters in my opinion is that we generate a more caring society.

Every human being has value, every human being has talents and skills, every human being has something to offer to society. The bigger and more challenging question, the tough question, is how we get more and more of those at the bottom of our social pile to see their talents and skills? How do we encourage more and more people to be the best they can be, and make the best contribution they can to the society in which they live? And how do we care for those most vulnerable in our society?

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi


Tuesday, December 23, 2014

One year of BYO laptops

There it is - the end of our first year with BYOD .. well BYO laptop to be precise. What do I think I might have learned?
  1. Laptops make a difference.
  2. Staff will shift their practice when they are good and ready, and not before.
  3. Laptops make a difference.
  4. Staff will shift their practice when they can see some advantage to themselves - reduced workload, more efficient work flow and maybe, just maybe, improved learning for their students.
  5. Laptops make a difference.
  6. Many people (staff and students) believe that 'elearning' is delivery using electronic media.
  7. Laptops make a difference.
  8. Many people (staff and students) believe that staff delivering content is true learning.
  9. Laptops make a difference.
  10. Laptops enable engagement in ways not possible without them. Teachers can engage with students in ways that are difficult to achieve without laptops.
  11. Laptops make a difference.
  12. Laptops enable feedback in detail and volume that is very difficult to achieve without laptops
  13. Laptops make a difference.
  14. Life would be incredibly tedious if not boring for any student if all teachers in their lives did the same things with laptops every day.
  15. Laptops make a difference.
Hmmm... is there a theme there? Of course I say all of this with no quantitative data at all to support my arguments. I did say this is what I THINK I have learned. Let's look for the data.