Robert Reich has posted the video Lost in the Fine Print on his Facebook page.

This is tort reform on steroids.  If you have friends that think they want to vote for Republicans who favor tort reform, make sure they see this video.  However, I think this video shows that the push for tort reform is moot.  The Supreme Court has already granted protection from law suits. Let me clarify. You don’t get protection from law suits by the rich. The rich get protection from law suits by you.

This is another example of how the wonderful “job creators” who get tax breaks from us create their wealth. They steal it from us. Makes you want to vote Republican doesn’t it?

For a long time it has annoyed me that the events that I put into my calendar on my Android Tablet do not get synced up with the online Google calendar.  When I am sitting at my computer and get notice of a new event, I have to find my tablet to even see if the event conflicts with my schedule.

So today, I decided I was going to solve the problem.  All the settings on the tablet were already set to sync up calendars.  In fact events that I scheduled online, do appear in my tablet’s calendar.  It just does not seem to work the other way.

I searched the internet for a hint.  I found the article Calendar entries sync only one way! With 162 posts by 139 authors, I found a trail that led me to the solution.  However, I  did not find an answer that told you what the simple problem was and what was the easiest way to  fix it.  So I added what I discovered.  I don’t know if people will find the answer buried among all the other answers.

The problem is that by default on the calendar app on my tablet (the app that came with the tablet, I think), you schedule events in “My Calendar”.  If you want them to appear in the online calendar, you have to put them into the calendar that you have set yourself up to sync with.  Once you have made this discovery, this calendar app allows you to edit existing events and change the calendar that they are in from “My Calendar” to your online calendar.  The app itself is set up by default (I think) to display the events in all the calendars that it knows about.

Since it all seems to work by default locally on the app from the start, you may never have thought to look in the drop-down menu of all the calendars that you could schedule the event in.  Certainly none of the documentation I found about syncing ever mentioned that you have to put the events in the right calendar.  It is so obvious, that I guess nobody thought to mention it.  Note that none of the 138 authors that contributed to this thread in the online forum mentioned above seemed to be aware of the simplest reason why syncing seemed to be one-way.

Oh, by the way, the official Google Calendar app that was recommended in the above thread does not allow you to change existing events from “My Calendar” to the online one.  After I discovered that the old calendar app did allow such changes, I uninstalled the official Google Calendar app and put the old  one back on the home page of my tablet.

October 11, 2014

I found that sync had stopped working. I reinstalled the official Google Calendar app. It did the sync ok. Looking at the calendar with either app, after the sync showed all the events that it should have.

I am hoping that the official calendar app will continue to automatically sync the calendar, but I am going to continue to use the other calendar app to view and create events.

I stumbled upon this 2012 video.

How exactly did Mitt Romney Get So Obscenely Rich? Robert Reich explains The Magic of Private Equity in 8 Easy Steps

This is what I have been trying to explain. Robert Reich does a very nice job of doing it in an entertaining way. This is also why I coined the term “vulture capitalists” to describe what Mitt Romney and his ilk are up to.

Robert Reich posted this on his Facebook page.

In this new video from MoveOn.org Political Action, Robert Reich unpacks the Koch brothers’ influence network, and how the Koch brothers are trying to use their wealth to impose their self-interested agenda on the rest of us. Visit http://j.mp/KochPetition to sign the petition.

If you don’t know about the Koch brothers, where have you been hiding?

CNN has this opinion piece This is Elizabeth Warren’s moment.

Warren has been a huge attraction on the campaign trail during the past few months, speaking about these very issues and promising to devote her time to this cause.

Ever since Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy died, Democrats have not been able to find a new liberal lion to champion the progressive economic traditions that been so integral to the party since the New Deal.

President Obama, who many Democrats thought would be that person, has failed to live up to expectations. He surrounded himself with economic advisors who were comfortable with the status quo and whose pragmatism pushed him away from the bolder policies that the Democratic base hoped for.

Now, with the disclosure of these tapes, Warren has a very real chance to prove to Democrats that she is the new voice.

This is what I have been saying.   Go Elizabeth!!

I found the link to this CNN article in the Ready for Warren Facebook post.

PC Magazine has the article Don’t Get Robbed by a Banking Trojan.

These last few strategic approaches take a considerable amount of effort—they’re probably beyond what most people are willing to do to protect themselves. And, the fact is, even if you change your banking strategy, an online bank robber who specifically targets you will probably get your money.

Fortunately, that’s not how they operate. They cast a wide net and go for the easy targets, and the easy targets keep them plenty busy. By keeping up with online security best practices, you can avoid being one of those easy marks, and most cybercrooks will turn their attention elsewhere.

I have quoted the last two paragraphs of the article to show you why you should at least try to protect your online banking.  You’ll have to read the article to see the easier steps that they recommend.  I am not even going to talk about what approaches I do or do not use.  The less info about my practices that I make public, the better.

Politico has published the article The Plot Against Public Education: How millionaires and billionaires are ruining our schools.

The amount of money in play is breathtaking. And the fiascos it has wrought put a spotlight on America’s class divide and the damage that members of the elite, with their money and their power and their often misguided but unshakable belief in their talents and their virtue, are inflicting on the less financially fortunate.

Those who are genuinely interested in improving the quality of education for all American youngsters are faced with two fundamental questions: First, how long can school systems continue to pursue market-based reforms that have failed year after demoralizing year to improve the education of the nation’s most disadvantaged children? And second, why should a small group of America’s richest individuals, families, and foundations be allowed to exercise such overwhelming—and often such toxic—influence over the ways in which public school students are taught?

This may be a bit about the other side of the education debate compared to the articles I have been posting lately.  I think it does point out how the problems of concentration of power apply to education. (However, the Bill Gates experiment seems to indicate that breaking up concentration just for the sake of breaking up concentration is not a viable approach either.)

Our problem may be that when we see some schools, school districts, cities, or states performing poorly with respect to their peers, we think of centralizing authority over schools so that the poor performers would not be allowed to continue performing poorly.  We fail to entertain the thought that what we may actually be doing is preventing excellent schools from performing excellently.

We may be falling for the “Lake Woebegon Fallacy” in which we think we can get all students to be above average.  Perhaps what we need to realize is that we have to raise the average, but there will always be a  statistical distribution of performance measured at any and all levels.  To narrow the distribution it is  always easier to get the exceptionally good schools to stop being exceptionally good than it is to make the exceptionally bad schools to stop being exceptionally bad.   Taking the easy way out is not getting us to the goal we really want, which is to raise the average by making improvements almost everywhere.

The Boston Globe has the article Are teachers really ready for the Common Core?

This article adds some information that is needed in this debate, but it is only a piece of what is needed.

In reading some recent articles and seeing some videos, I have started to gain an understanding of what the Common Core is trying to achieve in math.  (See my previous post, Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes)  That understanding alone does not answer the question about how much research has gone into figuring out if the new teaching methods work.  As I keep reading, I find that research has been done, but I haven’t yet read enough details on what research was done and how it was carried out to know if I think the research was sufficient.

Questions I would like answered include the following: Have the new methods been tested on a broad range of students to see if the new method works for all, for most, for many, or just a few?  Has the research included a study of how to train teachers to teach the new method?  Again all, most, many, or none.  Has the research analyzed the impact of parents “helping” their children with homework for all kinds of parents.  Different kinds of parents might include the highly talented mathematicians who learned by different methods, to the average parent, to the parent with not enough time, to the uneducated parent. Has the research studied the best methods to roll-out the new program – all at once, a little at a time, school by school, city by city, state by state, or the whole country all at once.

Changing the education system of an entire country requires much more thought than changing how one teacher teaches a course.  Has the thought been done at the top, through the middle, and down to the bottom of the implementation pyramid?

I was intrigued by the following example question.

A right circular cone is shown in the figure. Point A is the vertex of the cone and point B lies on the circumference of the base of the cone.

The cone has a height of 24 units and a diameter of 20 units. What is the distance from point A to point B?

____ units

It took me a few seconds to see that this was not as complicated a question as I first thought.  It took me a few more seconds to figure out how to do calculate the answer in my head without any difficult arithmetic.

To check your answer with the right one, see the answer on the PARCC web site.

Perhaps this isn’t as controversial a question as the examples in my previous post.

Jessica Fairbrother Trent shared the video below on her Facebook page.

It comes from the article Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes.

I was skeptical about the presentation that this “mom” made. I wasn’t sure she was giving the whole story. Before I got too excited about the push for the “Common Core”, I wanted more proof.

Ironically, a feature of Facebook, that I have been thinking of turning off, showed me a link to what it thought was a related story.

About That ‘Common Core’ Math Problem Making the Rounds on Facebook… This isn’t exactly the same example as discussed in the video, but I think it is close enough to make you want to reconsider what you think you may have learned in the video.

It is worthwhile to think about and discuss whether or not these new teaching techniques are the best way to teach these subjects. However, before doing that thinking and having that discussion, it pays to have some idea of what these techniques are trying to accomplish.

From my own experience, I did not learn the method of making change as described in the second article until I went to work in my father’s drugstore, and he taught it to me. I have noticed that there are very many clerks today who depend on the cash register to figure it out, and have no idea on their own of how to make change.

The classic case happened to me a little while ago. I bought something for $12.10. I handed the clerk a $20 bill and 10 cents. The clerk gave me back the 10 cents, and then proceeded to give me $7.90 in change. I don’t think I tried to mention to the clerk that $7.90 plus 10 cents is the same as $8.00. Rather than give me back my 10 cents, and then giving me $7.90, she could have just given me $8.00. (The trick my father taught me is to consider the 10 cents as paying for the $0.10 of the amount due, and then make change for the $12.00 that was left of the amount due out of the $20.00 that was left after taking care of the $0.10 I had handed to the clerk. Trying to do the math in your head, what is $20.10 minus $12.10, was too tricky in the situation where you were trying to make change quickly, and could not write the problem down on a piece of paper.)

The actual process of my education that I think is relevant to the discussion is what I did on my own while learning arithmetic and mathematics. I would frequently think about different ways to arrive at the same answer, and then ponder why these different ways always gave the same result.

When I started to learn about decimals, I would often think about working through the same problem by using fractions. It always amazed me that using different digits in the two processes, the results always came out to the equivalent answer. For instance we have the decimal “0.5” and the fraction ½. If you divide the number “1” by either of these two representations, you get the same answer.

The decimal algorithm I learned was 1.0 / 0.5 – shift the decimals in the two number to convert the problem into 10.0 / 5.0 = 2.0. For dividing by a fraction 1 / ½, you turn the fraction over, and multiply it by the dividend 2/1 X 1 = 2. One method used the digits 1 and 5. The other method used the digits 1 and 2, but either way the answer was 2.

So what I think the common core is trying do is to teach people to think about math in different ways, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the few students who are interested enough or creative enough to think of these things on their own.

Whether that is a good pedagogical technique for all students, I cannot judge. I do not know the research that went into deciding that it was a good approach. I hope to heck that there is some research on the effectiveness of the technique that backs up the decision to introduce it into classrooms across the country. Do any of my readers know the nature of such research if it does exist?

When I cross posted this on Facebook, Facebook offered the interesting article, 2+2=What? Parents Rail Against Common Core Math, as related. It at least gives a hint that there is an answer to my question above the line.

Here is the article, This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education, for you to read.

However, in this blog post, I thought I would just include the two videos that were in the article.

Hackschooling makes me happy: Logan LaPlante at TEDxUniversityofNevada

Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?