When is it education and when is it training? The problem of defining a proper schooling for a medical doctors came up in a story about one med school that allowed some of its students to bypass pre-med university courses in the hard sciences. David Gorski has a good discussion of the implications in “Hard science” and medical school

What bothers me about Muller and Kase’s thesis is, as I have said before, the way that it seems to view science as an obstacle to getting into medical school and becoming a doctor, as opposed to being a necessary prerequisite to being able to put the flood of information taught in medical school into context. The humanistic part of medicine is very important to being an effective, but if those humanistic elements are not also wedded to a firm understanding of the science of clinical practice, we risk producing a generation of physicians who are very good at holding their patients’ hands and offering encouragement to them but not so good at actually treating their medical problems.

One way to look at this is that med schools are regressing to an equivalence with chiropractic schools in eliminating calculus and hard science as prerequisites. That reinforces Gorski’s fear about the spread of alternative medicine and the abandonment of science in developing effective therapies.

Science informs what is good medicine, and physicians should have a sufficient grounding in the scientific method to be able to recognize what is and is not good scientific and clinical evidence for a therapy.

One of the problems is that of training versus education. It takes training to acquire the skills a physician must have yet it takes education for them to evaluate to extend and extrapolate and evaluate those skills and the reasons for them. Training is easy to teach and to test and those are very attractive attributes. Education is a matter of values and viewpoints and ways of understanding that make it more difficult to teach and to test. The question for medicine, as well as for many other professions, is that of a proper balance.

There is a push for accountability that motivates the need for easily measured and valued results. In education it is the problem of teacher pay for performance. In science, it is the matter of government funded research.

The idea is very attractive as nobody wants to pay for results they can’t see. The problem is that attractive ideas may simplify complex situations and that can create problems. Bob Carter hits it in The phenomena of disinvitation and the brotherhood of silence as a stimulus behind much of the climate research bias.

It is also part of a much wider pattern of science degradation that has developed since the 1980s. The change has been caused in part by the insistence of politicians that taxpayers’ money must be used in support of scientific research that is “useful” or “in the national interest”.

In other words, climate alarmists need to provide some socially relevant measurable outcome in order to maintain the research grant funding. Any questions concerning their science attacks this resource and must be countered. That is what leads to pathological behaviors to demean, isolate, and impugn those who don’t get with the program. It is a matter of survival, after all.

Aggression has been conflated with violence and that has resulted in some parents making sure their children have no toys that have any taint of violence or aggression such as guns or toy soldiers. Dr. Gold suggests parents Prevent bullying by accepting healthy aggression.

the latest research at the intersection of neuroscience, behavioral genetics and developmental psychology is demonstrating that a parents’ ability to reflect and contain a child’s feelings will help that child learn to manage these feelings, and may change the way his brain handles strong emotions. He may be less likely to behave aggressively in the future. If, on the other hand, a child gets the idea that his feelings are “bad” and “wrong”, these feelings don’t go away. They just become disconnected from the child’s sense of who he is

There are two concepts noted in the essay. The first is that children are not adults. They develop mentally, emotionally, and physically and a 2 year old cannot be held accountable in the same way as an adult. The second is that emotions are not behavior. Parenting means helping children learn the difference and finding appropriate ways to express their emotions. Children need to learn that it is behavior that is right or wrong and not their feelings.

The problem can be seen in the lack of civility in online social media. There, the aggression is often turned loose and the aggressor is not inhibited by civility goals. This may be that the aggressive individuals are having difficulty translating their civil values from a direct interpersonal venue to a virtual one. If that is the case, then there is learning to be had. Aggression is a valuable and useful emotion but its expression as blind violence turned on others is not. Being able to make the distinction between emotions and behavior is a place to start.

There has been a movement for teacher evaluation based on student achievements that goes back at least forty years. That has tied in with massive increases in money for education and attempts to buy a quality education for all. There are many indications that a good education is not something that can be bought by putting money into schools. Another is from the University of Florida.

“The core philosophy of school reform today is that effective schools and quality teaching can correct all learning problems, including those of poor minority students who are most at risk, and if they fail it’s the educators’ fault,” said Harry Daniels, professor of counselor education at UF’s College of Education and lead investigator of the study. “While school improvement and teaching quality are vital, we are demonstrating that the most important factor in student learning may be the children’s lifestyle and the early learning opportunities they receive at home.

There was a big emphasis on learning tools in the fifties and that continues along with other ideas about how to enhance a child’s learning and intelligence. There is also a reaction to the governmental use of schools for indoctrination along ideological lines. In the aggregate, these concerns are insignificant compared to the ‘throwing money at it and forget it’ approach.

Education is a mutli-faceted problem. Excellence is a matter of the individual, the family, the community, the schools, and the educators all working together towards common objectives. Each of these facets have their own needs and circumstances and the others must adapt to maintain cohesion of efforts. That need is why a choice among many options may be one necessary component.

The Sky Is Falling (fable) is an old fairy tale whose age tells you something about proclivities for doom and gloom anticipation. The recent IPCC scandals about glacial ice and other environmental catastrophic predictions is just an example. Trying to get a realistic handle on global warming and other such phenomena to place them in an appropriate perspective can be difficult with all the Chicken Little like cries. Not many stop to realize that the global warming claims are all based on a matter of a degree Fahrenheit or so over a typical lifetime and try to contrast that sort of change in changes you experience over your lifetime.

See level changes with dire predictions of massive flooding of big cities is another claim. Put in perspective, this also loses the catastrophic edge. PhysOrg reports The sea level has been rising and falling over the last 2,500 years:

“Over the past century, we have witnessed the sea level in Israel fluctuating with almost 19 centimeters between the highest and lowest levels. Over the past 50 years Israel’s mean sea level rise is 5.5 centimeters, but there have also been periods when it rose by 10 centimeters over 10 years. That said, even acute ups and downs over short periods do not testify to long-term trends. An observation of the sea levels over hundreds and thousands of years shows that what seems a phenomenon today is as a matter of fact “nothing new under the sun”, Dr. Sivan concludes.

It is worth noting that not only the ‘common man’ suffers from Chicken Little’s anxiety. Even distinguished climate scientists have succumbed and joined the parade as can be seen by their attacks on skeptics and defensive rhetoric. It does not take much of a step back to consider the basis for the predictions of catastrophe in light of easily available references to see just how extraordinary they are.

Slashdot cites David Gerard

I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning. I really can’t blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.’”

This is a precedence idea. It is not that logic and reason are not good, it is that evidence and observation (i.e. measure) is better. Logic and reason must adjust to what can be measured and not vice versa. Logic and reason must be honest with reality.

The failure to get this precedence right is behind many major issues such as climate change, energy availability and cost, nutrition and health, terrorism and crime, and the dialog between science and religion. In some respects it is a blessing that so many can set aside reality and live within their fantasies as that is a luxury of the secure and wealthy. For those who cannot escape, the reality of evidence and observation takes its proper role in their existence.

Jessica Palmer does her take on “Scientific Consensus” and other dirty words. In so doing, she provides an excellent example of contradicting her own thesis. Indicators abound. First is the title. It is loaded. Then there is the take about ‘people.’ And, if that is not enough, there is a dig at Fox News (as if she has never heard of Rathergate or other well known media scandals). After that is the political labeling of who is ‘for’ science and who ‘against.’ Finally is the petard hoisted that can be seen as saying anyone who doesn’t agree with a ‘consensus of scientists’ is anti-science.

The hit on the idea of people in science is a good one but misses the proper reason why. Yes, science is a human activity but, no, it is not governed by such things as voting or affirmation of rightness. It is human in that it is an education and communications process. A scientist does research to help create new intellectual constructs that can be useful in understanding reality. One of the ways that usefulness is determined is by how others can understand it in a constructive way. Science does not work when ideas and concepts are conveyed by an ‘I tell you so’ authority but rather on a ‘here is why this is a good idea’ authority. The consensus concept is only a reinforcement by group think – the ‘I tell you’ becomes ‘we tell you’ and, hence, more potent.

The very fundamental issue in science is about how people deal with new ideas and concepts and incorporate them into their world view. It is about individual change. That change represents learning. Promulgation of a consensus is communication of dogma and not science. The approach of science is one that does depend upon evidence, observation, and data and a high degree of intellectual integrity in communicating ideas and concepts in such a way that others can see the quality of those ideas and concepts for their own learning.

Blog entries such as Palmer’s are also learning and change artifacts as they show a person trying to come to grips with dissonance. A belief in the dogma of a group is much more comforting than stepping out to examine exactly why “scientific consensus” is an issue in the public eye in the first place.

People do see things differently. The problem is whether their view is honest or not.

James Annan picks up on a defense petition in Statement from the UK science community and is surprised that the petition did not get more coverage.

Polls and petitions are political, not science. It is an absurdity to be offering petitions asserting confidence or in supporting some scientific theory. Using such tactics may create warm and fuzzy feelings in the hearts of advocates but does little to credit their beliefs.

Instead, what such tactics illustrate goes hand in hand with the withholding of data and information and with the labeling of those who do not share the beliefs. Science is a matter of learning and education. Anything a ‘scientist’ does that is not focused on learning and education takes away from science rather than contributes to it. This is why a scientist publishes data and methods so others can learn from what he learned. A scientist discovers and then teaches. That cannot be done by impugning the student or keeping data and methods secret or by using obfuscation as a teaching method.

There has been a hue and cry wailing about inadequate scientific literacy in the public since Sputnik went up. Climatology provides pertinent, important, and appropriate material to support public education about science and its methods. You can see examples of this in the blogs and posts of those who examine weather data and its collection and explain methodologies and provide exercises in analysis that a moderately educated layman can follow and replicate. The problem is that such teaching is being done by those who are being called names and impugned while those who are employed in the field are using assertion of authority, straw men, and petitions to make their point. The student is faced with the dilemma: “who you gonna’ believe? me or your lying eyes?”

Let us hope learning science prevails over polling and petitions and assertions of authority.

No see, no hear, no speak. Art Horn has a tale about how the ‘debate’ is (not) conducted and the means by which the minds of the young are brainwashed. See Climategate in the Classroom?.

A phone complaint was made to the teacher who had invited me. Also, a complaint was made to the superintendent. The teacher who invited me actually had to do a special project about global warming to set the parents minds at ease. I have no idea what the teacher told the parents. The teacher then asked the district science coordinator if I could tone down my comments about global warming if I were to return.

The principal of the school said my information was educational, but very one-sided. I found this rather odd, since the principal also said in the email that:

It is our obligation as a public school to present both sides of an argument. In the area of science this is extremely important.

Since the kids are constantly bombarded with the alarmist point of view, I figured the realist side was just getting equal time.

The school has agreed to have me back — but there is to be absolutely no mention of global warming at all.

Science education? Really? Is it driven by parents with an agenda or scientists with proven success?

Answering the Climate Skeptic at a Few Things Considered provides a categorized index of quick answers to anything a skeptic might be skeptical about when it comes to climate science.

In what I hope is an improvement on the original categorization, they have been divided and subdivided along 4 seperate lines: Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, Levels of Sophistication. This should facilitate quick retrieval of specific entries. Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

A first thing to note is that asserting “denial” is a conclusion about the motivation of anyone with skepticism. That is a clue as to the integrity of the list and the answers provided.

The climate research brouhaha has emphasized the roles of amateurs in science. M&M (the Canadian retiree and his partner the economics professor) who raised a lot of ire in the revealed communications are the famous ones. Two more examples can be seen at the Coyote Blog in Example of Climate Work That Needs to be Checked and Replicated and The Strata-Sphere at Pre “Adjusted” CRU Data & IPCC AGW Models Prove AGW Theory Is WRONG!.

The fact is that much of climatology is numerical and statistical. The tools to replicate work and examine algorithms are readily available to the amateur scientist. That means that amateurs can be a valuable resource for checking, validation, and verification. The recent history shows that this is indeed the case much like amateur astronomers can provide an extra eye for celestial events.

But what do scientists get the big bucks for? If amateurs can do all this science, why have research grants and professorships and ‘professional’ scientists? The are several keys there. One is the teaching and education aspect. Another is the creation of new models. A third is in data collection and preparation. The professionals create structures that amateurs and interested citizens can use to gain understanding about the world around them.

That means the professional gets paid the big bucks to provide targets for the amateurs!

The professional paves the road and helps the amateur find his way from source to destination. He has to deal with amateurs who think they have found a shortcut or think there is a better way to travel. If the professional is good, he will learn about his road and its qualities by this process of educating others. First rate teachers know this and it is one of the reasons they teach. Others get annoyed that their most gifted students can’t stay on track and keep with the program.

When it comes to climate research it appears that there are some very gifted amateurs at work. Consider the attitude of various professionals towards them and what that says about the qualities of the professionals.

Charlie Martin has his take at Pajamas Media about Climategate: Violating the Social Contract of Science. It stimulated some very good comments,

“4. truepeers” on the nature of covenants and their necessity for an orderly society:

As you suggest, the belief in social contracts, or covenants, is for science and other aspects of a free society, an under-appreciated (too many scientists prefer to think of their work in the heroic terms of breaking down social orthodoxies, as in the popular understanding of Galileo) but necessary pre-condition. In thinking about what kind of shared understanding is necessary to freedom, we can appreciate that a free society can’t try to spell everything out in advance. In building a “social contract”, unlike say a business or legal contract, building shared faith or trust is really the problem and you can’t specify in advance all the foreseeable contingencies that might be involved in getting the job done. Rather, like the US Constitution, you are best to consider only basic terms or conditions for building shared faith in a common system of government, for allowing a free market to emerge, the minimal conditions for people to engage each other in discovering and constructing their shared reality and then discovering what they really believe and will contract as they engage in more specific agreements.

“26. Jim Ryan” regarding those who assert that trust is invalid in science and there is no covenant:

There’s an element of trust. In journal articles the experimental procedure is described if anyone wishes to repeat the experiment. Sometimes skeptics will repeat the experiment. Scientists know they have a chance of being exposed if they decide to be sloppy or dishonest. “I did this…. I observed this….” suffices on trust to a large extent. There isn’t time to repeat all published experiments if you want science to move at the pace you have it moving.

There are probably life-saving drugs used today which are based on a stack of journal articles some of which have data and experiments, say about one of the molecules used in the drug, that were not repeated by skeptics but simply trusted. I did experiments in a lab for a well-respected chemist. They took months and stood on the shoulders of others in the lab who had taken years. I’m sure some of these experiments were trusted by the chemist’s colleagues. There simply isn’t time to send a guy off in a competing lab for six months to repeat some experiment.

It doesn’t make for a pack of lies. It makes for a house of cards. Sometimes houses of cards stand up. Sometimes the house is tall enough for you to step of the top and onto the surface of the moon; at other times some idiot screwed up the units, nobody checked, and your Mars lander crashes. If there was an error or a lie in the stack of experiments, then down the road the house of cards starts to fall. Investigators trace the problem back to the fault. Global warming turned out to be bogus over the last ten years. Somebody decided to snoop for no-goodniks and found them at CRU.

Science requires trust unless its moving at a snail’s pace is satisfactory to you. Scientists will lie. They’ll get found out when the lies interact with the world down the road. The lies impede the pace of science. But verifying every experiment would impede it more.

There has been, since Sputnick, concern about education in math and science. Perhaps the best education to be obtained is the one that is to be gained from involvement in this discussion.

Jim Bass misses the point in The Unbearable Paradox of Glenn Beck. He notes that the author of The Bell Curve experiences some dissonance. It shows in his conclusion:

What Beck does is propaganda. Maybe propaganda has its place, but let’s not kid ourselves. Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are brothers.

What he misses is that of a fundamental truth. It is one thing to err on a quote that still expresses a fundamental agreement of viewpoint with its purported author and another thing to engage in willful distortion of another’s views. That’s the difference between Beck and Olbermann.

The complaints about Beck all seem to be on the issue of leeway commonly accorded teachers. This is the need to simplify concepts or take some advantage in selecting data in order to communicate the point to be made.

But Beck uses tactics that include tiny snippets of film as proof of a person’s worldview, guilt by association, insinuation, and occasionally outright goofs like the fake quote. To put it another way, I as a viewer have no way to judge whether Beck is right. I have to trust that the snippets are not taken out of context, that the dubious association between A and B actually has evidence to support it, and that his numbers are accurate. It is impossible to have that trust.

The “unbearable paradox” being faced is not whether the teacher is 100% accurate or not but rather the teaching is “is spectacularly right.” Do the snippets, insinuations, and guilt by association reveal a truth or are they attempts to distort a truth? In Beck’s case they reveal a truth and in Olbermann’s case they distort a truth.

Teaching is propaganda, The question is not in the techniques being used but in the integrity of the doctrines being taught. The issue highlighted, the plaint for a “better policy debate,” suffers from a desire for perfection and a problem with an inability to discriminate between intellectual integrity and absurdity. This latter is a form of moral relativism. Beck takes liberties with the ‘Truth’ in order to teach a fundamental truth. Olbermann takes his liberties to attack, impugn, and ridicule those with whom he disagrees. Conflating these two approaches to teaching doctrine highlights a first problem in getting one’s perceptions in line with reality.

The assault on English as the language of the United States is another front in the culture wars that emphasize moral relativism and western civilization hegemony. Bernie Reeves describes the action in Why English Is Not the “Official Language” of the United States
.

In an irony that surpasses comprehension, The Modern Language Association, an organization of English teachers, is the leader of the politically correct movement to bring down English. There has been a constant flow of rhetoric from MLA meetings criticizing English as racist, imperialistic, chauvinistic, and homophobic. The result is that the guardians of our language are actually its worst enemy. … students have been denied the pride of ownership of their tongue and the knowledge and joy it can offer to create a fulfilling life.

The tactics and values are consistent. Moral relativism excuses many things. Power is bad (unless it is mine). The powerful are bad (unless they are my friends). Pride, loyalty, success, patriotism, and other uplifting emotions are to be disdained and condemned as tools for oppression. Intellectual integrity stops at the edge of a reality that cannot be accepted.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been a favorite target of scorn by Teacher Unions and political partisans. D-Ed Reckoning provides Some Clarity on NCLB in citing a judge’s decision.

The excerpted quote, however, is a clearly written analysis of NCLB and the basic bargain it made with the states: federal funds for achieveing progress along with substantial flexibility for achiving and defining that progress. … In broad brush strokes, the Act thus allocates substantial federal funds to the States and school districts and gives them substantial flexibility in deciding how and where to spend the money on various educational “inputs,” but in return the schools must achieve progress in meeting certain educational “outputs” as measured by the Act’s testing benchmarks.

But. for some, the flexibility in both how the federal money is to be spent and in how to establish accountability for the effectiveness of that money is not enough. That is the ‘never enough’ syndrome.

The key here is a basic capitalistic philosophy: capital follows success. The complaint about NCLB is that capital is wanted with or without success. A fundamental concern many have about public education is that the plea for more money has, over decades, resulted in significant per pupil expenditures but there has been no improvement in what it is that the money was provided to achieve. Every time the schools are asked to improve the education for their students the response is that more money is needed to do it. More money has been provided yet the lack of education problem remains. NCLB was an attempt to address this. The opposition to the NCLB is an opposition to a change.

The education problem is a tough one. It should be rather obvious that expense per student is not a solution. There are glimmers of more effective solutions such as Charter schools. Change is hard, though, especially when it requires new ways of thinking and new directions. That is the basis of the NCLB discord.

philosophy and food is a confession.

It’s not a lie, really. I plan the lessons carefully around the reading and writing skills as stated on our state standards. It’s just that, as we read, it’s never about the skills. It’s about fast food and how it redefines us. Every lesson is a philosophy lesson (whether it is epistimology, ethics, personal philosophy)

It’s about the changing forces in labor, politics, social institutions and human interaction. It’s about globalization and imperialism and the monolithic culture created by the golden arches. It’s about the deeper questions of how to treat people, what makes us happy, the dangers of ambition and effeciency, who should have control over public space and whatever else emerges.

Notice the key words: “imperialism” and “monolithic culture” and “dangers of ambition and effeciency”

“It’s not a lie, really” – it’s just indoctrination into failed social constructions. no wonder education suffers such a bad reputation.

Rabbi Yonason Goldson takes a look at The Language of Confusion. He encounters students whose view is that something makes no sense when the reality is that they do not understand. A first challenge is to change this point of view so that learning can occur.

It makes no sense implies that, if the material we are learning does not conform to your way of thinking, then it must be wrong. I don’t understand acknowledges the possibility that the flaw in reasoning may reside in you, rather than in the material.”

There are words like narcissist and humility that come to mind with ideas like this. “Doesn’t make sense” foists the problem off of one’s self and removes personal control from fixing the problem. “Don’t understand” allows for one’s faults and delinquencies and provides for repair and improvement. The point is that the language used sets a direction.

Because we formulate our thoughts in words and sentences, incompetent use of language guarantees muddled thinking. If there are no words for rebellion, uprising, or discontent people will find it difficult to formulate and articulate the concept of overthrowing even the most corrupt and oppressive government.

This then leads to the observation that language can be used as a tool in persuasion. If one can control the language, then one can control the debate.

In truth, for advertisers, politicians, special interest groups, and the politically correct, the real purpose of language is no longer to convey meaning – it is to obscure meaning, to appeal to emotions while bypassing the intellect. Their motive is obvious: it is far easier to evoke a strong emotional response than it is to present a logically developed argument. But by allowing meaning to be drained from our language and our words, we have not only denuded them of their clarity, but also of their depth.

Words mean things. When you find someone dismissing the proper choice of words you have also found someone dismissing clarity of meaning and potency of communication. What you say is how you think and how you think governs what you get done.

Barry Ritholtz looks at a comment in an interview with Philip Tetlock in the post Experts, Crashes, Media, Skepticism about how to tell true expertise.

The most important factor was not how much education or experience the experts had but how they thought. You know the famous line that [philosopher] Isaiah Berlin borrowed from a Greek poet, “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”? The better forecasters were like Berlin’s foxes: self-critical, eclectic thinkers who were willing to update their beliefs when faced with contrary evidence, were doubtful of grand schemes and were rather modest about their predictive ability. The less successful forecasters were like hedgehogs: They tended to have one big, beautiful idea that they loved to stretch, sometimes to the breaking point. They tended to be articulate and very persuasive as to why their idea explained everything. The media often love hedgehogs./blockquote>

What it appears Tetlock is saying is that ideologues tend to be more attractive to those seeking answers. The ‘media’ is looking for a definitive conclusion without qualifications or hesitancy.

On the other hand, better results in a ‘scientific’ vein often come from the non-ideologues or those who are self critical and carefully consider the limits of what they know and how they know it.

The key is in the manner of thinking, not in the mass of knowledge. A manner of thinking is more difficult to learn than a mass of facts as facts are easily found if your manner of thinking is such as to help you expose them.

Those looking for teachers who will accurately portray reality should look for teachers who are experts with the attributes Tetlock describes. A way to do this is to look for those who engage in logical fallacies and do not address the issues with an appropriate consideration for the measures supporting their point of view.

See also Tutorials on logic and argument: Fallacies and Constructing a Logical Argument – these will give you a structure for measuring arguments presented in a debate.

Bruce McQuain provides an example of the mis-use of statistical information in <a href=”http://www.qando.net/?p=529″>Lies, Damn Lies and Nancy Peolsi’s Charts</a>. There is a lot invested in trying to ‘prove’ doome and gloom for political ends that one needs to be very very careful in accepting claims made about fuzzy measures. Job losses are one such fuzzy measure. What makes it fuzzy is the lack of an appropriate standard and the definition of what is actually being shown.

The appropriate standard involves questions about whether measuring the absolute quantity or the quantity as a percentage. Whether it is employment or deficit, using absolute measures is often much more dramatic than using percentages because both the population and the budget have grown significantly.

The definition of the measure is important because it draws lines that may or may not be easy to see and may or may not be appropriate for the knowledge sought. With employment, you will have different results if you look at unemployment claims filed, actual number employed, surveys of employment, or service sector.

As Bruce indicates with several charts, politicians can lie with statistics. It is up to you to qualify what is presented to learn the quality of the arguments that use it.

Lecturing was a need back a couple of hundred years ago when a book cost more than a personal computer today. It hangs around as an easy way (for the instructor) to spend class time. Dot Physics noted an example of a change.

The cool part is that they didn’t actually do away with the lecture, they just moved it to homework and moved homework to class.

The lecture part is constant so record it and then use class time for more intense problem solving with students. Better yet, instead of a straight lecture you could look for professionally done lectures and video presentations that could be adapted to the class needs. Or the instructor build your own ‘professional quality’ lecture videos over time.

A lot of the static part of the education process is going online from the homeschooling efforts to the university lecture series and textbook efforts.

There is change afoot.