WASHINGTON (AP) -- It doesn't add up.
Two federal reports out Thursday offer conflicting messages about how well high-schoolers are doing academically.
One showed that seniors did poorly on national math and reading tests.
The other -- a review of high school transcripts from 2005 graduates -- showed students earning more credits, taking more
challenging courses and getting better grades.
"The reality is that the results don't square," said Darvin Winick, chair of the independent National Assessment Governing
Board, which oversees the tests.
Nearly 40 percent of high school seniors scored below the basic level on the math test. More than a quarter of seniors
failed to reach the basic level on the reading test. Most educators think students ought to be able to work at the basic level.
"I think that we are sleeping through a crisis," said Massachusetts Commissioner of Education David Driscoll, a governing
board member. He said the low test scores should push lawmakers and educators to enact school reforms.
The new reading scores show no change since 2002, the last time the test was given.
"We should be getting better. There's nothing good about a flat score," Winick said.
The government said it could not compare the math results with the previous scores because the latest test was significantly
different.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress -- often called the nation's report card -- is viewed as the best way to
compare students across the country because it's the only uniform national yardstick for how well students are learning. The
tests were given in 2005.
The transcript study showed that 2005 high school graduates had an overall grade-point average just shy of 3.0 -- or about
a B. That has gone up from a grade-point average of about 2.7 in 1990.
It is unclear whether student performance has improved or whether grade inflation or something else might be responsible
for the higher grades, the report said.
More students are completing high school with a standard curriculum, meaning they take at least four credits of English
and three credits each of social studies, math and science. More students also are taking the next level of courses, which
generally includes college preparatory classes.
"I'm guessing that those levels don't connote the level of rigor that we think they do. Otherwise kids would be scoring
higher on the NAEP test," said David Gordon, a governing board member and the superintendent of schools in Sacramento, California.
Mark Schneider, commissioner of the federal National Center for Education Statistics, said the government would conduct
a study examining the rigor of high school courses.
The transcript study released Thursday showed no increase in the number of high-schoolers who completed the most advanced
curriculum, which could include college-level or honors classes.
On the math test, about 60 percent of high school seniors performed at or above the basic level. At that level, a student
should be able to convert a decimal to a fraction, for example.
Just one-fourth of 12th-graders were proficient or better in math, meaning they demonstrated solid academic performance.
To qualify as "proficient," students might have to determine what type of graph should be used to display particular types
of data.
On the reading test, about three-fourths of seniors performed at or above the basic level, while 40 percent hit the proficient
mark.
Seniors working at a basic reading level can identify elements of an author's style. At the proficient level, they can
make inferences from reading material, draw conclusions from it and make connections to their own experiences.
As in the past, the math and reading scores showed large achievement gaps between white students and minorities.
Forty-three percent of white students scored at or above proficient levels on the reading test, compared with 20 percent
of Hispanic students and 16 percent of black students.
On the math test, 29 percent of white students reached the proficient level, compared with 8 percent of Hispanics and 6
percent of blacks.
The gap in reading scores between whites and minorities was relatively unchanged since 2002.
One of the stated goals of the federal No Child Left Behind law is to reduce the gaps in achievement between whites and
minorities.
The law is up for review this year. It currently requires reading and math tests annually in grades three through eight
and once in high school. The Bush administration wants to add more testing in high school.
Microsoft was ordered by a federal jury yesterday to pay $1.52 billion in a patent dispute over the MP3 format, the technology at the
heart of the digital music boom. If upheld on appeal, it would be the largest patent judgment on record.
The ruling, in Federal District Court in San Diego, was a victory for Alcatel-Lucent, the big networking equipment company. Its forebears include Bell Laboratories, which was involved in the development of
MP3 almost two decades ago.
At issue is the way the Windows Media Player software from Microsoft plays audio files using MP3, the most common method
of distributing music on the Internet. If the ruling stands, Apple and hundreds of other companies that make products that play MP3 files, including portable players, computers and software,
could also face demands to pay royalties to Alcatel.
Microsoft and others have licensed MP3 — not from Alcatel-Lucent, but from a consortium led by the Fraunhofer Institute,
a large German research organization that was involved, along with the French electronics company Thomson and Bell Labs, in
the format’s development.
The current case turns on two patents that Alcatel claims were developed by Bell Labs before it joined with Fraunhofer
to develop MP3.
“Intellectual property is a core asset of the company,” said Joan Campion, a spokeswoman for Alcatel-Lucent.
“We will continue to protect and defend that asset.”
Thomas W. Burt, the deputy general counsel of Microsoft, said the company would most likely petition the judge in the San
Diego case, Rudi M. Brewster, to set aside or reduce the judgment. If he does not, Microsoft will probably take the case to
the federal appeals court in Washington, which hears patent cases.
Microsoft argued that one patent in question did not apply to its MP3 software and that the other was included in the Fraunhofer
software that it paid to license.
Moreover, it argued that the damages sought by Alcatel were unreasonably high, pointing out that it paid Thomson, which
represented the consortium in its dealings over the patent, a flat $16 million fee for the rights to the MP3 software.
“We think this is just plain wrong,” Mr. Burt said. “They told the jury to measure damages, not on the
value to Microsoft of one of the 10,000 features in Windows, but on the value of the entire computer.”
Alcatel argued that the damages should be based on a royalty of 0.5 percent of the total value of Windows computers sold.
John M. Desmarais, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis who represented Alcatel, said the proposed damages were consistent
with patent law. He said it was not appropriate to compare them with the $16 million Microsoft paid Thomson because the rights
to the Bell Labs patents were far more valuable.
“It’s like going to the supermarket and paying $1 for a bar of soap,” he said. “That lets you use
the soap. We were offering the equivalent of the right to make soap any way they wanted.”
The jury supported Alcatel’s arguments on every count except one. It deadlocked on the question of whether Microsoft
willfully infringed on the Bell Labs patents. If the jury had found that it did, Microsoft would have had to pay triple damages.
“Microsoft has been and to some degree continues to be at a competitive disadvantage, as it did not file for patents
for many, many, many years,” said Jack Russo, a patent lawyer with Russo & Hale in Palo Alto, Calif.
That makes it harder, he said, to work out deals with other large companies in which they exchange the rights to each other’s
patents.
Large companies like AT&T and I.B.M. “have huge patent portfolios and that represents large and unpredictable risks for companies like Microsoft,”
he said.
The judgment is part of litigation by Alcatel to enforce claims related to Bell Labs patents. The case was initially brought
against Dell and Gateway, which make computers using Microsoft software. Other trials are pending for technology related to speech recognition, user
interfaces and video processing.
Microsoft has countered with a claim, filed with the International Trade Commission, that Alcatel is violating its patents related to messaging technology.
The largest award for a patent infringement case to date was the $909 million that Kodak was ordered to pay in 1990 to Polaroid for violating patents related to instant cameras. That case also forced Kodak to exit
the instant photography market and recall its cameras.
Mr. Burt said the appeals process might take another year or two. He said he did not expect that the courts would force
Microsoft to remove the MP3 functions from Windows.
Ms. Campion of Alcatel declined to comment on whether that company would pursue similar claims against makers of MP3 players,
like Apple.
An Apple spokesman declined to comment. A Thomson spokesman did not return calls or e-mail messages requesting comment.
If the judgment is affirmed, the damages payment would make only a modest dent in Microsoft’s cash hoard, which totaled
almost $29 billion at the end of last year.
News of the ruling surfaced just before the regular close. Microsoft’s shares closed at $29.39, up 4 cents, and fell
11 cents after hours.
Alcatel-Lucent American depository receipts, each representing one ordinary share, rose 7 cents, to $13.14, in regular
trading, and 34 cents after hours.
WHAT do flying plastic pigs, dancing daisies and robotic Barbie dolls have in common? An iPod.
With more than 90 million players sold worldwide since its introduction in 2001, the iPod has spawned a lucrative accessories
industry. At least 3,000 types of iPod extras have received Apple’s blessing — mostly no-nonsense options like cases, earbuds and amplified speaker systems, including the $300
SoundDock line made by Bose.
But another trend is developing, one more playful and not always with Apple’s approval or knowledge.
Call it iSilly, a growing number of products in which fun is emphasized over function, and cute or irreverent often trumps
wow. All of these items, some costing as little as $10, have been created to plug into an iPod — or, in many cases,
any audio source that has a standard 3.5-millimeter headphone jack.
Last fall, KNG America released an animated robotic D.J. complete with spinning turntables and stereo speakers that flash
with blue L.E.D. lights. Called FUNKit, the device, which costs about $100, is designed specifically for the iPod. When a
player is attached, it becomes the head and upper body of the D.J. that rocks to the music, spouting phrases like “drop
the beat,” as its right arm scratches a faux record.
“People looked and saw the popularity of the iPod and tried to figure out how to capitalize on it, like those scavenger
fish that swim under sharks,” said Shelly Hirsch, a toy industry marketing specialist and chief executive of the Beacon
Media Group.
Greg Joswiak, vice president of iPod product marketing for Apple, said the growing number of products designed to plug
into an iPod helps prove that the iPod has become “a cultural phenomenon.”
“If you look at it from the consumers’ standpoint, they have a consumer electronic product that becomes more
valuable over time,” he said. “We’re adding these accessories, adding capabilities.”
Any speaker accessory that attaches to the iPod by way of the proprietary 30-pin connector in the player’s base must
be licensed by Apple, he noted. Those that do, including the FUNKit, can usually also permit full control of the iPod through
the speaker systems and charge iPods’ batteries.
Those that do not, and are not counted as official iPod accessories, are “less interesting,” Mr. Joswiak said.
That judgment has not dissuaded toymakers like Lee Schneider, president of the Commonwealth Toy & Novelty Company, a major
maker of plush animals and dolls.
“We look at not only the toy business, but what’s happening in the world, and the trends in the marketplace,
from a fashion standpoint, from a technological standpoint,” said Mr. Schneider, surrounded by shelves of battery-powered
flora and fauna in his company’s Manhattan showroom. “We then take and see how we can interpret these trends into
fun trends that children and young adults would love to have.”
Last year, he said, “iPods were becoming the rave of the world.” Mr. Schneider said that he and his executives
had asked themselves a single question: “What can we do to make something that could be utilized with iPod?”
First, he said, the company came up with a name that would tie its prospective line of products to iPod. The result was
iPals, which Commonwealth quickly registered and trademarked. Next, the company moved to define the personality of an iPal.
The first iPal, released last year, was a shaggy, plush creature resembling a teardrop-shaped extraterrestrial with stereo
speakers for eyes positioned on long, flexible stalks. The shaggy iPal plugs into any audio player with a standard headphone
jack, avoiding the need for an Apple license.
Mr. Schneider said the original iPal, which cost about $25, was intended for “tween girls who want to have something
cool and fun in their room.”
Then came the Movin’ and Groovin’ line of potted plants, also $25, “probably the best introduction in
the history of my company,” Mr. Schneider said. The plants, some wearing sunglasses and others a pink purse over a leafy
limb, gyrate to music played through a speaker hidden in the plant’s pot.
There is also a line of dancing snakes (soon to be joined by dancing dragons), both $25, as well as plush speaker systems
for children called Smonsters and Plumplers, about $15, and Mini iPals that will cost $10. In the works is a dancing plant
as tall as a third grader (“a room décor piece”) for $80.
“I look at this almost like the Lava Lite of the 2000s,” Mr. Schneider said of his creations.
Sharper Image, the retail chain, is featuring a line of fanciful iPod speaker systems. One is a scale model of a lemon-yellow,
convertible Volkswagen Beetle. Its speakers are hidden in its wheels, and iPods are intended to “ride” in its back seat. At $100, the
Beetle is also a digital alarm clock and FM-AM radio with a wireless remote control and working headlights.
Sharper Image is also offering a $40 teddy bear that flashes tiny lights embedded in its paws and feet when digital music
is played through its speaker. A pocket on its belly is strategically positioned to nestle an iPod.
Sharper Image also sells an iPod docking station that creates a rainbow of colored L.E.D. lights that pulsate to the rhythm
of music played through it. The stereo systems come in two versions, one for $100 and a similar one with a subwoofer for $150.
Mr. Hirsch, the toy industry marketing expert, said iPods have become such a part of everyday life that — as with
a wristwatch — its underlying technology was taken for granted. “It’s almost like magic,” he said.
Among the first to tap into that magic, many in the industry say, was Hasbro’s I-DOG Interactive Music Companion, introduced in fall 2005. At $30, it is a palm-size robotic pooch with an embedded
speaker that moves to music played through it when attached to a digital music player. Hasbro also makes a menagerie of I-animals,
including pups, cats and fish. This month it added a $20 penguin, called I-CY, that flaps its flippers as its belly glows
to music.
Not to be outdone, Mattel, continually updating Barbie, is introducing interactive Chat Divas Barbie dolls for $30. The doll can talk on its cellphone
in one hand and sing karaoke with a microphone in the other. The battery-powered karaoke machine doubles as a speaker for
a music player, and Barbie moves her head and lips to the music.
MGA Entertainment has taken a different direction. The company has created the i-Bratz i-Petz Piggy, a touch-sensitive
plastic piglet ($25) that dances to music played through it. It lights up, turns its head and even flaps its if-pigs-could-fly
wings.
And while it may not qualify as a toy, Atech Flash Technology has come up with an accessory that may still provide a smile.
It is the Stereo Dock for iPod with Bath Tissue Holder, a toilet-paper dispenser with an iPod dock and speakers. Selling for
$100 ($130 with built-in rechargeable battery), it can also be detached from the wall and used as a portable speaker system.
George Yang, the marketing director of Atech, which has offices in Taiwan and Fremont, Calif., said the Apple-licensed
product had been well-received at trade shows. “All get a good laugh out of it,” he said. As for Apple, he added,
“it’s good P.R. for them.”
02:00 AM Feb, 23, 2007
By all means, let's Protect The Children. Because that's what it's all about, right? It doesn't
matter whose life gets mowed down in the process, as long as we are clear that it's all in the name of keeping kids innocent.
Except we seem to be confusing innocence with ignorance.
Next Friday, substitute teacher Julie Amero of Norwich, Connecticut, will receive her sentence -- up to 40 years in prison,
the press repeats with a mixture of horror and glee -- for exposing children to pornography in the classroom.
It could be worse. Had some charges not been dropped, she could have faced 10 felony charges instead of four.
The prosecution claims she deliberately visited porn sites from the class computer and allowed the 12- and 13-year-olds
to view the content. She claims -- and evidence proves -- the school computer got hit with a pop-up frenzy she didn't know
how to stop.
Tech-savvy lawyers are pointing out glaring technological and legal errors made by both sides of the case. Computer forensics
researchers have been re-creating the incident, using a disk image of the classroom machine, to show how insidious pop-up porn can be. SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch
published a 6,200-word analysis exposing the basic tech ignorance of just about everyone involved: the police detective who performed the forensic analysis,
the state's attorney, the defense attorney, the jury, the school administrators, the school IT department and Julie herself.
Julie is taking the fall, but many other people failed before a porn storm burst into that classroom.
The IT department failed to keep content filters and anti-malware software up-to-date. The school failed to enforce a security
policy, allowing substitute teachers to use regular teachers' network credentials to access the internet. The administration
failed to ensure that all teachers, including substitutes, had the necessary skills and training to handle internet surprises
-- and the savvy to respond quickly in a crisis.
And the community fails to Protect The Children in the example it's setting. What should have been a wake-up call for the
district employment office -- and for IT -- has spiraled embarrassingly out of control.
Some students mentioned the incident to their parents, and some parents mentioned it to the administration, and the district
told the parents that Julie wouldn't be teaching there anymore.
It should have ended there. Instead, a subset of parents threw a tantrum and demanded, in one detective's words, "aggressive
police response."
As a result, Julie was arrested for the crime of deliberately exposing children to porn, even though nobody bothered to
check the computer for malware first. Apparently, her mistakes in handling the situation could only have meant she deliberately
brought porn into the classroom.
What message does this witch hunt send to students? That if you scream and huff and puff, you can get your way -- and a
spot on national television -- even when you haven't made the most basic attempts to verify the assumptions on which you base
your accusations?
That teachers are at the mercy of parents, even in small numbers? So if you don't like a teacher, you can use a volatile
issue like internet porn to set off your parents and get that teacher fired, maybe even jailed?
No reasonable person wants to see pornography in a junior-high classroom. But no reasonable person believes that if a porn
storm takes over the school browser, it has to be because the teacher deliberately called it there. At least give the teacher
the benefit of the doubt and look for other, non-felonious explanations first.
Accidental porn is actually a very common occurrence, even among savvy web users -- I ran into some myself just the other
day. According to the Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 34 percent of youths age 10 to 17 who use the internet have unintentionally encountered pictures of naked people or people
having sex. See "Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later" (.pdf). In most cases the encounter is not distressing to the kids; they click away and move on.
Seventh grade is not too early to learn how to handle the internet responsibly.
02:00 AM Feb, 23, 2007
Had Julie been a more confident teacher, she could have turned this incident into an opportunity to talk about smart internet
usage. Switch off or cover the monitor, sit on the desk and get the class talking about what just happened. Ask the students
how they've handled such surprises in the past.
It's a language arts class -- learning how to have a civil, open discourse about current affairs is certainly on-topic.
And then segue back to the lesson plan, without blowing the situation out of proportion.
Although given the ridiculously lynch-mob nature of the case, a class discussion might still have cost Julie her job.
We fail to Protect The Children when we react with fear and hate to the challenges inherent to interactive media, rather
than accepting them and figuring out common-sense ways to deal.
We do students a disservice when we provide them with teachers who aren't equipped with the skills to incorporate computers
and the internet into education. A teacher who doesn't know how to close a browser gone wild probably should not have internet
access in the classroom.
We also seem to react with fear to almost everything that combines new technology and sex or sexual content. But I've been
wondering if that's because fear truly is the majority response, or if it's because the most fearful are the ones making the
most noise and thus making the headlines.
That IT and security experts all over the world are outraged at the case, and moved enough to work for free to prove the
charges are unfounded, reassures me that we haven't all lost our minds just because there's porn on the internet.
Not long ago, we could pretend that teenagers had no access to adult material, and ignore any giggling coming from the
boys' bathroom.
Now, the ritual of stealing dad's girlie magazines to share with friends has been replaced by an online barrage of every
sexualizable act humans can fit on camera and then some. Where once a magazine -- a static collection of still photographs,
generally related to a particular theme -- was passed around in secret like prized bounty, youths can now immerse in a jumbled,
chaotic morass of sexual imagery without context or organization.
We can forbid them from looking all we want, but what will they do when confronted with adult material by accident if the
adults can't even model a sane reaction?
A K-12 classroom is not an appropriate place for porn. And yet is it an excellent venue for developing critical-thinking
skills and learning how to discuss a topic without getting caught up in a mob mentality.
Last year, another teacher lost a job because a handful of blue movies she had made at 22 surfaced on the internet and a student recognized her. Despite
protests from parents who supported her and said she was a good example of how people can change their lives, she was suspended
and her contract was not renewed because her past made her "too distracting" for the boys.
Never mind that at 16, everything is distracting for boys, and that she probably had the most focused attention of any
of the science teachers.
If we truly want to Protect The Children, we will set aside the knee-jerk "OMG it's porn!" crusade and model a more rational
approach for young people. We will teach them to think critically about everything they encounter online, not just porn.
And we will applaud on March 2 when Julie's sentence is a slap on the wrist, when her case is dismissed as a mistrial or
overturned on appeal.
