Saturday, July 4, 2009

Photos for a fourth

Photos from the family's 1974 backpacking trip in the California Sierra Nevada. On this particular trip, we were way in, where few people ever go.

When, after two weeks, we hiked out, we ran into a guy on the trail who'd just started his trip.

"What's new in the world?", we asked.

"Well, we've got a new President," he said.

We were amazed. And happy.



That's my little bro Ron, fishing. Nowadays, he takes his four kids up to those mountains.


One of my flower close-ups, taken with that old Pentax. Long time ago.



Dave Alvin - "Fourth of July" live

Hey, baby, it's the Fourth of July.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Flowers for a Friday

Been awfully busy.

I came across some photos I took when I was a teenager, when the family would go on two-week backpacking trips in the Sierra Nevada.

Used my dad's Pentax. It had a 50 mm lens. I added an extension tube for closeups.

I fooled around with reflected light and such. Pretty wacky, I guess.



This last one is a pic of my sister, c. 1974. By then, she had married a guy who later became a big cheese in the computer industry. About ten years ago, he crashed his experimental aircraft straight into the ground.
R.I.P., Davey-Do.


Wednesday, July 1, 2009

John Williams: "egregious” mismanagement

Looks like the Times is finally on the Williams story:

O.C. grand jury again criticizes public administrator/public guardian's office
The Orange County grand jury issued a scathing report Tuesday criticizing the public administrator/public guardian's office for "egregious" mismanagement, including questionable promotions that cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

"It was outrageous behavior," jury foreman Jim Perez said.

The public administrator settles the estates of the deceased; the public guardian takes care of people under legal conservatorship. The department handles estates valued at more than $38 million each year, according to the report.

In a move to reduce county costs, the office of the public guardian was split from the Health Care Agency in 2005 and combined with the public administrator. ¶ But instead of saving money, the first grand jury report said, costs went up because of additional management salaries. Staffing levels have risen from seven managers for 67 employees at a cost of $529,796 to 10 managers for the same number of employees at $1.04 million.

Jurors intended to issue only one report on the agency. But within two weeks of its release in May, they got a "significant" number of calls and letters informing them that not only had management not changed, but that the situation had worsened. Another person was promoted to a newly created management position. Meanwhile, staffing levels of caseworkers and their caseloads remained the same.

"The things we highlighted in the first report were still being done very flagrantly," juror Janet Buell said.

Department head John Williams will address the [Board of Supervisors] regarding the first report on July 14. He could not be reached for comment.

But Williams "needs to have the answers to the management practices and promotion practices," [Board Chairwoman Patricia] Bates said.

According to an employee quoted in the report, temporary promotions were used to "gain support and loyalty" within the agency.

A look at human resources records showed "many instances" of people promoted and then demoted, the report said.

"Someone else needs to make changes," Buell said, "because this management isn't."

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

"It's chutzpah": John Williams stuck in the spanking machine


Jennifer Muir of the OC Reg reports that SOCCCD trustee JOHN WILLIAMS is an even bigger idiot than we thought:

Public administrator accused of mismanagement. Again.
Orange County's Public Administrator and Public Guardian John Williams has continued to expand his already bloated management staff and engage in questionable personnel practices despite warnings from the grand jury earlier this year, a new report alleged Tuesday.

The grand jury took a rare second look at Williams and his agency and found that the problems still existed.

"We couldn't believe it," grand jury foreman James Perez said. "They basically went on to do the same thing in spite of our report. It's chutzpah."

But Williams says the grand jury's allegations are not accurate, the second probe is redundant and it was released prematurely – before the deadline for his office to formally respond to the first barrage of charges against him. Working with the grand jurors was frustrating, he said, because many struggled to understand the complex documents and cases they were investigating.

The Orange County public administrator/public guardian manages more than $38 million in assets while administering the estates of more than a thousand people each year.

The public administrator is an elected job charged with settling the estates of recently deceased residents who have no known heirs. The public guardian is responsible for overseeing the estate and physical well being of folks who are unable to care for themselves, such as the mentally ill and elderly.

Those roles were combined in 2005 after Williams and then-Treasurer Tax Collector John Moorlach promised county supervisors that merging the departments would save the county $300,000. Williams earns about $145,000 a year for his work overseeing both roles, he says.

Fueled by public complaints of "inappropriate activities" within the department, the grand jury published results of its first probe in May, accusing Williams of doubling salary costs at the agency, engaging in questionable personnel practices and failing to save taxpayer money.
...
After the report was published, Perez says the grand jury received more complaints about the department, which led them to take a second look.

They discovered that Williams had hired another manager, "even though there does not appear to be a suitable organizational reason for taking that action," expanding the cost of management to $1.15 million by June 2009.

Williams defends his management practices, saying the grand jury's report is riddled with inaccuracies. For example, their analysis of management salaries is misleading for several reasons: The 2005 figures don't account for the Health Care Agency staff that was helping manage operations before the public administrator and public guardian were consolidated. Also, the 2005 salary figures only reflect base pay, while the 2009 figures also include benefits.
...
Additionally, he says there are nine managers in his department, not 11 as the grand jury report says.

Moorlach said the grand jury's second report seems to be an offshoot of a memo circulated by the county's human resources director.

"I think the grand jury's facts have been corroborated by our human resources dept," Moorlach said. "I'm not having trouble with the grand jury's facts. I think it would be good that we have a good discussion to air it out."

Monday, June 29, 2009

Day 14 of the wait for "dollar details" (or: don't hold your breath)

TWO WEEKS AGO (i.e., June 15), OC Register “Watchdog” reporter Teri Sforza posted an account of complaints—charges of “inflated numbers” and cheating [aka "fraud"]—regarding Saddleback College “Emeritus” PE classes at Laguna Woods Village, aka “Leisure World” (Is college cheating state for seniors’ fitness classes?).

The matter was originally pursued by dogged LWV resident Doug Goforth, but he managed to get other residents riled, yielding a petition in May, which was presented to an LWV governing board. The petition had little impact, but the issue lingers.

In a follow-up article a few hours later, Sforza said she had asked Saddleback College for a response, and she did get a brief statement from spokeswoman Jennie McCue. But Sforza had also asked for “dollar details” for these PE courses.

As of Monday afternoon (again, June 15), said Sforza, she had not yet been provided with the latter (which was understandable).

On Friday (June 19), Sforza reported that “We're still waiting on dollar figures for the Emeritus physical education program….”

As near as I can tell, she’s still waiting. Anyway, there are no indications in today's edition of the Reg (as of a few minutes ago) that the information has been provided.

OK, so this is DAY 14 of the WAIT FOR "DOLLAR DETAILS."

Gosh, maybe they have no intention of providing those details! D'you suppose?

Evidence handed to chirpy simpletons

"So we don't need teachers anymore. Is that it?"

Want to know the future of higher education? Well, higher ed is definitely going through some big changes, and one of them concerns the role and nature of “online instruction" (OI), a species of "distance ed."

Anyone with even an ounce of conservatism in their soul has to wonder about this shiny new mode of instruction. In some ways, it seems to offer distinct advantages as a way to ensure that students study and learn. In other ways, not so much. Cheating is a big worry.

(Several years ago, I added an "online" component to my traditional philosophy courses, and this has provided ways to increase interaction with students and compel students to study more. For instance, I find that Blackboard assignments have a huge advantage: they are utterly ruthless and unforgiving about due dates. They are the Borg.)

Naturally, a key question is: what does the evidence tell us? Scientifically, anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless. Academics, I find, are as clueless as the general population about this point. Amazing.

But good scientific studies are another matter. Better still are studies of studies, assuming the studies studied aren’t systematically flawed.

In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed (The Evidence), we learn that the U.S. Dept. of Education has just released a study regarding the efficacy of online instruction (OI). According to the study, says IHE, "students who took all or part of their instruction online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through face-to-face instruction."

Hmmm. That factoid in itself doesn't mean much. After all, the set of online students is liable to be different than the set of trad students: maybe the former are more conscentious or observant (after all, they noticed the availability of online courses)?

But it sounds like the DOE got this right. First of all, it pursued a meta-analysis. IHE explains:
A meta-analysis is one that takes all of the existing studies and looks at them for patterns and conclusions that can be drawn from the accumulation of evidence.

And DOE was careful to discriminate between studies:
On the topic of online learning, there is a steady stream of studies, but many of them focus on limited issues or lack control groups. The Education Department report said that it had identified more than 1,000 empirical studies of online learning that were published from 1996 through July 2008. For its conclusions, however, the Education Department considered only a small number (51) of independent studies that met strict criteria. They had to contrast an online teaching experience to a face-to-face situation, measure student learning outcomes, use a "rigorous research design," and provide adequate information to calculate the differences. [My emphases.]

Sounds good.

Previous studies suggested that online instruction is the equal of “face-to-face” instruction in causing students to learn. But the meta-analysis actually gives OI the edge.

The study discriminated between OI modes and found that the “use of video or online quizzes – frequently encouraged for online education – “does not appear to enhance learning,"…. Good to know.

IS IT ALL ABOUT STUDY TIME?

Check this out:
...[T]he report attributes much of the success in learning online (blended or entirely) not to technology but to time. "Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning," the report says.
...
"Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium," the report says. "In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages." [My emphases.]

Is this saying that, since these online courses happen (for some reason) to involve more study time (etc.) than the control trad courses, it might just be that difference, and not something intrinsic to OI, that is explaining the superiority of OI?

Not sure. Seems so.

Ed Secretary Arne Duncan is quoted as saying, “This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide”…. Arne sounds like a politician--someone who deletes qualifiers from his/her verbiage. That's not good.

Lawrence N. Gold, director of higher education at the American Federation of Teachers, is quoted as saying something, well, wise:
"This report correctly recognizes that online learning and blended learning are growing components of higher education and, employed properly, can play a significant role in promoting student learning. Further public investment in experimentation and technology is certainly warranted…. [W]e should not take the report as saying it is simply better to move to online learning. These results demonstrate why more research is needed – broadly based research that moves well beyond case studies conducted by distance education practitioners, research focused on student retention in online environments and especially research that looks behind the instructional medium to isolate the characteristics of instruction that produce positive results. Successful education has always been about engaging students whether it is in an online environment, face to face or in a blended setting. And fundamental to that is having faculty who are fully supported and engaged in that process as well." [My emphases.]

That seems exactly right.

It’s beginning to look like we’d do best to embrace this brave new world of OI. But cautiously.

It’s always best to blend innovation ("revolution") with caution ("conservatism"), I think. What I fear is that, in this case as in so many others, we will leave out the conservatism, rapidly moving into the better world, as though we knew exactly what and where that is. And only a fool would stop for directions.

Will we once again be chirpy simpletons with garish banners and snappy slogans?

Of course!

I hate when that happens.

IHE also has an article about the feds pursuing availability of free on-line training courses:

U.S. Push for Free Online Courses
Obama administration may propose "open" classes and create "National Skills College" to coordinate offerings at high schools and community colleges. Other help for 2-year institutions may include $10 billion facilities loan fund

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...