62.3 F
Los Angeles
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Trump Lawyer Resigns One Day Before Trial To Begin

Joseph Tacopina has filed with the courts that he will not represent Donald J. Trump. The E. Jean Carroll civil case is schedule to begin Tuesday January 16,...

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan Issues Order RE Postponement

On May 9, 2023, a jury found Donald J. Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation. The jury awarded Ms. Carroll $5 million in damages. Seven months ago,...

ASUS Announces 2023 Vivobook Classic Series

On April 7, 2023, ASUS introduced five new models in the 2023 Vivobook Classic series of laptops. The top laptops in the series use the 13th Gen Intel® Core™...
StaffIncremental BloggeraLEAP and Monetized Learning

aLEAP and Monetized Learning

State minimum academic performance standards provide a useful step toward monetizing learning. Teachers have opposed these two indices of public school learning. I have opposed them also, partly because they limit convenient instructional work-arounds. Yet, we all know that we infer an undescribed monetized learning index whenever we request resources for programs and projects.

Describing NESI (New Era School Initiative) and Rationed Learning as well as developing aLEAP (a Learning Efficiency Analysis Paradigm/Plan/Program) have helped to clarify ways to use monetized learning to student benefit.

An informal analysis of teacher arguments for more state funding leads to this hypothesis. I hope someone tests it formally: Teachers implicitly use at least one of the following formuli to argue for increased funding to match monetized learning costs of their students.

Formula 1. Total state reimbursement to district per teacher / (Total number of minutes of scheduled classroom instruction per teacher for the Academic Year / Total number state standards for students of a teacher to meet {= Average number of minutes per minimum academic standard}) = Average cost per minimum academic standard.

Formula 2. Average cost per minimum academic standard / Average number of learning objectives per standard = Average cost of learning objectives to meet each state minimum academic performance standard.

For development of aLEAP, I assume that student learning with Tablet and other mobile PCs transforms teacher guesses about instructional tactics into databased calculations of the probability of a lesson yielding learning criterion by each student, and thereby costs per trials and errors.

This frame makes it easier to match learning costs with efficient instruction in order to increase student learning and other benefits, including reducing instructionally induced rationed learning.

aLEAP (a Learning Efficiency Analysis Paradigm)

Calculating Learning Efficiency: NESI Conversation 3

Teachers’ Conflicts of Interest Ration Learning: NESI Conversation 11

Robert Heiny
Robert Heinyhttp://www.robertheiny.com
Robert W. Heiny, Ph.D. is a retired professor, social scientist, and business partner with previous academic appointments as a public school classroom teacher, senior faculty, or senior research member, and administrator. Appointments included at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Peabody College and the Kennedy Center now of Vanderbilt University; and Brandeis University. Dr. Heiny also served as Director of the Montana Center on Disabilities. His peer reviewed contributions to education include publication in The Encyclopedia of Education (1971), and in professional journals and conferences. He served s an expert reviewer of proposals to USOE, and on a team that wrote plans for 12 state-wide and multistate special education and preschools programs. He currently writes user guides for educators and learners as well as columns for TuxReports.com.

Latest news

Related news