Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
How is this comparable?
This was a response to this post:
Pretty much every Fortune 500 and lots of other companies and organizations monitor social media for mention of them, particularly anything adverse... this is not at all unprecedented or unusual these days.
I seriously doubt these companies are actively searching social media for the purpose of finding law violations to point out to government authorities. That is what Pearson is doing. Searching children's social media for evidence of rule violation and reporting to schools/state. It's creepy.
Anonymous wrote:
Why doesn't Pearson contact the offender themselves? Why do they contact the offender's school?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
How is this comparable?
This was a response to this post:
Pretty much every Fortune 500 and lots of other companies and organizations monitor social media for mention of them, particularly anything adverse... this is not at all unprecedented or unusual these days.
I seriously doubt these companies are actively searching social media for the purpose of finding law violations to point out to government authorities. That is what Pearson is doing. Searching children's social media for evidence of rule violation and reporting to schools/state. It's creepy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
How is this comparable?
Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
Anonymous wrote:
I would have had less of a problem if the problem said something like Find the opposite about zero or opposite with respect to zero. Opposite is a relative term and needs to be qualified. This question just shows the test is written to a low standard and by people who are limited in mathematical knowledge themselves and believe the end product of education should be regurgitating what one was taught in a closed system, instead of knowledge that will connect with the broader world and extend into deeper study of real, not constructed, subject matter.
Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Checked with a mathematician. He laughed. Opposite is not a math word.
LOL!
Just asked by DH. He asked: Do you mean "inverse"? Never heard "opposite" at MIT.
Well, if DH never heard it at MIT, then obviously it doesn't exist!
No, wait...
http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/Algebra1/COURSE_TEXT_RESOURCE/U02_L1_T1_text_final.html
(I bet he never heard about "regrouping" or "composition/decomposition" at MIT, either.)
The diff is that Monterey defined their term.
Using terms like regrouping is ok for teaching but they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. Testing should be about knowledge of subject matter.
Monterey used the term in the same way that the PARCC test question did. Therefore, the PARCC test question did not make up the idea.
Also, math subject matter includes math vocabulary.
Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you think adult criminals were doing when they were kids? Probably not their chores.
So that means it's okay to monitor kids . . . because they are really miniature adult criminals. ??
No, that's not what I said. What is it you fear?