Ceolaf
@ceolaf.bsky.social
Educator & ed researcher. Currently focusing on how to develop better tests, for instruction and for democratic oversight of schools. http://RigorousTestDevelopment.com https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander-Hoffman-12/research
Reposted by Ceolaf
This policy that greatly harms students and keeps passing rates lower than they should be. I wanted to teach Alg II and could guarantee an 85% pass rate of higher. But I didn't have a masters in math. So I wasn't eligible to teach it. Instead, some clown taught it and abt 30% of students failed. 2/x
December 9, 2025 at 2:29 PM
This policy that greatly harms students and keeps passing rates lower than they should be. I wanted to teach Alg II and could guarantee an 85% pass rate of higher. But I didn't have a masters in math. So I wasn't eligible to teach it. Instead, some clown taught it and abt 30% of students failed. 2/x
Reposted by Ceolaf
We are mostly talking about teaching Algebra II to students bcz that is essentially what College Algebra is. BUT, HS teachers are not allowed to teach it as higher ed level. Instead, grad students or faculty who likely have no or limited pedagogical training teach it. 1/x
December 9, 2025 at 2:27 PM
We are mostly talking about teaching Algebra II to students bcz that is essentially what College Algebra is. BUT, HS teachers are not allowed to teach it as higher ed level. Instead, grad students or faculty who likely have no or limited pedagogical training teach it. 1/x
This may shock you, but there’s no title there.
December 4, 2025 at 4:10 AM
This may shock you, but there’s no title there.
I say that despite my own evaluation of the mortality of the actions of the state of Israel, hamas, the PA, Gazans, other Palestinians and/or the US government.
2/
2/
December 4, 2025 at 2:14 AM
I say that despite my own evaluation of the mortality of the actions of the state of Israel, hamas, the PA, Gazans, other Palestinians and/or the US government.
2/
2/
The point you made is false. She did not make general statements about tik tok or any other media.
Her comment was specific to a particular issue (area).
And, yes, I think she is correct about tik tok, on this score. That’s the nature of that platform and algorithmic social media generally.
1/
Her comment was specific to a particular issue (area).
And, yes, I think she is correct about tik tok, on this score. That’s the nature of that platform and algorithmic social media generally.
1/
December 4, 2025 at 2:14 AM
The point you made is false. She did not make general statements about tik tok or any other media.
Her comment was specific to a particular issue (area).
And, yes, I think she is correct about tik tok, on this score. That’s the nature of that platform and algorithmic social media generally.
1/
Her comment was specific to a particular issue (area).
And, yes, I think she is correct about tik tok, on this score. That’s the nature of that platform and algorithmic social media generally.
1/
You responded to me.
I have been repeating the same point. You keep failing to acknowledge that point—even though it’s what you responded to.
Who is dodging? You’ve not asked me a question or acknowledged what I wrote—despite the fact that you responded to my skeet.
Who is dodging?
I have been repeating the same point. You keep failing to acknowledge that point—even though it’s what you responded to.
Who is dodging? You’ve not asked me a question or acknowledged what I wrote—despite the fact that you responded to my skeet.
Who is dodging?
December 4, 2025 at 2:07 AM
You responded to me.
I have been repeating the same point. You keep failing to acknowledge that point—even though it’s what you responded to.
Who is dodging? You’ve not asked me a question or acknowledged what I wrote—despite the fact that you responded to my skeet.
Who is dodging?
I have been repeating the same point. You keep failing to acknowledge that point—even though it’s what you responded to.
Who is dodging? You’ve not asked me a question or acknowledged what I wrote—despite the fact that you responded to my skeet.
Who is dodging?
She did not say that Jews are required to support Israel or required to oppose Palestinians. She do not say they lose their claim to Jewishness for failing to do so.
She did not say anything like what Trump said.
She did not say anything like what Trump said.
December 4, 2025 at 1:46 AM
She did not say that Jews are required to support Israel or required to oppose Palestinians. She do not say they lose their claim to Jewishness for failing to do so.
She did not say anything like what Trump said.
She did not say anything like what Trump said.
I don’t think that that’s quite what she’s claiming—but that’s not the point.
The point is that what she said is different than Trump claiming that Schumer ain’t Jewish because he criticized Israel or acknowledged that others might have rights.
It’s quite different.
The point is that what she said is different than Trump claiming that Schumer ain’t Jewish because he criticized Israel or acknowledged that others might have rights.
It’s quite different.
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM
I don’t think that that’s quite what she’s claiming—but that’s not the point.
The point is that what she said is different than Trump claiming that Schumer ain’t Jewish because he criticized Israel or acknowledged that others might have rights.
It’s quite different.
The point is that what she said is different than Trump claiming that Schumer ain’t Jewish because he criticized Israel or acknowledged that others might have rights.
It’s quite different.
This piece posits that the decisions are entirely made by “capital” and the benefits are entirely going to “capital.”
But that’s not reality.
No, we should NOT be Luddites. The Industrial Revolution was incredibly good for the masses of humanity—far better than the subsistence it replaced.
10/10
But that’s not reality.
No, we should NOT be Luddites. The Industrial Revolution was incredibly good for the masses of humanity—far better than the subsistence it replaced.
10/10
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
This piece posits that the decisions are entirely made by “capital” and the benefits are entirely going to “capital.”
But that’s not reality.
No, we should NOT be Luddites. The Industrial Revolution was incredibly good for the masses of humanity—far better than the subsistence it replaced.
10/10
But that’s not reality.
No, we should NOT be Luddites. The Industrial Revolution was incredibly good for the masses of humanity—far better than the subsistence it replaced.
10/10
I don’t think we should be blinded by the issues around the 1% or 0.01% and ignore the broader distributional effects.
I don’t think we should worry about 90-99% and ignore the much larger group of (potential?) beneficiaries.
9/
I don’t think we should worry about 90-99% and ignore the much larger group of (potential?) beneficiaries.
9/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
I don’t think we should be blinded by the issues around the 1% or 0.01% and ignore the broader distributional effects.
I don’t think we should worry about 90-99% and ignore the much larger group of (potential?) beneficiaries.
9/
I don’t think we should worry about 90-99% and ignore the much larger group of (potential?) beneficiaries.
9/
I take issues with ignoring the fact that the textile machines and the LLMs take from quite elite—though not most elite—and spread benefits far more widely.
That’s a HUGE part of the Luddite reality and the the 2020’s AI revolution.
8/
That’s a HUGE part of the Luddite reality and the the 2020’s AI revolution.
8/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
I take issues with ignoring the fact that the textile machines and the LLMs take from quite elite—though not most elite—and spread benefits far more widely.
That’s a HUGE part of the Luddite reality and the the 2020’s AI revolution.
8/
That’s a HUGE part of the Luddite reality and the the 2020’s AI revolution.
8/
I am not employing people with real skills I lack—or are too antiquated to be entirely useful.
In this, I am not elite and the tech allows me to do things that very recently required real skills far beyond my own.
7/
In this, I am not elite and the tech allows me to do things that very recently required real skills far beyond my own.
7/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
I am not employing people with real skills I lack—or are too antiquated to be entirely useful.
In this, I am not elite and the tech allows me to do things that very recently required real skills far beyond my own.
7/
In this, I am not elite and the tech allows me to do things that very recently required real skills far beyond my own.
7/
I can produce code for a research project in a language I never learned and accessing an API I didn’t know, and do so very quickly. Thus, I can do the non-profit project.
I can generate cartoons for blog posts on my non-profit blog.
6/
I can generate cartoons for blog posts on my non-profit blog.
6/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
I can produce code for a research project in a language I never learned and accessing an API I didn’t know, and do so very quickly. Thus, I can do the non-profit project.
I can generate cartoons for blog posts on my non-profit blog.
6/
I can generate cartoons for blog posts on my non-profit blog.
6/
Yes, the 1% benefited—as they nearly always do.
But the Luddites were not defending the masses. They were defending their own very small and rather elite class—just not not the most elite class.
5/
But the Luddites were not defending the masses. They were defending their own very small and rather elite class—just not not the most elite class.
5/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Yes, the 1% benefited—as they nearly always do.
But the Luddites were not defending the masses. They were defending their own very small and rather elite class—just not not the most elite class.
5/
But the Luddites were not defending the masses. They were defending their own very small and rather elite class—just not not the most elite class.
5/
The new textile technologies would not have been deployed if they did not provide a better option for the less skills. “Capital” still had to attract labor for their factories. It wasn’t just “capital” who decided on their deployment.
Thinking so is delusional.
4/
Thinking so is delusional.
4/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
The new textile technologies would not have been deployed if they did not provide a better option for the less skills. “Capital” still had to attract labor for their factories. It wasn’t just “capital” who decided on their deployment.
Thinking so is delusional.
4/
Thinking so is delusional.
4/
The luddites were not the rich and powerful “capital” class, but they were far from the masses. Craftsmen and artisans were relatively elite.
Yes, those machines would hurt them, but the machines would provide more economic opportunities for the far less skilled—and cheaper clothes for all.
3/
Yes, those machines would hurt them, but the machines would provide more economic opportunities for the far less skilled—and cheaper clothes for all.
3/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
The luddites were not the rich and powerful “capital” class, but they were far from the masses. Craftsmen and artisans were relatively elite.
Yes, those machines would hurt them, but the machines would provide more economic opportunities for the far less skilled—and cheaper clothes for all.
3/
Yes, those machines would hurt them, but the machines would provide more economic opportunities for the far less skilled—and cheaper clothes for all.
3/
That view treat inequality as the ultimate problem and it is about the gap—in wealth, power, etc.—between these two classes.
But there were always more two classes.
What if tech helps the 1% and the bottom 30% at the expense of the 40-80%? How do we think about lifting the floor?
2/
But there were always more two classes.
What if tech helps the 1% and the bottom 30% at the expense of the 40-80%? How do we think about lifting the floor?
2/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
That view treat inequality as the ultimate problem and it is about the gap—in wealth, power, etc.—between these two classes.
But there were always more two classes.
What if tech helps the 1% and the bottom 30% at the expense of the 40-80%? How do we think about lifting the floor?
2/
But there were always more two classes.
What if tech helps the 1% and the bottom 30% at the expense of the 40-80%? How do we think about lifting the floor?
2/
OK. I’ve read it now.
I think there are a couple of decent seeds in it, but it is mostly about this view that there is that powerful crowd over there vs. the masses.
It’s a marxian view of “capital” vs. everyone else. But I don’t think that that view was ever truly justified.
1/
I think there are a couple of decent seeds in it, but it is mostly about this view that there is that powerful crowd over there vs. the masses.
It’s a marxian view of “capital” vs. everyone else. But I don’t think that that view was ever truly justified.
1/
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 AM
OK. I’ve read it now.
I think there are a couple of decent seeds in it, but it is mostly about this view that there is that powerful crowd over there vs. the masses.
It’s a marxian view of “capital” vs. everyone else. But I don’t think that that view was ever truly justified.
1/
I think there are a couple of decent seeds in it, but it is mostly about this view that there is that powerful crowd over there vs. the masses.
It’s a marxian view of “capital” vs. everyone else. But I don’t think that that view was ever truly justified.
1/
It‘a actually quite different.
You can disagree with her. She might be mostly wrong, or even 100% wrong.
But she is not claiming that Jews are required to support Israel to be Jewish. She is not equating ethnicity—or religion—with loyalty to a state.
It’s quite different.
You can disagree with her. She might be mostly wrong, or even 100% wrong.
But she is not claiming that Jews are required to support Israel to be Jewish. She is not equating ethnicity—or religion—with loyalty to a state.
It’s quite different.
December 3, 2025 at 12:33 AM
It‘a actually quite different.
You can disagree with her. She might be mostly wrong, or even 100% wrong.
But she is not claiming that Jews are required to support Israel to be Jewish. She is not equating ethnicity—or religion—with loyalty to a state.
It’s quite different.
You can disagree with her. She might be mostly wrong, or even 100% wrong.
But she is not claiming that Jews are required to support Israel to be Jewish. She is not equating ethnicity—or religion—with loyalty to a state.
It’s quite different.
I tell students that there are three lessons they need to learn. Lessons that will usually keep them from being fired or dumped.
* follow directions
* be diligent
* don’t be an asshole
You saying he violated all three?
* follow directions
* be diligent
* don’t be an asshole
You saying he violated all three?
December 2, 2025 at 4:39 AM
I tell students that there are three lessons they need to learn. Lessons that will usually keep them from being fired or dumped.
* follow directions
* be diligent
* don’t be an asshole
You saying he violated all three?
* follow directions
* be diligent
* don’t be an asshole
You saying he violated all three?
That reads as a compliment to me. More carefully formatted and worded than they expect. More clear and precise.
Through a wider lens, it portends a slide into drivel among those who anti-AI sentiments have them ban things that look to them like they were produced by LLMs—I should add an em dash.
Through a wider lens, it portends a slide into drivel among those who anti-AI sentiments have them ban things that look to them like they were produced by LLMs—I should add an em dash.
December 1, 2025 at 1:06 PM
That reads as a compliment to me. More carefully formatted and worded than they expect. More clear and precise.
Through a wider lens, it portends a slide into drivel among those who anti-AI sentiments have them ban things that look to them like they were produced by LLMs—I should add an em dash.
Through a wider lens, it portends a slide into drivel among those who anti-AI sentiments have them ban things that look to them like they were produced by LLMs—I should add an em dash.
Is it an insult or compliment?
Why do you think that they think it is AI?
Why do you think that they think it is AI?
December 1, 2025 at 12:26 PM
Is it an insult or compliment?
Why do you think that they think it is AI?
Why do you think that they think it is AI?