--- Steve Cavrak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In someways, this reminds me of a remark from the
> old Jack Paar show "When you think of the power of
> television to educate, aren't you glad that it
> doesn't."

It's not that I don't agree with the fact that AOL is
a part of kids lives -- I just don't agree with the
tactics they've used to become the success they have
become.  When I was a "volunteer" for AOL I got a free
account -- I had to work 4 hours a week which
translated to about $1.50/hour.  And, if I didn't show
up for "work" I would get emails chastising me for not
doing my part for the "online community." That's when
I finally quit!

The reason AOL has become so successful is that so
many people bought into the "online community" and
"volunteered" to work for them.  I don't know what
they do now but people served as guides, tutors, chat
room monitors, bulletin board monitors, etc., all for
a "free" account.  Many people put in many hours well
beyond the required 4 hours per week.  Exploitation at
its best!

> AOL, and all of the web, are indeed powerful tools;
> schools alas are way behind the curve, and some
> schools are getting further behind every day.

No argument there! :-)

> As for the "damage" from IM and chat, it's probably
> no more dangerous than the gossip that adults enjoy
> in the teacher's room, shopping mall, bowling alley,
> or soda shop :)

Maybe, maybe not. Kids are let loose on AOL (internet)
at a very young age and they often act differently
than they do face-to-face. When people can be
anonymous there is not always accountability for their
actions ... or the messages they send to others.

Joanne

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com