Trouble ahead for school teachers

Will technology do for schools (teachers) what it did for newspapers (news people)?

“In the final analysis, what technology requires is a substitution of technology for human labor. Computers will do a lot of what teachers do now.” Jumping forward in his chair, he lights up: “Technology is cheap. Labor is really expensive. Education has always been very labor intensive, so if our education system can substitute technology for labor and still provide kids with high quality education, then great!”

It does this everywhere.  I got a computer etc. in the ’80s because it was that or hire a typist because I needed clean copy for clients and editors.  (My newspaper had closed down, I no longer had a copy desk to clean things up, etc.)  Was huge initial outlay I couldn’t afford.  But necessary.

My newspaper, an evening sheet, was done in partly (largely?) by TV, in the ’70s.  What’s to come, therefore, for teachers, many of whom will be priced out of the market, like bicycle-factory workers when that boom went bust early in the 20th century?

The art of the headline . . .

The flag of Fort Worth, Texas currently in use...
Bullish purchase here

. . . not dead yet.

Consider this, from Wall St. Journal, heading a story about steel vs. aluminum in lightweight cars:

Aluminum Tests Its Mettle Against Steel in Drive for Lighter Cars

And from same newspaper, for another about the sale of a Fort Worth building as sign of “the rebirth of the commercial-mortgage-backed-securities market”:

Loan Star: Texas Site Sells As CMBS Market Rallies

Not quite in the “headless body found in topless bar” class, but let’s hear it for at least one copy desk anyhow.

Loosey-goosey with viewpoint

Loosey Goosey
Loosey Goosey wondering what's next

ChiTrib’s Manya Brachear tips her hand:

Just in time for parishioners to pass the plate this weekend and raise funds for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops are expected Tuesday to tighten guidelines for giving financial support to groups that empower the poor.

Tighten?  From whose perspective?  Not from that of Catholics and others who see anomaly in RC funding of groups that flout RC teaching.

Brachear’s “tighten” remains in her lede in this story — about reverting to the community-organizing bias of Catholic Campaign for Human Development decision-makers — but it’s gone from the online head, where the home-delivery hard copy “tighten” becomes “adjust.”

Catholic bishops adjusting guidelines for funding programs in campaign against poverty

is indeed more like it.

So somebody’s minding the store at the Trib, trying to save the day, though you can hardly blame the hard-copy editors for going with the lede in its head, “Catholic bishops tighten rules on aid for poor.”

Point? Why does Brachear thinks it’s a tightening when it’s a loosening — relaxing a ban on giving money to abortion-referring organizations and the like?