Comments on PRACTICAL QA: SCHOOL OF TESTING

Mr. Kaner - Wow. This really deserves its own blo...

2008-11-18T14:06:00.000-05:00

Mr. Kaner - Wow. This really deserves its own blog or article space….

"Throughout my career, people have encouraged me to focus on the ways that I agree with them and to keep quiet about the ways that I disagree with them. That's OK, it's a natural way for people to behave, but I don't think such an approach leads to progress."

I get that too. Would you be surprised if I said primarily from people who say they ascribe to the Contextual School? I don’t think it leads to progress either.

"The testing community has engaged in significant efforts underway to create standards to govern software testing. IEEE 829 (software test documentation) for example, was recently revised, but in ways that I think put a preference for heavyweight processes and management-by-paperwork over consideration of the actual requirements of the stakeholders. I had no influence on that standard, and no hope of influence. To me, Standard 829 provides an analytical structure that feels more like malpractice to me than best practice. Should I really shut up about that? Or teach my students a different way?

Recently, some people in the testing community succeeded in persuading ISO to create a broad international standards project for software testing. Looking at the advocates, I see a bunch of people who hold views very different from mine. They might welcome me as a token agilista, but I think the result is largely predetermined--the definitions, the practices, the view of testing will look a lot like how testing consultants presented testing in 1983, when I first started working in Sili Valley: Focused on standards more than stakeholder requirements, more on "best practices" than locally effective practices, much more focused on repetition (regression testing) than risk mitigation, more focused on paperwork than creative empirical investigation--not at all like the more agile, stakeholder-focused approach that I've advocated throughout my career. Should I pretend that we all agree about this? That I think this is a good direction?"

In terms of your experiences with IEEE or ISO, my question is whether you find it frustrating to try to reason with a group of people that don’t recognize there is more than one way to skin a cat. You would like those groups to understand and respect your viewpoints and realities, would you not? It appears you feel there is little point in attempting to engage them; is that true? What if the original notion of “schools” has mutated into something that is the exactly the same, but in reverse? Would you think that’s OK because it was your own ideas that were supported and the rest of the field could “go fish”? Or would you fight equally hard against it?

"I think it is a mistake to stifle our disagreements. To a very large degree, the productivity of software testing and the core concepts of software testing are comparable to our state in 1983. That is not true for programming. Programmer productivity has increased enormously over the past 3 decades as programming paradigms have shifted fundamentally several times. The programming communities weren't constrained to talk only about the ways they agreed--they criticized each other, tried new things, and today a "large" system is more like a 1,000,000 statements or 10,000,000 statements, compared to 10,000 statements back in 1980. I believe that the divergence in growth of productivity, between programmers and testers, is making traditional testing less and less relevant because traditionally-designed/developed/documented tests assess less and less of these much larger products. I believe that the growth of test-driven programming partially reflects an exasperation with traditional testing, and a sense among many programmers and project managers that the traditional testing done on their projects was diminishingly relevant, insufficiently valuable. Speaking with several of the founders of extreme programming, I have had a repeated sense of their exasperation with traditional testing and their determination to regain control of "quality control" (via TDD) because they saw this as the only way they knew to make software QC better. I think we need to acknowledge the genuine problems the agile developers are responding to, and to reconsider how we do testing."

I’m not really sure we’re talking about the same thing here. I’m not talking about stifling disagreements. I’m talking about focus on differences in a way that encourages one group to crush another; both of whom might have something to contribute to the field. It’s my understanding that the original concept of schools was an intellectual discussion to explore why different groups tackle problems in different ways and why they use different terminology for similar things. I have no issues with that. I don’t share that interest – I’d be more interested in whether the initial problem got solved, how, and if it would be something I could use or train someone else to use, but still, I can appreciate the intellectual curiosity. It appears, however, that we’ve moved from “differences” to “disagreements”. If the purpose of “schools” was to provoke disagreement, discord, dislike, and to allow one group to vilify another, I believe it has served its purpose. I’m not sure I’ve learned much of value from the experience, however. But what about you? Has the concept of “schools” served its purpose for you? Or do you feel that anyone who doesn’t belong to the same group of thinkers as you do feels the same way you did about the IEEE and ISO situation and that their unwillingness to participate hinders your research?

"I just don't share that perception. I've felt extremely unwelcome on SQA Forums for years. Many of the people who are active there not only disagree with me, they seem to believe that I need to be told to shut up, shut up, go away. James Bach and I ultimately formed the software-testing list to have one place we could work without have our discussions drowned out by people calling us jerks and idiots. Diversity doesn't come from telling people to shut up. It comes from honoring the fact that there are many different views and they should be explored, investigated, criticized, defended, researched, and improved."

We’re in total agreement on that one. But would it be surprising to you that the perception of many in the field is that it is the contextual “school” telling everyone else they’re jerks and idiots – to shut up, shut up, and go away?. What if, through the concept of “schools”,”honoring the fact that there are many different views and they should be explored, investigated, criticized, defended, researched, and improved” has been compromised and has in fact encouraged the very mindset you’ve deplored from the other direction? What if detractors of the school concept are telling you the truth? That it has instead led to the worst type of stereotyping and discrimination? Would you be able to toss it away and look for a better way to achieve your goals? Or would you stick with it?

And as an aside, you (and James Bach) have a great many admirers on QAForums. It’s true, however, that they might not agree with you. They don’t even agree with each other. A more disrespectful, belligerent, contentious group would be difficult to find. If you were God, they’d question the Ten Commandments. But I’m smiling as I say that. I haven’t participated on those forums for quite some time, but I’ve met some great people there that remain friends.

"Rather than saying that my colleagues are not mature enough to think critically and accept the fact that others think critically, I say that to the extent that our field is not mature enough to handle this comfortably, it is time for the field to grow up."

I probably deserve some flak for that one and you’re undoubtedly right. That said, I'm not sure the "schools" concept is going to encourage that growth. In many ways, I feel it has had the reverse effect. Everyone stands in their corners sticking out their tongues and flinging pooh.

Regardless of some disagreement on this particular topic, I have the unmitigated gall to sincerely hope this doesn't mean you would be unwilling to autograph my dogeared copy of "Lessons Learned..." should we ever meet at a conference; I've read and enjoyed your work for a very long time.

Thank you for an educational and interesting discussion!

- Linda

Linda, you said:It's my thought that the effort of...

2008-11-18T03:03:00.000-05:00

Linda, you said:
It's my thought that the effort of some to focus on similarities rather than differences is due to the observation that it might be best to understand and respect commonalities before we can fully appreciate and explore differences without prejudice.

Throughout my career, people have encouraged me to focus on the ways that I agree with them and to keep quiet about the ways that I disagree with them. That's OK, it's a natural way for people to behave, but I don't think such an approach leads to progress.

It's OK for us to disagree about these issues. It's good for us to disagree about these issues. Progress comes from open discussion of intelligent disagreement.

The testing community has engaged in significant efforts underway to create standards to govern software testing. IEEE 829 (software test documentation) for example, was recently revised, but in ways that I think put a preference for heavyweight processes and management-by-paperwork over consideration of the actual requirements of the stakeholders. I had no influence on that standard, and no hope of influence. To me, Standard 829 provides an analytical structure that feels more like malpractice to me than best practice. Should I really shut up about that? Or teach my students a different way?

Recently, some people in the testing community succeeded in persuading ISO to create a broad international standards project for software testing. Looking at the advocates, I see a bunch of people who hold views very different from mine. They might welcome me as a token agilista, but I think the result is largely predetermined--the definitions, the practices, the view of testing will look a lot like how testing consultants presented testing in 1983, when I first started working in Sili Valley: Focused on standards more than stakeholder requirements, more on "best practices" than locally effective practices, much more focused on repetition (regression testing) than risk mitigation, more focused on paperwork than creative empirical investigation--not at all like the more agile, stakeholder-focused approach that I've advocated throughout my career. Should I pretend that we all agree about this? That I think this is a good direction?

I think it is a mistake to stifle our disagreements. To a very large degree, the productivity of software testing and the core concepts of software testing are comparable to our state in 1983. That is not true for programming. Programmer productivity has increased enormously over the past 3 decades as programming paradigms have shifted fundamentally several times. The programming communities weren't constrained to talk only about the ways they agreed--they criticized each other, tried new things, and today a "large" system is more like a 1,000,000 statements or 10,000,000 statements, compared to 10,000 statements back in 1980. I believe that the divergence in growth of productivity, between programmers and testers, is making traditional testing less and less relevant because traditionally-designed/developed/documented tests assess less and less of these much larger products. I believe that the growth of test-driven programming partially reflects an exasperation with traditional testing, and a sense among many programmers and project managers that the traditional testing done on their projects was diminishingly relevant, insufficiently valuable. Speaking with several of the founders of extreme programming, I have had a repeated sense of their exasperation with traditional testing and their determination to regain control of "quality control" (via TDD) because they saw this as the only way they knew to make software QC better. I think we need to acknowledge the genuine problems the agile developers are responding to, and to reconsider how we do testing.

I think that to achieve this progress, we need to give ourselves permission to do divergent thinking.

And in fact, we do divergent thinking. I illustrated some of those above. But there have been fundamental divergences in our field for decades, since the 1960's (when Jerry Weinberg started advocating a more cognitive approach to software testing).

So we don't need to give ourselves permission to diverge.

We need to give ourselves permission to talk about the divergencies in our thinking, instead of papering them over, or telling some of us to shut up.

We're testers. We make our living by engaging in critical evaluation and honestly and directly reporting our results. Surely, we can handle a little of that critical analysis applied to our own work.

Linda, you also said:
I believe that testers who fall into categories outside Context-driven no longer feel especially encouraged to participate in discussions. Although this is just my own opinion, I feel we are missing out on the rich diversity that exists our field as a result.

I just don't share that perception. I've felt extremely unwelcome on SQA Forums for years. Many of the people who are active there not only disagree with me, they seem to believe that I need to be told to shut up, shut up, go away. James Bach and I ultimately formed the software-testing list to have one place we could work without have our discussions drowned out by people calling us jerks and idiots. Diversity doesn't come from telling people to shut up. It comes from honoring the fact that there are many different views and they should be explored, investigated, criticized, defended, researched, and improved.

Finally, Linda, you said:

Perhaps it's time to abandon the "school" discussion, recognizing that the field as a whole doesn't have the maturity to appreciate "different" does not necessarily equate to "bad."

This is the kind of statement that would set James off on a rant, giving you yet another example that some statements send James off on rants.

Let me approach it more calmly.

Our field (testing) is at least 40 years old. We have had a lot of time to mature. Maturity does not evolve out of an avoidance of critical self-evaluation. Tolerance does not grow out of intolerance. Progress does not come out of not talking about what needs improvement.

When I think of "the field as a whole", I think of a large collection of individuals, most of us very bright. I think that most of us have learned in our day to day life that " 'different' does not necessarily equate to 'bad' " I just came out of months of intense (part-time, unpaid) work for Barack Obama. As a nation, we Americans just accepted that " 'different' does not necessarily equate to 'bad' " and students, technology enthusiasts, and working professionals were in the vanguard of the work that led to this result (Obama's election). Similarly, as professionals, over the past few decades, we have seen major changes in views of how people learn, how people see and hear and process what they see / hear, how we should measure ability (including intelligence) and productivity, how we should design and develop code -- to just name a few. We have seen changes all around us, as individuals in society and as professionals. We seem to be coping with those changes, each of which has carried controversy, re-examination of old views, false starts, and debates between informed and passionate advocates. I think we've coped with these well enough. I don't see why we should not cope with controversy in software testing.

Rather than saying that my colleagues are not mature enough to think critically and accept the fact that others think critically, I say that to the extent that our field is not mature enough to handle this comfortably, it is time for the field to grow up.

Cordially and with respect,

-- Cem Kaner

Mr. Kaner,With all due respect, I believe the noti...

2008-11-17T10:55:00.000-05:00

Mr. Kaner,

With all due respect, I believe the notion of schools has mutated over the past several years to something that was not originally intended.

It's my thought that the effort of some to focus on similarities rather than differences is due to the observation that it might be best to understand and respect commonalities before we can fully appreciate and explore differences without prejudice.

The concept of schools has been used in ways that are discriminatory. I believe that testers who fall into categories outside Context-driven no longer feel especially encouraged to participate in discussions. Although this is just my own opinion, I feel we are missing out on the rich diversity that exists our field as a result.

Perhaps it's time to abandon the "school" discussion, recognizing that the field as a whole doesn't have the maturity to appreciate "different" does not necessarily equate to "bad.

-Linda

Anne, I don't really recognize any fences and have...

2008-11-17T10:00:00.000-05:00

Anne, I don't really recognize any fences and haven't found many members of any particular community especially amenable to having their beliefs challenged. It's my feeling that most don't understand the difference between a challenge and an attack. There's a difference between engaging an intellectual equal in a lively debate and being frothed at by a closed-minded lunatic.

I don't think non-contextual school people aren't out there on the web, reading, etc. I think they've chosen not to participate because there's nothing out there to encourage them to do so - quite the reverse.

Still, your point in regards to not everyone in the context-driven school being a deranged Stepford Wife is a fair and appropriate reminder as to the challenges inherent in categorization - by anyone.

It's been a pleasure to meet you and I thank you for the conversation...

- Linda

...However, in addition to all of the presentation...

2008-11-14T22:12:00.000-05:00

...However, in addition to all of the presentations on this topic, the same people who established "schools" said you cannot belong to more than one. Hence, you are categorized into one. In addition, the approaches listed in the different schools are not necessary accurate...

The only thing I'll mention - and thank you for the thoughts, they were interesting and made me go re-read some of what Bret and Cem have written on this. Of most interest to me was cem's post here:
http://www.satisfice.com/kaner/?p=15

What I find most interesting is that as we read it, we do not read the same thing. I see Cem specifically providing a history and stating that the discussion of schools had nothing to do with being derisive or belittling various schools.. I see him saying that even practices he believes are wrong most of the time (case-driven testing from specs, etc) are right sometimes.. and I see him saying that the Context-Driven school specifically adapts to the project at hand and tries to use the appropriate tools for a given project.

I don't see it saying you cannot use techniques from each of them.

I honestly have come to the conclusion that I think a lot of the division on this issue comes because a lot of people believe there are not folks who follow anything BUT a context-driven (thought process, not school) approach to testing. That, for example, there are still people, companies, and testers who absolutely believe the single 'correct' way to test is to take spec, translate to test case, automate what's possible, rinse and repeat. But there are.

And so many of the folks who are very bothered by the idea of a context-driven school are in fact context-driven testers, who I believe are unwilling to use that term because of a belief or perception that it's an elitist or exclusionary attitude.

Just very different ways of looking at the same thing, I think.

I think some of it stems from the fact that the testers who are most likely to interact in online communities, and be active in the testing world - out there reading books and articles, checking out blogs, writing blogs, submitting articles - these are not the people, most often, who fall into another school.

The only thing that I find offensive so often is that just as you don't like James or someone boxing people, there's a tone in much of what you've written that everyone who supports or ascribes to a context-driven school must think and believe everything that James (or Cem, or Bret, or whomever) says is true. The reality is that there are a large number of folks who ascribe to the context-driven school based upon the 7 basic principles of that school, who share some of the opinions of James (or Bret, or Cem, or Scott, or whomever else you might associate with CDT), and who don't share some of them. The difference is that for the most part, all of them enjoy the challenge of their beliefs - I can't say I've found the same to be true of those 'on the other side of the fence'. I'm sure there are some - I've just not met them.

I took my best shot at explaining the history of t...

2008-11-14T18:25:00.000-05:00

I took my best shot at explaining the history of the notion of schools here. http://www.satisfice.com/kaner/?p=15

Personally, I don't care whether other people see themselves as in schools or out of schools and I'm not interested in classifying individuals. I also don't care whether you or anyone else joins the context-driven school.

I am interested in the phenomenon that different testers, and different testing groups, approach very similar problems in the same industry in dissimilar ways. Why are their first instincts different? Why is their vocabulary different? Why do they differ so firmly on what they see as "inefficient" or even "unethical" in practice?

And why are so many people so aggressively resistant to a discussion of these differences, insisting instead that we all agree on the fundamentals (except maybe for a few nutcases)?

I don't mean, why are so many people aggressively resistant to labeled schools? That's not such a mystery, especially when the labeling is still just a first approximation.

But why do so many people avoid discussion of the diversity of views in the field, in any way that recognizes that different viewpoints have their own histories and traditions?

As far as I can tell, the schools approach is the only attempt I've seen in the field to try to sort stuff out. To me, competing classifications would be interesting and useful.

-- Cem Kaner

Anne, those were thoughtful and intelligent commen...

2008-11-14T16:46:00.000-05:00

Anne, those were thoughtful and intelligent comments and I'll do my best to respond in kind.

There have been at least 4 presentations/articles on this subject - for anyone interested in going back and rereading the original information on "schools", I suggested going to either PerfTestPlus.com (Scott Barber) or kaner.com (Cem Kaner). I believe the first presentation was by Brett Pettichord, but the schools specified in his presentations have since changed somewhat. Brett himself has kind of had the medals ripped off his uniform publically as he has moved away from what is now the CP into a more test-driven, development-centric mentality.

"How does ascribing different approaches into schools mean that there cannot be use of those approaches in the right context?"

My answer to that question is that there CAN be use of those approaches in the right context and that there IS use of all the approaches in the right context. By most of the field. However, in addition to all of the presentations on this topic, the same people who established "schools" said you cannot belong to more than one. Hence, you are categorized into one. In addition, the approaches listed in the different schools are not necessary accurate.

"Stating there are different schools of thought doesn't say "these ways of thinking suck" - the only thing that I believe it does say is that none of those schools is the singular be all end all - which is exactly what you are saying as well."

Well, actually, that isn't the way the concept has been used. How many proponents of the contextual school, for example, think metrics, waterfall methodology, detailed specs, best practices, structured test technique (like boundary value analysis), or "best practices" have any validity? Many have written scathing denunciations of all of those things. That means they would, at the very least, be extremely unhappy and probably have difficulties functioning in a structured environment. In other words, they aren't very contextual.

For those "outside" the CP, as an example of the problems, no one wants to be associated with anything called "Factory". It implies something like a tester standing at an assembly line checking bottle caps. It ignores the analysis done by all testers regardless of belief system - the most creative and difficult part of the job. The QC or Quality School was documented as believing it is "The Gatekeeper" - it doesn't say "Hanes" until WE say it says "Hanes". Very few people think that way any more and it's not especially flattering or true. The Analytic School, as documented, well, what an anal group they are! Their Examplar is "Code Coverage" and they need precise and detailed specifications. I think specifications of some sort are a Good Idea, but if I waited for precise and detailed specs, I'd probably still be on my first project...

Overall, as I said in my blog, I don't think there was anything wrong with the original concept of "schools". I think the problem was that the categorization was too one-sided, and that the results have been used as derogatory, segregating weapons, rather than explanatory overviews of different "schools of thought".

Let me give you an example of "where I fall" in all of this. I'm using myself as an example, because I genuinely believe I'm like most of the people in my field.

I believe testing is a skilled, mental activity. I believe testing is multidisciplinary. I believe testing provides information to the project. I believe testing finds bugs.

Aha! I'm a CPer.

But no. I do not believe a bug is anything that could bug a stakeholder. I do not support exploratory testing as defined by the CP; I do not believe concurrent test design and test execution is a good idea for all of the testing effort and I do not run test sessions as recommended by the CP. I consider it inefficient.

So maybe I'm "analytical school". I believe software is a logical artifact and that testing is technical. I think there has to be some sort of spec, although I don't expect anything "precise and detailed". But wait. "Code Coverage" is not my exemplar. I believe there are too many weaknesses in code coverage. I don't "verify whether the software conforms it its specification". Mostly, I prove that it doesn't.

So what about "Factory"? Maybe I'm a hard-hat. The term alone makes me cringe. But I do believe testing must be managed and cost-effective. But again, my testing doesn't exactly validate the product. I don't believe testing measures development progress. I think traceability is required in some shops and have no problem with providing it, but it's not my "exemplar". I don't use start/stop criteria. I don't believe in resisting change. I can or can't use the V-model; project management methodology doesn't matter much to me. I don't accept management assumptions about testing. I don't support certifications. I have sometimes encouraged standards or "best practices" in situations where they've been needed.

So I guess I don't fit there either. So my last try is the Quality School. Hmm. I believe software testing requires discipline. But none of the other core beliefs. Crap. And I am not "The Gatekeeper". I do, however, think testing can be a stepping stone to "process improvement".

So that sums up "where I am". I'm nowhere. Or anywhere. And I believe that describes most of my peers.

Overall, I'd have less trouble accepting schools if it appeared that I fit into one of them and if there was respect across the board for all of them. If it were up to me, I'd probably reduce the list to 3 schools. Structured, Contextual, and Sapient. Structured for highly regulated industries, Contextual for most of us, and Sapient for the more cerebral/experimental among us. But it's not up to me and I think the damage has been done. I'm not sure the concept will ever gain broad acceptance at this point.

Sorry to have answered you with a book; on the positive side, your post made me think and I appreciate it.

- Linda

...I'd expect "contextual" people to be adaptive a...

2008-11-13T21:35:00.000-05:00

...I'd expect "contextual" people to be adaptive and accepting of ANY concept or technique that would prove successful in a given working environment...

How does ascribing different approaches into schools mean that there cannot be use of those approaches in the right context?

Stating there are different schools of thought doesn't say "these ways of thinking suck" - the only thing that I believe it does say is that none of those schools is the singular be all end all - which is exactly what you are saying as well.

The only difference between saying that you choose the best approaches, methodologies and ideas based on where you are and what you're doing and what's most effective and best for your project and saying you ascribe to a context-driven approach to testing is that one of them associates you with something (or someone) you have decided you don't wish to be associated with - they are, in essence, the same thing.

Darkage, I've gone ahead and published your commen...

2008-11-12T14:48:00.000-05:00

Darkage, I've gone ahead and published your comments, but I think you need an anger management class and maybe medication.

- Linda

Linda,Looks like you are unable to digest the disc...

2008-11-12T12:24:00.000-05:00

Linda,

Looks like you are unable to digest the discussions/arguments James & Paul had about School of Testing. C'mon, they are just putting their thoughts. I know about James, he has attitude issues, but we should agree that he has a sharp brain and he convinces many by his perception & thoughts. The sarcasm in your post is more of jealousy, ego and weakness than a logical thought process.

I am not against Schools of Thoughts and therfore, I am not against an idea of School of Testing. If you don't like that idea, that's okay, who cares?

I do not see any wit, but sarcasm in your posts. Are you frustrated James has more fame and money? We look for your wisdom, not your frustration. Please don't try to be James, be Linda!

Great post.I'm happy just to belong to the Test Pr...

2008-11-08T08:42:00.000-05:00

Great post.

I'm happy just to belong to the Test Profession, understand there are a number of ways to approach testing, that should all be used in context and the "We're the right / the best / most enlightened" crew can go enjoy themselves and fawn over thier gurus.

bj, thank you - I've been reading IM Testy for qui...

2008-11-07T10:23:00.000-05:00

bj, thank you - I've been reading IM Testy for quite some time...

Thanks, guys....Brent, in a way I think your comme...

2008-11-07T10:07:00.000-05:00

Thanks, guys....

Brent, in a way I think your comment about creative thinkers feeds into what James Bach himself said in his post. You can call yourself creative and free, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I'd expect "contextual" people to be adaptive and accepting of ANY concept or technique that would prove successful in a given working environment. Perhaps the CP has just evolved beyond that point; they certainly have a specialized view of what testing is and how it should be performed. They also have a strong focus on the more cerebral aspects of the field. Perhaps they need to rethink their old school definitions and put themselves into the "Sapient" School of testing. Perhaps it would be more reflective of their focus. Regardless, as long as the rest of the world doesn't get stuck in boxes that in essence say "These People Suck", I see no reason we can't peacefully coexist...

Hi Linda,Fantastic! I always enjoy your posts, and...

2008-11-07T02:09:00.000-05:00

Hi Linda,

Fantastic! I always enjoy your posts, and this one is spot on!

I suspect that when Brett first discussed this concept he was probably trying to describe the personality profiles (e.g. Myers-Briggs, D.I.S.C, PIG, etc.) of various testers on a team, and I doubt he expected a small minority of people to adopt one school over the other and vehemently proselytize some fabricated doctrine with religious-like dogmatic zeal.

Unfortunately, this topic comes up from time to time (and I have even picked at the bones of this rotting corpse in the past). But, in the grand scheme of things this has really become an uninteresting debate (other than in the minds of a few).

I am with you. Let them do what they want. If they find value in belonging to some group...great for them. Remember, even Jim Jones had a fanatic following. It doesn't impact me in the least. So, I say let that small group of folks continue to pat each other on the back and group grope all they want. The rest of us need to move on beyond the petty sillyness and philosophical psycho-babble and discuss more interesting, and meaningful aspects of software testing.

Thanks for the refreshing post, bundled with the w...

2008-11-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the refreshing post, bundled with the wit and sarcasm. I sometimes feel the same way that it seems like cattle hearding with schools. I don't know why we have to categorize everything we do. I think it's great if James wants to share his feelings with the world, that's great. I think everyone can benefit from that. However, doesn't developing some sort of "School" or structure around a methodology that is supposed to promote creative thinking seem a little weird?

Linda..best blog post I have read in years!you cou...

2008-11-06T11:31:00.000-05:00

Linda..
best blog post I have read in years!
you couldn't have hit it better.

THANK YOU.