Instructing Ideas

Stephanie Farr cuts right to the chase with the lede of this story:

This is the story of what happens when a public transit agency asks the public for help picking a new mascot. And that public is the city of Philadelphia.

Spoiler: It does not end well.

In case you missed it, mascots are all the rage in Philadelphia these days, after the Philadelphia Fliers NHL team revealed its new mascot, Gritty, to nationwide attention. SEPTA put out a call for mascot ideas for the transit system on Twitter, and the sarcasm and meme making that followed is enough to fill on off-peak headway's worth of time.

Our favorite meme came from SEPTA's current mascot, Paws, the safety dog, who is apparently out of a job.

When you hear @SEPTAPHILLY is “looking for a mascot” pic.twitter.com/oHM73d5KMg

— Paws (@Transit_Dog) October 1, 2018

Introduction

The term Safety Case has, over time, been applied liberally, inconsistently and with a variety of prefixes: potentially leading to confused, incoherent and ineffective safety management. It is also apparent that the practical management of Safety Cases can often remain an equipment-centric activity, led by the Defence Equipment & Support Delivery Team. Recent Military Aviation Authority (MAA) audits have highlighted that the development and utility of a robust Air System Safety Case (ASSC) is poorly defined and understood, especially during acquisition of new capabilities. The MAA recognised an important opportunity to enhance both the activity associated with the in-service ownership and management of ASSCs, and the effective influence of Air Safety requirements on capability design/selection. Subsequently Niteworks was contracted to investigate the links between the MOD’s capability development process and the establishment of effective ASSCs. The resulting study led to a revision of Regulatory Article (RA) 1205 and the introduction of a new Manual of Air System Safety Cases - both documents to be published in a Notice of Proposed Amendment in January 2019.

Why do we require Safety Cases?

Where a Defence activity presents a credible and reasonably foreseeable Risk to Life (RtL), MOD policy requires specified individuals to be designated as Duty Holders - responsible for the management of the risk, whilst ensuring it remains both As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and tolerable. Within the Defence Air Environment, the nominated Duty Holders responsible for managing RtL will either be Aviation Duty Holders or Accountable Managers of Military Flying. The MOD policy further directs that if Defence activity takes place on or involves a complex system (aircraft, ship or other complex platform), a simple risk assessment will not be sufficient to assess the potential impact on the health and safety of the workforce or public, or the impact on the environment. Therefore, the use of a Safety Case enables nominated Duty Holders to understand the cumulative and interrelated risks associated with use of the system.

What is a Safety Case?

The MOD defines a Safety Case as a structured argument, supported by a body of evidence that provides a compelling, comprehensible and valid case that a system is safe for a given application in a given environment. By extension, an ASSC is simply the application of Safety Case theory to a Military Registered Air System, noting that it applies throughout the life cycle of the system, across all Defence Lines of Development (DLoD), and addresses a combination of the physical components, procedures and human resources organised to deliver the capability. The final part of the definition - for a given application in a given environment - is determined by establishing the operating context. Thus, a consolidated ASSC should include a clearly-defined operating context, a structured argument and a body of supporting evidence.

Defining the Operating Context

A safety argument is impossible to make without considering the specific context of use. Before any work is undertaken to develop an explicit argument, the intended or anticipated operating context of the system must be defined. This enables the anticipated hazards associated with operating the system to be identified and affords the opportunity to mitigate these through system design or selection. It is essential that the end-user operators and maintainers have sufficient influence over determining the operating context and the development of the subsequent safety argument.

The Safety Argument takes primacy

The role of the safety argument is often neglected, and too much emphasis placed on the body of evidence, with the link between the two left unexplained and meaningless. Investment in developing and capturing a robust safety argument early in the development of the capability will pay dividends throughout its lifecycle; this serves many purposes, including:

• Requirements setting.
• Generation and assessment of Integrated Test Evaluation and Assessment (ITEA) criteria.
• Retrospective inspection during periodic reviews, driving the work of Air System Safety Working Groups and underpinning the safety statements of Operating Duty Holders/Accountable Managers (Military Flying) (ODH) / (AM(MF)).
• Identification and assessment of the full impact of weaknesses and/or shortfalls in the evidence, informing potential mitigating actions.
• A validity assessment of the ASSC when the Air System is required to undertake a new type of operation or operate within a new environment.
• Assessment of the potential impact caused by changes to the pan-DLoD supporting structures of the ASSC.
• Active management of the safety of operations, providing it is easily accessible to those responsible for maintaining, operating, and managing the capability.

What constitutes a body of evidence?

A body of evidence that is sufficiently comprehensive and supports the safety argument remains a vital element in the overall ASSC. The supporting evidence comprises the results of observing, analysing, testing and simulating the properties of a system and provides the fundamental information upon which the safety argument can be reasoned. However, evidence without argument is meaningless, regardless of the quality or quantity of the evidence.

What are the benefits of a Safety Case Regime?

A robust Safety Case regime, especially if implemented early in a product’s life cycle, ensures that:

• Safety arguments are considered early in capability design/selection, enabling safety issues to be eliminated or mitigated through early design modification; this will avoid difficult and costly re-design or additional safety modifications being required once in-service.
• Design and test activities (i.e. Integrated Test Evaluation and Assessment) are focused on generating evidence applicable to the identified operating context and its anticipated hazards.
• The ASSC can be used to inform and influence the daily management of the system, enabling those responsible for operating the capability to make informed decisions.
• Those who are responsible for operating and maintaining the system - and know how it really works - understand how their actions support the overall safety argument and are able to highlight weaknesses in the safety argument and/or supporting evidence.

The ASSC must be applicable across all Defence Lines of Development

Historically the Equipment DLoD has been subject to disproportionate emphasis in relation to other DLoDs. The separation of single (equipment) risks from unified risk in many ASSCs reinforces the inappropriate prioritisation of the Equipment-DLoD. This makes it difficult to connect an Equipment Safety Assessment to an explicit pan-DLoD safety argument and masks the thread that leads to a risk being judged as both ALARP and Tolerable. To develop and maintain a coherent, robust and effective ASSC that enables the operational capability to be employed safely, the ASSC must retain pan-DLoD applicability.

The need for Through-Life Safety Cases

RtL will evolve during both development and in-service operation of the Air System. The ASSC will require regular review throughout the life of the system. Importantly, ASSCs that are initiated after the system design has been finalised, miss the opportunity to influence the design and subsequent operation of the system. This often results in the ‘apologetic Safety Case’; one which is based on the best argument that can be created from the evidence available, rather than being one which can prove the top-level claim of safety. As such, one of the biggest changes within RA 1205 is the formal requirement to apply ASSCs throughout the life of the Air System. Starting in the Concept phase of the acquisition cycle, the ASSC needs to demonstrate that a system is capable of being safe, and subsequently can be used as a mechanism to support the judgement that a system is actually safe. The ASSC should influence design/selection and shape the ITEA programme, which in turn will generate the supporting evidence to the safety argument. Therefore, for MOD acquisition programmes, the most appropriate owner for the development of the ASSC is the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO). Through-life applicability of the ASSC has resulted in revised regulation that requires a four-staged approach to its development and management: an ASSC Strategy, applied prior to a programme’s Initial Gate; an ASSC Acquisition Basis, applied prior to a programme’s Main Gate; a Live ASSC, applied during Test and Evaluation flying; and a Live ASSC, applied once the Air System is in-service. Figure 1 represents the through-life progression of the ASSC, importantly identifying the phases of ASSC ownership during the Air System’s life cycle.

The Defence ASSC Model.

Developed as the core principles for effective management of an ASSC, the Defence ASSC Model, at Figure 2, recognises:

• The duality of the central hubs argument being both ‘safe to operate’ and ‘operated safely’.
• That the operating context is critical to Hazard Management.
• That the overall safety argument is dependent on three areas: Hazard/Risk Management; compliance with safety rules and regulation; and confidence in the safety processes and governance which deliver the evidence to support the safety argument. Within these three domains of risk, rules and confidence, five key facets were identified.

The five key facets are subordinate to the central hub’s claim that an Air System is ‘safe to operate’ and ‘operated safely’. They are recognised as:

1. Context Defined. The ability to make any effective argument depends on the existence and understanding of context.
2. Hazards Managed. The criticality of hazard identification, analysis and mitigation in the context of intended use, as emphasised so strongly by Charles Haddon-Cave QC in the Nimrod Review.
3. Regulatory Compliant. Compliance with regulations is a critical step in making a safety argument.
4. Confidence in the ASSC. Internal and external oversight and assurance of the ASSC, providing the justification that the safety argument and supporting evidence can be relied upon, and requiring appropriate Suitably Qualified Experienced Personnel (SQEP) to be responsible for the evidence gathering.
5. Effective Air Safety Management System (ASMS). An ASMS is symbiotic to the ASSC; the tangible output of an effective ASMS is the evidence which supports the ASSC, whilst the intangible output is a safe Air System.

• Dozens of locations across the country will benefit from the investment
.
• Culture Secretary says innovative programme will make our heritage work for modern life.

A new £62 million fund will breathe new life into historic high streets across the country, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright announced today.

High streets lie at the heart of communities but are under increasing pressure as more people choose to shop online.

Building on successful programmes, the funding will be used to regenerate places by turning disused or underused buildings into creative spaces, offices, retail outlets and housing.

It is part of the Government’s ongoing work to help high streets adapt to changing consumer habits.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said:

Our heritage makes communities more attractive places to live, work and visit.

This £62 million investment will breathe new life into high streets right across the country, benefiting local people and businesses, as well as providing assistance to much-loved historic buildings.

It is right that we do all we can to not only protect our heritage, but make it work for modern life so it can be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

Today’s initiative is part of the government’s comprehensive plan for High Streets announced at last year’s Budget, including a £675 million Future High Streets Fund and a £1 billion business rates discount for small high street retailers.   Communities Secretary, the Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP said:

We’re absolutely committed to seeing our high streets thrive now and in the future.

That’s why we put a plan to secure the future of the high street, and are taking action to ensure they can adapt to changing consumer demand and the rise of online shopping.

This welcome announcement will help the high street to capitalise on local heritage by restoring treasured historic buildings for economic use. This is a proven way to drive footfall, increase further investment and generate even greater civic pride in our high streets.

Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mel Stride, said:

High streets are the lifeblood ‎of towns and cities across the country.

By reviving older, disused buildings, we’re ensuring ‎high streets can not only adapt and change to suit our modern lives - but remain at the heart of our communities for years to come.‎

Research has shown that for every £1 invested in heritage in England, £1.60 is brought into the wider area.

The funding includes:

• £44 million of government and Historic England funding to create dozens of High Streets Heritage Action Zones overseen by Historic England. From today, local authorities can apply to the scheme, which will give councils, businesses and community groups access to expert advice and investment to bring historic buildings back into use and support historic high streets to adapt to the challenges they face. 

• £3 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to support a cultural programme to engage people in the life and history of their high streets. 

• £15 million for the Architectural Heritage Fund to support social enterprise organisations like Historic Coventry Trust to take ownership of and bring buildings of local importance - such as pubs, libraries or theatres, as well as shops - back into use. The Transforming Places Through Heritage Programme will open for applications in June.


Also in the run up to UK City of Culture 2021, Coventry will receive £2 million for a new project in shopping street The Burges. It is one of the few remaining parts of Coventry to survive the Second World War and post-war redevelopments of the city, which saw large numbers of ancient buildings destroyed. The money will be used to acquire, restore and regenerate Coventry’s historic buildings to help create a sustainable future for each building.    

ENDS



Duncan Wilson, Chief Executive of Historic England said:

We know that people value their high streets and town centres as spaces where they can meet and feel a sense of communal ownership and belonging. We are therefore delighted to be opening up for applications grants for High Street Heritage Action Zones.

Through physical improvements and cultural and community activities, we will work with partners to find new ways to regenerate our historic high streets. We recognise the scale of the challenge with empty shops and the significant shift in retail trends and we will combine our experience with the knowledge and passion of local councils, businesses and community groups, to help revive the streets which form the hearts of our historic towns.

Liz Peace CBE, Chairman, Architectural Heritage Fund:

With the right funding and expertise, thriving social enterprises can inject life into our high streets and the heritage assets around them. The Transforming Places through Heritage programme will help accelerate investment into many other places like Coventry and begin to reimagine our high streets as once more places of both social and commercial prosperity.

Ros Kerslake, Chief Executive of the National Lottery Heritage Fund said:

We know from our track record of investing in the heritage of our high streets that economic activity increases and people feel a greater sense of pride about the place they live and work in. The National Lottery Heritage Fund is delighted to be working in partnership with Historic England to deliver a significant programme of cultural activities to bring these essential parts of our community to life.

Notes to editors:

• Information on applying for Historic England’s High Street Heritage Action Zones is available here. 

• The funding builds on the success of projects in Margate, Grantham and Derby where the redevelopment of Derby Cathedral Quarter brought nearly 100 properties and more than 2,700 m2 of commercial floor space back into use through Historic England’s Partnership Scheme in Conservation Areas.

• There are currently 18 Heritage Action Zones across England including Grimsby, which was announced as a key part of the Grimsby Town Deal in 2018. It is expected that this new funding will see the creation of 40 - 50 more across England. 


Ways the Government is backing the high street:


• The Budget saw business rates relief cut small retailers’ bills by a third, building on over £13 billion of business rates support since 2016.

• In response to recommendations from the independent expert panel, the Government has launched a £675 million Future High Streets Fund to help improve infrastructure and access to high streets, put historic buildings back to use and make town centres fit for the future.

• We have also announced a Town Centre Task Force to give local leaders expert advice and support in implementing their plans to revitalise their local high streets.

• The Open Doors scheme will see empty shops being opened up to community groups offering services to the most vulnerable in our communities.


The Architectural Heritage Fund helps communities across the UK find enterprising new uses for the old buildings they love. It has supported a number of high street and town centre regeneration projects in recent years, including Havens Department Store in Southend, which is being revitalised by Age Concern Southend as a hub for older people. 


The most prized possession of many important artifacts in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum in Springfield, Illinois, is a stovepipe hat belonging to the president. The hat appears to have an impeccable provenance. Lincoln bought the beaver-fur stovepipe hat from a shop in Springfield in the mid-1850s, a period when he was active in state politics while aiming for national office, loudly voicing his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and transitioning from the dying Whig party to the Republican party. He paid $4.00 for it.

Lincoln’s tall stovepipe hat is so strongly associated with him that the outline alone is an iconic representation of the slain president. It was a deliberate choice of Abraham Lincoln’s to wear an extra tall chapeau to emphasize his atypical height. He was 6’4″ in an era when the average height for an adult male was 5’7″ and the hat is seven inches high. That made him just shy of seven feet tall when he wore it, a veritable giant even today.

Only three of Lincoln’s stovepipe hats are known to survive and the Springfield museum’s beaver hat is believed to be the oldest. The only problem is there is no hard evidence that the hat really did belong to Abraham Lincoln. The museum acquired it at auction in 2007. It was one of 1,600 Lincoln-related artifacts from collector Louise Taper that were bought for $25 million. The hat alone cost $6.5 million.

You’d think at those nosebleed prices the non-profit Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation (ALPLF) would investigate thoroughly before going deep into debt to buy the collection. Louise Taper was on the board of the foundation in 2007. That may or may not have played a part in the acquisition. She isn’t talking and neither is the foundation.

Since the hat entered the museum collection, the story told was that Lincoln had given the hat as a thank-you gift to an Illinois farmer in 1858. A descendant of the farmer signed an affidavit in 1958 confirming the gift, only she said Lincoln had given it to him during the farmer’s visit to Washington after 1861. The person who appraised the hat for millions of dollars did no personal research, relying solely on a report of research done by the foundation, a report that is nowhere to be found today.

In 2013, experts at the Smithsonian and Chicago History Museum reported that there was simply insufficient evidence to claim it as Lincoln’s hat. The affidavit is basically all they have to go on, and it contradicts the museum’s own statements. Without documentation of the hat having belonged to Lincoln, the museum should strongly qualify its claim that it was Lincoln’s stovepipe hat, the report concluded.

With $9.7 million still outstanding on the sale price and much fundraising needed to pay it off, in 2017 the ALPLF secretly asked the FBI to DNA-test residue on the hat in the hopes it might confirm conclusively that it once had topped Abraham Lincoln’s noggin. The conclusion was … inconclusive. No period DNA could be recovered, only contemporary DNA from someone who had handled it in comparatively recent years.

The hat may not have recoverable DNA, but it does bear some evidence of its wearer. It bears the mark of a hatmaker who was working in Springfield in the mid-1850s. It is Lincoln’s hat size. The band is stretched out from having had important papers stuffed inside of it, a practice Lincoln was known to indulge in. The are wear marks from two fingers on the brim, indicating that it was worn regularly by one individual for a very long time.

Museum chief Alan Lowe expressed frustration over the foundation’s secrecy, but downplayed the DNA test results, saying it would be hard to get a perfect match from an 180-year-old item handled by many people.

“It is important to understand that neither of these initiatives produced new evidence about the hat’s origins,” Lowe said in a statement.

Thanks to the publicity, the museum will begin a new search for evidence about the hat’s past, he added.

“What we learn, no matter what it says about the hat’s origins, will be shared with the public.”

Meanwhile, the pride and joy of the museum has been removed from public display. Once the research is done, the museum will decide whether the hat goes back on display at Lincoln’s lid or remains in the shadows as a $6.5 million pig in a poke.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 21st, 2018 at 11:10 PM and is filed under Modern(ish), Museums. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

About 2 years ago I was speaking at a Gamifiers event in London. One of the other speakers spoke about a new product called “Playbrush”. It was an add-on for a toothbrush that allowed it to interact with a mobile device like an iPad. As well as the add-on, there were a couple of games that it controlled on the mobile device. The idea was to encourage kids to brush for longer and with higher efficiency because they want to progress in the games.

It is fair to say the idea got mauled by us all. I hold my hand up as one of the maulers. I had several issues with the idea of a parent. The first was the concept of having to have my iPad in the bathroom with the kids. After that, it was the idea of getting kids to clean their teeth because it let them play a game. I could not see how that activity could convert into a permanent behaviour if when you took the game element away.

Fast forward to a couple of months ago and out of the blue I get an email from someone at Playbrush. They wanted to know if I would be interested in testing out their product. It came to my review site account, as it used to be a games review wesbite (www.yars.co.uk). I was suddenly transported back to the meetup and gleefully and slightly evily said yes!

Unboxing

I will admit, I was prejudiced against the product from the outset. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how well it was appointed. The toothbrush it came with was perfectly fine and the little Bluetooth add-on was well made. I sort of rubber cone that slides over the base of the toothbrush.

The only thing that I was not impressed with was the little pouch that was meant to keep your device safe in the bathroom. It was a flimsy plastic wallet with a couple of suction cups. Suffice to say, it has never been used!

Setup

Setup was a breeze. Install one of the games from the app store on your device. We chose the Utoothia Paint game. Register with Playbrush for a free account. Charge the addon via micro USB then run the app. It all connected up and worked first go without any fuss.

The Game

My youngest daughter (6 years old) chose the paint game, one of the free games available from the outset. I scoffed, but she was adamant. The game counts you in and tells you that you need to brush everywhere.  You are then presented with a picture and brushing your teeth. On the screen, there are 4 different circles with arrows. The arrows represent areas of your mouth. As you brush, these circles fill with colour and the picture is painted. The better the brushing, the more of the painting is filled in.  After 2 minutes the game is over and you are presented with a report on how you did, with information about how to improve next time. For instance, it might tell you to “Brush the lower righthand side more next time”

There are other games available, some with a subscription, that we did not really try.

My Thoughts

I was wrong. There I said it. First off, the kids love it. They ask every morning if they can use the app. They tell me what they need to focus on today as they missed a bit the day before. They proudly show me their reports (which actually get emailed to me as the parent each week). They whoop as they finished a picture. In 3 weeks my youngest has over doubled her coverage purely because of the feedback the app gives her.

And this is the key, the bit we all missed. Whilst there are all sorts of other gamified features, point, badges, awards etc. the main advantage of this system is feedback. The games may be simplistic, the concept may have some flaws (yes iPad pouch, I am looking at you), but the feedback is invaluable. Every day my kids understand a little better how to clean more effectively. They also now know how long two minutes is. So, even if they don’t have the app they approach brushing in a similar way.

Obviously, I am hoping that when we do eventually remove the game element they will continue to brush well, but I am actually very impressed!

Also published on Medium.

I love being able to visit classrooms throughout the school year.  Seeing students from different grade levels, in different schools, and of different backgrounds really is a blessing.  I feel like I learn so much every single time I am with a new class!

I was fortunate enough to visit a first grade class for their Reading instruction.  They were focusing on Nerdy Birdy, so I got to spend the day with one of my favorite books!

We focused on discussing the setting of the story.  This is a great book to start setting with because it doesn’t change too much throughout the story.  They do move from the trees to the power lines, but they stay outside  for the majority of the time!

We made these little flap-books to record the main character and the setting from the story!

We also drew our main character, Nerdy Birdy, to go along with our flapbooks.  I was so impressed with their listening and direction-following skills!  These are pretty stinkin’ good for 1st graders who have only been in school for 7 days!

After identifying the characters and the setting, the students used building bricks to create a new setting for Nerdy Birdy.  This group made a house with a sunroof!

This group created a porch with stairs so that Nerdy Birdy could walk up to the trees.  Other groups made pools, cars, and playgrounds.  I loved seeing their little brains work to create a new setting for Nerdy Birdy!

After our intro lesson, we practiced identifying the setting for other picture books.  I gave each group a different book, they perused the book, discussed the setting, and then we rotated the books.  We rotated the books a few times so that students could see how stories have different settings.

Students used their setting card to record the setting for the last book they browsed.  Each group got up, shared out their book and setting, and added that to the chart!

I had so much fun with a great book and a great group of kiddos!  Can’t wait to go back �  If you own 1st Grade Rooted in Reading August, all of these activities can be found in the Nerdy Birdy unit!  I also sent this FREEBIE out to email subscribers about a week ago!

If you aren’t on my email list, subscribe below to grab your Nerdy Birdy FREEBIE!  Once you subscribe, check your email (make sure it isn’t in SPAM), and click “Confirm Subscription” The document will download immediately after!  If you are using a school email address, it may not work.  Many districts block emails such as these!  Use a personal email address, and you should be good to go!

Marshall Shepherd convened a panel of experts to examine lessons from the flooding that has ravaged the Midwest over the past week. Here's the lineup of experts:

• Brian Bledsoe, University of Georgia Athletic Association Professor of Resilient Infrastructure.
• Barb Mayes-Boustead, National Weather Service Meteorologist Instructor.
• Forbes Tompkins, Officer, Flood Prepared Communities, The Pew Charitable Trusts.
• Witold F. Krajewski, Rose & Joseph Summers Chair in Water Resources Engineering and Director, Iowa Flood Center.
• Mike Chesterfield, Director of Weather Presentation, The Weather Channel.
• Ken Dewey, Regional Climatologist, University of Nebraska.
• Steve Bowen, Director and Meteorologist, Aon.

Among the big points made in the analysis reported by Shepherd: the bomb cyclone was a "perfect storm" in its confluence of tragic events; other environmental factors played a role, like snowpack; and infrastructure played a role:

Most of the panel agreed that a combination of weather, water, climate, and infrastructure failure led to the disaster. Mayes-Bousted paraphrased a message from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers that "all of the engineering around the Missouri River and its tributaries is designed to keep the majority of floods at bay, but not the most extreme of events."

In addition to discussion on other aspects of the disaster, the panel also made recommendations for how to move forward and better prepare for future extreme weather events. The state of Iowa's response to floods in 2008 is offered as one example to emulate.

A separate article by Gabriel H. Sanchez provides a photo series to illustrate the extent of the devastation.

As you were browsing www.chronicle.com something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article.

To request an unblock, please fill out the form below and we will review it as soon as possible.