I mostly agree with Andrew. And, further, as is made clear in the book _Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their Lives_ http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Disciplined-Minds-Critical-Professionals-Soul-Battering/dp/0742516857 you can't separate politics from the educational process. In many ways, politics is about the control of the educational process. You can pretend to separate them -- by adopting a supposedly "objective" and "professional" viewpoint -- but in the end, when you do that, you just have made a vote to uphold the status quo, which is obviously and clearly failing the next generation (at least, in the USA). See also for example: "why education technology has failed schools" http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-education-technology-has-failed.html (which links to an essay of mine).
>From there: "Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to "learning just in case" based on someone else's demand. ... Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world". In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change... So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools. Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade. Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age. They are no longer needed. What remains is just to watch this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the fewest people get hurt in the process." I think Kirby's original post was completely on topic and illustrating why Python (and other programming languages) has not made the progress one might expect in expanding into broad areas of education. He uses math as an example, but one could just as well find similar issues in why computers (and Python driven software) are not used in teaching social studies or science via having kids build their own simulations or do detailed analysis of various issues from a critical and quantitative perspective. These political issues of constructing "disciplined minds" remain the elephant in the living room of any discussion of educational technology IMHO. However, as the recent discussion of "scaffolding" and Papert shows, there remains a lot of value in having another human being around to provide scaffolding and mentoring (even if it happens indirectly or subtly). And people on this list have made clear how writing a good tutorial requires special skill and much effort, and that is independent of whether you force people to use that tutorial at any point in time. So, both those things suggest the value of the *educator* even if one can (and I think should) have disagreements with the authoritarian *process* most educators in our society find themselves embedded if they are in a school environment or supporting one somehow. Basically, as I see it, there is a (peaceful) educational revolution going on right now around the world, see for example: http://www.educationrevolution.org/ http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?newsletterid=21&articleid=195 related to "learner-centered approaches to education". It is difficult to discuss "Python in education" or "Computer programing for everyone" in any *meaningful* terms without the context of this ongoing educational revolution towards learned-centered solutions. Those ideals in turn guide the development of related techniques -- supporting learning on demand, learning by playing with a simulation, or learning by doing or construction or programming. This change in many is just a return to how learning used to be done hundreds of years ago either in a neighborhood or apprenticeship context. Essentially, what seems to me to be proposed here is making edusig a discussion group for "How or why to use Python (as is) for use in the standard K-12 classroom to meet narrowly defined instructional objectives?". The short answer to that implicit question is, as Kirby implies, that there is essentially no role for Python in the standard mainstream K-12 classroom (I'd frame it as it's simply too dangerous a concept :-). Or, as someone else suggests, the other answer to that implicit question is, learn "Java" if you want a strategic plan because you can use it to get A.P. credit and save money in college. But those are not good answers for people who want kids to be empowered, since the mainstream classroom is mostly not about empowering kids, just like Java (unlike Python or other dynamic languages like Smalltalk or Lisp or Ruby) is mostly not about empowering programmers. Still, I could essentially see Guido's point, because some conventional school staff who otherwise like Python may face issues posting to a list talking about the future of education (which may appear to threaten their job), so perhaps ultimately a solution would be to have one list for "python in mainstream education" and another list for "python for alternative or future education". --Paul Fernhout "There is a time and place for dissent, but the time is never now, and the place is never here." Andrew Harrington wrote: > On the focus of this list: certainly Python education (even if it does > get contentious -- there are strong opinions on all sorts of things). > Certainly I am not looking for big large educational politics centered > discussions, but I am a bit concerned about the strength of the reaction > and going too far. > > Politics do influence people's mindsets, and hence what they suggest > specifically about teaching Python. People make suggests about teaching > Python that I take with more or less of a grain of salt depending on > where I judge they are coming from. I would not like to lose the > context from which people speak. There is always a matter of degree. > Explicitly self-identified influences, with links to a site that would > give more information to the interested about the influence certainly > sound fine and useful to me. This extends to one-line links to most > anything that might be tangentially of interest to our audience, not > just politics. Producing a whole page in our list that could better > appear on a politics site is completely different and I would prefer not > to be skimming over it, trying to find the end of the theme. _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
