Let me just add that *this* is an example of why I am going to quickly extract myself from this discussion. There are radically opposing views of education, and it very quickly gets political. I can't read up on all the stuff and I can't trust one side to be "right" just because they make the last post. I'm interested in Python software. I'm not interested in taking sides in a political discussion.
--Guido On 4/22/06, Paul D. Fernhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kirby urner wrote: > >>If that means Shuttleworth is less interested, then so be it; but > >>you might gain thousands of other developers from the unschooled ranks. > >> > >>--Paul Fernhout > > > > I don't get the impression you've really read up on the Shuttleworth > > Project, which just had its first London summit, resulting in detailed > > meeting notes, on-line in the Wiki, plus the various blog entries and > > so on. If you want to speak specifically to the Shuttleworth > > initiative, I suggest you follow more links and at least get on the > > same page? > > Maybe we are talking about different conferences or a different Mark > Shuttleworth? :-) Obviously you were there, but perhaps you saw it mainly > through the eyes of a curriculum writer? And so questioning the value of > a curriculum may be bit like a fish suddenly noticing water? :-) > > Consider: > http://www.tsf.org.za/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=2 > "Shuttleworth project for *schools*" > > Some of Mark's own phrases from: > http://wiki.tsf.org.za/shuttleworthfoundationwiki/Day_20one > as an indicator of what he is thinking about (taken out of context which > would show he is open minded, true, but look at how many there are): > "primary and secondary education" > "to become a mathematics teacher" > "Technology in classrooms" > "supply technology in schools" > "Aim: to produce a curriculum" > "train teachers" > "Institutionalize ... exceptional children" > "correct portfolio of schools to implement the curriculum" > > And some phrases of Mark's from the second day: > http://wiki.tsf.org.za/shuttleworthfoundationwiki/Day_20two > "used in schools " > "In their classroom work" > "The child has to solve the problem" > "Did he come to the right answer" > "identify children who have the answers" > "How do you deal with kids who work out their own " > "the sort of skills the teachers should be taught" > "With the curriculum" > "If spent more time planning" > "do all the curriculum training" > "have a curriculum" > Several are about control here -- planning and telling kids what to do. > > Granted, other people, specifically Alan Kay, made constructivist > educational points (though even he still speaks from a somewhat > school-oriented context), and Mark responded positively towards them. I > clearly think Mark is looking for more ideas, and hence his summit. I > acknowledge Mark's flexibility and potential to change; he's one of the > few people (dozens?) who has looked at the Earth from space with his own > eyes, and an ever rarer few (two? three?) who did it with their own money. > > Still, I think my point remains, that, acknowledging he had the Summit to > look for new ideas, that a "mass schooling == education" equality was, and > is still, the source of light illuminating how he is looking at things. > And it was the "elephant in the living room" no one talked about (though > see below). At best there seems to have been some discussion of how in one > broad area of schooling (math & science) there might be a little > constructivist approach used here and there in a few grades part of the > time. But in reality, any conventional *compulsary* school > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/5i.htm > based approach built on a *compulsary* curriculum will undermine the very > notion of what he hopes for in wanting to help preparing kids for the > future -- a one likely involving a lot of freewheeling free and open > source volunteer community participation. Even forcing kids to help each > other learn fixed materials undermines part of that message. Those sorts > of truly collaborative skills stem out of self-motivation, not compulsion, > and they will only grow ever more important as our society adopts more and > more productive technologies worldwide, moving to a world transcending > even the notion of "work" itself. > http://www.whywork.org/ > > There was one section where the elephant was apparently mentioned, when > the notion of radical changes was brought up and then dismissed on the > secodn day: "HK2: Extreme crisis- complete overhaul would mean a higher > impact ... VR: Although complete overhaul would be ideal- it would be > counterproductive given the realities of South Africa." > > Time and time again that same conversation comes up the same way, with the > same result. So we are left with a focus on: Curriculum, Curriculum, > Curriculum -- that is a recurrent them in Mark's phrasing. > > Some comments by an unschooling advocate on the notion of a curriculum: > http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/earl_stevens.html > "Allowing curriculums, textbooks, and tests to be the defining, driving > force behind the education of a child is a hindrance in the home as much > as in the school - not only because it interferes with learning, but > because it interferes with trust. As I have mentioned, even educators are > beginning to question the pre-planned, year-long curriculum as an > out-dated, 19th century educational system. There is no reason that > families should be less flexible and innovative than schools." > Or see links at: > "Unschooling -- Delight-driven learning" > http://home-educate.com/unschooling/ > > As New York State "Teacher of the Year" John Taylor Gatto puts it here in > his essay, on what the real curriculum is in almost any schooling context: > "The 7-Lesson Schoolteacher" > http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt > "It is time that we faced the fact squarely that institutional > schoolteaching is destructive to children. ... > After an adult lifetime spent teaching school I believe the method > of mass-schooling is the only real content it has, don't be fooled into > thinking that good curriculum or good equipment or good teachers are the > critical determinants of your son and daughter's schooltime. All the > pathologies we've considered come about in large measure because the > lessons of school prevent children from keeping important appointments > with themselves and with their families, to learn lessons in self- > motivation, perseverance, self-reliance, courage, dignity and love and > lessons in service to others, which are among the key lessons of home > life. Thirty years ago these things could still be learned in the time > left after school. But television has eaten up most of that time, and a > combination of television and the stresses peculiar to two-income or > single-parent families have swallowed up most of what used to be family > time. Our kids have no time left to grow up fully human, and only thin- > soil wastelands to do it in. A future is rushing down upon our culture > which will insist that all of us learn the wisdom of non-material > experience; a future which will demand as the price of survival that we > follow a pace of natural life economical in material cost. These > lessons cannot be learned in schools as they are. School is like > starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the > only curriculum truly learned. I teach school and win awards doing it. I > should know." > > For one alternative: > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3d.htm > "I know a school for kids ages three to eighteen that doesn't teach > anybody to read, yet everyone who goes there learns to do it, most very > well. It's the beautiful Sudbury Valley School, twenty miles west of > Boston in the old Nathaniel Bowditch "cottage" (which looks suspiciously > like a mansion), a place ringed by handsome outbuildings, a private lake, > woods, and acres of magnificent grounds. Sudbury is a private school, but > with a tuition under $4,000 a year it's considerably cheaper than a seat > in a New York City public school. At Sudbury kids teach themselves to > read; they learn at many different ages, even into the teen years (though > that's rare). When each kid is ready he or she self-instructs, if such a > formal label isn't inappropriate for such a natural undertaking. During > this time they are free to request as much adult assistance as needed. > That usually isn't much. In thirty years of operation, Sudbury has never > had a single kid who didn't learn to read. All this is aided by a > magnificent school library on open shelves where books are borrowed and > returned on the honor system. About 65 percent of Sudbury kids go on to > good colleges. The place has never seen a case of dyslexia. (That's not to > say some kids don't reverse letters and such from time to time, but such > conditions are temporary and self-correcting unless institutionalized into > a disease.) So Sudbury doesn't even teach reading yet all its kids learn > to read and even like reading. What could be going on there that we don't > understand?" > > So why build software tools oriented towards schools and a compulsory > "curriculum" if the real goal is helping kids educate themselves and > become productive citizens of the 21st century? Yes, schools could be > made a bit less terrible, but why spend rare philanthropic dollars for > such a meager outcome? Someone like Mark Shuttleworth has so much > potential as an agent of positive change, but it seems like, despite the > fact that his effort will do some small good for some school kids, it is > mostly a non-starter as far as significant change. Of course, this is to > be expected. As Gatto points out in his book: > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc5.htm > "Chapter Seventeen -- The Politics Of Schooling -- At the heart of the > durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation > system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many warring > interests that large-scale change is impossible without a guidebook. Few > insiders understand how to steer this ship and the few who do may have > lost the will to control it." > That is the elephant in the educational living room in all its glory. > > To be clear, this note isn't meant personally, even though it obviously > hacks at the roots of the notion of a fixed curriculum for kids, and you > personally make such curricula. I have no problems with people writing > good tutorials, or people figuring out useful educational widgets to make, > or people helping other people who spend time around kids learn how to > interact productively with them, or people thinking about what types of > things are useful to learn and laying out interesting paths for kids to > follow at their own choosing. The best part of our garden simulator is > perhaps the help system my wife spent six months writing, which is a > resource for many thousands of people on the web now. If one looks at > writing curricula in that sense, then such aids can be useful. But add > compulsion to any of those notions (even our garden simulator!), and you > get back to the problem we have today with mass compulsory schooling. It > undermines your very own work, by turning your labors of love on curricula > into instruments of torture (boredom is in a sense a form of torture) > wielded by "teachers" who (often unknowingly) teach mainly the seven real > lessons of schooling Gatto outlines instead. > > And you don't get someone like Bucky Fuller through conventional > compulsory schooling, and we certainly need more people like him in the > 21st century. From: > http://www.madrone.com/Home-ed/hs35.htm > "Almost no one who has changed our world, has reached his or her new > knowledge through [learning that results because you are forced]. ... To > me, one of the most striking examples of this is Buckminster Fuller. Until > he got glasses in elementary school, he was essentially blind. He > developed his ideas about shape and structure playing with dried peas in > kindergarten." So in that sense, Bucky's poor physical vision protected > him from the compulsory school curriculum that might have ruined his true > inner vision. > > Science education in compulsory schools is essentially a machine grinding > out diamonds (PhDs). It is also a failing pyramid scheme, since it > produces more specialists then the world needs, each of which wants to > turn out many more of the same specialist. In the words of the Vice > Provost of Caltech, Dr. David L. Goodstein: > http://www.house.gov/science/goodstein_04-01.htm > "Science education in America is a mining and sorting operation in which > we seek out diamonds in the rough that can be cut and polished into gems > just like us, the existing scientists, and we discard all the rest. This > system has produced the best scientists in the world, but it is also > responsible for the woeful technical illiteracy of the American workforce. > Furthermore, now that the period of exponential growth is over we find > ourselves with a surplus of gems that we can't afford. That is why the > Internet crackles with the complaints of young Ph.D.'s who can't get jobs > doing the research they were trained for." > > Mark sets out to do good; my worry is how many Bucky Fullers the > curriculum he plans is about to grind to ruin. Still, his may ruin less of > them then some other worse curricula, but is that the best we can hope > for, to save just a few children from the griding gears of a compulsory > schooling machine? Even in the face of impossible odds against worldwide > compulsory school machinery costing trillions of dollars a year to operate > to keep grinding down most children into dirt (cue Pink Floyd :-), > http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pink-floyd/108776.html [*] > or as Gatto puts it: "Bianca, You Animal, Shut Up!" > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue.htm > even then, shouldn't we desperately hope for something more? And shouldn't > that desperate hope inform our vision of what truly educational software > and "computer programming for everyone" should be all about? > > --Paul Fernhout > [*] Too bad Pink Floyd didn't use the word "schooling" instead of > "education" in "Another Brick in The Wall". In that sense, even they > succumbed unwittingly to the evil they try to fight. > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
