Very good points, Kirby! I heartily agree with your assessment of, well, assessments. I'll go on record as saying the cult of standardization and curriculum reeks of fear.
Peter On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM, <edu-sig-requ...@python.org> wrote: > Send Edu-sig mailing list submissions to > edu-sig@python.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edu-sig-requ...@python.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edu-sig-ow...@python.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Edu-sig digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Let's dump the Graphing Calculators! (kirby urner) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:06:49 -0700 > From: kirby urner <kirby.ur...@gmail.com> > To: edu-sig <edu-sig@python.org> > Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Let's dump the Graphing Calculators! > Message-ID: > < > capjgg3qhysiunmfrpz95v7tb86txva02ttuypswbeww0juo...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Jason Blum <jason.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Interesting article about the whole Texas Instruments Graphing Calculator > > scam: > > > > > https://mic.com/articles/125829/your-old-texas-instruments-graphing-calculator-still-costs-a-fortune-heres-why > > > > > Excellent article, thanks. > > Whereas I have love and respect for the BBC, I've been a past > advocate of the Boycott Pearson campaign, precisely for the > reasons mentioned above. > > I think Pearson has some better practices in the pipeline by now, > and dropped my campaign awhile back, but I'm still rhetorically > resisting the oppressiveness of big publishing in general (I used > to work at McGraw-Hill and understand how what's profitable is > to recycle the past with window-dressing changes). > > The Common Core is mostly for big publishing's convenience, as > marketing to individualized curricula developed by faculty would > be a real pain. Exactly right, it would be. The big publishing > textbook business model is itself what's out of date -- we neither > need nor want uniformity of that kind. > > Teachers want more pay and respect, and Jorge is a great role > model for why they'd deserve both if allowed to innovate in the > way Jorge has. But most are on a very short leash and have to > do Pearson's dirty work as mind-killer slaves. > > Hah hah, there's more of my rhetoric showing. > > > > Meanwhile you get ten times the functionality for free on > > https://desmos.com/: > > > > > https://edsurge.com/news/2015-04-30-texas-district-pilots-desmos-as-alternative-to-graphing-calculators > > > > But +1 on approaching math programmatically with Python. > > > > > > > Or with J and/or JavaScript and/or.... so many ways to go once the > creativity is unleashed. > > But that's the fear: non-standardized and diverse approaches to the > future, meaning college admissions offices would have to really think > about their jobs again instead of just using algorithms and cookie > cutters. > > We've swallowed the bogus argument that wholesale uniformity and > "every one on the same page" has something to do with "fairness". > If junior moves from military base A in Texas to military base B in > Alabama, we don't want to upset her with some different content, > something place-based or homegrown. The transition should be as > smooth as just turning the page, as everyone is in lockstep, always > the factory-minded ideal. One size fits all etc. > > Congratulations to those behind this "fairness = uniformity" deception, > as it has worked very well for them. The gullible public has bought > in to this premise. > > In the meantime, those very few schools who dare to break the > mold are in a position to hugely advantage their students. There's > nothing like shackling everyone else to TI calculators to help a > lucky few stand out thanks to their school's bravery. > > What I don't get is why organizations like the IEEE or even the > NCTM itself don't raise a fuss or in any way to insist on educational > freedom. Don't teachers want any freedom? (Answer: many > don't). > > NCTM and IEEE do not seem to understand how they're digging > their own graves with their silence and that, looking back, they're > going to seem awfully stick-in-the-mud as in "gee, look at these > interesting fossils". You'd think at some point a sense of self- > preservation, of wanting to survive, would kick in. > > Kirby > > Related polemics (hey, I'm a spin doctor too): > > http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=9796755#9796755 > https://goo.gl/dajqz0 (based on today's correspondence) > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/attachments/20160630/3b6b8a1d/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Edu-sig Digest, Vol 156, Issue 1 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
