On 9/18/07, Sriram Karra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/18/07, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is really braindead. I'd have preferred to see a curriculum that > > was free of *anybody's* political agenda. The curriculum ought to be > > teaching concepts that could be learned on any kind of software -- > > free or otherwise. > > That was how it was in simpler times. We learnt data strutures and > algorithms using Pascal for two years in 11th and 12th. This was the > CBSE in the early-mid nineties. > > The whole thing is not as simple any more. Some issues at play: > > 1. With the trend to start 'Computer' classes earlier and earlier, I > suppose it becomes very difficult to talk in terms of abstract > concepts for too long. > > 2. There aren't too many clueful teachers around - even in upmarket > urban schools - who can be relied upon to take an educated call on > what software is the right tool for teaching a set of concepts. This > would either (a) expose schools to the guile and charm of well fed > marketeers from companies such as Microsoft, or (b) render a syllabus > completely useless for those 'unfortunate' to be off corporate radars
Venky (Hariharan) would be able to comment more on this, but when I was in Red Hat I remember working on a proposed curriculum that was neutral. It had items like "How to use a Word Processor" rather than "How to use MS Word" or even "How to use OpenOffice.org". It had suggestions for what software could be used to teach the curriculum, with both FOSS and proprietary software listed. FOSS doesn't deserve to become ubiquitous if the only way it can do so is by reservations (affirmative action in US lingo). -- b
