[Edu-sig] Python in Secondary Schools

[Paul D. Fernhout]

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.