[Edu-sig] Let's dump the Graphing Calculators!

[kirby urner]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Jason Blum <jason.blum at 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textbook business model is itself what's out of date -- we neither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.html>