Teaching python (programming) to children

[Sheila King]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:36:11 +0100, Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com>
wrote in comp.lang.python in article
<mailman.1005478634.18974.python-list at python.org>:

...<snip comments on the difficulty of being a good teacher>...
:This produces an unsurrmountable structural problem.  We need lots
:of teachers, so we have to accept those that we wouldn't if there
:was an infinite supply of excellent teachers we could draw upon.
:
:This means that an educational policy has to be crafted so that
:the bottom members of the profession can use it effectively to
:educate.  

I'm afraid that I simply, fundamentally disagree with your idea of
crafting an educational policy that can protect the idiot teachers from
themselves.

For one thing, you seem to think that teaching is a science, where we
can decide upon "the best policy" and then all use it with good results.
But this is not the case. Teaching is an art, and what works well as a
method in some situations and with some students, is not the best method
in other situations with other students.

A little bit ago, I was standing in the kitchen making my breakfast,
thinking about this discussion, and what I would write in reply to you.
And as I stood watching the water boil and the toast toast, my
13-year-old daughter said to me, "What are you doing, Mom?". And after
giving an obvious reply, I said, "I'm thinking about this discussion I'm
having with someone on the Internet about the 'right way' to teach." And
she said, "There is no 'right way' to teach". So I asked her what she
meant by that, and she said, "Well, not everyone learns the same way.
Some people learn best by seeing things, and others learn best by
hearing things ..." and so on. (I do think that the public school she
attends is rather unusual, in that they do educate the students, even in
elementary school, about different learning modalities, and try to help
the students recognize their own learning strengths and how to find
methods to help them best learn.)

But that is basically one of my points. Teachers need to have a
repertoire of techniques, methods and activities, because the lesson or
presentation or explanation that makes one student say, "Ah, hah! I get
it!" may not work for the next student. And, if teachers have this
repertoire, one has to allow them to use it, and to make professional
judgements about what is the best tool or method for the situation they
are currently in.

Your idea of an "educational policy" that would be regimented and
dictate to teachers how they must teach, would not allow for this. The
reason I mentioned those other programs that I know of (Open Court
Reading and Success For All), is because this is exactly what those
programs are: They are an attempt to have a scripted curriculum that any
idiot could follow, so that even the worst teachers could "successfully"
teach reading to the students. The problem is, that they don't work. In
fact, the experienced, knowledgeable, good teachers feel very frustrated
by the programs, because they know they are being forced to do something
that is not in the best interest of their students, and they see the
performance of the students is lower than what they would have seen in
past years. And the new teachers, who have only worked with this program
and not experienced a variety of methods, don't even realize that there
is a problem, and are becoming POORER teachers without strategies that
will help students for whom these curriculums fail.

You would say, "Then change the program. That program isn't a good one."
But the point is, even if you do that, the new program will not be good
for everyone, either. You idea is, IMO, fundamentally flawed.

Not to mention the fact, that the gifted teachers would be extremely
frustrated and leave the profession if that is all they had to deal
with. If they cannot be respected as professionals, to use their
judgement and expertise as to how to best educate their students, and
the job has been changed into some scripted curriculum that any boob is
supposed to be able to follow, then the intelligent people you seek will
certainly not see out that job.

:We might have better luck just seeing that teachers get continuing
:education.  

This is already a requirement in most of the United States, in order for
teachers to keep their credential renewed and current.

:But then we have just moved the problem.  Who decides
:what we should educate the teachers with?

I don't see this problem as any different than, "Who decides the
'educational policy' that should be put in place in order to prevent the
bottom 1/3 of teachers from screwing up."

:In the meantime, I think that letting teachers cut and paste whatever
:academic educational theories and texts they like reduces teaching
:to a hobby, and diminishes it as a profession. 

First of all, no one is suggesting quite the "cut and paste" that you
mention above. Secondly, you don't see scripting the job as diminishing
it as a profession?

:I expect more from you and every professional teacher of programming
:to high school students.  (Which perhaps you aren't doing any more.)

No, I am no longer doing that.

:But unless I misremember, you said that you were teaching C++ as a
:first programming language.  

Correct.

:And I think that this is worse than foolish, this is evil.  

In your opinion. While I wouldn't have chosen to do this on my own, I
would not have characterized it as "evil".

:You should not have been allowed to do this,
:even if you wanted to, a responsible educational policy should have a
:list of acceptable first programming languages, and C++ should not be
:on the list.  But I don't think that you actually _wanted_ to teach
:C++ as a first programming language to high school students, but it
:was part of the the educational policy that you were given.  

Well, sort of. In fact, the situation was this:
There is a benefit for students (and indirectly for schools) in
participating in the Advanced Placement program. It is entirely optional
to participate. However, if a school chooses to offer AP Comp Sci, the
current language of instruction must be C++. This need not be a first
programming course, however. And in many high schools it is a second, or
even third course. But, due to the situation at my school, it was our
only programming course, and therefore our first, and therefore in C++.
The school has made some (half-hearted) efforts to offer an alternative
introductory course. For a number of years they have said they would
offer VB, which I think got cancelled again this year (don't know how
vehemently you feel about that one as a first language). If I had
stayed, there would have been an introductory Scheme course (the Teach
Scheme project), but since I left, it was canceled. At least C++
wouldn't have been the first language any more.

But see, it is much more complicated than simply a matter of policy.
Much of it was optional, and some of it was constrained by the logistics
of the situation. But we certainly didn't have to offer AP Comp Sci. Nor
did I have to volunteer to teach it.

:So it is not a matter of a lack of policy, which would be bad enough, but a
:greater evil.  The _policy_ itself is evil.

This is in your opinion. If I had believe it was _evil_ I certainly
wouldn't have volunteered to teach the course.

:  What other evils do you
:have, and how do you get them, and why can't responsible teachers such
:as yourself get rid of evil damaging policies?  If that is not worth
:getting angry about, I don't know what is.

If I were an elementary teacher in a school that required me to use the
Open Court Reading scripted program, I might well get angry. But in the
end, getting angry may not accomplish much, other than making one upset
and burning one out. It's better to become resolved and determined, to
choose a course of action to do something about it. Believe me, I was
angry about a lot of stuff in my early to middle years teaching. But
eventually I saw that, my anger wasn't accomplishing much other than
making me feel upset, tired, burned out. So I turned it down a notch.

I'm sorry that we cannot agree on this issue. But with many years
participating in educational forms, and many years in the profession,
which have shaped my thoughts and opinions on these matters, there is
simply no way that you will convince me that the idea of an "educational
policy" that dictates to teachers how they should perform their job is
any type of solution. In fact, I feel quite strongly, that it is a very
bad idea, and one I disagree with strongly, and I have several examples
of such programs that have been implemented, that I can point to to show
the poor results.

--
Sheila King
http://www.thinkspot.net/sheila/
http://www.k12groups.org/