On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:21 PM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote: > > That's entirely incorrect Bob. Plus you're quite inconsistent as you've > written here a number of times that 'Mathematics for the Digital Age and > Programming in Python' is a respectable math-learning text as text books > go. > > > I never said it was algebra. I said it was math. And recently I said that > you would have to know algebra to take it. > > Bob Hansen >
The earlier we can stop trying to parse these specific nuances the better.
There's a massive "NIH / NIMBY" syndrome where no specific faculty says it's their job to stay relevant. The turf battles are between wallowing dinosaurs sinking in a mud of their own making.
Oregon's teachers made a good faith effort to offer a discrete / digital / computational math course but were denied.
Now that I've seen the self destructive "lets jump on the bandwagon" herd mentality of the self appointed authorities, I'm happy to let them have their way and self destruct as quickly as possible.
Collectively, as STEM (more integrated), I think there's more potential to address the huge deficiencies. The E and T (engineering and technology) both serve as openings for more computational thinking, even if M is too proud and controlled by "turn back the clock" Luddites.
The big publishers have more of an investment in recycling the same business as usual pabulum and are mostly behind the standards movement.
It's not profitable to have schools do a lot of customization and place-based curriculum writing even though this is eminently possible in the digital age, with each school having its own server farm. It's not what mass hard-copying and the wood pulp industry require. Mass publishing thrives on uniformity of product.
So the strategy is to sell parents on a "this fits the bill" text book series, meaning you need a bill to fit in the first place (hence CCSM).