Kirby Urner posted Mar 4, 2014 4:55 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9400558) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Robert Hansen > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > I can't see "CS for all" not meeting the same > fate. > > > > Again I underline the elective nature of these > courses, but with an > in-the-background switch flipped: you get a feather > in your math cap, and > you only need three to get that high school diploma. > Offhand, it does appear to me that most of the arguments here - at all of Math-teach, in fact - are readily resolved using our available good ideas, if only the participants in them had adequately understood the Warfield approach to 'systems science' and how to apply it to real-life issues (The Warfield approach ENSURES that the relationships between the factors in the system under consideration are clearly articulated [in an 'actionable way']).
The Warfield books and papers do demand some small background in systems science to understand their implications.
And application to real life issues of the Warfield approach to issues definitely requires some pretty hefty resources:
- -- A well qualified 'Facilitator', other support staff a) Assistant to Facilitator; b) Computer operator; and
- -- A considerable amount of 'conference room resources'. (Warfield calls this 'Demosophia', I believe. Ford Motors I believe developed a pukka 'Demosophia facility' that cost them around $ 275,000 or so!!)
The 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) approach tries (it has not yet fully succeeded**) to enable anyone and everyone (individual or group; high-school level upwards) to apply systems science to ANY 'Mission' of current interest to them (*requiring only a computer running the OPMS s/w).
I believe the forthcoming OPMS website will go a considerable distance towards the above goal. A current, fully usable version of the OPMS s/w will always be FREELY available to those who need it and cannot afford to pay for'bell-&-whistles' of the commercial version of OPMS**;
[*Via OPMS, it is even possible to use the Warfield approach without a computer at all: ANY intelligent high-school student can learn all that's needed to construct his/her own models within just a week or so. (This is rather tiresome to do and to maintain needed records, etc - especially when you are not yet convinced about the power of the OPMS approach).
**Robert Hansen: Here is an OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITY for you to tell some more lies about OPMS!!! About how GSC will "solicit funds" to give you the OPMS s/w, and so on and so forth]. > > I'll be the first to admit that mine are special case > circumstances > pertaining to the Republic of Cascadia (not it's real > name) and I'm not > pretending for a moment that "my reforms" should or > will sweep the nation > or the great nations beyond. > Suggestion: To enhance the possibility of "your reforms" sweeping the nation/specific locale, develop an OPMS for that very purpose. The work of developing the OPMS will:
i) Show you clear 'action paths' to accomplish your 'Mission' (whatever it might be);
ii) Show you where and how your Mission may need to be modified (if it be the case that the Mission is fundamentally infeasible). > > My case is based on regional trends and data, more > than aspiring to resolve > issues of empire (wherever / whatever). > > Like, if you think kids in Florida don't want or need > Digital Math, maybe > that's because you have a good read on the situation. > I think I have a > better read on what's happening around here. > > > > > I don't see how you can treat these subjects > properly without there being > > an elective process. I would be singing a different > tune if most jobs > > required algebra or coding, but very few do. I > would also be more swayed if > > there were "introductory" courses, meant to give > the kids a taste (and > > please, anything but legos), and then an elective > program thereafter. But > > any "X for all" is bound to do more harm than > good. > > > > "Elective" and "selective" are different. I'm > recruiting for these classes > precisely because they're optional. > > At the other end of the spectrum is Algebra, which > most schools consider > mandatory and that's a windmill I might just leave > standing -- just make it > "CS-friendly" is my only plea (many parents are on > board -- objectively > that's not "all in my head"). > > > As I said, I don't think people realize just how > hard it is in public > > school today to choose a *real* math path. It isn't > like in our day where > > only the college bound students took these courses > and the courses were > > pretty much the same all over. Now they are placing > every kid in these > > courses, regardless of prior course success and the > quality of the courses > > ranges from crap to good. > > > > Bob Hansen > > From my point of view, staying home would be the > better option for over > 50%, given averages, but that leaves huge numbers > benefiting -- plus "home" > is theoretical in so many ways (when we almost had > that teachers' strike, > the daycare function was to be continued, while all > content-teaching would > be sacrificed ("bring a good book")). > > Kirby > Indeed. Considering the rubbish that is imparted as 'learning' to students in most schools, it is quite possible indeed that the best thing for most students (50%, according to KU) to do is to 'stay home'. However, at school, there ARE at least two valuable things going on (even if what is formally taught is rubbish):
i) Interactions with peers;
ii) Interactions with authorities.
Both 'i' and 'ii' are ESSENTIAL for the learner to grow and live and work and play in this world. Most home-schooled children do not get adequate exposure to either 'i' or 'ii'. (I have just seen a couple of instances of this occurring to the children of one of my son's friends).