Kirby Urner posted Mar 10, 2014 9:28 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9409174) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > <snip> > > May I presume you know "wagging the dog" is an > American idiom? > > I'm not sure if it ever spread to "proper English". > I'd always presumed the expression came from 'British English', not 'US English'. On searching, I don't find much enlightenment. > > In any case, my point at the time was, given RH and I > agree on the nuts and > bolts as long as I'm not cramming CS down the throats > of unwitting > 11-year-olds and stick to offering for-math-credit > electives to > post-Algrebra students, we're good (in rough > paraphrase) i.e. we're on the > same side. > > RH calls what I'm wanting to do as "bringing CS into > math class" (CS = > computer science) and that sparked a long thread with > JN etc., > vicariously involving Donald Knuth et al, as to > whether CS is "mathy enough" > to warrant inclusion or should the current policy of > CS != Math segregation > be maintained? (!= meaning "not equal"). > > In my own case, my work as a high powered lobbyist > appears to be done, at > least as far as the home-schoolers are concerned. > The law has been > passed. I'm not needing to micro-manage, as long as > parents know the law > -- we have great lawyers among the home schooling. > > Or *at least* I can say the *idea* of getting "math > credit for CS (as RH > thinks of it) is sort of out there, in states that > have said AP CS counts > as "advanced math". That's not my position though. > As a voter / taxpayer > etc., vs. an unregistered lobbyist , I'd say it's > "workaday math" that I > want to boost, no need to call it advanced or spin it > in that way. > > However, since what I want to offer is a *smattering* > of courses, even a > whole "track", I'm not too worried about it. Sounds > like we're well on the > way. Some of "my" courses may fit the "advanced" > criterion. Others, like > stats, will just be really useful courses of study > that will help you in > your STEAM-ahead career. > > Whether CS is really a branch of math or not or > whatnot, involves buying > into a lot of so-called "higher academic cruft". Its > not clear Silicon > Forest will be buying into all that. Oregon has an > only weakly funded > higher ed culture. Plus we have plenty of PhDs etc. > in the so-called > "private sector". > > Through public / private partnerships, Cascadia has > less need of USG's > guidance / advice than Beltway-funded states i.e we > can short circuit the > round-trip of funds to DC, which get skimmed for Drug > / Drone Wars etc., > which is bad for our economy (even though we make > civilian-brand drones, or > would like to make more -- just not for the > uber-cowards). > > Kirby > >  > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9407106 > (laws have > passed) > >  > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9405786 > (unregistered > vs registered) > Thanks for your explanation, which serves to remove most of the doubts I'd expressed. (I've also glanced at the posts you have shown links to - including the latest response you've made at 'Structured Programming': I may remark on some of that, later).
I do have one major doubt left over, namely:
Reference the discussions at "What math textbooks are 'CS-friendly': criteria?" as well as those here:
I believe we simply need to understand - *effectively* (or at least, somewhat better than today's state, which is dismal) - just how 'better understanding of math by students at large' "MAY CONTRIBUTE TO" improvement in 'the state of CS' - and just how 'improvement in the knowledge of CS by students' "MAY CONTRIBUTE TO" 'enhanced understanding of math'.
Why not work towards that, for a start? (Or at least make the effort? I see very little work by any of us - here at Math-teach; others at other forums - on this crucial need). Such an effort - made societally - would, I claim, help the aim of improving 'math education'; it would also help the aim of improving education in general.
I claim that any work on such an aim would also significantly impact the underlying objective of enhancing understanding of math amongst our students - i.e., it would serve 'Math-teach' very well indeed. It would also contribute significantly to accomplishment of the aim of "improving our educational systems generally".
Some of the 'elements' are already in place. For instance, the public at large already seems to accept (by and large) that an understanding of math is an essential ingredient of education's objectives - this is now part of the 'accepted wisdom'.
(Math is universally a part of school education, ignoring for the moment that the knowledge of math is imparted rather ineffectively in most of our educational systems. Here, I observe that the knowledge of practically everything - except incompetence - is imparted ineffectively in our conventional educational systems. The need for an 'understanding of systems' is alas NOT, by any means, part of our 'accepted wisdom').
I don't know enough about Cascadia and the activities there. Shall try and learn - my Internet connection is poor, so the efforts I make in this direction are doubtless inadequate.
(I presume "USG" is your acronym for "US Government"? Well, we all - in India as well as in the USA - do need to work out just how we should, in any democracy, be part of 'our government': what does government really mean in a democracy? Currently, in most democracies, what we do in such context is not much more effective than is our work on our educational systems. It's really a 'system problem'.
(As earlier noted, I still do have to learn much more about 'Cascadia').