On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:31 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> When I suggest that kids can start to learn >> programming in grade school, perhaps I'm just >> suggesting that (1) kids have curiosity about >> computers and programming, (2) there's no reason to >> "hold off" till a later age, (3) I'm talking about >> baby steps of course. Just like music lessons, most >> will find the rigors of programming unappealing at >> some point and drop out. >> > Of course. >> >> I wasn?t critiquing this, and this is conventional >> educational theory, >> > Is it? I'm not too sure about that. >> >> and as such, any arguments would >> be as to whether this increases student?s outcomes, >> in the grand scheme of all possible outcomes of >> course. >> > What specifically might you mean by "...student?s outcomes, in the grand scheme of all possible outcomes of course???
The goal of conventional educational theory is to maximize each student's outcome. Not to maximize all student?s outcomes in any one particular subject, like math or programming. In other words, there are paths to choose from, some more compatible with each student?s ability and desire than others. Joe seemed to be talking in the conventional sense. He does not seem to be mandating that every student learn programming. He doesn?t even seem to be mandating that every student be exposed to programming, although that is fine under conventional theory.
>> >> But in political educational theory, if the >> subject is more unappealing to one class than it is >> to another class, >> > Which is this 'theory of classes' that you might be susbscribing to, in the above? Is it the conventional 'Marxian Theory of Classes (and Class Struggle) - see, for e.g. Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory? Or do you base your ideas on some of the many extrapolations that have come up - see, for e.g. "Post-Marxism" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism.
In education, class refers to protected class, namely those based on race or gender.
>> >> then the problem must lie in the >> subject and the solution is to eliminate those >> elements in the subject that the affected class find >> unappealing. Sometimes these removals are bold and >> sudden, sometimes subtle and gradual. >> >> Bob Hansen >> > I'm afraid I don't understand your final paragraph at all. Perhaps I may arrive at some better understanding if you'd respond to some of the questions I've posted earlier.
In conventional educational theory, what constitutes the *subject* and the height of the bars in the subject, what determines a grade of A, B, C, etc is chosen without regard to class. In political educational theory what constitutes the *subject* and the height of the bars is chosen with regard to class. For example, if setting the passing score for a test at a particular point would result in a disproportionate failure rate in a protected class, then the passing score is lowered. Or if particular types of problems are more difficult for a protected class then they are removed. Another version, as is practiced in college admissions, is having two standards, one for class A and a different one for class B. All of this deemphasize many of the elements that are critical and crucial to these fields of study.