On Mar 11, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Well, I don't know about "political forces" unless you simply mean there's a group of people who think getting lots more people into programming is a way to shore up the economy, keep America #1, unleash the potential of women, realize a Star-trek future etc.
In conventional educational theory, there is an element of ability, and the outcome of a student is a product of pedagogy and ability. The goal is to maximize each student?s outcome.
In political educational theory, there is an element of class, and the outcome of a student is a product of pedagogy and class. The goal is to eliminate differences in outcomes between classes.
> 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.
I wasn?t critiquing this, and this is conventional educational theory, 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. But in political educational theory, if the subject is more unappealing to one class than it is to another class, 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.