> Kirby wrote... > > "No dates. For me it was IBM mainframe 360/370 with > assembly language emulator, lotsa languages (PL/1, > APL, > FORTRAN, SNOBOL...) starting mid 1970s, with HP65 > coding > before that, in high school in Manila." > > I knew all of that. Thus my answer. You started in > college. I started in high school.
Unless you count programming the HP calculator. Took lotsa lines. Reverse polish.
> "I don't see where it gives advice about K-12 from > start to finish. If you've talked with Gary about > that it's still off the record. I've only talked > with Maria." > > I showed you the catalog at Phillips and the courses > required before you take the Litvins' course. >
But it's a textbook designed to transplant to Any School. How Phillips treats it is their business. We had meetings here in Oregon wherein that book was mentioned, among others, in connection with proposed changes to legislation. I called myself a lobbyist in that role, truth in advertising.
Any School is free to make Litvins a Math I in a series, where Algebra comes first, then Math II, then Math III. All with coding. You apparently have no problem with this or you wouldn't have dodged.
> "My point is at that level, does it matter what we > call it? STEM is STEM." > > No one has an issue with terminology. This is an > invention of yours. None of us are walking around > saying to ourselves "Is it math or is it CS?" It was > a dead idea when you thought it, just let it die, and > focus on CS. >
You don't see the irony? "None of us are saying... is it math or ...CS?... just focus on CS"? Funny.
I'm focusing on Math. The kind that includes coding. We don't need to wait for all those CS degreed to come flooding into the schools. Math teachers have what it takes -- by your own admission if they know algebra.
> "Lets do courses that mix science, coding and math > much much more. No one is stopping us. Then add > anthropology. Full STEAM ahead." > > What is stopping you is that you can't produce
Nothing is stopping me, certainly not anyone in orbit around Math Forum.
> examples of this where the students are successful, > compared to those who are successful in traditional > sequences. I am not saying that all students taught > traditionally are successful, only that the > successful students were taught traditionally. Even > the reformists. That is what is stopping you. >
I don't have to lift a finger for your picture of a traditional math education to keep fading. The trends are against it.
The mental picture is CS and Math will coexist as separate tracks. That's not sustainable, even as a mental picture, and requires ignorance to back it up.
You say "let it go" that there's a difference, that only I harp on it, it's DOA. Great news. Math I, II and III are in the pipeline!
> And riddle me this, if you are so sure of this > method, why didn't you use it with your daughter? I > have been 100% using what I preach with my son. > > Bob
(A) I don't think one family experimenting in a bubble is all that relevant, even if that family is celebrity, nobility, oligarchy or whatever.
(B) What do you know about what we did as a family? Nothing really. However I did go to my daughter's school to (i) teach a nine week course on Python to all 8th graders (not after school) and (ii) lead an all 6th grade assembly on A modules in particular.