Slashdot Mirror
US Dept. of Ed: English, History, and Civics Teachers Good Enough For CS Class
theodp writes: In A New Chapter for Computer Science Education, the U.S. Department of Education explained earlier this month that the federal STEM Education Act of 2015 'provides an unprecedented opportunity to fully leverage federal resources' to address large gaps in students' participation in Advanced Placement (AP) computer science classes based on gender and race. "In three states," lamented the DOE, "not a single female student took the AP computer science exam" (that only 8 boys took the AP CS exam in those same 3 states was apparently not a concern). And the DOE has good news for those hoping to tap Title I and II funds for CS, but don't have any computer science teachers. "A background in math or science isn't necessarily a requirement to teach CS," explains the Dept. of Ed, "as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts."
And people wonder why so many jobs are outsourced?
I honestly despair for the future of the US.
We basically are now getting education by idiots for idiots.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
They have no students. They operate no schools. They piss away billions of dollars and damage education by imposing bullshit federal regulations on local schools.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
We don't have to worry about facebook and google trying to flood the market with cheap labor after all.
Back in the mid 1990s, my (otherwise extremely good) private school found itself caught off-guard by the need to provide IT teaching. With no existing staff with computer science experience, it went about trying to rectify the situation in fairly horrible ways. First, it recruited what it thought was an IT specialist from industry, only to find he was a chemical engineer with no more than a basic level of computing literacy (and no teaching qualifications). He lasted a year.
Then it decided to use non-specialists to teach IT classes, having basically bought a bunch of mail-order courses. I'll emphasise that this was a private fee-paying school with high academic standards that would never have considered this approach for any other subject.
Anyway, the level of teaching was predictably disastrous. The teachers drafted in to cover the subject (including a number of elderly Catholic Priests) lacked any kind of background in it. Not only couldn't they teach the subject, but they couldn't convey why they were even trying to teach the subject. They would spend each lesson reading from one of those mail-order worksheets, with no idea how to either advise a pupil who was having problems, or how to recover the lesson if something went wrong.
The fact that the school's computer lab functioned at all was basically down to the volunteer efforts of a few of the more IT literate students (self-included), who would fix things after the latest balls-up and be called on during free-periods to get an IT lesson back on track after a teacher encountered an error message he hadn't seen before. I didn't particularly mind at the time; I wasn't taking any qualifications in IT, so the quality of the teaching didn't matter to me and helping out earned me a few perks. In particular, it got me out of the compulsory (but non-academic) religious education classes from ages 16-18.
But for those who were actually taking the subject formally (admittedly only a tiny handful in my year-group) it was a pretty catastrophic situation. In any other subject (including the practical ones such as design and technology), my school expected its teachers to be in command of their area. IT was just seen as being different somehow.
This is such a typical gov response to a problem. Too many widgets of one type simply pound them into whatever shape necessary until someone decides either the problem is solved or the "solution" didn't work.
That's silly. If they had at least chosen "Philosophy, Ancient Languages, Semiology" or some other categories where the non-phonies need to deal with considerable amounts of formal logic, deductive thinking and abstraction. Note that even in those categories, those ending up as teachers tend to be drawn from the shallow end of a pond that has fewer obvious deep parts than typical STEM disciplines.
Perhaps they are confusing "Computer Science" with "Computer Literacy" (actually a term that gives the finger to "literacy") here?
Hex is not math/science. It's just computer literacy.
There's no such thing as "business-focused math". It's just dumbed-down crap. The math is what makes CS exist and interesting.
Hex is not math/science. It's just computer literacy.
If you use it enough, you'll memorize it. I don't need to be able to convert binary to hex to dec because the calculator does it for me and because it comes up so rarely. If I'm trying to save every byte because I'm writing something for the Arduino or similar then I care, but I only care for a few seconds while I'm writing the relevant code. The computer does the conversions for me, so I don't have to. I don't need to know the dec value of a bit I'm twiddling to twiddle it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How many people have really used hex and binary math, in a professional position, to the extent that you need to have spend hours learning and memorizing it?
Please tell me this is some kind of sophisticated trolling attempt.
You cannot be a remotely competent computer programmer without those things, and yes, we use those things on a daily basis in our jobs.
"...A background in math or science isn't necessarily a requirement to teach CS," explains the Dept. of Ed, "as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts."
I broke my arm once and got a cough. I'm pretty sure under new DOE rules I'm now qualified to teach aspiring doctors.
Nothing like making US "degrees" seem even more worthless in the eyes of the world.
Congratulations DOE fucktards. I really didn't think anyone could top the stupidity of No Child Left Behind.
retarded morons.
"A background in math or science isn't necessarily a requirement to teach CS," explains the Dept. of Ed, "as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts."
As I don't live in the U.S. I have no idea what AP in CS entails, but I'd say that in a modern programming language, you can certainly teach students a bit of CS without having a degree in CS yourself. I'd say paedagogics is more important. Of course a teacher should have some basic CS knowledge themselves, but making a university level education a requirement might be counterproductive.
So maybe that's enough, but I'd be more comfortable if that quote mentioned "some teaching experience/foundational knowledge in a STEM discipline" as an additional requirement for English/history/civics teachers. Just by itself, it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
(Disclosure: I have a MS in CS)
I honestly despair for the future of the US. We basically are now getting education by idiots for idiots.
And stuff like this is why many think the Department of Education should be eliminated or severely scaled back. Perhaps set national standards but not get into the day-to-day operations of a school.
Once upon a time, well 1960, there was a Presidential Debate where candidates discussed societal issues (imagine that). One topic that came up was the nature of federal support for local schools. Both candidates, Kennedy (D) and Nixon (R), were concerned that federal support (funding) would lead to federal meddling. One idea that came up in the debate was to have federal funds only be used for one time costs, like building the school, and not operational costs, like teacher salaries. That way there would be less opportunity for ongoing meddling. I think we are now seeing the wisdom of their shared concerns regarding centralizing too much control and authority in Washington DC.
"as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts." yeah right... it's all the same. I agree with you guys, just an idiot would write this.
Computer Science would look pretty weird if it tried to step away from the math department. That said, it would be nice if the twin evils of "if it involves a computer, we can call it CS, right?" and "Well, this isn't CS, so computers are good for nothing but typing papers" were dealt with.
Every time some 'button pressing in MS Office' tutorial gets a 'CS' course code, a turing machine's tape snaps; but it is also the case that there are many useful things to be done with computers, some requiring nontrivial skill, that can't honestly be called 'CS'; but are of great use to subjects not typically associated with computers.
I had a buddy in college who was nominally studying 'history'; but the substance of the work was heavily GIS-driven analysis of existing archeological sites and(using what was known about trade, cultural contact, etc. from those sites; along with information about the capabilities and needs of the available travel options of the day and enough geology and biology to advance reasonably educated hypotheses about past landscapes from present-day GIS data) using aerial and satellite imagery to identify likely trade routes and intermediate settlements in areas where little or no ground-level archeology had been done, to prioritize future on-the-ground digging. It wasn't 'CS'; but it was a flavor of 'history' where use of computer tools well beyond the point-n'-click level was simply non-optional. Pretending that that makes it 'CS' would be dishonest and misleading; but (given that not everyone is actually going to become a programmer and get rich selling mobile apps to everyone else's little programmers), there is something to be said for K-12 level introduction to the fact that even if you don't "do CS" knowing at least enough to be slightly dangerous and write awful little scripts that make real programmers cry is quite valuable in all sorts of areas.
If you're doing bitwise operations more complex than "filtering security permission", an understanding of hex and binary is pretty important. I'll give you a pass on octal though.
Yet another reason the DoE needs to go back to an office or not at all. The only part that seems to do anything is the "civil rights" section and it usually messes things up there. When will they realize that
1. Boys and girls are different
2. The reason that girls are not in these classes is that well, they don't want to be
3. You need actual experts to teach subjects, people with math/ science/etc degrees not degrees in "education".
And her butch sidekick teaching your kidz computer science? No! If Coach can teach fizz ed and health ed and driver ed then you can bet your kidzez futurez that the REAL teacherz can handle computer science. Ipzo fatzo forgettzo.
I have nothing against CS degrees, I have two of them. That said ...
... he learned to wire up TTL, burn eproms and do some 8-bit assembly language programming on his own, for his own fun and amusement. His class was not terribly different from the lab portion of the introductory EE-type classes that were part of my undergraduate CS program taught by a professor with a PhD.
My high school's CS-type class was the electrical shop class. Yes, the shop class where you normally learn electrician type stuff, wiring up a light and switch for example. Our cranky old not far from retirement shop teacher said on day one that he wasn't going to teach us electrician stuff, well he would if someone asked but he decided to teach us digital electronics because he thought that would be more useful. His background
I live in a county where a few years ago, we had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars because some Christian Fundie wanted "Intelligent Design" and the "controversy of Evolution" taught in our biology classes.
Our CS budget went to lawyers.
Local control of schools isn't such a good thing.
1337 H@xorz pwn teaching U english 2!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Absolutely, a first CS-type class should be one that just introduces a little bit of programming, something with some fun/visual feedback. Just enough to introduce programming to the kid so they can find out if they have any inherent interest or curiosity. **IF** such interest/curiosity exists then let them sign up for an elective class that is more traditional CS in nature.
And yes, the better developers are self-taught and this includes those who went through a formal university program. If one goes to a university and ignores all the opportunities to explore things beyond class assignments they are doing it wrong. They will probably never again be surrounded with such a varied amount of equipment and like-minded individuals. I'd say I learned just as much on my own as from my college-aged peers and from formal degree programs.
You'll still need to understand octal if you ever intend to work with file permissions, though.
Guess where the phrase "Those who can, do. Those who can't teach." came from.
No offense, but if you need to spend hours learning and memorizing hexadecimal (I presume you meant that instead of a base-6 system?) and binary math, CS is probably not for you.
They teach non-decimal (i.e. binary) math in elementary school in my country. Not because of CS, but because it teaches kids abstract math, and not a bunch of magic tricks that only work with the 10 holy symbols.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
How many people have really used hex and binary math, in a professional position, to the extent that you need to have spend hours learning and memorizing it?
Anyone who has spend hours memorising hex and binary has missed the point. Once you understand number bases, which is really basic stuff, you can use any positive integer-based number system without having to learn anything.
A Beowulf cluster of English teachers in the CS classroom...
When I was in Jr High School in the mid-80s, we had two teachers. The first really knew his stuff. He knew the subject matter front and back, and knew how to explain it to a bunch of 7th- and 8th- graders. Then he retired and they transferred another teacher to pick up the computer curriculum. Yes, she was an English teacher, but she also had a solid grounding in the computers we were using, and had a firm grip on the subject matter. Under both teachers, the subject matter ranged from business applications to basic programming subjects.
In high school, it was a completely different story. Most of the computer courses were under the umbrella of the Business Department, where they taught mostly business applications (word processing, databases, etc.). They offered no classes in programming at all. The teacher who taught these courses was the head of the Business Department, and she was quite competent, but didn't know how to read code. Then, quite unexpectedly, she was promoted to Vice Principle mid-semester (I'll spare you the gory details as to why), and they got a substitute to teach her courses. This new teachers qualifications? She knew how to teach typing and shorthand. THAT'S IT! She didn't even know how to use the word processors they were teaching in these courses! I happened to be in one of these courses, taught by this substitute, the second semester after all this went down. I, along with a friend of mine, wound up doing most of the teaching in the course, especially during the lab portions of the class. The teacher really did try to learn the subject matter, but she just wasn't getting it. She was in WAY over her head, and she knew it!
The next year was better, but still a challenge. They got a different teacher (I believe his background was Social Studies). He had a much better time grasping and understanding the subject matter. I took the first semester that year as a teacher's aid with him, and he wasn't quite the nightmare that the previous teacher had been. But he still had to learn things, because there were some holes in his knowledge of the subject.
This is one of my pet peeves; school districts who dare to teach computer classes to students, but don't have competent teachers to teach the subject. The key in getting kids interested in the subject is to have teachers who are competent and confident in the subject matter themselves. If the teacher can impart how interesting the subject can be, there is the potential to spark major interest in the subject down the road. If the teacher is stumbling and stammering while trying to impart important concepts, it will turn kids off of the subject because, after all, if the teacher doesn't get it, how on Earth are they ever expected to understand it? It may also reinforce the perception by some who may take computer classes that computers are hard, and scare them away.
If it's a national priority that kids be taught computer classes, they need to do it right! If that means they have to pay a little more to get the proper teachers to teach the subject matter, then that's what they need to do. Schools have been underfunded for decades anyway, and this is a good excuse to pay teachers (not just computer teachers, but ALL teachers) what they're worth. But, oh no, we can't do that!
So here's what they're really saying: We know it's going to be difficult to hire teachers who know the subject matter because those who know the subject matter can get much higher-paying jobs in the private sector. So, if all you can find are English and Social Studies teachers to teach the courses, it's okay and we won't jump down your throats, even though chances are those teachers will be horribly unprepared to teach the subject matter.
Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish!
There are some subject-matter-experts who are a genuine menace in the classroom(I suspect that most of us probably took at least one course in college from the TAs they shoved all the actual work of teaching the course onto.
I've had more that a few full tenure professors who had NO business lecturing to a classroom. In many of these cases I was actually glad when they handed off to a TA. I want the best teachers and could not care less if they are subject matter experts beyond the level of the class. The research most professors do has little or nothing to do with what they are teaching most of the time. Even when it is related the classroom stuff is so far below their research that it becomes irrelevant. I don't need a Nobel prize winner to teach me physics 101. I just want someone who is a very good lecturer and has an solid grasp of the material being taught at the level it is being taught.
That said, the notion that teaching theory is somehow a substitute for actually knowing the subject is an absurd and dangerous notion. Learning about driving in a classroom is no substitute for actually having spent time driving. I cannot fathom how anyone would thing a background in civics could possibly qualify someone to teach computer science no matter how good they are at the mechanics of teaching.
In accounting secondary school, old typewriting teachers were converted to CS teachers.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (sorry, only Italian)
Why no interest?
It's a boring subject.
Requires math that breaks the mind, and is mostly not used anyway.
It is largely a male, nerdy profession.
It's socially isolating.
It's full of hardcore Ayn Randite bosses.
Big one: you are, if you haven't become an executive or started your own compamy by the age of 30-35, in for a a VERY short career. One of those businesses where a 22 year old is always superior to a 30 year old come startup or promotion time.
So, we say goodbye and good riddance to Dilbert land, and go somewhere where people have sex. With other people.
History, and Civics Teachers should talk about H1b and how they are used to bypass labor laws / make them be locked into the job.
They have no students. They operate no schools.
That's true because DoE is the Department of Energy which has nothing to do with education.
They piss away billions of dollars and damage education by imposing bullshit federal regulations on local schools.
What specific "bullshit federal regulations" are you referring to? The Department of Education by far the smallest cabinet department and with the exception of the No Child Left Behind act (mandated by CONGRESS) they really don't have much involvement in the day to day running of schools in the US. The ED coordinates federal assistance, enforces civil rights, and collects data. They are not heavily involved in determining curricula or standards (outside of NCLB), they do not accredit schools and compared to most countries the US is hugely decentralized in education.
"A background in math or science isn't necessarily a requirement to teach CS," explains the Dept. of Ed, "as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts
No. No no no no nooooope. no. No no. NO. For the love of {insert reference} NO.
A background in math, or science, but in particular CS IS necessary. I've had the "pleasure" of being taught a VB course in highschool by a math teacher with NO CS capabilities whatsoever, and it was an absolutely awful experience.
In fact, English can GTFO. In over a decade since college, I can honestly say my middle and highschool English courses have provided absolutely ZERO value towards my IT career. History was just fun.
In my home state of Minnesota, they allow anyone with either a business licensure or a mathematics licensure to teach computer science. In college, I majored in Computer Science and Secondary Mathematics Education. I found it ironic that it was my math licensure that allowed me to teach computer science and not my computer science degree. I found it just as silly that I was not allowed to teach keyboarding; mathematics teachers are not qualified for that. Also, just as amusing, anyone in the state with an English licensure is licensed to teach web page design.
It's a complete joke that our government advocates for increased computer science education, while in the same breath says that anyone can teach it. By that same perverse logic, I should be fully qualified to become a law professor. Right? Computer science is very logical...very layered...very structured...lots of inheritances...sounds like a good foundation of law to me.
You remind me of something that happened to me years ago. I had written a program in APL (yes that language) that did simulated annealing to get an answer. Someone wanted it ported to (of all things) Cobal. So they brought in a person who had a CS degree from a local community college. I explained the algorithm to her and she said she understood all of it except that "e" thing. I said, you know, 2.718281828... She looked at me blankly. So I told her to use "3" instead. I don't believe she actually understood the algorithm, though I guess she did finally understand how to code it. CS has its roots in Math. That doesn't mean that it must be in the Math department, but the idea that an English teacher or History teacher could do it is laughable.
DeVry, basically. Graduates of which are reviled in the business.
Where the XCxx represents C level executives. Let's make a lot more qualified individuals so this overpaid morons get the talent pool diluted. OK, I've met atleast one CEO and the guy was on of the smartest people I ever met but in the USA there is a big problem with disproportionate pay so it is obviously a supply and demand issue. Why are not C level execs begging government to do something about it like they are with STEM?
Would you rather have Xena the princess warrior
Yes.
what was the question?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And stuff like this is why many think the Department of Education should be eliminated or severely scaled back. Perhaps set national standards but not get into the day-to-day operations of a school.
Aside from No Child Left Behind which was mandated by CONGRESS, the Dept of Education has very little to do with the day to day operations of schools. In fact the Dept of Ed is by a wide margin the least involved ministerial level department for education in the civilized world. The US education system is hugely decentralized and demonstrably NOT controlled from Washington. People calling for the Dept of Ed to be eliminated or scaled back invariably have no idea what it does. Any meddling it does with regard to operations of schools is because it was instructed to do so by Congress. All it would take to change that is another act of Congress and in fact such a law was just passed. Repeal NCLB and ESSA and the Dept of Education would have almost no direct interaction with most school systems.
Once upon a time, well 1960, there was a Presidential Debate where candidates discussed societal issues (imagine that). One topic that came up was the nature of federal support for local schools. Both candidates, Kennedy (D) and Nixon (R), were concerned that federal support (funding) would lead to federal meddling.
And very little has changed. There is very little funding and for the most part very little meddling.
I think we are now seeing the wisdom of their shared concerns regarding centralizing too much control and authority in Washington DC.
"Wisdom"? No. That is ideology, not wisdom. Virtually every other country in the civilized world has FAR more centralized control over education than we do in the US and many of them get measurably better results. If you think decentralized schooling is good I'd invite you to visit the school districts in places like Detroit or Cleveland or Los Angeles. They get terrible results and no one holds them accountable or gives them any substantial help. Federal control has problems to be sure but so does local control.
I wouldn't have modded it 'flamebait'; but it does fall into the relatively unhelpful category of being overbroad(if you go state-by-state, the degree to which US education is totally fucked varies quite widely); and it also ignores the important fact that the DOE isn't actively changing the state of CS education here; but merely signalling an unwillingness to get tough on trying to improve it.
That presumes the ED (DoE is the Dept of Energy) has the statutory authority to dictate CS education requirements. In all likelihood it doesn't have any such authority delegated to it by Congress. While I don't pretend to be an expert I do know that the Dept of Education has very little to do with and almost no authority regarding determining curriculum outside of No Child Left Behind the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act.
Well, I thought it was the Brogrammers and their ilk.
As far as what they're doing with their elk... I don't wanna know.
Because many school districts pay a premium to teachers of STEM subjects (and more for AP and Honors courses) the teaching slots for those classes are highly sought-after. The result is that they go to the teachers who have clout (seniority, connections, etc.) regardless of their actual ability to even understand the material.
Example: my kids' high school AP calculus class was taught by someone who had never taken a college-level math class, while another teach with a math PhD was stuck with remedial classes. Great way to retain bright and idealistic STEM teachers, that.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
It's people who get replaced by H1Bs.
C.A.R. Hoare's undergraduate degree was in Classics and Philosophy.
And that, boys and girls, is where crapware comes from.
Holy shit, that came out of nowhere. This topic didn't have anything to do with transgender issues. While I agree with you in principle, it's hard to take you seriously when you're ranting like a lunatic.
Take a deep breath (and your meds) and maybe think about your post before posting next time.
Why in the world would the Department of Energy have anything to do with NCLB. Or maybe you're the fucktard who can't even use the right name.
Would you rather have Xena the princess warrior and her butch sidekick teaching your kidz computer science?
Shit yeah, motherfucker. Did you see her in Ash vs. Evil Dead? She's still hot as hell.
I think kids need to feel comfortable experimenting with computers, that means being ok with messing it up.
So if schools were to teach how to set up and roll their computer system back to a restore point (I don't care which OS), that would be a good start.
Then again, I use a Chromebook, I do system restores periodically just for fun.
"You cannot be a remotely competent computer programmer without those things"
Meanwhile, I'm making the 2D equivalent to Second Life and have not once had to touch hex or binary.
You must not know how to code worth a fuck.
"Don't worry about it America, we got you covered." - India
Did CS become the generic bucket for computer related stuff?
I always differentiated between programming, development, software engineering, and Computer Science myself as different things, all computer related.
Now, seems like CS is the catch-all term. Am I just behind?
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
"Always" is a powerful word. "Often", perhaps, but I'm over 30, work at a software company, have worked there since I graduated with an undergrad cs degree, have no interest in becoming an executive, and got a pretty nice raise last year, and another one this year. And my boss, who is at least as talented a developer as I am, is female, and is married with a a kid, so presumably sex is being had (with other people) by at least one other member of my team (I obviously don't ask about my coworkers' sex lives, but having a kid is pretty good proof.) Absolutes are absolute. :p
p.s. my job also doesn't ever require math beyond basic algebra, which is actually kinda sad, I took so much math in college and never use it.
Saying "A background in math or science isn't necessarily a requirement to teach CS," explains the Dept. of Ed, "as disciplines like English, history and civics can also provide a solid foundation for teaching CS concepts." is akin to saying I can teach medicine because I'm dating a nurse. CS is fundamentally linked to math (logic). English, history and civics are studies of humans, and humans by nature are illogical.
far too many subpar teachers, who whine and complain about having to take continuing education without being paid a stipend.
It's an ongoing refrain (like for years) here about how horrible employers are for expecting IT people to spend their own time and money constantly training themselves on new technologies, new languages or new frameworks or else get laid off for some cheap new graduate who happened to see those things in college classes.
If new knowledge training is required for your job and directly benefits your employer, why the hell shouldn't the employer be expected to pay for either your training hours or the training fees?
You mean education standards based on the expert recommendations of pedagogy experts and researchers?
You mean science standards that aren't based on religion or mythology?
Why doesn't it make sense to have a federal standard for education? Because we wind up with "common core"? You realize that common core was a wildly successful and heavily endorsed set of standards that almost everyone in education circles thought was a great idea? The only reason you hate it is because you are too stupid to understand how to teach math to an eight-year-old.
No it isn't. The legal authority to create an agency isn't limited by the constitution. You are a moron.
The constitution limits the authority to pass laws. The federal department of education does not enforce any laws and is therefore entirely legal.
Have you read the constitution?
Its better to have someone fully versed in the material, and teach them to teach (even badly). The approach the education system is taking (find a teacher, get them to teach something they don't know about) is exactly the same way business works (find a boss, put them in charge of something they have no idea about). And you get companies like Hewlett Packard that used to be innovative and a world leader and it was run by engineers, and now you have a 6th rate company that's a follower at best, hasn't innovated anything in 15 years, has its manufacturing and design done by someone in Asia, and is professionally run by someone who doesn't know better than to sell critical assets, and "fire the engineers so we can hire more sales and marketing people". At this point, the Asian manufacturers tell them what the product will be next year.
The janitorial staff is free if more teachers are needed
My high school CS teacher was the choir teacher. I did an independent study course that he "taught". In that class, I taught myself Java. Most of the kids in the class played various games, such as Bridge Builder or Sim City.
I almost failed the course, because I had two EXCUSED absenses that I did not make up. The wankers playing video games got an A+.
My argument that I actually did something constructive for the class (with example programs even), rather than playing video games, was ignored because the 'teacher' couldn't comprehend what I was doing and equated it to playing games.
She can fix my dangling pointer any time she likes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
When I was in high school, there were plenty of teachers who taught subjects that they weren't necessarily trained in. Unfortunately, they happened to be the coaches for the sports teams:
Civics = Football Defensive Line Coach
General Science = Baseball Coach
History = Football Offensive Line Coach
Free Enterprise = Men's Basketball Coach
Physical Education = Track Coach (this one actually makes sense)
Geography = Women's Basketball Coach
This isn't even the entire list.
Most of these people didn't have degrees in the fields they were teaching; they didn't even have education degrees. They were mostly in stuff like Kinesiology. I think it's pretty obvious that these people weren't hired primarily as teachers....they were hired as coaches and then put into a role as a teacher to keep budgets down. I think that this is a pretty good indicator as to where our priorities are as a society.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
He said "repressed geniuses". Good programmers that don't create more technical debt than they do value, are like finding unicorns. I know people who write much better code than I do, and I get less than 1 bug report per year for my production code across all of my projects. I sanity check all data from sources other than my code, and design my code to be in well defined states. Undefined states are hard to debug. Most issues I see with other's people code is when it fails, they don't know why. I can tell you why my code failed at a glance. It fails in well defined states for well defined reasons.
I'm a volunteer with the TEALS program, teaching the AP CS class at a local high school; and one of our goals is to prepare a school teacher to actually take over the class after a couple of years of volunteer teachers. Oh my god! Just getting 'a' teacher assigned to the class was a nightmare and did not happen until fairly close to classes starting. Then assigned one was changed at the very last minute, just days before our first lesson. There is also no long term plan and it's possible that next year we'll have to start from scratch with a new teacher... this is a school that cares about CS, I wonder how bad things are everywhere else.
The astronomer and physicist who introduced the scientific community to the concept now know as the big bang theory, that the universe is 13 or so billion years old, was a catholic priest working and teaching at a catholic university. Family members have attended catholic high schools and probably received a better scientific education than I did at a public high school.
Your story, if true, is an aberration. On average the educational system did very well before Washington DC gained greater and greater influence.
concise, commented code (English) is a necessary evil; learning version/revision principals (History); and ethical/socioeconomic impacts of the apps/programs/data that are created (Civics).
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I think that there's no need whatsoever for the U.S. to have a federal Department of Education. It's pointless, and a waste of tax dollars.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure hex would be categorized under mathematics/number theory.
Or ARINC.
Even "advanced" high school CS courses have practically no math or natural science content. Sure, there are a few math topics involved, such as linear algebra and trigonometry, but typically just to provide something to implement. I didn't even write down a formal recurrence relation in a CS class until college.
My opinion about this is that high school CS courses are laughably inadequate. However, given that they are, why not have non-specialists teach them? No one gives much of a shit about learning in America, anyway, and we'd rather have the CS specialists working on "disruption" and shiny toys to prop up the semblance of opportunity.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Speaking as a IT certified teacher, I can easily address the U.S. Department of Education's concerns.
To point to the AP Computer Science exam as a sign that the education system is not doing its job teaching technology is fanciful. It only proves that the people making decisions are far removed from reality.. The AP CS Exam is an outdated joke. Here are a few things that students are doing instead of preparing for the useless exam:
-Students are participating in Cisco courses and competing in NetRiders using Packet Tracer simulations to simulate routers and switches.
-Students are participating in Cyber Patriot competitions, defending their Linux and Windows servers from professional hackers.
-Students are participating in Robotics events, such as Vex, First Robotics, and Robofest.
-Students are dual-enrolling in college CS courses.
-Students are contributing to open source projects with mentors provided by Google's Summer of Code.
-Students are taking Programming, MCITP, and Database courses in high school.
A serious problem that we really have is students who can not read or write well. Students who can not perform basic math calculations. We spend way too much time trying to force Algebra II down the throats of students who have not mastered fractions.
The solution is not top down, but guidance is required. Every grade needs a pre-test and post-test measuring the expected outcomes for their students in each subject. This test needs to be developed by collaboratively within each school, approved by school boards, and staff needs to be held accountable for growth.
A history teacher is definitely good enough to teach how to do computers on the internets to get stuff from the itoons.