Slashdot Mirror
K-12 CS Framework Calls For Teaching Kids Responsible Use of Avatars and Emoji
theodp writes: If you're wondering what corporate-backed Computer Science for All might look like, check out the new Framework for K-12 CS Education draft, the handiwork of educators, Microsoft, Google, Apple and others, which "identifies the powerful ideas in computer science as core concepts and practices for all K-12 students." Among these is the still-to-be-completed Practice 5 — Fostering an Inclusive Computing Culture — which says that by grade 12, students should be able to: "Identify issues of diversity in depictions of people within computing artifacts. For example, a set of emoji depicts only males playing sports or the avatars in a game present only Caucasian people." In other K-12 CS news, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics suggests CS for All may not be all it's cracked up to be.
Don't use the poo emoji?
Don't use the dead face and gun emoji next to each other?
sigh...
Actual computer scientists have nothing to fear from this CS for everybody bullshit, CS is still hard and at some point the rubber hits the road.
I worked at the Google help desk in 2008. I got a phone call from a recent graduate of the Stanford CS program who wanted someone to turn on his computer. I had to explain to him that a cubicle farm isn't the same as a university computer lab. No one was standing around to turn on his computer. (Most companies I've worked for had policies that prevent help desk techs from remotely turning or rebooting computers.) Except he didn't know how to turn on a comp. I'm always surprised to find out that computer scientists don't know a whole lot about PC hardware.
I get why this upsets some people, but they need to be told to get a grip for their own good. You know what kind of woman in CS I respect? The kind of woman who is more interesting in talking about CS issues than talking about women in CS. That rare moment when she actually talks about "women in CS stuff" is more likely to be interesting and relevant to me if she has otherwise proved a greater interest in the subject than in demographics. If you spend more time talking about your group in CS than actually talking about CS, then you aren't really interested in CS. Your actions reveal your real interest which is social activism, not the subject.
"Inclusive avatars" itself makes sense if the software's purpose supports it. Mass Effect Andromeda has no reason to avoid having a black female option for the new Shepherd. Witcher 3, a game based on Slavic mythology does. You aren't going to find a lot of diversity in that universe except on the distant periphery. Seeing a black person in such a game without a damn good reason for their inclusion would harm suspension of disbelief. It would be like having Asian characters suddenly appear in a "Call of Duty: Africa Campaigns" that otherwise lets you fight as British soldiers or native black warriors resisting colonialism. You'd better have a good reason for presenting that option otherwise you're just screaming "hey, look at my virtue signaling" while people are trying to immerse themselves in an entertainment experience.
For a while we've seen attempts like this in the open source world. Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest projects, and lets you dictate developers' behavior on unrelated corners of the web!
Makes sense that they would like even more to impose a Code of Conduct on life, starting when you're a kid.
https://twitter.com/siloraptor...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... http://todogroup.org/opencodeo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://contributor-covenant.or...
http://developers.slashdot.org...
https://www.reddit.com/r/freeb...
I am a Middle School computer teacher. My cirriculum has been rewritten for me, starting next year; I had no input in the process. As a Computer Science (Computer Science is now a STEM subject) teacher at a middle school I am forbidden to teach any programming. I am also being told to stop teaching computer fundamentals ( . . . whats in the box, why is more RAM [up to a point] going to make the computer work better and how does the internet work. . . material like that)The focus, and the test, is entirely on computer applications.
All the time that was going into a core understanding of computers is to be switched to more presentations. I am not against presentations; I just feel that there is a limit to how much time we spend on it. We will also take time from spreadsheet fundamentals (understanding what they are doing, instead of just putting stuff in cells . . . for that matter, what is a cell?). The reasoning is that, "kids like making pictures," and, "that other stuff is just too hard."
The trouble is that my students have measurable understanding and skill in the topics called for by the district that exceeds that of the other district teachers; so what to do with this? Full stop. Return to a consistent curriculum. That is the district decision, not mine. Part of the problem is that several of the teachers do not have the background to understand what I am teaching, let alone teach it.
However, the real problem is this; my students are entering the High School with significantly more knowledge than the students from the other district middle schools. I do understand the districts problem, there is a real problem when the student’s get to the High School and get mixed into a class when they “already know this stuff,” and the other students have not been exposed to it. Further, the students from my classes expect to learn, not to review what I already taught them.
As far as the programming, there is a fear that knowledge of programming could lead to, “Hacking.” As such, it is to completely stop, even in the “after school” extracurricular classes. The same with the computer fundamentals, the district decision is that “kids don’t need to know that anymore.” Fear of knowledge and the need for a consistent curriculum outweigh small, hard to scale, class improvements.
I was just, as in this week, told that what the teachers before me were doing was sufficient. Okay, of three teachers before me, one handed the kids a typing book and told them they needed to do one typing lesson a day and then they could play games. The second had so many personal problems that she didn't try to teach anything, she just let them play games. The most recent required them to produce something (yes, something was loosely defined), then they could . . . you guessed it, play games.
As such, I am told "the children don't like lectures and the parents think your class is hard." Here is the reality, the . . . I will say it . . . upper income, education driven, parents are in my corner; but the ones that don't come to meetings, they just cal the district to complain, parents are unhappy because, and I quote "expect him [the student] to study."
The result is that I have been given, and mandated, a curriculum for next year, as far as daily lesson plans (that don't even fit my class schedule; but that is a different issue). Guess what, work is out, make it fun, make it easy is back in. I was told that my class needs to be a place where students can take a bread from their important classes. As a closing statement, when the district consultant finished telling me what I was going to do next year, he said "it is true, we will have less content; but I feel we will have greater engagement."
What we need is a standard test so the districts that treat the computer class as a recess period (because the schools don't receive funding during recess periods) will be held accountable. It would also make it clear what content needs to be covered. What we have now provides the districts with no guidance or accountability.