A 'Radical Manifesto' For Computer Teaching In English Schools 108
00_NOP writes "Everybody (or almost everybody) in England agrees that computing teaching to kids in high school is broken. In response the government promised a radical overhaul and a new curriculum. But then last week it was discovered the government had scrapped the bit of the education department that would develop any such curriculum. Not to be deterred, John Naughton, the Cambridge University academic who wrote the Short History of the Future, has now published his own 'radical' manifesto on how computing should be taught."
here's my radical manifesto (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Don't teach computing;
2. Instead, improve teaching of the basic subjects: mathematics, English, science and at least one foreign language, to pre-Thatcher standards, i.e. before the national curriculum and privatisation of exam boards and replacement of O-levels with GCSEs destroyed secondary education;
3. Well-prepared minds will be able to build on this foundation to do anything they want in their spare time or later years, including computing.
Re: (Score:1)
This so much. We have so many problems with basic education at the moment, and the great advances in computing in England came before there was some daft "IT" or "computing" curriculum at school. I see it's been modded down by people who have missed the point entirely.
Re:here's my radical manifesto (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a different world ; the culture of "bedroom programmers" we had in the UK grew up in the wake of the 8-bit home computer revolution.
The computer systems sold today emphasise pre-packaged software and it's utility. The computers of the 8-bit era emphasised experimentation and learning - they all shipped with a programming language and a manual. Most of them booted straight into the programming environment.
The Raspberry Pi is an attempt to recapture some of this culture. But it has so many other things to compete with. Back then, kids TV in the UK was only on 2 channels and occupied only a few hours a day. Once it stopped, all you had to do was read, or use your computer. Now there are multiple channels that run for much longer hours, an internet full of possibilities, games consoles, portable devices, etc.
It's much harder to get a hook into that natural childlike curiosity. It's much easier for parents to use the pre-packaged computer systems to occupy their children, and much more likely, because they have better marketing budgets. Part of the reason RasPi is gaining the traction it has, is because those of us who remember the BBC Micro are interested, but I would bet you it's not even on the radar of most of the younger generation (unlike Moshi Monsters). I know that curiosity is there - my 7 year old daughter was charmed yesterday by the ability to control a flashing LED from an Arduino - but how many parents these days are geek enough to have an Arduino lying around, or have the time to help their children work it out?
Back in my youth, simple computers that you had to understand to use were the only game in town, now the best games in town are in full 3D. I think the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer had this right - you have to start simple.
We made our own entertainment in them days (Score:1)
Well, there was this thing called playing outside. It involved kicking & throwing different sized & shaped balls and also riding something called a "bike".
Of course the weather was only really good enough for about six weeks of the year, but at least it was safe because pediodiddlerists hadn't been invented yet.
Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why teach science? Surely you can only teach math and well-trained minds can pick up science on their spare time or later years?
From TFM (the fine manifesto):
Everything from banking to communications to public transport relies on computers these days so it seems obvious to me that everyone should have at least basic understanding of computer science concepts / how computers work, instead of viewing them just as magic boxes. I honestly can't see why that shouldn't be taught in schools...
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why teach science? Surely you can only teach math and well-trained minds can pick up science on their spare time or later years?
No. Science involves observation and experimentation skills which aren't present in mathematics. To science, mathematics is a tool - it does not have primacy, and we cannot assume that something mathematically simple is scientifically correct. Otherwise we'd still be modelling the universe like Plato.
Everything from banking to communications to public transport relies on computers these days so it seems obvious to me that everyone should have at least basic understanding of computer science concepts / how computers work, instead of viewing them just as magic boxes. I honestly can't see why that shouldn't be taught in schools...
Everything in the world is built on the laws of physics, but only a small proportion of things are built on computer systems - however skewed the view appears to the technologist. A "basic understanding" of computers, i.e. an understanding which takes them beyond thinking in terms of a black box and instead in terms of mathematical and physical concepts, requires a couple of afternoons of attention from a smart, well-prepared schoolkid.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Interesting)
A "basic understanding" of computers, i.e. an understanding which takes them beyond thinking in terms of a black box and instead in terms of mathematical and physical concepts, requires a couple of afternoons of attention from a smart, well-prepared schoolkid.
I think you're greatly underestimating how long it will take to teach/grasp everything from the basic understanding "ok, so it's these 'logic gate' thingies that use electricity..." to the basic understanding of concepts such as databases (no matter how you try to compare them to excel), network topology, encryption (not that they needed to learn the algorithms but the basic understanding of concepts such as public keys would be pretty great), etc. etc. takes if the student has never herd of them before.
Of course, we might just greatly disagree about how much everyone in modern world should understand about computers.
Re: (Score:1)
Start by teaching the concept of Turing machines. An set of symbols representing instructions. Anything from cooking instructions, music sheets to computer programs. Then digital representation requires the use of binary to represent data, logic gates and flowcharts. Move onto microprocessors, CPU and GPU. Cover basic things like RAM, ROM, cache, registers, microcode, assembly language, high level languages and scripts. Move onto operating systems, security, passwords, the internet (clients, routers and sev
Re: (Score:3)
Learning about programming by learning about turing machines is like learning about how to design skyscrapers by learning about cave dwellings. In theory, they are distant cousins. In practice, learning about something so incredibly primitive doesn't really help you much unless your goal is to spend the rest of your life as a theoretician.
You can't learn programming from the bottom up because the bottom isn't useful by itself. You can't learn programming from the top down because then you get a bunch of
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. I designed and taught a computer networking curriculum. The classes were 2 hrs per day, 4 days a week, for 4 weeks. There were 3 courses, so a total of 12 weeks @ 8hrs per week. That was just computer networking, and I wasn't training them to be CNE/MCSEs, just level 2 tech support for some networked printer/fax/scanner/copier multifunction devices. I did cover specifics of Windows (95 and NT4 at the time) and Mac OS, as well as some specifics of Windows NT Server and NetWare 3.x/4.x Now, th
Re:how long it will take to teach/grasp (Score:2)
I'll go a step more basic and say that just basic file handling from documents and using application features up through basic password security (no, don't "leave me logged in for two weeks"), basic printing ("will you stop sending "fit paper to pdf page size" 8.06 X 11.35 paper requests to my print queue?") etc.
When they can do that stuff properly then let them have the clever theory.
Re: (Score:2)
So completely ignore programming, graphics, problem analysis etc?
Re: (Score:2)
3d graphics, simple 3d programming, the mathematics of 3d geometry, matrix calculations etc is what I was aiming at, not design. What you taught would be very dependant on what level and age you were teaching.
Not all of what is proposed is compulsory either, beyond the age of 16 everything is optional, and pupils choose a few subjects to follow for two years before university.
And the concept of pointers/references is pretty fundamental, not an optional extra, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
I was taught a substantial amount of matrix maths for 'O' level - part of the "new maths" curriculum. As I am just on the cusp of the "micro revolution generation" there was no obvious connection with computers or computer graphics made and it seemed like pretty much a waste of time back then (sat the exam in 1982). For instance it was not taught at A level at all.
Now I can see its use (and obviously it also has uses in the physical sciences - eg describing relativistic space-time and so on) but not back th
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally you have mixed streamaing up with setting. Setting - which is "absolutely set in each subject according to ability, moving people up and down at intervals according to performance" is very much used in English secondary schools as I know from my own children's experience. Streaming is something very different - and it is a good thing it has been wiped out.
The idea that state education has been "demolished" is of course offensive nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
And programming involves (or should involve) engineering skills.
It is hard to find a subject in school, that involves actually making something. You have arts and then the rest is just theory and mostly passive. Even experiments are spoon fed and outcomes are predetermined.
In programming class, you will at least have an endproduct, something you made yourself. Most importantly it can stand on it's own. You know if you have succeeded.
Not like some essay that is only as good as the teacher rates it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Science involves observation and experimentation skills which aren't present in mathematics.
The same holds true for programming (algorithms and data structures do not just fall out of mathematics, they are an art in themselves), which was the parent post's point in making this provocative statement. Just because you could in some meaningless sense reduce the entire world to maths, does not make it worthless to study other disciplines (this is what you are arguing). What holds true of science holds true of programming (this is what they are arguing, by analogy with Science, and in fact you unwittin
Re: (Score:1)
The same holds true for programming (algorithms and data structures do not just fall out of mathematics, they are an art in themselves)
Algorithms certainly do fall out of mathematics, in a fairly formal sense since Leibniz. Mathematics seems an obvious place to begin creating simple algorithms on a graphical calculator (dedicated or computing package) to solve problems well before your teenage years. Data structures are better studied in the more general context of information science, as above.
in some meaningless sense reduce the entire world to maths, does not make it worthless to study other disciplines (this is what you are arguing).
No it isn't, and no more so just because you say it is. Re-read what I've said - particularly the other anon posts in my style in this thread which
Re: (Score:2)
You're being obtuse. The laws are not "constantly changing" - they are being refined for more general cases.
Talking of the laws of physics as if anything is built or based on them is misleading and, if you'll forgive me, somewhat myopic. They are our current best approximations for the world, not some unchanging set of rules which the world is based on - that's a very important distinction. Just in the last few centuries they have changed almost beyond recognition (not as a set of refinements, but in a set of massive shocks which changed our worldview forever), and a few centuries before that the concept of scien
Re: (Score:2)
No, just everything that doesn't immediately fall down.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Science involves observation and experimentation skills
Jeez, what skills do you think I used to load up SNES emulators and ROMs on every computer in the computer lab? How do you think my mates got a pirated version of TFC/Counter-Strike/Half-Life installed on every computer in the AutoCAD lab?
Re: (Score:2)
Google, then copying verbatim what someone else had done? NGOML.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry? WTF?
Can you justify that comment? Because it sounds like nonsense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but all those things are applicable to how the tools work, and how best to use the tools.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they were pioneers of computer science (as was Ada Lovelace), and what they did certainly falls within that view at the moment.
Do you have a problem with the science behind how computers work being called "Computer Science"?
Or do you just have some weird inferiority complex because you don't have a degree (hint - you're the first one that mentioned degrees)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is a) that nobody taught them it and b) there wasn't anything that we'd recognise as computers at the time they were working. How can be CS be only (or even mainly) about computers, if major figures in the field didn't have one?
Somebody already mentioned telescopes and as
Re: (Score:2)
They laid down various parts of the theoretical frameworks, that's how. CS is about the theory (and in the case of many degrees in CS the practice) of how computers work and how to program them. Without CS we likely wouldn't have computers, or do you dispute that the design
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, one doesn't need to be a bat to know that they are flying mammals with leathery wings.
Secondly, the truth (or otherwise) of his remark is independent of whatever qualifications he may (or may not have). After all, if I say that med school does not consist of poetry recitals and jujitsu katas am I talking out of my behind just because I'm not a doctor?
Thirdly, having read a fair few of his posts, I suspect the odds are that he either does have one, or has equivalent practical experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an international rugby referee, but I know that Alain Rolland is a moron.
Oh, and until such time as you are crowned king of the internets I'll answer whatever posts I want to, on behalf of anyone I choose. Got that?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the knowledge that every children will need is user knowledge, learning how to use electronic devices for their needs. You can also teach them programming, to introduce them a profession they can c
Re: (Score:2)
I think that logic would equally justify teaching to all school children plumbing, electrical work, HVAC, and basic lightbulb manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't hurt to teach the basics of electrical work and plumbing in grade 7/8.
My school taught wood working, metal working (welding, folding, etc.), cooking, sewing, etc. in Grade 7/8. I've found those skills to be more useful as a software developer than a large number of things we were taught in math.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, sure, but we can't all have jobs developing CNC software that controls the machinery that makes wooden salad bowls to be used in clothes-making factories!
You insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. I learned set theory, venn diagrams, ladders slipping down walls and eventually solving second order partial differential equations thirty years ago. I've had to teach myself statistics and compound interest in order to make stuff to sell and feed myself. There has been and still appears to be a bias in British education to teach abstract fashionable academic things rather than something that a filthy capitalist worker might find usefull to make money out of. British education is run by sp
Well, yes and no (Score:2)
In order to maintain democracy, the electorate needs to be familiar with the current issues. They include more and more issues that relate to computers and networks: Your privacy online (requires that you understand basic datamining concepts), electronic voting, political buzzwords such as "cyber warfare", to what extent can companies be held responsible when they're hacked and your data is stolen, should unmanned cars be allowed in traffic, etc. etc... These are all completely new issues that didn't exist
Re: (Score:2)
Everything from banking to communications to public transport relies on computers these days so it seems obvious to me that everyone should have at least basic understanding of computer science concepts / how computers work, instead of viewing them just as magic boxes. I honestly can't see why that shouldn't be taught in schools.
But you don't need to know anything about computing science or programming to be a good worker in banking, communications or public transport. And the only educaton that the Tories are interested in is the one that helps you get a job. (Unless you have rich parents, in which case of course you may study Fine Art and still get a job at daddy's bank.)..
Who here didn't teach themselves how to computer? (Score:2)
I'm not talking about majoring in computer science. I'm talking about basic knowledge of computers through using them and your own inquisitiveness?
One of the misconceptions about education is that you can teach intelligence, curiosity or interest. Not everyone is the same nor born equal and on the same note, not everyone belongs in college especially not if it means going tens of thousands of dollars in debt, whichever humanitarian thought that was a good idea, good job. So, not everyone belongs on
Re:Who here didn't teach themselves how to compute (Score:5, Interesting)
I taught myself because my education failed me, then I went to university and studied them. If I hadn't had a friend who was interested in them and who exposed me to the idea they did more than play games, I probably wouldn't have even known that computer programming was a thing that you could do.
Your own inquisitiveness is good, but you need to at least expose people to the basic concepts to trigger it.
Re:Who here didn't teach themselves how to compute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:here's my radical manifesto (Score:4, Insightful)
Computers are now ubiquitous. That so many people think of computers as black boxes is a crime.
As is this ludicrous strategy I keep hearing on slashdot that we should just teach 'the basics' to kids. It completely backwards. You should teach kids as wide a range of things as possible in their early years, giving them exposure to as many different subjects and as many different facets of life as we can manage. Later they use that grounding to pick their way to a specialism.
What's destroyed secondary education in the UK is the bizarre insistence that everyone be put in the same class, regardless of ability, so the smart kids get bored, the less academically inclined get frustrated and everyone loses.
Bring back per-subject streaming, expand the network of grammar schools, and watch things pick up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not advocating putting people on the scarpheap at age 11, that's your thinking, not mine.
I'm advocating teaching kids of different abilities separately, because children learn differently. I don't think the kids that don't get into a grammar school are on the scrapheap. That's a spin put on it bu others.
In the end I don't care that much about a separate school, but separate classes are a must or everyone loses.
Re: (Score:1)
separate classes are a must or everyone loses.
How unfortunate a turn of phrase... I realise (or should I say, hope) that you meant "class" as in school class, but when you bring grammar schools into the conversation, the word class suddenly becomes dual-purpose. I would hope you are not advocating further widening of the gap between grammar-educated kids and comp-educated kids.
Whilst I would concur that grammar schools exist with the best intentions, they do lead to a situation where there is a perception that those who did not manage to get in were
Re: (Score:2)
As they seem to be the only place offering decent standards for free, I respectfully disagree.
OTOH I probably should defer to your experience on this one. My experience of the state system in the UK is entirely vicarious, through people that have worked within it. I went to a minor publc school that split classes up into as many as five sets on a per-subject basis, which seemed to work rather well. Though as someone that was always in set 1, I probably would think that.
If you thought that arrogance and enti
Re: (Score:1)
Your statement that they are "the only place offering decent standards for free" is one that is shared by many over here. Whilst it is true that the academic standards of such schools is generally higher than in comprehensives sharing the same catchment area, this tends to be as a result of their ability to select the cream of local kids for entry. If they did not have this right to select entrants, and were placed on a level playing
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that not everyone will achieve academically, especially at early ages, and that that is just the way of things and there's nothing wrong with it. Others achieve in different ways or not at all.
Saying that those that don't are 'on the scrapheap' is a prejudice you bring to the table, not me.
I'd agree that entirely separate systems are a little odd, but the fundamental concept of teaching at the pace that children can handle - and for the bright kids that means fast and intensive - is
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, seems like a problem of perception with the parents and the kid.
Wouldn't the precious little darling's feelings be just as hurt by not being in the top set for something? Or are sets also evil?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care whether kids are interested in it or not, but if you're going to teach a language, do it properly. It's embarassing how bad the UK is compared to other countries. We should copy the Dutch - I've never met someone from Holland who can't talk perfectly in at least 3 different languages.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to havd SYS Computer Studies as well as Physics and Mathematics. Mathematics covered vector-matrix algebra, while Physics covered topics like the electromagnetic spectrum, photons, refraction, gravity and Keplers laes of motion. Writing little animation programs to denonstrate your understanding was the best way to learn.
Re:Worry about language first (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it's a Bad Thing that they speak Punjabi as a first language? And yes, if it was Welsh or Gaelic then it would be a great example of progressive education saving their heritage...
Re:Worry about language first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. English first. Then Php. *Then* maybe Java or python or ruby
The UK, not England... (Score:2)
... although I wouldn't expect timmeh to know the difference.
No, England (Score:5, Informative)
There are similar issues in the rest of the UK, but this particular story is *not* about the UK as a whole. Education policy is devolved to the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish parliaments/assemblies. The manifesto is addressed to Michael Gove, who is the Secretary of State for Education in England.
Re:No, England (Score:4, Informative)
Actually he's Secretary of State for the whole UK and has some duties in this regard, but yes, he's responsible for the curriculum only in England, so the story is correct to focus only on England.
Re: (Score:2)
If we set kids a homework task of producing a Venn diagram showing what parts of policy belong to the UK as a whole, the Skirts, the Wails and the Irates they'd gain a darn good understanding of set theory.
That or they'd shoot themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
It has been acceptable practice to refer to the UK as England since its creation.
It's only in the latter half of the 20th century that people have started showing concern that this might not be politically correct as it might hurt the Welsh and Scots.
Re: (Score:3)
Please! Don't forget the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey!
A good visual guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg [wikipedia.org]
"Computing teaching" (Score:3)
What the hell is that even supposed to mean? "Teaching computing" I could understand, but "computing teaching" is a very odd thing to say or write. It doesn't say what it's meant to say!
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they mean IT skills, like switching a computer on, using a word processor, reading and sending E-mail, using a spreadsheet application and printing documents. In some deprived parts of the UK school-leavers don't even know how to do those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they mean IT skills, like switching a computer on, using a word processor, reading and sending E-mail, using a spreadsheet application and printing documents. In some deprived parts of the UK school-leavers don't even know how to do those things.
Yes, but do "studying teaching" and "teaching studying" mean the same thing? I could come up with a bunch of examples. "Researching teaching" vs "teaching researching"; "creating teaching" vs "teaching creating"; "finding teaching" vs "teaching finding"; "cunning teaching" vs "teaching cunning"; "creating teaching" vs "teaching creating"; and so on, and so on. All these have different meanings, as does "computing teaching" vs "teaching computing".
Re: (Score:2)
"Computing teaching" is correct (despite sounding unusual) if you assume "computing" is a noun and not a verb (as in "maths teaching", i.e. the act of teaching maths). But it does lend itself to confusion.
This is not radical (Score:3)
TEDxTokyoTeachers Presentation (Score:2)
I recently gave a presentation at TEDxTokyoTeachers [tedxtokyo.com] on this exact subject entitled "The Guitar and the Smart Phone [youtube.com]". In it, I use the guitar as a metaphor (analogy?) for the way we are using computers in e
What can England do? (Score:1)
If the UK wants to rule computing again they have to find the hunger and arrogance of been a small island facing a big Spain or France again.
Work out what England wants, change the rules and win.
If all the USA can offer is "program or be programmed" i.e. digital slavery built in distant sweatshops, find a Wilberforce, abolish the trade and rule a new eworld.
Where will the teachers come from? (Score:2)
As soon as you train up people (they won't be teachers unless they actually start teaching children, read on ... ) to be competent in computer or IT skills, they'll immediately go into better paid and more rewarding jobs using those skills - rather than passing them on to the children they were intended to teach. That's how the country got into the mess with all technology or science subjects: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach (and those who can't teach, teach teaching).
So the end result will be a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because the vacancies aren't there in any great numbers.
Even then, the alternative solution would be to take people with the IT skills and fast-track train them as teachers. A similar thing was proposed a few years back with maths and/or science IIRC.
I teach at my 7 year old sons school and... (Score:1)
...teaching technology in k-12 is pretty much a complete waste of time, and it always has been.
The reason is that to teach kids this young, you're going to need good current equipment (which is expensive and schools have no budget, so they buy crap), and exceptionally talented teachers with both the technical chops and the ability to manage a classroom full of kids and explain their knowledge to them. Those guys can make six figures with their feet up on a desk and would therefore have very little interest
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. But the hardware has to work, it has to be reliable and have reasonable performance, and the implementation has to be able to take a room full of kids beating on it. I learned all the major languages back in the 70's and 80's pretty much on my own, and it was nice that the school offered some computing resources I could use to that end. But we turned out a lot of students that spent all year learning to do something that had no use or applicability.
Things dont have to be cutting edge, but the th
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like a good parent and you are definitely giving your child a good start as regards computer tech. I take it for granted that this the type of attention that you bestow upon your child will not be replicated in school. As far as public school finances, and especially in California, I'll agree that many states/communities don't have the will, (the penal system has more money allocated), or money to appropriately fund their school systems. That, to me, is a community/social failure and has no bearin
Re: (Score:1)
I, too, have quite a bit of experience of school computing (albeit on this side of the pond). I've been through it myself, I've worked as the IT support for a fairly large school with a budget large enough that we had an advantage over other schools in the area, and now I'm with my wife, I get exposure to how things (haven't) moved on in the last decade+
Confused (Score:2)