CB> However, the thrust  of this discussion has actually been about the  CB> 
inclusion of programming instruction in a 6th grade computer literacy  CB> 
course.  
It should replace foreign language. 
 CB> If that's the way he said it, then indeed that is an ignorant 
 CB> assumption, but you show your own bias in the following statement...
SA> Having a BS in Computer Science, I was totally floored.
So, understanding true computer science makes my argument biased and somehow 
unacceptable?  Can't a math teacher argue the benefits if math?
 CB> Could only  certified people teach computer literacy courses?  What  CB> 
about teachers   who want to teach/use applications with the students?  
Use of applications has NOTHING to do with programming.  EVERY non computer 
class should be teaching applications not computer science classes.
 CB> Would an English teacher who wanted a report done in the computer  CB> 
lab using word processing software be required to have a certified  CB> 
computer instructor  on site at all times?  How about the technology  CB> 
teachers who use CAD software - would they be required to have dual  CB> 
certification?
Again, as I said in previous message(s)  This has nothing to do with computer 
science.
 CB> I'd guess, at a time when schools are anxious to get kids and teachers 
 CB> using computers as much as possible, that requiring a degree in computer 
 CB> science would scare off a lot of people and school districts.  
Are bot degrees required to teach other fields?  Why cast off those that have 
Computer Science degrees?  WHy would they be scared off?
 CB> I don't think anything as stringent as a BS in computer science  CB> 
would be necessary for teaching the most common applications of  CB> 
computing..., 
Why are you suggesting this thought at all? That would be totally idiotic.
 CB> I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'd wager that that a 
 CB> significant portion (75% or more) of jobs done on computers across this 
 CB> nation on a daily basis are done at just that level.  
This is the type of thinking that keeps computers in the sterile enviroment 
of the computer lab.
 CB> Programming is not required in order for the average end-user to be 
 CB> proficient with a computer.
If all you want to turn out in your school are "average end-users" then why 
teach marketing, statistics, any of the sciences or history?  Average end 
users don't know how to think.
SA> Why is it that so many people fail to see the phenomenal benefits of 
SA> programming.
 CB> Perhaps it is because their interests lie elsewhere?  Do you knit?  
Knitting is programming....
 CB> A number of people in my family find that pursuit exceptionally  CB> 
rewarding and yet have virtually no use for computers at all.  
Daily planning is programming.
 CB> It is  all important to you because you enjoy it, and because you are  
CB> good  at it.  
Organized thought is programming. 
 CB> I personally spend a considerable amount of time with  CB> computers 
every day, but see no sense in forcing that interest on  CB> people who do 
not share my attitudes and skills.
The computer is becomming as common as a telephone, television or use of a 
car. Don't you think that these are of value too?
SA> To waste time and thought thinking that the 
SA> only benefit to this would be to turn out programmers is to 
SA> use the age old logic studies in history only turn out 
SA> historians, math can only turn out mathemeticians, etc.
 CB> As I said, I've seen many students who are simply turned off by the 
 CB> "logic, orderly thinking, refined argument and creativity" that you 
 CB> enjoy.  
Only if the instructors are still fording the chalk board style of teaching.
 CB> I see no need to force everyone to study programming in school.
Only if you are going to make it as boring as possible.  It seems that that 
is the only way you see it.
Foreign languages are more of a waste of time, students are forced into 
ose.
--- DB 1.58/003138
---------------