The only possible option was chosen, and both sides in the Cold War built more destructive bombs and more evolved ways of delivering them, including being able to initiate counter bombing runs almost immediately and placing submarines around the globe.
One alternative was attempting a limited nuclear exchange from which one side might hope to survive with an advantage. Both sides of the debate, including the pros and the anti-MAD, worried it might actually tempt some leaders to act. MAD was preferred because if successful, it did stop the massive death toll. Mutually Assured Destruction is based on fear and cynicism and is one of the most brutally and horribly pragmatic ideas ever put into practice.
At one point, the world really did stand opposed to each other with the power to wipe both sides out in a day. Amazingly, this probably did stop a greater war from taking place. Anti-ballistic missile systems were closely examined by the other side to see if they changed the situation.
Things changed when Ronald Reagan became president of the U. He decided the U. However, the U. This is cited as one reason why Gorbachev decided to end the Cold War. With the ending of that particular global tension, the specter of MAD faded from active policy to background threat. The UK National Curriculum is short on actual examples of what a student might do or make with a computer, but long on vocabulary leaving implementation of the curriculum prone to memorization, not actual computer science.
The road ahead seems bleak when you factor in a shortage of qualified teachers, an overstuffed school day, inadequate computer resources and an abysmal participation rate among girls and minorities.
In the United States, there are proposals in several states to allow Computer Science to earn Foreign Language course credit. Aside from the obvious flaws in this logic, the substitution is as much a symptom of unquestioned curricular heuristics than it is support for high quality computer science offerings.
Swapping a subject you have trouble defending for CS is another example of the idea aversion Papert, b Papert spoke of. The constructionist and maker communities possess a great deal of expertise and wisdom that should play a major role in shaping both policy and pedagogical practice.
Without such involvement, this rhetorical effort may do more harm than good. I use it to situate educators in a continuum: are you open to megachange, or is your approach one of seeking Band-Aids to fix the minor ills of the education system?
The dominant paradigm is the Band-Aid—most reform tries to jigger the curriculum, the management of schools, the psychological context of learning. Crotty, ; Ravitch, , Bill Gates tells us that class size does Vise, not matter and that teachers may be replaced by YouTube videos. Ayers, ; Guggenheim et al. One look at the state-of-the-art in educational computing points to a rise in instructionism. Not only do schools still have computer labs three decades after their creation, but the computers in those labs are increasingly used for computer-assisted instruction, test-prep, standardized testing, and surveillance.
Can we rise above this period of darkness by lighting a path towards megachange? In a toxic era of high-stakes testing, curriculum narrowing, teacher shaming and public school privatizing, the maker movement represents a ray of optimism in an otherwise bleak environment.
An understanding of constructionism and the embattled history of progressive education are necessary for the maker movement to mature.
Quite simply, progressive education requires the energy, passion, new materials, and technology of the maker movement to increase its visibility, relevance, value, and urgency with policy makers, parents, and educational practitioners. The maker movement needs to situate their terrific passion, tools, talents, and intuition in a larger context of learning in a politically charged educational system. Both communities have a great deal to learn from one another and should recognize that they stand on the shoulders of giants.
Such open-mindedness and knowledge are the minimum conditions under which each community can endure. One dilemma for the maker movement is that its major players want it to be both a cause and a profit-center. That concern has been ignored to date. It should come as no surprise that there is a tension between commerce and changing the world. Maker Media is the 1, pound for-profit gorilla that creates a venue for makers to share their ingenuity in a commercial environment where others pay to interact with makers.
There is nothing wrong with that. It has fueled the explosive rise in making. However, when one company controls the venue, narrative, access to market, and publishes products that compete directly with the creations of other makers, claims of a social mission need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Monopolistic tendencies are incompatible with the democratic ideals of both making and progressive education. Alas, the futures of the maker movement and progressive education are at a crossroads. It is blamed for educational failures disproportionate to its influence. Without great care, the maker movement may find itself susceptible to similar mocking, derision, or marginalization. Political and social alliances need to be strengthened between each community or the fate of both will be uncertain at best.
FD Papert reminds us that we need to shift our self-concept in order to bring about the change children deserve. Fellow travelers in the maker movement and the unlikely allies behind the coding campaign might be just the army we need inside of a cardboard horse, with LED eyes, and synthesized speech all controlled by a tiny microcontroller running Scratch.
Let us spend our days at Stanford celebrating a growing acceptance of our ideas, but then return home to lead and engage in the hard work of improving the learning ecology. References Ackermann, E. Paper presented at the Summer Institute, Mexico City. Washington Post, Berry, M. Computing in the National Curriculum — A guide for primary teachers.
London: Computing At School. Betters, E. Los Angeles Times. Paper presented at the Leah Buechley, Stanford University. Burns, J. BBC News. Delevett, P. San Jose Mercury News. Department of Education. Measuring demographics and performance in computer science education at a nationwide scale using AP CS data. Furber, S. Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools.
The Royal Society, London. Gardiner, B. Adding Coding to the Curriculum. New York Times. Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. Air Force photo The U. By keeping a larger number of nuclear bombers in the air either on their way from or going to the fail-safe points that were near the borders of the Soviet Union, they could retaliate, even if they suffered the blow of a devastating first strike.
This was an expensive and problematic approach because of the high costs of keeping the planes in the air at all times. On top of that came the risks of them being shot down by the anti-aircraft missiles of the Soviet Union before reaching their targets. This strategy ceased to exist when the ICBMs came into play. Continues on Page 2 6. It can travel at least 3, miles and was built primarily for transporting nuclear weapons.
ICBMs have the capability of being launched from airplanes, submarines, missile silos, and vehicles. They became an integral part of the MAD doctrine because these weapons allowed the flexibility that enabled the country to strike back and destroy the enemy.
It basically guaranteed a second strike. MIRV A time exposure of eight intercontinental ballistic missile reentry vehicles passing through clouds while approaching an open-ocean impact zone during a flight test. Each warhead has the capability of being aimed to hit one of many targets. The old fashioned warheads could only transport a single nuclear bomb on a single missile and aim for a single target. The MIRV solved that problem, all warheads were now targetable.
Anti-ballistic missiles arrived with the launch of the Nike-Zeus missile by the U.It happens to be one of the few instances where we can all agree on something: we must not wipe ourselves out and destroy our planet. Combine that with a famine and lack of law enforcement or medical care for survivors- the outlook would be bleak, to say the least. Posted by gary on Monday, May 9, at am. My confidence in making this statement is based on two factors: 1 forces are at work that put the old structure in increasing dissonance with the society of which it is ultimately a part, and 2 ideas and technologies needed to build new structures are becoming increasingly available. Ballistic missile submarines were adopted as a solution to realize the dream of computer science for all. If one side can cause a degree of destruction. What sort of teacher preparation is required in order. Papert, s. After you've stated all the above, you should pay.
This was an expensive and problematic approach because of the high costs of keeping the planes in the air at all times. He said he would never use the weapons as Prime Minister, making MAD or even lesser threats impossible. If the United States had a guarantee against Soviet nuclear attacks, its critics argued, it would have first-strike capability, which would have been a politically and militarily destabilizing position. My confidence in making this statement is based on two factors: 1 forces are at work that put the old structure in increasing dissonance with the society of which it is ultimately a part, and 2 ideas and technologies needed to build new structures are becoming increasingly available. We do have an idea of what they would be — a nuclear apocalypse.
The creation of a separate U. However, it only takes one party in a situation to start a massive chain reaction with usually catastrophic outcomes. We can segregate it by national borders, but these are man-made ideas, not physical separations. Although efforts like code. The result that is expected occurs immediately, causing the hostilities to be unable to be reversed, the result will be total destruction on both sides.
Many of these educators taught Logo and the Logo community developed a great deal of wisdom regarding how, what, why, and when to teach children to program. Supporters also argued that SDI could trigger a new arms race, forcing the USSR to spend an increasing proportion of GDP on defense—something which has been claimed to have been an indirect cause of the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Ackermann, Maker Faires, Make Magazine, and web sites like instructables. Measuring demographics and performance in computer science education at a nationwide scale using AP CS data. Los Angeles Times.