zlacker

>>lewisf+(OP)
I love how the answer given to this problem is more funding. Such an indication of what's wrong with modern education. This entire article is exposing the TI monopoly on calculators, getting 85-90% profit margins, and our solution is to strike to get taxpayer money to keep paying for the things? We should encourage competition.

Consider - an app that replicates this functionality on the phone, but tracks if the user at any point closes the app. This then is reported to the teacher so the teacher knows if there was any cheating.

>>julien+t21
forget the app or phone

how about: a standardized test calculator specification, with careful boundaries around what is required, what is permitted and what is not.

Then let competition drive prices and features.

>>m463+He1
This doesn't really work in the classroom, because right now teachers rely on being able to teach exactly how to perform a given calculation. Have lots of different calculators with differing interfaces, some of which the teacher doesn't even know, and teaching becomes much more difficult.

>>CydeWe+Ew1
Honestly that sounds like a bug to be fixed. You don't teach to drive exactly one type of car.

>>Quiark+Ky1
I mean, you sort of do! Every modern US car has a wheel to steer, a brake pedal on the left, a gas pedal on the right. Calculator UIs vary way more than that. In the US, you can drive a manual after training on automatic, but that's not true everywhere.

And in-car driving instruction happens with the teacher next to the student in a car they're familiar with. It's not like they're radioing to 30 students each in a separate car.

Also, the calculator is a tool to teach math. If someone gets distracted figuring out the calculator, they're behind. The student driver car is to teach driving.

>>smelen+DB1
Sounds like the UI needs a spec as well then.