Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

americanheritage.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#81

Post by hluska »

harperlee wrote: post #54
hluska wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.

> children were still the poorest age group What... does that mean? I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?

It’s a measurement based on the statistical low income cutoff (the “poverty line”). In child poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if they live in a family whose income falls below the low income cutoff.

Using that measure, in the United States 1/6 children live in poverty. Half of those live in statistically defined ‘extreme poverty’. That 1/6 has some interesting geographical and race based components that worth a read. There is a metric shit tonne of research on this and if you’re interested in a reading list, my email is in my profile! :)

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#82

Post by hluska »

jhardy54 wrote: post #59
harperlee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> children were still the poorest age group What... does that mean? I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?

I'm curious about this too. My best guess is that they're measuring household income and there are a lot of kids with low household incomes (more than adults with low household incomes, especially when you have more kids than adults in a household). /shrug

With all due respect, there are quite literally hundreds of well written papers that explain this. The number isn’t controversial in the slightest and it’s based on one of the most basic statistical observations in economics. Honestly, I can’t understand why HN is having so much trouble with this.

The answer is that in child poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a household with an income below the statistical low income cutoff.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#83

Post by WalterBright »

bennofs wrote: post #34
WalterBright wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how someone can learn math, yet be unable to solve math problems on a test. In my 16 years of education, I saw a consistent 1:1 correlation with learning the material and doing correspondingly well on the tests. That consistency included myself - when I learned the material, I'd ace the test. When I didn't learn it, I failed the test. There wasn't any magical "learned but didn't test well" going on…

You're assuming that "math problems" is a well-defined set of problems. But depending on what you want to test/teach, there's also going to be different problems that students will do well on. As an example: do you consider solving 579×46 quickly a "math problem"? I will solve it (relatively) quickly, since I was thought how to solve that exact problem algorithmicaly. But if you hadn't thaught that algorithm (you cou…

Being able to do arithmetic like 579x46 is foundational arithmetic, not some esoteric thing. Furthermore, teaching arithmetic while relying on a calculator is not teaching arithmetic.

It's second or third grade material. It's reasonable to expect teachers to teach it and kids to learn it. It's easy to create tests for it.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#84

Post by hluska »

JamesBarney wrote: post #56
hluska wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.

How weird would it be if they weren't the poorest age group? I really don't expect my kids to have more disposable income than I do.

In anti-poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a home whose income falls below the statistical low income cutoff point. That’s ‘the poverty line’ that you’ve hopefully heard of.

Finally, we are talking about child poverty - a little bit of respect and perhaps some research would be a far better complement than lowbrow snark.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#85

Post by hluska »

Minor49er wrote: post #57
hluska wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.

Are more food programs a solution to what you're proposing?

I think food programs are part of a solution, but a more realistic solution will require investments in mental health, addictions services, adult education, housing and child care.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#86

Post by hluska »

bpyne wrote: post #61
Minor49er wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools in the US serve nearly 12 million free breakfasts and over 20 million free lunches to children every day: https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrend...

I didn't notice if "participation" meant meals available or actually picked up by kids. Kids, particularly younger ones, who are in unstable households may not get to school in time to pick up what's available. Some districts have adapted by doing grab-and-go available anytime or serving meals in the classroom.

Good reply - I’ll add that a lot of teachers recognize their kids are too hungry to learn and stock their desks with food.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#87

Post by hluska »

Chris2048 wrote: post #79
hluska wrote: post #26

This is controversial (and shouldn’t be) but what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly?? Countries with as much child poverty as Canada and the United States shouldn’t be surprised when their testing results don’t improve. This is pretty fucking basic science yet I’ve been fighting this battle for over twenty y…

Is it not the "teach a man to fish" problem? Sometimes, welfare can cause more problems than it creates. So what should "people in power" do? Setup welfare programs, and in turn welfare dependence? Education was seen a cure for poverty, which in turn is why Johnny isn't fed.

The shortest answer is that it’s far cheaper to feed two families than to incarcerate one adult.

The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare programs to help people out of poverty. Rather, a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence.

Edit - Also, fuck no, it’s not a teach a man to fish argument. We’re talking about child poverty.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#88

Post by JamesBarney »

hluska wrote: post #84
JamesBarney wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How weird would it be if they weren't the poorest age group? I really don't expect my kids to have more disposable income than I do.

In anti-poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a home whose income falls below the statistical low income cutoff point. That’s ‘the poverty line’ that you’ve hopefully heard of. Finally, we are talking about child poverty - a little bit of respect and perhaps some research would be a far better complement than lowbrow snark.

Child poverty isn't a laughing matter, but weird statistics are.

How would we make children not the poorest age group? First poor families are more likely to have more kids than well to do ones, and kids raise the income you need to be above the poverty line.

Better statistics revolve around specific needs that children have and what percentage of those are satisfied.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#89

Post by JamesBarney »

Minor49er wrote: post #57
hluska wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.

Are more food programs a solution to what you're proposing?

Also if you make it really easy to build lots of housing that drives down one of their biggest expenses.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#90

Post by hhas01 »

What happened? Well, it was taught to the kids by all those Old Math teachers, using all of their perfectly-honed and time-proven Old Math techniques, of course.

Naturally this was a disaster for both sides, so as soon the correct scapegoats were identified and dispatched, they could safely return to their Old, safe, familiar system which is a disaster for only one.

https://fs.blog/2016/07/richard-feynman-teaching-math-kids/

Adding together all the temperatures of red, yellow, green, and blue suns? Kill me now.

Post reply on HN