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

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#101

Post by Chris2048 »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #100
Chris2048 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). But that's a different plan from "the government" in general. > 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. You are describing "safety-net" welfare, but how do you ensure an…

> Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). Feeding children so that they can be stable adults is one of the most long-term policies I can think of.

I think I outlined this pretty well in the previous post.

Children can be fed by their parents, or by the government. long-term, it is better that it be the former, short-term it might need to be the latter.

It's not sustainable or desirable to have multiple generations dependant on the government. If children become "stable" adults, but their children still require the government to feed them then nothing has been solved. The adults need to be both "stable" and educated to escape government dependence.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#102

Post by hluska »

harperlee wrote: post #93
hluska wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That does not answer how the child is poorer than its parents, though. I don’t think people have difficulty with the concept of child poverty, but your original assertion sounds super weird (and yet it sounds official, not a personal opinion, so a paper detailing that would be a better answer).

Try OPM and SPM - they’re both published by the US Census Bureau.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#103

Post by the_only_law »

BearOso wrote: post #75
monoideism wrote: post #38

I still believe New Maths is a great idea. The main problem was that most teachers didn't get it, and so couldn't teach it. And parents were angry their kids were learning math that they couldn't understand. So it was an implementation issue. The concept was sound.

The problem with abstract thinking is that there’s often more than one way to represent an answer, so that means the teacher has to actually understand the problems, not just match to an answer sheet. I’m reminded of a widely circulated common core math problem to draw a series of dots showing 4 x 8 or something. The kid drew 4 rows of 8 dots, and the teacher marked it “NO!” and drew 8 rows of 4.

Maybe a dumb question, but if a non-insignificant number of teachers are simply matching answer sheets why do you need a degree and certification to do it. Doesn’t that indicate that a number are incompetent at at least one very large aspect of the job.

Or perhaps, that’s as intended?

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#104

Post by hluska »

Chris2048 wrote: post #101
JetSpiegel wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). Feeding children so that they can be stable adults is one of the most long-term policies I can think of.

I think I outlined this pretty well in the previous post. Children can be fed by their parents, or by the government. long-term, it is better that it be the former, short-term it might need to be the latter. It's not sustainable or desirable to have multiple generations dependant on the government. If children become "stable" adults, but their children still require the government to feed them then nothing has been s…

This has been an unbelievable amount of blah blah blah to avoid feeding hungry kids.

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#105

Post by Chris2048 »

hluska wrote: post #104
Chris2048 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I outlined this pretty well in the previous post. Children can be fed by their parents, or by the government. long-term, it is better that it be the former, short-term it might need to be the latter. It's not sustainable or desirable to have multiple generations dependant on the government. If children become "stable" adults, but their children still require the government to feed them then nothing has been s…

This has been an unbelievable amount of blah blah blah to avoid feeding hungry kids.

Maybe try reading it instead of low-effort dismissals?

Re: Whatever Happened to New Math? (1990)

#106

Post by hluska »

JamesBarney wrote: post #88
hluska wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your last paragraph is completely true but better statistics are expensive. And you might be shocked by how little money there is in the anti-poverty racket...:)

Consequently, we’re stuck with statistical measures based on deviations from income and cost of living.

Post reply on HN