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

An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 657 posts

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#121

Post by zozbot234 »

alimov wrote: post #79
zozbot234 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, tracking is awful for the low-track students because guess what, no self-respecting teacher wants to be stuck teaching underperformers. So the students are trapped in that situation, being taught by terrible teachers who don't actually care for their educational achievement, and unable to improve. You see those outcomes across the board, including in the celebrated German system of academic vs. vocatio…

> “…no self-respecting teacher wants to be stuck teaching underperformers.” If you look at people that are not academically inclined and call them under performers then maybe that’s part of the issue. I think everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and if someone is more inclined to do vocational training rather than the standard track I think their strengths and interests should be developed / encouraged. An educator…

> If you look at people that are not academically inclined and call them under performers then maybe that’s part of the issue.

It's not me doing that, it's education schools telling prospective teachers that their students will just be "learning their math by themselves", and the teachers can simply be facilitators. It must be a comfy job teaching math class to little Carl Friedrich Gauss and the like, but what about the remaining 99% of students - who will need actual teaching?

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#122

Post by rajin444 »

cortesoft wrote: post #48
daveslash wrote: post #10

Sorry for being out of the loop and asking a (possibly) dumb question: What is the stated reason that the CMF suggested these changes? Is it about budgets? Is it because some people might think these classes " aren't that important? ". The open letter seems to suggest that it's about closing gaps between privileged and less privileged - is that it? Honest question - I'm not trying to stir the pot.

I believe the gist of the argument is that when you split students into 'normal' and 'advanced' classes at a young age, the students who are not put into the advanced classes will believe they are just naturally not good at math and will give up on trying to get better because they will think they just "don't have a math brain". Here is a short blurb about the idea: > The framework would not forbid districts from acc…

> That changes how the brain operates.

I didn’t think our understanding of the brain was that advanced yet. AFAIK we run some experiments and observe results, but we can’t explain why those results were observed.

Which is useful and awesome from a learning perspective, but extremely worrying we use it to craft public policy.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#123

Post by texaslonghorn5 »

wardedVibe wrote: post #95
texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #13

Ultimately the solution is better STEM foundation at the very very early ages. Universal pre school would probably be very useful. Empirically [edit: n = 1 or 2], it seems that drilling basic arithmetic and then multiplication tables early in pre K and earlier elementary will give students a better intuitive math foundation to do algebra very well. That would enable everyone to go into more advanced classes at the sa…

As a math PhD with dyscalcula, I'm very skeptical. I was nearly held back as a child because of poor arithmetic performance, and really only started to be above average when we started on algebra. Poor arithmetic isn't that uncommon among the mathematicians I know.

Interesting. I do not know much about dyscalcula. At an early age do word problems make it worse or better?

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#124

Post by sethammons »

chadash wrote: post #38
texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #13

Ultimately the solution is better STEM foundation at the very very early ages. Universal pre school would probably be very useful. Empirically [edit: n = 1 or 2], it seems that drilling basic arithmetic and then multiplication tables early in pre K and earlier elementary will give students a better intuitive math foundation to do algebra very well. That would enable everyone to go into more advanced classes at the sa…

Pre-K (4 year olds) seems a bit young for teaching multiplication tables.

Anecdote: my then 5 year old and I would "practice counting by different numbers" on the walk to school. By the end of kindergarten, she could count by everything up to 12s. In 1st grade, we started reversing it and asking how many 4s in 48 and the like, and by the start of second grade, we were firmly in adding and subtracting fractions with different denominators (though, on paper at this point, no longer mental math).

She had (has?) a solid grasp on numeracy. I recall asking her why, around 7th grade, "0.999..." is equal to 1. I was prepared to show some fancy algebra and she one upped me when she said "well, 1/9 is 0.111... so 9/9 is one and 0.999...".

She never liked math though. She spurned calculus.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#125

Post by jeffbee »

RangerScience wrote: post #89
frostburg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to teach people methods to solve equations, limits, integrals etc. speed with basic algebraic operations is necessary. Facility with those methods is then necessary to be able to adequately follow important proofs and gain understanding of more advanced concepts. I don't know how you would teach people important results in their fields (physics, computer science etc., I'm not talking about actual mathemat…

TL;DR: algebra != arithmetic AKA real math doesn't use numbers I'm only good at _arithmetic_ because of making Warhammer 40k armies (true story bro). I'm good at _algebra_ because I was taught well, on top of a knack. Speed with basic algebraic operations was very helpful in many places but speed with arithmetic operations has only been helpful in board games. I don't think anyone here would disagree with your point…

But strong arithmetic fundamentals are absolutely necessary for strong algebra. I've watched kids struggle with basic algebra because when they don't instantly recognize that 7x8=56, they also don't recognize that 7zx8z=56z(edit: squared).

Edit: thanks to the reply; HN ate my superscript 2. Apparently it doesn't like the unicode multiplication x, either: × ² ?

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#126

Post by twofornone »

vkou wrote: post #94
nafix wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like more woke nonsense. Sounds nice and easy to a layman from a super high level but not practical or put through any kind of rigorous rational thought.

> Sounds like more woke nonsense You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. It's not some kind of novel woke nonsense, though, it's how math instruction on this continent has been happening over the past X decades. The wokies are…

>You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it.

No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome based on the totally untrue premise that we are all equally capable given identical environments.

The only possible resolution to this goal, given the obvious uneven distribution of innate human ability, is the handicapping of those who are capable, because there fundamentally is no way to boost those at the bottom to match the middle and top.

And I don't think people understand how dangerously pervasive this mindset has become, as it is also the foundation for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the equally misguided idea that given equal opportunity all demographics would see equal representation in a true meritocracy.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#127

Post by RC_ITR »

prepend wrote: post #87
Miner49er wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, they revisit this framework every 8 years. California is doing poorly in 8th grade math scores, so I think they want to make changes to improve that.

It seems like such a bonehead solution to the problem. Of course if you’re doing poorly in math scores, you can make math easier in the hope to increase scores. It’s sad that the state is proposing these changes. I remember in school there were kids who argued “algebra is stupid, who needs it, why waste time” and there were one or two sympathetic teachers who would respond “well, I rarely have to use algebra to balan…

I think the argument (though not necessarily one I agree with) is a spin on what you said:

The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM.

That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's.

The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's.

The key questions are 1) Is that actually better (I certainly think bringing up the floor is a good idea, but at what cost)? 2) Is this policy even going to get us there?

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#128

Post by cwkoss »

kurthr wrote: post #27

From the original letter: While well-intentioned, we believe that many of the changes proposed by the CMF are deeply misguided and will disproportionately harm under-resourced students. Adopting them would result in a student population that is less prepared to succeed in STEM and other 4-year quantitative degrees in college. The CMF states that 'many students, parents, and teachers encourage acceleration beginning i…

Is calculus an important highschool goal? I feel like I may have benefited more if that time was spent on statistical literacy than calculus. I encounter stats very often in my adult life, calculus style problems are rare and I don't remember the formulas offhand, so end up just looking up what I need.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#129

Post by taeric »

kurthr wrote: post #27

From the original letter: While well-intentioned, we believe that many of the changes proposed by the CMF are deeply misguided and will disproportionately harm under-resourced students. Adopting them would result in a student population that is less prepared to succeed in STEM and other 4-year quantitative degrees in college. The CMF states that 'many students, parents, and teachers encourage acceleration beginning i…

I'll bite. Why is calculus a goal?

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#130

Post by deanCommie »

Irrespective of specific educational curriculums, I'm curious what does HN think about Calculus?

I absolutely loved learning Calculus in high school in Math and 1st and 2nd year of University. I consistently got 97+% on my grades.

And I've never had to use it in my Computer Science degree or my 20 year Software Engineer career since.

Am in a bubble because I don't spend much time in the Machine Learning domain?

Post reply on HN