An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by vkou » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #198

vkou wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math. Or, similarly, that every kid that the same capacity for it or ability to pickup math concepts. Because it seems to me that if you have experience with any sampling of children where N>1, you'll see that's simply not true.

> I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math.

I'm not, there are always extreme outliers and exceptions, but I do believe that the vast majority of children can meet the incredibly low bar for mathematics education that is considered normal in North American schools.

I also believe that teaching them to be afraid of math, (and having their teachers be afraid of math) is a major contributing factor for why so many of them struggle so much to meet that bar.

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

#212

Post by arcbyte » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #195

cwkoss wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The abstract concepts of calculus are useful and will shape the way you think about and go about solving problems, even if you don't explicitly employ an integral or derivative. Rates, sums, areas, volumes, etc. Learn the nuts and bolts in highschool, use the intuition for the rest of your life.

Seriously this. The average American doesn't grasp how basic graphs work. This simple idea of trends and how different functions imply graph differences is a powerful basic thought model. "Is this a linear or exponential curve curve problem?"

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

#213

Post by wonnage » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #166

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 don't doubt that the people crafting these proposals care. I think they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I personally think it's just increasingly popular, mistaken moral beliefs that inform these types of proposals. Some of the underlying beliefs: 1. Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability 2. Any observable differences between humans are merely the result of social factors 3. Any observable diff…

1. This is kind of a founding principle of the country, so...

2. This follows from #1, if we rule out nature then it must be nurture. Also, you must not be a parent if you'll accept "some kids are just dumb" as an excuse

3,4. Replace "oppression" with "competition". I think it might sound better to you. But the conclusion is the same.

You want to prevent winners from accumulating an advantage, eliminating all others (which sounds vaguely genocidal in this context), then you have to handicap winners and support the others. And the fact that the wealth distribution in America is so uneven certainly suggests that the initial premise is true (i.e, winning allows you to accumulate and compound advantages with repeated victories).

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

#214

Post by keneda7 » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #156

ckemere wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Update - having re-read the first post about this, it seems that the issue of resources is exactly the problem. I think that opponents of the CMF would prefer to see More Resources put into careful, thorough elementary/middle school math so that middle schoolers would thrive in 8th grade Algebra. And in their view, the CMF simply lowers the bar, masking the need for more resources. I agree with that!

The lack of resources for public education, coupled with the every increasing level of competency that students are required to internalize over time drives many of the fights in education. I can understand how an electrical engineering professor like yourself is rightly concerned about your incoming students having less calculus proficiency. On the other hand, there many (possibly far more numerous than EE) educatio…

I'm a product of public schools and a state college. Due to my experiences I will never vote to give teachers one more dollar in funding until major changes occur.

I had multiple high school teachers that were checked out. Would watch movies and do worksheets. We learned nothing in their class other than how bad they thought students were now days. Yet they were never fired. Some lasted another 10 years before retiring.

I also had multiple professors that would start terms by saying if you have conservative views and you express them in class I will fail you. Had another professor joke about how she found out a student was part of a club she didn't like so she failed him. Often times these were not GE classes but CS specific. Politics have nothing to do with a class on OOP or AI. That is not teaching IMO. I have a ton of friends that feel the same way. Until this issue is actually recognized and addressed I do not believe you see anything change.

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

#215

Post by klodolph » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #166

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 don't doubt that the people crafting these proposals care. I think they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I personally think it's just increasingly popular, mistaken moral beliefs that inform these types of proposals. Some of the underlying beliefs: 1. Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability 2. Any observable differences between humans are merely the result of social factors 3. Any observable diff…

I don't think that those beliefs are a workable explanation here.

These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to write off the entire group of people behind these proposals as having some uniform set of beliefs like that, especially when they give other rationales for the proposals!

The current school system makes decisions in middle school (8th grade and earlier) which determine whether or not each particular student will be able to take calculus in high school. This is, simply put, insane.

Because it's obviously insane, when you introduce questions of race and class into the mix, then it's easy to apply pressure to the department of education to come up with a proposal that changes things. And then you end up with bad proposals... why? Because these proposals are produced by poorly-shepherded committees full of government employees under political pressure, and it's much easier to come up with a bad proposal that responds to political pressure than it is to come up with a good proposal.

There's just no need to try and explain that this proposal is bad because the people who made it have bad beliefs. I'd characterize this as fundamental attribution error here... "the committees made a bad proposal because of wrong beliefs" versus "the committees made bad proposals because it's easier to respond to political pressure than to write a good proposal".

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

#216

Post by mindcrime » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #133

cwkoss wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stats requires calculus; you can't even define a probability distribution without some pretty advanced notions of real analysis. Discrete math, linear algebra etc. are viable alternatives.

Stats requires calculus; you can't even define a probability distribution without some pretty advanced notions of real analysis.

Only in the same sense in which operating a car requires advanced knowledge of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, etc. IOW, in no sense related to the everyday, ordinary practice of operating a car.

Sure, statistics requires calculus... and real analysis, and probability, and measure theory, and FSM knows what else - IF you're doing statistics research or trying to break new ground, or do really advanced things. But all of this is light years away from the level of statistics knowledge needed by Joe Q. Public to better understand (and not be misled by) the "statistics" frequently thrown out in news articles, government reports, etc.

Please, for the love of FSM, can we stop this HN "thing" of assuming that every mention of any mathematical topic implies that the goal of the user/learner is to do original research in the field?

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

#217

Post by zdragnar » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

acomjean wrote: post #106

cortesoft wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was in the "middle" tier math program in high school. But around sophomore year I wanted to get more into science/engineering but you can't switch tiers or catch up to those ahead of you, no matter if you're making extra effort and doing well. It was frustrating. In my case I got a letter about summer school at a local university. So I pre-calced over summer school to get moved into calculus in high school. It hone…

My school allowed changing tiers, and I am very grateful that it did. I had a bad year in my early teens with some mental health stuff, and spent my first year in high school with kids who needed much more time and practice to get a handle on concepts than I did. If I had been forced to stay in those tracks, my life would have taken a drastically different course, as I didn't really need to work to learn. Getting bumped into a higher tier challenged me, and that challenge is what prepared me for college.

Had I gone into college without that work ethic, I almost certainly would have failed out early.

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

#218

Post by hellisothers » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #139

cloutchaser wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is the intention is to be able to say that the framework benefits disadvantaged people. But like almost any policy like this all it does at best is pull down people at the top, at worst pulls down everyone making the situation worse for everyone. You can have separation of education by ability, and progress, or you can have equality, and everyone being pulled down to the same low level. And suffering for eve…

> You can have separation of education by ability, and progress, or you can have equality, and everyone being pulled down to the same low level. This seems a little off. What we're talking about (and what it seems like you're defending) is directing more resources towards the most gifted. It's fine to believe that, but it's an argument to give the most to those who have the most. Nobody is pulling anyone down, and co…

As the parent of a child who is gifted at math this is wrong on so many levels, I’ll just state one. My kid only has so much time he can genuinely focus on “school work” in a day, why should he be forced to spend “school” time on things wildly beneath his level and then come home and spend his own time on additional “school” type work?

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

#219

Post by pishpash » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

2sk21 wrote: post #49

jl6 wrote: post #43

Which states are doing it right?

In New Jersey and Massachusetts at least, there is absolutely no move to water down the math curriculum in any way. On the contrary, the schools here compete on how many AP courses are offered.

A reflection of the electorate. There are enough dummies in California who feel the need to cry out through political power.

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

#220

Post by duxup » Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

>to dumb down math in high school?

There's a lot of competing / strange interests in school systems that can have well intended but BIZARRE outcomes.

My wife works in early childhood education. At one point it was recognized that the early childhood department should be more involved in helping students with learning disabilities as soon as possible. There was lots of outreach to parents to get them into free classes and education, and most importantly screening so they could get free services if they qualified / needed them.

However, it was noticed at some point by some very vocal parents that some students with specific backgrounds were refereed to these services more than others. These services were provided in and out of school, the kids weren't moved to another school or anything like that, but despite all their efforts... The result was deemed to be some sort of bias, or outright racism.

Therefore it was made very clear that they could not disproportionately "single out" students of some backgrounds for these services, that are free, to help them learn.