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

271–280 of 657 posts

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

#271

Post by ravi-delia »

paulcole wrote: post #243
FFRefresh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability This is generally true. People can find extreme examples that “disprove” this but they’re generally wrong. Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them — they either choose a different path, have fewer choices, or just don’t care. And yes, before you ask, this includes computer programming.

> Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them

Have you considered that maybe you're just unusually talented? I know most things people do are very hard for me, and the few things I do are very easy. Learning history is an uphill slog even though I love it, but math doesn't warrant effort. For a while I just figured people that failed math were lazy and people that passed history were geniuses, but it turns out people have different amounts of natural talent. It's not the start, it's the slope

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

#272

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

School-Cotton wrote: post #4
lr4444lr wrote: post #3

Efforts like this are well meaning, but only treat symptoms. The major impetus for watered down curricula is the very rational fear that large swaths of the student population will fail if expected to perform at the prior standards of rigor. Schools are not prepared to hold back massive numbers of kids, drop out proclivity for students held back rises, and teachers will be poorly evaluated by virtue of their students…

This is a natural consequence of the American myth/narrative that everyone is suited for academic high school and university. Other countries simply sort people into different schools much earlier, and spend the high school years teaching meaningful vocational skills to those not on the academic track, rather than wasting everyone's time.

How do they deal with the late bloomers?

I didn't really find my academic ability, and programming until I was in my twenties.

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

#273

Post by TimPC »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #148
twofornone wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wi…

> No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. I think the nonsense is making a decision about who is and isn't cut-out for math at such a young age, and keeping them hemmed into that path for the duration of their education. That's not merely recognizing the top, middle, and bottom - it's creating it. I see that as a worthy thing to try to avoid. I also think we should strive to avoid falsely concl…

What's the longest we can go without streaming and still meet reasonable targets? The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar.

This means an informed discussion needs to be had about the costs of lowering the bar against the costs of early streaming. I think people are rather strongly against lowering the bar to the point of effectively removing calculus from high school based on the general reaction in this thread.

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

#274

Post by leodr21 »

Miner49er wrote: post #52
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.

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.

Are other states doing the same thing too?

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

#275

Post by deathanatos »

hintymad wrote: post #258
paulcole wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability This is generally true. People can find extreme examples that “disprove” this but they’re generally wrong. Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them — they either choose a different path, have fewer choices, or just don’t care. And yes, before you ask, this includes computer programming.

I don't know. Have you observed multiple kids in the same family? Same parents. Same "privilege". Same pressure. Same education down to the same teachers, tutors, books, and parent temperament. And you know what, some of the kids simply beat their siblings who can be years older, in STEM or writing or reading or leadership without even trying. Have you observed your classmates? Some are driven, ambitious, self-discip…

Me & my sister grew up, like you say, in the same family, same parents, same pressure. We largely went to the same schools, even. She probably acceled further, academically, than I did. (She probably went to the more prestigious college, her GPA/SAT/etc. were better, she earned a doctorate, while I got a BS…)

Without pointing to a vague notion of "we're different people", I think there's a few key things that were different, despite everything that was the same:

* She's the second child, I'm the first: there were some things in my education that my mother literally said "we are fixing that for her". (And I should note that I don't resent this: my mother was clearly doing the best she could with the information she had — and because she loved us. But she had more information during Round 2.)

* Education is a finite resource: in my home state, whether I got into a decent school (i.e., a magnet school) was dependent on the literal roll of a dice. (Literally literally. I.e., list of names goes in, gets shuffled, top n go to good school & gets educated, bottom m talent gets wasted.) In the worst case I was 5th? 6th? from the bottom of a several hundred person long wait list. She got in. She got a year in the magnet system that I didn't (I got entry a little over a year later). That missing year was an enormous detriment to my education and growth; it was such a clear detriment my parents were contemplating whether they could afford a Catholic private school (we're not Catholic) or simple home-schooling. Had they had the gift of clairvoyance, I think they would have the moment I was denied.

* Almost certainly the gift of a computer got me interested in CS. She didn't get one, and her interests are different. (She's still STEM, likely due to our parents.)

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

#276

Post by quirino »

idoh wrote: post #120

SF CA resident, parent of two school age children chiming in. The direction with math seems pretty dismal, in that as of right now, everyone is singly tracked together for math through freshman year of high school. This results in children who have higher aptitudes[1] to not be well served by schools. The majority of people I know who have the means opt out of the public school system, which probably makes the proble…

As a student who participated in Math Olympiads throughout middle and high school, having to be on the same track as everyone was downright painful. This type of thing really shouldn't exist.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by zmgsabst »

temp8964 wrote: post #267
FFRefresh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it has to be related to any point you put in here. I think when STEM people comment on math education, they easily forget K-12 math education is for all students, not future college STEM students. Lots of controversies in math education between STEM professors (especially mathematicians) and K-12 math educators/researchers are rooted in this. In the community of math and science education, we educators/…

That logic isn’t used in any other discipline:

“We only cover bad art — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional artists.”

“We only focus on bad English — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional writers.”

“We only focus on bad history - we don’t focus on students who go on to study history or social science.”

Each of those has an AP and IB track, competitions to find elites, etc — just as mathematics should for high performers.

If as an educator, you only teach to the lowest common denominator, then you’re failing the children you’re supposed to educate.

To me, your post reads as if you’re bragging about failing at your job.

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

#279

Post by jollybean »

klodolph wrote: post #215
FFRefresh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dete…

There are no two people in the world with the same beliefs - nobody is suggesting that.

There is however a very broad movement of people who believe that unequal outcomes are a manifestation of racism and so they act accordingly in their roles in government etc..

Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view.

It would be 'insane' to ignore this movement, it's one of the most powerful social forces in the US right now.

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

#280

Post by pclmulqdq »

temp8964 wrote: post #267
FFRefresh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 it has to be related to any point you put in here. I think when STEM people comment on math education, they easily forget K-12 math education is for all students, not future college STEM students. Lots of controversies in math education between STEM professors (especially mathematicians) and K-12 math educators/researchers are rooted in this. In the community of math and science education, we educators/…

So then let's have a few separate paths instead of only one curriculum. I believe that there is a lot of value to a basic algebra + personal finance + probability math track that helps a future plumber understand everything they need for their career.

Depriving college-bound students of calculus, though, is a bad move. A lot of philosophy also involves calculus-related arguments (ie if we cut up space in really small pieces, what do we get?), so it has applications outside the STEM fields.

Post reply on HN