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

401–410 of 657 posts

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

#401

Post by munk-a »

namelessoracle wrote: post #325
klodolph wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you talk to these people though. They DO have bad beliefs. Let's not even talk about politics. Their goal is to get a kid a degree,(especially in groups that dont normally get degrees) and many of them believe just having the degree to get past the job resume hurdles is good and helping people. They ignore the fact that the degree is supposed to be a proof of "This person has X skillsets at minimum". It no longer…

Given the situation on the ground you can comment that it'd be great to stop de-valuing college degrees but I think it's pretty clear that ship has sailed. A lot of jobs do unnecessarily demand college degrees, even going so far as to accept irrelevant degrees... anytime you see "Our ideal candidate has a BS from an accredited university" you can be confident that an arbitrary and discouraging requirement is being placed on the post. Now, in reality, a lot of employers don't actually care about those "requirements" but young people often don't realize that, and the ones that do can't be certain their uncertainty won't be invalidated by the time they secure a diploma.

I don't have a specific comment on the policy under discussion, I'm not a californian and I'm not familiar with the specifics - but telling people "You'll be fine without a degree" isn't going to go over well and, honestly, is asking the recipient to accept a large risk regarding their future while you, an employed person, have already passed that hurdle. American colleges definitely have issues with over enrollment but even if wanting that state is a "bad belief", it's certainly an accurate belief.

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

#402

Post by FFRefresh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #361
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 Not only does the earlier version of the framework explicitly reject this view, it cited specific empirical studies that the broad approach targeted (which I gather had not changed in the revisions which is why the complaints remain despite some revision to details) was better for people across the ability spectrum. Similar points apply to each of your bad-faith assumpt…

> Not only does the earlier version of the framework explicitly reject this view

Can you share that explicit rejection of the idea that there are not innate differences in ability, in the CMF? I have not seen it myself, thank you ahead of time.

To share what I've read, and colors my views a bit, is the following, from 'Chapter 1: Mathematics for All' of the Second Field Review [1]:

> An aim of this framework is to respond to the structural barriers put in the place of mathematics success: equity influences all aspects of this document. Some overarching principles that guide work towards equity in mathematics include the following:

> All students deserve powerful mathematics; high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated (Leslie et al., 2015; Boaler, 2019 a, b; Ellenberg, 2014). ...

> All students, regardless of background, language of origin, differences, or foundational knowledge are capable and deserving of depth of understanding and engagement in rich mathematics tasks.

> Hard work and persistence is more important for success in mathematics than natural ability. Actually, I would give this advice to anyone working in any field, but it’s especially important in mathematics and physics where the traditional view was that natural ability was the primary factor in success. —Maria Klawe, Mathematician, Harvey Mudd President (in Williams, 2018)

> Fixed notions about student ability have led to considerable inequities in mathematics education.

Note that my pointing to this doesn't mean I inherently disagree that hard work/education can't help improve outcomes. I show the above citations to show that the CMF is not explicitly denying the Blank slate theory, which is what you are suggesting. If anything, they go out of the way to view ideas of innate ability negatively. I'm happy to also look at the references that you alluded to but did not cite.

[1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ (it's in the bottom section, the format is .docx, so don't want to directly link to it as that format can sometimes be cause for concern on random links shared on the internet)

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

#403

Post by l33t2328 »

teawrecks wrote: post #269
l33t2328 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can develop an intuition divorced from meaningless formulas. It goes without saying this proposed class wouldn’t be based around memorizing unmotivated formulas.

But how would you "motivate" the formulas without knowing where they came from? Why is this the formula we use and not something else? To go back to the car analogy, I know why I need an engine, you might even say I know how to use the engine, but if the engine dies or I want to use the engine for some other purpose, I'm not equipped to do anything. I don't have "literacy" with engines, I have rote memorization of a…

Just don’t include formulas you can’t motivate simply.

Will it result in students not knowing as many formulas? Of course, but who cares?

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

#404

Post by zozbot234 »

fn-mote wrote: post #396
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…

> “When kids struggle, they immediately say ‘I don’t have a math brain,’” Boaler said. “That changes how the brain operates.” This really jumped out at me. I didn't read any context, but students CAN and SHOULD learn to struggle. Productively. Without thinking they are failing. Imagine you thought everything should come easily? That's not my experience in the world. The fact that students (are reported to) shut down…

> I didn't read any context, but students CAN and SHOULD learn to struggle. Productively. Without thinking they are failing.

Unproductive struggling with math is the natural consequence of substandard math education, such as is encouraged by the unscientific and arguably insane notion (which is however common throughout the Education field) that all students can simply be expected to "learn their math by themselves", and therefore have no need for actual, focused and direct teaching of that subject.

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

#405

Post by woojoo666 »

cortesoft wrote: post #363
nafix wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, sounds good to a layman in general terms (just how you explained it). But the actual implementation is half-baked, short-sighted, and favors a weak/easy solution rather than something more well thought out and complex.

Ok, so what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of? I feel too often the people who play the 'woke nonsense' card think that we should just allow the current failings to continue, and any work to help struggling groups is wrong.

Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of?

The cited issue was that higher level math courses were making other students feel like they weren't cut out for math. So it seems more like the issue is a mindset one. They shouldn't be looking at better performing kids and think "I can never do that". We should be instilling a better growth mindset to these kids, so they understand that they can overcome their inabilities.

The "woke" solution of removing high level courses actually achieves the opposite. It reinforces the idea that such a level is inachievable for some people so it should be cut out for all people.

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

#406

Post by jollybean »

drewwwwww wrote: post #384
jollybean wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 powe…

Quoted post unavailable.

Well Mr/Ms Drewwwww - you have very graciously made point for me.

Since I have no such 'scientific racism' views and claims of 'proto-fascism' are ridiculous at face value ...

... that a common person would take some rather mundane comment somewhere to mean those things, implies that they've been radicalized in some way in the manner that I've described.

"Racists is everywhere, under my bed, in the jingle for that product, in our schools! Math is racist! We Need Action Now!"

'Anti Racism' is a reasonable concept at face value, but the issue has obviously created groups of wayward ideologues in large swaths in the US, who are more likely than not to be involved in the civil service, particularly in education.

Since 'improving education' is a perennial issue of contention anyhow - if we throw 'math is racist' into the fire, along with legions (at least a critical mass) of fervent supporters - and then finally allow the hollow politicians and media to misrepresent and aggrandize all of it in bad faith (votes, money, attention, power etc.) ... then we have yet another toxic cocktail of public malaise and dysfunction distracting us from dealing with the core issues.

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

#407

Post by vkou »

TimPC wrote: post #273
HelloMcFly wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 removi…

> The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar.

If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats.

But, of course, it's easier to just throw your hands up into the air, and just bifurcate people at Grade 7 into 'good math' and 'bad math' tracks.

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

#408

Post by Drblessing »

Dig1t wrote: post #316

It's kind of funny how both sides of the political aisle have extremists who find ways to argue that being dummer is better. They mirror each other in so many ways and sometimes the two extremes kind of wrap back around to the other side and have the same goals.

Horseshoe theory supremacy

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

#410

Post by selimthegrim »

pmyteh wrote: post #101
sefrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which countries do that and which countries don't?

England mostly doesn't (though there's some local variation). Most secondary (11-16/18) schools are 'comprehensive', covering the full range of abilities. It is standard to set pupils by ability in most subjects, but uncommon to track/stream pupils by general ability across the whole curriculum. We previously ran a split system, with exams splitting pupils at 11 into academic ('grammar') and non-academic ('secondary…

I think Northern Ireland still does the 11+
Post reply on HN