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

531–540 of 657 posts

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

#531

Post by dahfizz »

cortesoft wrote: post #373
commandlinefan wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't want to send the message that some kids are just bad at math But some kids are just bad at math. Some kids are bad at sports, music, dance, etc. Some kids are good at some things and kids are good at different things.

Yes, some kids are bad at math... but they could be better than they are. Let's use your example of sports, for example. Yes, no matter how much I train and practice running, I will never be as fast as Usain Bolt... but I sure will be faster than if I didn't practice at all.

You're making a straw man that non-advanced math class == no math class.

The lower level math class is exactly where you belong to train up your math ability. You wouldn't expect to practice running with the same routine that marathon runners use.

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

#532

Post by dahfizz »

lordnacho wrote: post #115
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…

Why wouldn't you just let everyone take the same class and the same exams, but let the kids who have interest do extra work? Want to do calculus a year early? Here's the book, here's the exercises, why would I stop you?

Because that's inefficient. A class geared towards the bottom 50% of kids is going to waste a lot of time for the top 50% of kids. Simply giving the gifted kids more homework just wastes more time, and hardly encourages them to reach their potential.

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

#533

Post by nullc »

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…

Every student needs and should be entitled to an education that pushes their abilities. Without it, they won't learn to put in the effort required to be successful even at a level that doesn't make use of their enhanced abilities.

This might mean that there are additional costs for 'gifted' students. But that's no different than there being additional costs for mentally less advanced students: no matter what the students are, providing an education fit to their needs has costs... and a failure to provide it creates inequality when the most privileged families move their children (or relocate entirely) to places that will provide a more suitable education.

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

#534

Post by mbg721 »

juve1996 wrote: post #530
luca3v wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's still there in the revision, but in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" Edit: in the new version it has been changed to "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated"

> "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated" I mean, I would hope this is true. I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them. Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providin…

Actual math is irrelevant to this whole argument, just as actual literacy was irrelevant ~500 years ago. This isn't about math ability, it's about the fact that STEM is an obstacle to woke bureaucrats' projection of power.

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

#535

Post by snvzz »

ludwigschubert wrote: post #380
snvzz wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know about QED, but I am not familiar with the concept of "QED box". A cursory web search yielded nothing.

It’s a symbol that goes by many names: the tombstone, end-of-proof, or Q.E.D. "∎"

Interesting.

I wasn't familiar with this, despite being a graduate. Its use might depend wildly on where.

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

#536

Post by nullc »

john_moscow wrote: post #393
slowmovintarget wrote: post #376

The worst thing about the CMF effort is that it would only deepen the disparities between rich and poor. Public education is often the only shot poor kids have to gain knowledge and skills that might propel them into STEM fields. Do we need to mail copies of Stand and Deliver to the entire California school board? Or am I the only one that recalls that movie... based on something that actually happened... in Californ…

Well, why do you think the elites are unanimously supporting the recent equity initiatives? Because in reality they penalize the potential contenders from the rank-and-file class, while the top ladder plays by their own playback.

I don't think that's the motivation. Elites don't mind if some bright poor kids get a good education-- all the better: more advanced education means that there is a larger hiring pool to fill complex jobs at the elite's companies.

When you're highly privileged it's extremely easy to imagine that most things are positive sum and not zero sum competition because when you're wrong and your cooperation was actually a disadvantage it's still no big deal for you.

Instead, I think it's just cheap feel good measures, virtue signaling, and not wanting to take the costs/risks of bucking a fad. If you don't know whats good or bad, well cheer for the popular change and pat yourself on the back. If you do know that the initiative is bad, speaking against it may get you called a racist-- better to say nothing and relocate to where your kids will get a good education.

Someone sufficiently wealthy never has to worry about a known bad policy resulting in a poor education for their kids-- they can always apply money to the problem, one way or another.

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

#537

Post by AlchemistCamp »

zozbot234 wrote: post #446
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is suggesting that all students take calculus in high school. It’s very commonly taught in 10th grade in France, Germany, Singapore and Taiwan (where I used to teach). It’s not universal by any means but as far as I can tell, the idea that calculus should be delayed until university is a nearly uniquely American idea. https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/calculus-around-the-wo...

"Very commonly" in STEM-focused prep schools (i.e. the "academic" part of the tracked education system that's common outside the US). Which leaves you with very roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course.

> roughly the same percentages as the U.S. approach where Calculus is an elective course

I can’t speak with certainty about other places but this directly contradicts my experience living most of the past 20 years in Taiwan (and speaking with friends who taught mathematics in the public school system).

Many, many people not on a STEM track learn calculus in high school.

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

#538

Post by caddemon »

juve1996 wrote: post #530
luca3v wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's still there in the revision, but in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" Edit: in the new version it has been changed to "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated"

> "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated" I mean, I would hope this is true. I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them. Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providin…

It really depends on how you define "high-level". Yeah the attitude that some people "just can't do math" is not good, I don't disagree with you there. But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly.

Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.

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

#539

Post by vkou »

dahfizz wrote: post #524
woojoo666 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...

So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?

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

#540

Post by vkou »

twofornone wrote: post #521
vkou wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 Their peers in other countries are working with culturally and genetically different populations. Intelligence is 70%+ heritable, you do the m…

And what institutions are responsible for spending half of the waking hours of a child teaching culture?
Post reply on HN