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

#621

Post by vkou » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #606

vkou wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education. If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If your goal is to just wri…

> If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and…

If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?

I am advocating for more across the board.

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

#622

Post by andrewprock » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #500

andrewprock wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite clearly false. Most people on the planet have zero to little understanding of statistics. They get by just fine. The field of Calculus is actually fairly simple compared to stats. By and large calculus is the study of the slope of a line, and the area under the curve. Statistics is more complicated philosophically and computationally, as you do in fact need calculus to do statistics, since a fundamental…

You've misunderstood my post. I'm not arguing that needing to understand statistics is the same as needing to be able to read and write; I was responding to a post that was arguing that teaching stats without the underpinnings of calculus is like a society that is barely literate. > Statistics is more complicated philosophically and computationally, as you do in fact need calculus to do statistics This is just fundam…

Again, philosophically and computationally, statistics is more complicated.

And again, you do need calculus to do statistics. Maybe you're saying: "If someone does the calculus part for you, you can use this one equation to solve this one question."

That's akin to calling a spelling test literature. You are confusing practice with knowledge. Anyone can bang on a drum. That does not make them a drummer.

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

#623

Post by FFRefresh » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 3:51 PM UTC

random314 wrote: post #599

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…

You are simply attacking a strawman. Absolutely no one I have met believes 1 and 2. As for 3, "average observable differences" in mental ability can largely be explained by socio economic factors. Case in point, East Asian IQs stagnated behind US IQ averages 50 years ago, but are significantly ahead now. I dont think they underwent a general transformation in 50 years time. 4. Is again a strawman. Affirmative action…

> Absolutely no one I have met believes 1 and 2

Admittedly I am a little confused by your comment. You made the above statement, and then follow up with this statement:

> As for 3, "average observable differences" in mental ability can largely be explained by socio economic factors

If we are to assume you are being earnest here in your first statement in that you believe there ARE innate ability differences between humans and social factors don’t explain everything, can you explain how much innate ability differences are a factor in intelligence differences (using it since you brought it up)? And how do you determine it? What methodology are you using for that, and if you aren’t basing it on anything, what methodology should we use?

If you are going to dodge the question and suggest you were talking about averages between groups (for which the question does still apply) and that between groups are a special case, then please share how much of a factor innate ability differences are in intelligence within groups? And how you determined that?

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

#624

Post by prepend » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #127

prepend wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bette…

I like your example breakdown, but my understanding that by removing calculus as an option it’s lowering the ceiling so we’d end up with: 0% A, 25% B, 25% C, 25% D, 25% F.

I guess there is a societal discussion to be had if we should trade off losing As to reduce Fs.

But I think that first there’s not a dichotomy between approaches so the only way to get fewer Fs is to reduce the number of As. I think there are ways to improve education that doesn’t remove the opportunity to excel. And framing it as the California proposal or failing math is unfair.

I think what surprises me so is that they continue to propose these solutions that seem to reduce the overall math capabilities being produced.

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

#625

Post by webmaven » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #444

troupe wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying, but I would argue that lack of access to teacher is less of a bottleneck than drive, desire, and motivation. A motivated individual is going to have no trouble finding what they need to learn and places to ask questions for things they don't understand. I see where you are coming from on access to labs, chemicals, and equipment. But someone who has fully availed themselves of everyth…

I don’t disagree with you. I just think “drive, desire, and motivation” is part of one’s talent. The progressive policies will not hurt the best students because they students will find their resources anyway. It is the middle, the vast majority like me, who would get hurt. They would think that they got good education, and then realize that their understanding of maths is so shitty that they can’t even pass city col…

Link, please?

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

#626

Post by deanCommie » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #605

deanCommie wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arrogance is skimming a PhD thesis in a field wildly different from your own and deciding you are more competent in your ability to evaluate its "rigor" than the dozens or people in that field who evaluated it that had a different conclusion. It's not an original arrogance - it's pretty common amongst the STEM educated to basically consider all humanities, philosophy, social sciences to be not "serious" fields. Just…

> Arrogance is skimming a PhD thesis in a field wildly different from your own and deciding you are more competent in your ability to evaluate its "rigor" than the dozens or people in that field who evaluated it that had a different conclusion. What a flimsy and transparent effort to insulate non-rigorous fields from criticism. Ironically, one of the things I do for a living these days, as an attorney, is attack the…

Yes but what is your perspective on the study of individual personal behaviour and societies.

Are you saying that all the "serious but not rigorous" fields that do so are A) all doing it wrong, and that you know a better way, B) That there is a better way and noone has tried, Or C) that it is impossible and we shouldn't bother trying.

Because if it's A or B, you can see why someone would call you arrogant. And if it's C, is that not defeatist? Seems like trying to understand our fellow humans and the societies we create is a task worth pursuing?

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

#627

Post by roody15 » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #574

roody15 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Note that to the extent there was a shift, it took place in the 70s." This really has ramped up in the last 2-3 years.

I would suggest that in fact it hasn't; it was just as virulent over the past 50 years as it was over the last 3, but you just noticed it more in the last 3 years.

Hmm I still work in education. Honestly it has really ramped up in the last couple years.

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

#628

Post by hyperdimension » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #401

namelessoracle wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pl…

"BS from an accredited university" indeed, for most jobs.

The boss of my first internship at Cisco majored in Geology.

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

#629

Post by caddemon » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

juve1996 wrote: post #620

caddemon wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Certainly some people are better at things than others - but so what? I know plenty of people that excelled in math in grade school and struggled in high school, also many more that excelled in high school and struggled in college. Some, like myself, struggled in grade school and excelled in high school. The difference was moti…

As mentioned by OP: > 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"

The people that wrote said publicly available draft are still involved with this plan, and have not personally nor explicitly backed down from the statement. It's a good sign that some moderation has been introduced to the text, but it seems clear to me there are still some pretty extreme beliefs amongst those leading this thing.

Whether the "woke alarmism" is over the top or not, I don't think it should be controversial to say that a philosophical statement is at the root of this plan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Equitable Math folks would agree with that assessment even.

I also don't think that criticism of a specific model of leveled courses should be used to dismiss all leveled courses. You talk about kids that are rushed ahead or that perform differently at different points in their math "career" - which could certainly be problematic if levels are rigid throughout the educational timeline and leave little choice to students.

Yes sometimes it is implemented that way. But it is not impossible nor even particularly impractical to implement a more flexible levels system that would mitigate those concerns. There are schools that have done this well, California school system was not one of them. This proposal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

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

#630

Post by dahfizz » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #621

dahfizz wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and…

If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can? I am advocating for more across the board.

> If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?

People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school.

Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.