Live data from Hacker News

Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

noahpinion.blog

361–370 of 816 posts

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#361

You can imagine the following perspective: - Most people don't need to learn calculus at all, and it's fine if the few weird students who do start when they get to college (maybe the advanced students can learn single-variable calculus in high school). - For pure signaling reasons, taking calculus in high school has become very important for college admissions. - In order to take calculus in high school, you need to…

There is a way to have time to cover Calculus in high school while still taking it slower: Block scheduling. My high school shifted to it. It's like a college day where you have four longer classes instead of eight shorter ones. Courses are semester-long, not year-long. This means you can take two math classes in one year (algebra in the fall and geometry in the spring). This also enabled my high school to offer AP C…

My Toronto high school was like this, back in the early 2000s.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#362
post #89

The author says > The idea that offering children fewer educational resources through the public school system will help the poor kids catch up with rich ones, or help the Black kids catch up with the White and Asian ones, is unsupported by any available evidence of which I am aware. I was wondering if some people are aware of studies supporting this strategy. I could try to dig them up, but I remember few studies de…

I don't follow this debate closely. In the late 1970s, I had the option to take algebra in 8th grade. I was stunned that I was selected, because I was terrible at arithmetic, and honestly I still am. I got Cs, maybe a B every now and then, in math up through 7th grade. My parents didn't apply any pressure (that I know of) to get me in. I remember taking the assessment test for algebra and I didn't even finish it. It was very stressful. But somehow I got in. And starting with algebra, something clicked. I could actually see how math could be used to solve practical problems. I got mostly As in math after that.

More recently, my kids had the option to take algebra in the 8th grade. I don't see any good reason to not keep it available. Sometimes kids need a challenge (or at least need to see a point to it) to engage in a subject.

My guess is that the districts that want to eliminate it are looking at poor math achievement and thinking that applying more resources to getting all the kids up to some minimal level of math literacy is better than diverting some of those resources to a smaller number of kids who are ready for more advanced topics. And yeah, sad to say but there are some teachers who are not themselves capable of teaching algebra or anything more advanced. So teaching it in junior high leaves a smaller pool of qualified teachers for high school math.

So the problems they are trying to solve are really a scarce resource problem. They need more resources to try get the low performers up to some satisfactory level. The real answer of course is always the same whenever you have a supply problem: you need to pay more. Wealthy families will do this. They will hire tutors, either personal or virtual. For the rest of the kids who only have public education available, we've shown a consistent unwillingness to properly fund it. And I don't necessarily mean in terms of total dollars. We spend a lot of money on public education, but we spend it poorly.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#363

You can imagine the following perspective: - Most people don't need to learn calculus at all, and it's fine if the few weird students who do start when they get to college (maybe the advanced students can learn single-variable calculus in high school). - For pure signaling reasons, taking calculus in high school has become very important for college admissions. - In order to take calculus in high school, you need to…

>This is my best guess about the line of thinking that motivates these "no advanced math" policies.

You've explained the thought process of the "reformers" fairly well, but there is another additional element that's important as well: a sizeable contingent of people believe that advanced math itself is intrinsically bad or negative. Usually this is either because math is fundamentally exclusionary in some core way, or because it's somehow inextricably tied to ways in which equity-seeking populations are oppressed, or used as a tool of oppression.

O'Neill's Weapons of Math Destruction is so popular in academic circles partly because it plays to this mindset.

This viewpoint dovetails with some of the points you've highlighted, for example many believe that everyone is equally capable, but the reason they're not all getting competitive scores with good shots at college is because advanced math (being intrinsically negative/evil) is ruining it. So in their view it is rational to get rid of it, replacing it with something (the data science course) that's not advanced math.

For these people, the goal is not to improve equity by getting everyone up to speed in advanced math. It's to bypass it.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight. We're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are? -Bart Simpson People who fall behind don't need a slower pace. They need to move faster. That means not just more attention but longer hours. But there is only so much time. A school wanting to maximize its graduation rate needs to spend less energy on teaching people who are good at a subje…

Such a school fails its fast learners. Do you really want fewer scientists in the world?

What is measured is what gets done. If schools are judged by graduation rates, then yes, fewer scientists but more people graduating highschool. Or we go the other way and judge schools by how many elite scientists they produce. Identify the best students early. Give them everything so that they can all become neuroscientists. Abandon all those who struggle in order to focus resources on the future doctors. Imho a public school should only start diverting resources to elite students once the school has achieved a reasonable graduation rate (90+% imho.)

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably needs to be said because of situations like that in Baltimore, Maryland. The city spends more than 97% of what other major school districts spend, and yet it's students are on average some of the worst performers: https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/baltimore-ci...

You are only taking into account one factor. Is the money being spent well? Do you need more money because of external situations that may affect a child's learning? For example in a poor area with more crime a child may need after school programs, which cost more money, to keep kids out of trouble.

The big thing is usually old building stock.

Urban school districts in the US are disproportionately in old buildings that have high maintenance costs, low efficiency for utilities, and have all sorts of problems that need remediation, like lead or asbestos. There is generally no capex money to replace these buildings, and even if there was, finding a suitable property in an urban area is pretty difficult, since schools are big.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#366

>> The idea behind universal public education is that all children — or almost all, making allowance for those with severe learning disabilities — are fundamentally educable. It is the idea that there is some set of subjects — reading, writing, basic mathematics, etc. — that essentially all children can learn, if sufficient resources are invested in teaching them. Is that the goal? I don't think it is. I think that s…

[dead]

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Bobby Baptist's kids going to Jesus Is Lord Day School is assimilating those kids into their society at large No, I think you're missing the parent's point -- it's assimilating those students into a specific religious subculture whose beliefs and values may be at odds with civil society at large. (If you have trouble seeing this, try substituting "Jesus Is Lord Day School" in your head for some other implied re…

But that's exactly my point. Would you deny this same right to kids that attend Jewish day schools? Could you even argue for that without sounding like a massive bigot? Religious people are part of your community and have the right to their religious identity and to be a member of your community. If they want a school just for them, you don't suffer for it. Religion is not at odds with society. We're not the USSR. Re…

I'm Jewish, I went to Jewish day school for awhile, and I definitely don't think tax money should be going to Jewish day schools. Nor Christian nor Muslim schools. What religion you raise your kids in is your business, and no we're not the USSR.

Keeping religion out of publicly funded institutions, including schools, is done as much to safeguard free religious practice in this country as anything. The point is that the public institutions should be entirely civil and not under the sway of any one religion, because each religion once in control of society ends up discriminating against the others. That's why you don't allow them power in the civil sphere.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#368
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare how much money US spends on average per student in public education verse other countries. How do students rank academically in US compared to other countries? Consider this If you look at the system without vouchers, there is no market mechanism to correct the situation everyone is complaining about. There are no incentives. Each year, more and more money is dumped into the system. If you introduce competiti…

Yes. If it were the case that public schools were universally regarded as great, and everyone felt well served by them, it would be right to be skeptical of private interests coming in and trying to capture some of that money for themselves. But we have the exact opposite of that situation.

I would argue that finding a better solution to our education problems would be a bigger achievement for humanity than putting someone on Mars.

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you need to get a tutor from a remote country. I would just enroll them in an after-school math program like Kumon. But yes, enhancing the education after school in general is likely what motivated parents with means would do.

Isn't Kumon just drilling basic stuff?

[dead]

Re: Refusing to teach kids math will not improve equity

#370

You can imagine the following perspective: - Most people don't need to learn calculus at all, and it's fine if the few weird students who do start when they get to college (maybe the advanced students can learn single-variable calculus in high school). - For pure signaling reasons, taking calculus in high school has become very important for college admissions. - In order to take calculus in high school, you need to…

There is a way to have time to cover Calculus in high school while still taking it slower: Block scheduling. My high school shifted to it. It's like a college day where you have four longer classes instead of eight shorter ones. Courses are semester-long, not year-long. This means you can take two math classes in one year (algebra in the fall and geometry in the spring). This also enabled my high school to offer AP C…

Eight different classes in one day? How can that work?
Post reply on HN