Live data from Hacker News

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

scottaaronson.blog

101–110 of 657 posts

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

#101
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 modern') schools. Many grammar schools were good; most sec mods were awful. The exams also famously had pretty poor predictive power for underlying academic ability as an adult, so pathways had to be developed to allow bright pupils to go to higher education despite being mis-sorted in the original exam - which somewhat undermines the point of the system. Comprehensivisation has never been nationally mandated, but nearly all areas have now done away with academic selection at 11. The remaining holdouts are mostly suburban Conservative areas where political power is in the hands of the well-heeled upper middle classes who are strongly in favour of grammars (and expect their own children to go there). Interestingly, Margaret Thatcher (as Education Secretary under Heath) was responsible for more grammar school closures than Labour was.

Vocational/academic choices are now being made at age 14 and 16 either within the secondary schools or by moving to local further education colleges (similar to US community colleges and trade schools). Vocational classes are low status. Britain no longer has a strong industrial sector to use such skills, and although both parties advocate for better vocational education essentially everyone who matters would be most unhappy if their darling children were diverted from a university track in the direction of trades. That's something they want other (poorer) people's children to do, not their own. We've never developed good vocational training for offices/services jobs, and although such courses do exist they're not taken particularly seriously by employers, despite several rounds of national reforms.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where are all the extra engineers going to come from? Unfortunately, maybe where they come from now? India, China, and other immigration.

The unstated irony is that there’s a large overlap in the anti-immigration and re-industrialization crowd. I think an interesting part of 20th century American industrial/scientific history is that many of the prominent figures were European immigrants (many Jewish) or children of immigrants. Maybe there is something exceptional about the environment itself. But the talented and privileged native citizens rarely aspi…

> At least in other countries, the upper class ideal is a renaissance man.

Sadly, I don't think that is very true in many (most?) places.

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

#103

The tension here is that educational achievement is a proxy measurement for IQ and in capitalist societies IQ is directly correlated with income. The cultural ideal here in the US is that hard work, effort, and grit is what is necessary for success. It is supposed to be purely egalitarian; you get what you give. However whether you are born with a high IQ is purely random, and even worse IQ is heritable. This is crea…

Intellect is not 100% inherited. The percentage is debated, but it is almost certainly not 100.

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

#104

Ultimately the solution is better STEM foundation at the very very early ages. Universal pre school would probably be very useful. Empirically [edit: n = 1 or 2], it seems that drilling basic arithmetic and then multiplication tables early in pre K and earlier elementary will give students a better intuitive math foundation to do algebra very well. That would enable everyone to go into more advanced classes at the sa…

More and more earlier and earlier doesn't comport well with child development and can backfire by making students feel incompetent. We need better teachers, probably by paying more so more talented people join the profession.

Other countries do a lot of "pre-algebra" in the later grades of primary education, when the kids are quite ready for it; "drill and kill" rote methods are generally focused on in very early grades, since they help build familiarity with the sort of rigorous, algorithmic thinking that's required for good math proficiency. This is what Russian Math, French Math, Singapore Math, etc. are built on, and the approach has stood the test of time indeed. The fuzzy "Common Core" approach pushes abstract content way too early, and ends up confusing kids as a result.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but if you do sort students by academic achievement, you will send a smaller fraction of blacks and Hispanics to academic high schools than whites, and a smaller fraction of whites than Asians, since there are differences in academic achievement by race. I say so be it, but currently many people assume that disparate outcomes prove racism.

The irony of course is that focusing on who they are not what they do has to be more racist by a rational definition

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

#106

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.

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…

I was in the "middle" tier math program in high school. But around sophomore year I wanted to get more into science/engineering but you can't switch tiers or catch up to those ahead of you, no matter if you're making extra effort and doing well. It was frustrating.

In my case I got a letter about summer school at a local university. So I pre-calced over summer school to get moved into calculus in high school. It honestly changed my path. I get having tiers, but once placed into one its hard to move. If I wasn't self motivated, and had the opportunity to try I would be in a different place.

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

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened in California over the last 50 years to make math scores plummet ?

Declining math scores can be tied almost entirely tied to economic disparity (which unfortunately tracks with race pretty closely). Rich kids are on track, poor kids are far behind. Unfortunately I don't expect these changes to impact that. It will likely take more rich kids out of public schools and further widen the gap.

> Rich kids are on track, poor kids are far behind

The achievement gap is growing. Part of this is explained by union dynamics [1]. Part by California's elites caring less about addressing the gap than talking about it.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X2110063...

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

#108
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…

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 everyone. You can’t have both. Take it from someone who has direct experience with communism, which is the same mentality that drives this.

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

#109
post #86

The tension here is that educational achievement is a proxy measurement for IQ and in capitalist societies IQ is directly correlated with income. The cultural ideal here in the US is that hard work, effort, and grit is what is necessary for success. It is supposed to be purely egalitarian; you get what you give. However whether you are born with a high IQ is purely random, and even worse IQ is heritable. This is crea…

> whether you are born with a high IQ is purely random, and even worse IQ is heritable This sounds contradictory to me. Moreover, how does IQ differ in this respect from "capacity and willingness to do hard work"?

I mean they are completely different measures. They both contribute to success but can be tested independantly.

Also assuming that "capacity and willingness to do hard work" is a personality trait, that is also largely random. So no matter which way you slice it, you gotta get lucky on either the intelligence or industriousness axes (or both) to be successful.

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

#110
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…

It's almost a case of inmates running the asylum --but in this case, it's not even the inmates but their caregivers who in their maternalistic view seem to think they know what's best for the "inmates" and are guiding them to the path to "hell" --hell being a reduced education in an increasingly competitive labor market.
Post reply on HN