Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 925 posts

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#341

Post by Bratmon »

HelloNurse wrote: post #258
Bratmon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer to this is that schooling/care for people with disabilities that make it impossible for them to succeed in normal school should be a totally different budget with different success criteria than the budget for normal school. There are two different and contradictory goals here- the current dynamic where every gain for one is a loss for the other creates a ton of bad outcomes across the board.

[flagged]

> What sad place do you come from?

The American public education system

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#342

Post by ryandamm »

The root cause of the collapse in math education in California is one bad researcher's work, combined with politics.

Briefly, a Stanford-affiliated "researcher" named Jo Boaler produced two deeply underpowered studies claiming to show that putting all students in the same grade-level math course led to better outcomes for everyone — even the kids that would've normally been tracked into advanced math. But she only tested results on grade-level math — of course the would-be advanced kids did better on "grade level" math if they've taken it recently. The loss is the advanced math they didn't take.

Here's an article: https://stanfordreview.org/jo-boaler-and-the-woke-math-death...

I fought with my son's middle school administration about this precise issue. It is the stated policy of CA's state level education department to de-emphasize advanced math and tracking, in favor of these deeply suspect ideas. I'm pretty progressive in general, but this is braindead stupid, alarming, and self-defeating. (If you care about equity, you NEED to have options in the public school for the underprivileged gifted kids! the rich kids have lots of options and will be fine.)

It's deeply depressing, but education has long been a weak spot for California; since Prop 13 in the 1970s, California has been 49th or 50th in per-pupil funding for public education (excluding college, I think). But to compound that with this wrongheaded, moronic, politically suspect and quantitatively incorrect policy is... infuriating.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#343

Post by GoblinSlayer »

organsnyder wrote: post #308
nradov wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. Charter schools are public schools and often served by school bus routes or other public transit. Walking or cycling can also be options for some students. The real differentiating factor isn't wealth but simply giving a shit about your children. Parents have to take some minimal effort to enroll their children in a charter school and many simply don't bother.

It's not just giving a shit: it's also the capacity to act on giving a shit. I'm exhausted at the end of the day after getting the kids to bed, and I'm fortunate to be in a stable marriage, live in a large home that my wife and I own, and work a well-paying WFH job. I can only imagine how tiring it must be to not have those advantages. There are the parents doing heroics that I can hardly imagine, and they should be…

How difficult is it?

1. give a shit

2. enroll

3. ???

4. PROFIT!

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#344

Post by BobaFloutist »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #267
Catloafdev wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurdly problematic. Your solution is basically handicapping the schools with kids that perform worse and then potentially closing them? That doesn't solve the problem, this is just pro-Charter School propaganda that ignores the real-world effects of these positions. You've identified a real issue with the 'equality' vs 'equity' concept, that doesn't lead to 'Close public schools and switch everything to Cha…

What is your issue with redirecting funding from sucky schools towards ones that deliver results, while allowing school choice for students at the same time? I may be naive but that sounds fairly good

Charter schools deliver results the same way that private schools deliver results: selection bias.

It's really easy to have good outcomes when you have the ability to curate your student population. And though charter schools are regulated to make it harder for them to curate their student population, the statistical evidence is pretty unequivocal: they serve different populations than public schools, and their "better outcomes" immediately vanish when you control for that.

So, what is the issue with redirecting funding from sucky* schools towards ones that deliver results**?

* Schools that teach the general population

** Schools that teach a subset of the general population that always does better

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#345

Post by borski »

rayiner wrote: post #307
nkrisc wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s not a real choice. As household income decreases, the odds the child goes to the nearest school (regardless of how good it is) increases. Are you providing after school child care options or transportation to their school of choice? If not, then it’s not a real choice and kids from lower income households will remain disadvantaged. That is to say, the results will be mostly identical except now public mo…

> Because it’s not a real choice. As household income decreases, the odds the child goes to the nearest school (regardless of how good it is) increases. The “odds” don’t tell you whether or not it’s a “real choice.” Families that value education will take advantage of those opportunities. Families that don’t value education will get what they get. Lots of families don’t value education and there’s nothing you can do…

Surely it’s possible that a family might value education but not have the literal time, if they are working non stop, to take the kids to a further school? Or to take care of them afterward?

You’re avoiding the point by saying “anyone who cares can,” and avoiding the economics entirely.

Economics can force choices against your own best interests. If you have an hour between shifts and the school is 45 minutes away, you may have no choice.

This is separate from groups of people who don’t value education. This is about where others make that choice for them.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#346

Post by rayiner »

julianeon wrote: post #143
hedora wrote: post #53

This doesn't surprise me at all. From what I can tell, California's education system has moved from "equality" (which I would define as providing similar opportunities to all the kids) to focusing on "equity" (which I think they define as dictating the same outcome for all kids). To get an idea of how off the rails this has gotten, go read up on their statements trying to justify banning high school calculus. They ex…

> Personally, I think all funding in California education (other than terminal levels like 4 year bachelors and up) should be a function of the percentage of students that succeed at the next step. This has the unintended consequence of encouraging schools to eject students who are struggling. For example, if the student has a learning disability, declare that it's too serious for them to handle, and then transfer th…

> the "top" schools are just ones that reject, socioeconomically

Top schools aren’t that way merely because of socioeconomics.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#347

Post by wagwang »

j_w wrote: post #275
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your issue with redirecting funding from sucky schools towards ones that deliver results, while allowing school choice for students at the same time? I may be naive but that sounds fairly good

Because the "sucky" schools are statistically where poor people go to school, which statistically is where minorities go to school. School choice is bad because the only people who benefit from school choice are already wealthy - they can afford to transport their child to the school of their choice.

The people who benefit are not the wealthy, who can afford to simply buy a house in the school district of their desire, but simply middle class parents who care about their kids.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#348

Post by BobaFloutist »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #131
ryandrake wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Measuring (and funding) schools based on student outcome is fraught because a student's performance / preparedness for the "next level" is not entirely a function of the school. There are other significant parameters, including parental upbringing, home life stability, neighborhood safety, friends, hunger/nutrition, various trauma and abuse, the list goes on. I'm sure it's been studied, but I'd bet "school quality" i…

The number 1 predictor of educational outcome is IQ by a long shot, which is hardly affected by any of the factors you listed. Yes, high IQ kids usually have high IQ parents who are likely to prevent those things, partly because they are likely high income, but none of those are as important as how smart the child is.

It's actually zip code.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#349

Post by tracker1 »

kleiba2 wrote: post #28

I used to teach high school math. There was a big push for doing everything digitally. And admittedly, for some topics the use of technology in the classroom or at home can really be a benefit, for instance visualizations or interactive exercises. But having a digital device in class was the number one cause of distraction every time. For a lot of things, good old blackboards are just fine as are pen + paper exercise…

Not just for math, but the shift to electronics based learning in language skills is way behind classic approaches from a century or more ago. A lot of common core reasoning is based at a level most younger children cannot yet grasp, and it's no surprise they fail to adopt at sufficient levels in reality. Then schools systems circle the wagons to cover up their own failures.

Re: Citing 'severe' math deficits, UC faculty demand a return to SAT tests for STEM

#350

Post by fred_is_fred »

StateflowsLabs wrote: post #2

"The surge in math deficiencies after dropping the SAT highlights a systemic issue: grade inflation. Without a standardized baseline like the SAT/ACT, a 4.0 GPA from a high school with relaxed standards looks identical to a 4.0 from a highly rigorous one. Paradoxically, removing test requirements harms underprivileged students the most. Preparing for the SAT requires a book and an internet connection. In contrast, bu…

I've been wondering with all the data that's available now couldn't admissions look at a 4.0 from HS A vs a 4.0 at HS B and then compare those to actual grades on the campus once students were in class? Assuming HS A has lower standards, they should be able to tell that a 4.0 isnt as meaningful as a 4.0 from HS B. Seems like a straightforward exercise.
Post reply on HN