3 ms·

HN is unfortunately the extremely wrong place to discuss this :( Language like that can be used by bad-faith folks here to push the (false and ridiculous) idea

HN is unfortunately the extremely wrong place to discuss this :( Language like that can be used by bad-faith folks here to push the (false and ridiculous) idea that the Equitable Math people don’t care about mathematical rigor or logical reasoning. The idea is that those attitudes encourage hypercompetitiveness among children and inappropriately reinforce the idea that math grades are a measure of “inherent ability.” - “Independent practice is valued over teamwork” encourages a classroom where the “best students” come from families who can afford private tutoring - “focus on getting the right answer” means that teachers don’t get an appropriate sense of where students are actually struggling, and again incentivizes the affluent privately-tutored student who doesn’t have to worry about explaining their answer. It is not that either of these are inherently “white supremacist,” but they are inherently poor measures of mathematical understanding. The racism connection comes in by the fact that these are measures which can be “juked” by affluence, and that students from rough backgrounds are unfairly penalized. Given that racism in US teachers is also a big problem, it can lead to ugly situations like “Jimmy is dumb at math and can’t do Algebra II” rather than “Jimmy makes a lot of dumb sign errors and needs specific practice.” In particular: these are (nominally) race-neutral criticisms of US public education with especially acute impact for black students, but also affect white students from tougher backgrounds.

temp8964 6y ago
You are exaggerating lots of things here. - The link between “Independent practice is valued over teamwork” to "private tutoring" is very weak. - The link between “focus on getting the right answer” to "private tutoring" is very weak. - No. Those measures do not particularly unfairly penalize students from rough backgrounds. No matter what other measures you propose, affluent students can benefit more. - No. Racism in US teachers is not a big problem. - Focusing on right answers and using standardized tests actually help students from tougher backgrounds. Not the other way around.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, as is racism among doctors and bankers[1]. And focusing on standardized test scores almost always hurts poor students because it rewards families who can afford private test preparation[2]. These are scientific facts with a great deal of evidence - evidence which is considerably more compelling than “it sounds good to Hacker News.” You are just wrong. You cannot just make things up because they are ideologically convenient. And I am so sick of having the same zombie arguments with people who are recklessly indifferent to the facts at hand. > In this sample, we found no significant association between occupation and level of bias (see Table 4). That is, teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. This result persisted through all five models. That is, this lack of relationship held despite controlling for demographic factors (Model 2), educa- tion (Model 3), political preference (Model 4), or all of these characteristics combined (Model 5). > In conclusion, we have found that teachers’ [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. These findings challenge the notion that teachers might be uniquely equipped to instill positive racial attitudes in children or bring about racial justice, instead indicating that teachers need just as much sup- port in contending with their biases as the population at large. > Researchers, including those who work for the test companies, have known wealth is strongly correlated with outcomes on standardized tests for years. There are several reasons why. Wealthy students attend higher ranked schools within more financially resourced districts. Richer families can afford more tutoring, test prep and enrichment activities. The College Board never claimed that test prep could improve scores until it was available for free online, at which point the evidence of improvement came rolling in. Standardized tests are better proxies for how many opportunities a student has been afforded than they are predictors for students’ potential. Consequently, tests weed out budding low-income students instead of creating equitable access to institutions that help build wealth. This is why many colleges have abandoned using standardized test altogether. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X20912758?casa_token=Y2RAU9sDmvgAAAAA:ncmagk0D8VVLBg5x9hJ6WfVI_Qgk9nrWqxUUMFewFp4myKTmlU4mQ1YGQz3t-GgDNYLTjwAJsxkKpQ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2091275... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/17/students-need-more-than-an-sat-adversity-score-they-need-a-boost-in-wealth/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/17/student...
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, Your own fucking quotes contradict that. > teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. > In conclusion, we have found that teachers' [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. At least put in the effort to find citations that don't directly admit that the claim you're making is false.
    - miltonsopus 6y ago
      I think that you have missed the point. It is implied in his argument that if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US).
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US). And if the level of murder in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with murder in US teachers (as a result of there being a problem with murder in the US). Even under the grossly unsubstatiated assumption that there is particularly a problem with murder in the US - rather than some specific murderers (or white supremacists, as the case may be) who know perfectly well who they are and will not respond to 'raising awareness' about 'anti-murderism' - presenting that as "Murder by US teachers is in fact a big problem." is at best ridiculous cherry-picking.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Replace "teachers" with "police" and you do get a reasonable argument. In a situation where someone has outsized authority and influence, even a baseline level of <bad thing> is worse than normal. If you're looking to affect outcomes most significantly, reducing "racism" amongst teachers is probably going to be more impactful per $ than reducing it amongst the general population.

temp8964 6y ago

You are exaggerating lots of things here. - The link between “Independent practice is valued over teamwork” to "private tutoring" is very weak. - The link between “focus on getting the right answer” to "private tutoring" is very weak. - No. Those measures do not particularly unfairly penalize students from rough backgrounds. No matter what other measures you propose, affluent students can benefit more. - No. Racism in US teachers is not a big problem. - Focusing on right answers and using standardized tests actually help students from tougher backgrounds. Not the other way around.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, as is racism among doctors and bankers[1]. And focusing on standardized test scores almost always hurts poor students because it rewards families who can afford private test preparation[2]. These are scientific facts with a great deal of evidence - evidence which is considerably more compelling than “it sounds good to Hacker News.” You are just wrong. You cannot just make things up because they are ideologically convenient. And I am so sick of having the same zombie arguments with people who are recklessly indifferent to the facts at hand. > In this sample, we found no significant association between occupation and level of bias (see Table 4). That is, teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. This result persisted through all five models. That is, this lack of relationship held despite controlling for demographic factors (Model 2), educa- tion (Model 3), political preference (Model 4), or all of these characteristics combined (Model 5). > In conclusion, we have found that teachers’ [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. These findings challenge the notion that teachers might be uniquely equipped to instill positive racial attitudes in children or bring about racial justice, instead indicating that teachers need just as much sup- port in contending with their biases as the population at large. > Researchers, including those who work for the test companies, have known wealth is strongly correlated with outcomes on standardized tests for years. There are several reasons why. Wealthy students attend higher ranked schools within more financially resourced districts. Richer families can afford more tutoring, test prep and enrichment activities. The College Board never claimed that test prep could improve scores until it was available for free online, at which point the evidence of improvement came rolling in. Standardized tests are better proxies for how many opportunities a student has been afforded than they are predictors for students’ potential. Consequently, tests weed out budding low-income students instead of creating equitable access to institutions that help build wealth. This is why many colleges have abandoned using standardized test altogether. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X20912758?casa_token=Y2RAU9sDmvgAAAAA:ncmagk0D8VVLBg5x9hJ6WfVI_Qgk9nrWqxUUMFewFp4myKTmlU4mQ1YGQz3t-GgDNYLTjwAJsxkKpQ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2091275... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/17/students-need-more-than-an-sat-adversity-score-they-need-a-boost-in-wealth/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/17/student...
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, Your own fucking quotes contradict that. > teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. > In conclusion, we have found that teachers' [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. At least put in the effort to find citations that don't directly admit that the claim you're making is false.
  - miltonsopus 6y ago
    I think that you have missed the point. It is implied in his argument that if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US).
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US). And if the level of murder in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with murder in US teachers (as a result of there being a problem with murder in the US). Even under the grossly unsubstatiated assumption that there is particularly a problem with murder in the US - rather than some specific murderers (or white supremacists, as the case may be) who know perfectly well who they are and will not respond to 'raising awareness' about 'anti-murderism' - presenting that as "Murder by US teachers is in fact a big problem." is at best ridiculous cherry-picking.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Replace "teachers" with "police" and you do get a reasonable argument. In a situation where someone has outsized authority and influence, even a baseline level of <bad thing> is worse than normal. If you're looking to affect outcomes most significantly, reducing "racism" amongst teachers is probably going to be more impactful per $ than reducing it amongst the general population.