5 ms·

I agree that that Reason article is very flamebait. I also agree that math should be made accessible to all students and that we shouldn't effectively be deter

I agree that that Reason article is very flamebait. I also agree that math should be made accessible to all students and that we shouldn't effectively be determining kids' future in math when they're in sixth grade. Everyone should be able to find the "joy" of math. Where I disagree is in the proposed methods, though I don't know what the "right" answer would be. The idea of a completely homogenous experience for all middle schoolers is what I experienced in going to a smaller middle school. There was only one track, and as one of those "good at math" kids, it was A+ all day with essentially no effort. As a result, I built exactly zero study skills and most classes were me getting my work done quickly and then twiddling my thumbs waiting for others in the class to catch up. I didn't actually didn't find any joy in math until taking Calculus in high school. That was the first time I felt truly challenged, and the lack of study skills made it an initially painful experience. Finding success in discovering the concepts and eventually mastering them was exciting. Even though it's been 30 years, I still remember the exact moment that Calculus "clicked" for me. Everyone deserves that experience. The right solution should be one where all students get that, but I don't think the proposed framework provides that.

smsm42 5y ago
> Everyone should be able to find the "joy" of math. There's the key difference in approach. Everyone should be able to, but not everyone will. Some people find joy in it, some people find it deathly boring. Some people are fabulous at it, some couldn't do it literally when their livelyhoods - and sometimes lives - depend on it. One approach is to enable those who benefit from it - and give those who do not something else, more fit to them. Each person get their equal sets of chances, but not everyone would take them, and not everyone will succeed. Another - the "equity" - approach says everybody should have exactly the same result, whatever it costs. If somebody would benefit from a very deep math education, but others would not - nobody gets a deep math education, in order for nobody to be "left behind". Under the guise of "diversity and inclusion", the actual diversity - diversity of interests, capabilities and skills - gets suppressed, while enforced equality of the lowest common denominator replaces it. The results of it would be disastrous. Lowest common denominator would never enable students that don't like math, but it would disable ones that could.
- pksebben 5y ago
  the idea that the reason article puts forward; that the new california curriculum is "lowest common denominator" or "one size fits all" is fallacious. read the actual proposal- it's a lot more nuanced than this makes it out to be https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
  - smsm42 5y ago
    Could you outline in short where the nuances that Reason is missing are? I'm afraid life's too short to analyze a dozen on 60-page documents in bureaucratese... Is it correct that the authors reject the idea of diversity of skills among the students and support the idea that teachers should enforce equalization of achievement, regardless of skill, as Reason states?
    - lupire 5y ago
      Why do you believe Reason's claims without evidence?
      - smsm42 5y ago
        There is evidence. I feel people started using "without evidence" as "I disagree with it" lately and it's just wrong. The evidence is outlined in the article and supported by my prior knowledge of how woke education works and what Reason is. I can not independently experience and evaluate everything in the world, so for some things I must rely on trusting other people to deliver the information. Reason is not perfect but usually reliable enough to not distort the information beyond recognition. So, if in a particular case it is claimed that they got it wrong, I'd like at least specific information about what they got wrong and why I should change my mind about them. Just saying "oh it's all wrong" and dumping link to a gigabyte of dense bureaucratic language is not going to convince anybody. Reason did the work of sifting through it and refining the conclusions. Maybe they did it wrong, in this case the right thing is to point out the mistakes, not to say "it's all just wrong, but I won't tell you where".

smsm42 5y ago

> Everyone should be able to find the "joy" of math. There's the key difference in approach. Everyone should be able to, but not everyone will. Some people find joy in it, some people find it deathly boring. Some people are fabulous at it, some couldn't do it literally when their livelyhoods - and sometimes lives - depend on it. One approach is to enable those who benefit from it - and give those who do not something else, more fit to them. Each person get their equal sets of chances, but not everyone would take them, and not everyone will succeed. Another - the "equity" - approach says everybody should have exactly the same result, whatever it costs. If somebody would benefit from a very deep math education, but others would not - nobody gets a deep math education, in order for nobody to be "left behind". Under the guise of "diversity and inclusion", the actual diversity - diversity of interests, capabilities and skills - gets suppressed, while enforced equality of the lowest common denominator replaces it. The results of it would be disastrous. Lowest common denominator would never enable students that don't like math, but it would disable ones that could.

pksebben 5y ago
the idea that the reason article puts forward; that the new california curriculum is "lowest common denominator" or "one size fits all" is fallacious. read the actual proposal- it's a lot more nuanced than this makes it out to be https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
- smsm42 5y ago
  Could you outline in short where the nuances that Reason is missing are? I'm afraid life's too short to analyze a dozen on 60-page documents in bureaucratese... Is it correct that the authors reject the idea of diversity of skills among the students and support the idea that teachers should enforce equalization of achievement, regardless of skill, as Reason states?
  - lupire 5y ago
    Why do you believe Reason's claims without evidence?
    - smsm42 5y ago
      There is evidence. I feel people started using "without evidence" as "I disagree with it" lately and it's just wrong. The evidence is outlined in the article and supported by my prior knowledge of how woke education works and what Reason is. I can not independently experience and evaluate everything in the world, so for some things I must rely on trusting other people to deliver the information. Reason is not perfect but usually reliable enough to not distort the information beyond recognition. So, if in a particular case it is claimed that they got it wrong, I'd like at least specific information about what they got wrong and why I should change my mind about them. Just saying "oh it's all wrong" and dumping link to a gigabyte of dense bureaucratic language is not going to convince anybody. Reason did the work of sifting through it and refining the conclusions. Maybe they did it wrong, in this case the right thing is to point out the mistakes, not to say "it's all just wrong, but I won't tell you where".