4 ms·

There is also this: https://equitablemath.org/ https://equitablemath.org/ which is on its way to be implemented in Oakland, CA schools. PDF brochures: https:/

There is also this: https://equitablemath.org/ https://equitablemath.org/ which is on its way to be implemented in Oakland, CA schools. PDF brochures: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... WSJ opinion piece on it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... Edit: Please scroll down and look at the signatories. Dozens of professors at University of California are voicing their concerns and the people of HN have nothing better than to flag it? It takes courage to put their names/careers on the line.

brightball 5y ago
Ummmm…what the hell? “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false,” the manual explains. “Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates ‘objectivity.’“
- stillbourne 5y ago
  This is not a new concept, nor is it as deranged as you make it seem. There is an idea that developing an intuition for mathematics is more important than rote solving of problems. Successful approximation through intuition has been a defining measure of overall ability in mathematics since the enlightenment period and yet we still enforce a rote systems that makes mathematics incredibly difficult to teach as its completely unengaging. I remember in grade school when I was in third grade our teacher taught us the cross hatch multiplication method. I loved it and basically learned how to do it in my head. The next year I went to a different school with a different curriculum. We started doing timed tests for multiplication problems. I stopped showing my work because it was tedious to write out and I wanted to be the first to turn mine in. So instead I just wrote the answer I had come up with visualizing the problems. I scored well with the correct answers most of the time, but the teacher found it unacceptable that I didn't show my work and started giving me bad scores for not doing it "right." Doing it "right" doesn't encourage mathematical intuition, or engage young minds in thinking about problems abstractly in their heads, it forces them to be nothing more than spreadsheets accounting pointless sums, differences, products and dividends. That's not a great math education.
  - brightball 5y ago
    You're not arguing against a correct answer though, you are arguing against showing your work. The answers are still objectively correct. Objectively right or wrong.
    - stillbourne 5y ago
      Not really, I got answers wrong more often than some other students, but I had a skill none of the other students had after I switched schools. The ability to think about math. I've always had a cavalier attitude about the "correct" answer, being able to think in my head and come up with approximate answers is more important. I still think the teacher was wrong to mark my answers incorrectly when it was clear that I was turning my papers in minutes faster than the other students and only having a margin of error within 5%. That ability to think about problems in my head wouldn't have developed if I wasn't afraid to get an answer or two wrong in the pursuit of intuition. It's no different to me. Even in my work I'd rather get the approximation first, than shoot for precision later. I think that's an attitude that gets lost in the mix of precision first. It's certainly an attitude I took into adulthood that has been a boon to me professionally. When I'm writing software, the first step is do it, the second step is do it better and the third step is do it right. Imagine trying to write an entire software application and having it work perfectly the first time you build and execute it. If we can't achieve that kind of perfection in our work as professionals and adults why would we force it on our kids?
      - brightball 5y ago
        Look, I get it when it comes to showing work...but teachers get you to show work in many cases so they can see if you were on the right track and identify exactly where you went wrong. When you show your work, they can give you partial credit instead of marking the entire thing incorrect if you are wrong. The other benefit of it is that it prevents people from trying to rely on calculators (if available) to ensure that the students knows how to work through the multiple steps of the problem. When it comes to math applications in life, estimates are great for forecasting, quick budgeting and several other things. Career wise though, anything to do with financials or engineering is never going to be okay with the answer in your head being in the ballpark. It's a great skill that you have, no doubt, but in order to teach and ensure the students are learning how to work through a problem the teacher needs to see the steps that they are going through to get there.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  That's statement is true of any abstract axiomatic system, and mathematics (or, rather, any mathematics) is an abstract axiomatic system, therefore it is true of any mathematics [0]. There are mathematics that are useful in empirically testable contexts, but not mathematics which are objectively true beyond that. OTOH, other than as deep philosophical background I don't see s lot of value to this in informing K-12 mathematics curriculum, which is firmly in the domain where that statement, while true, has at best very little discernable practical impact, and at worst can contribute to unnecesssry confusion. [0] It’s also, for the same reason, true of any deontological system of morality, which I suspect is a hidden reason people are opposed to it being recognized in any context.
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    > That's statement is true of any abstract axiomatic system, and mathematics (or, rather, any mathematics) is an abstract axiomatic system, therefore it is true of any mathematics Are you referring to incompleteness theorem? If so, that’s about proof not epistemology unless I’m quite mistaken. Whether you can prove something is true is not the same as saying it’s entirely subjective. In fact as incompleteness is a proof of a universal truth then using it as proof of subjectivism is incoherent.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Are you referring to incompleteness theorem? No, I’m referring to the fundamental nature of a priori reasoning from axioms as distinct from empirical exploration of reality. Mathematics is itself the first, though it becomes useful in connection with the second.
coolspot 5y ago
WSJ archived: https://archive.is/X7Bfa https://archive.is/X7Bfa
drooby 5y ago
With this model we ALL get to be intellectually bankrupt. Yay social justice equity!
threatofrain 5y ago
It's notable that proposals for racial equity listed in their Strides never mention that Asians even exist. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It's notable that proposals for racial equity listed in their Strides never mention that Asians even exist. So? It doesn’t purport to enumerate groups that exist, it identifies groups for which it contends structural barriers in pre-existing approaches for which corrective measures are proposed. And those groups identified overlap Asians, though Asians qua Asians aren’t among them (the groups are Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.) But since you raise that document, on the more substantive hand, it’s notable that a standard conservative complaint about common teaching methods allegedly encountered under “Common Core” standards (which is not a feature of the standards themselves) is present as one of the features of “white supremacy” in teaching against which the document is directed. ---[quote]--- White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... Students are required to “show their work” in standardized, prescribed ways. Math teachers ask students to show work so that teachers know what students are thinking, but that can center the teacher’s need to understand rather than student learning. Teachers should seek to understand individual student perspectives and focus on students showing their work in ways that help students learn how to process information. [...] The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life. If we take the opportunity to explore why there are different ways to approach the same problem, it can be a learning moment for the entire class. ---[end quote]---
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Curation and what you leave out speaks volumes. Apparently, in all their listed Strides, zero mention is just right. Asians are about 14.6% of California. Leading with > So? It doesn’t purport to enumerate groups that exist, it identifies groups for which it contends structural barriers in pre-existing approaches for which corrective measures are proposed. And those groups identified overlap Asians, though Asians qua Asians aren’t among them (the groups are Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.) ...is cold comfort. > But since you raise that document, on the more substantive hand, it’s notable that a standard conservative complaint about common teaching methods allegedly encountered under “Common Core” standards (which is not a feature of the standards themselves) is present as one of the features of “white supremacy” in teaching against which the document is directed. And what is this about American conservatism? I'm talking about whether Asians should go completely unmentioned in a policy document on racial equity for Californian math pedagogy. And Asians are not necessarily US conservatives, especially with respect to funding public education.

brightball 5y ago

Ummmm…what the hell? “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false,” the manual explains. “Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates ‘objectivity.’“

stillbourne 5y ago
This is not a new concept, nor is it as deranged as you make it seem. There is an idea that developing an intuition for mathematics is more important than rote solving of problems. Successful approximation through intuition has been a defining measure of overall ability in mathematics since the enlightenment period and yet we still enforce a rote systems that makes mathematics incredibly difficult to teach as its completely unengaging. I remember in grade school when I was in third grade our teacher taught us the cross hatch multiplication method. I loved it and basically learned how to do it in my head. The next year I went to a different school with a different curriculum. We started doing timed tests for multiplication problems. I stopped showing my work because it was tedious to write out and I wanted to be the first to turn mine in. So instead I just wrote the answer I had come up with visualizing the problems. I scored well with the correct answers most of the time, but the teacher found it unacceptable that I didn't show my work and started giving me bad scores for not doing it "right." Doing it "right" doesn't encourage mathematical intuition, or engage young minds in thinking about problems abstractly in their heads, it forces them to be nothing more than spreadsheets accounting pointless sums, differences, products and dividends. That's not a great math education.
- brightball 5y ago
  You're not arguing against a correct answer though, you are arguing against showing your work. The answers are still objectively correct. Objectively right or wrong.
  - stillbourne 5y ago
    Not really, I got answers wrong more often than some other students, but I had a skill none of the other students had after I switched schools. The ability to think about math. I've always had a cavalier attitude about the "correct" answer, being able to think in my head and come up with approximate answers is more important. I still think the teacher was wrong to mark my answers incorrectly when it was clear that I was turning my papers in minutes faster than the other students and only having a margin of error within 5%. That ability to think about problems in my head wouldn't have developed if I wasn't afraid to get an answer or two wrong in the pursuit of intuition. It's no different to me. Even in my work I'd rather get the approximation first, than shoot for precision later. I think that's an attitude that gets lost in the mix of precision first. It's certainly an attitude I took into adulthood that has been a boon to me professionally. When I'm writing software, the first step is do it, the second step is do it better and the third step is do it right. Imagine trying to write an entire software application and having it work perfectly the first time you build and execute it. If we can't achieve that kind of perfection in our work as professionals and adults why would we force it on our kids?
    - brightball 5y ago
      Look, I get it when it comes to showing work...but teachers get you to show work in many cases so they can see if you were on the right track and identify exactly where you went wrong. When you show your work, they can give you partial credit instead of marking the entire thing incorrect if you are wrong. The other benefit of it is that it prevents people from trying to rely on calculators (if available) to ensure that the students knows how to work through the multiple steps of the problem. When it comes to math applications in life, estimates are great for forecasting, quick budgeting and several other things. Career wise though, anything to do with financials or engineering is never going to be okay with the answer in your head being in the ballpark. It's a great skill that you have, no doubt, but in order to teach and ensure the students are learning how to work through a problem the teacher needs to see the steps that they are going through to get there.
dragonwriter 5y ago
That's statement is true of any abstract axiomatic system, and mathematics (or, rather, any mathematics) is an abstract axiomatic system, therefore it is true of any mathematics [0]. There are mathematics that are useful in empirically testable contexts, but not mathematics which are objectively true beyond that. OTOH, other than as deep philosophical background I don't see s lot of value to this in informing K-12 mathematics curriculum, which is firmly in the domain where that statement, while true, has at best very little discernable practical impact, and at worst can contribute to unnecesssry confusion. [0] It’s also, for the same reason, true of any deontological system of morality, which I suspect is a hidden reason people are opposed to it being recognized in any context.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > That's statement is true of any abstract axiomatic system, and mathematics (or, rather, any mathematics) is an abstract axiomatic system, therefore it is true of any mathematics Are you referring to incompleteness theorem? If so, that’s about proof not epistemology unless I’m quite mistaken. Whether you can prove something is true is not the same as saying it’s entirely subjective. In fact as incompleteness is a proof of a universal truth then using it as proof of subjectivism is incoherent.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Are you referring to incompleteness theorem? No, I’m referring to the fundamental nature of a priori reasoning from axioms as distinct from empirical exploration of reality. Mathematics is itself the first, though it becomes useful in connection with the second.

coolspot 5y ago

WSJ archived: https://archive.is/X7Bfa https://archive.is/X7Bfa

drooby 5y ago

With this model we ALL get to be intellectually bankrupt. Yay social justice equity!

threatofrain 5y ago

It's notable that proposals for racial equity listed in their Strides never mention that Asians even exist. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> It's notable that proposals for racial equity listed in their Strides never mention that Asians even exist. So? It doesn’t purport to enumerate groups that exist, it identifies groups for which it contends structural barriers in pre-existing approaches for which corrective measures are proposed. And those groups identified overlap Asians, though Asians qua Asians aren’t among them (the groups are Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.) But since you raise that document, on the more substantive hand, it’s notable that a standard conservative complaint about common teaching methods allegedly encountered under “Common Core” standards (which is not a feature of the standards themselves) is present as one of the features of “white supremacy” in teaching against which the document is directed. ---[quote]--- White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... Students are required to “show their work” in standardized, prescribed ways. Math teachers ask students to show work so that teachers know what students are thinking, but that can center the teacher’s need to understand rather than student learning. Teachers should seek to understand individual student perspectives and focus on students showing their work in ways that help students learn how to process information. [...] The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life. If we take the opportunity to explore why there are different ways to approach the same problem, it can be a learning moment for the entire class. ---[end quote]---
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Curation and what you leave out speaks volumes. Apparently, in all their listed Strides, zero mention is just right. Asians are about 14.6% of California. Leading with > So? It doesn’t purport to enumerate groups that exist, it identifies groups for which it contends structural barriers in pre-existing approaches for which corrective measures are proposed. And those groups identified overlap Asians, though Asians qua Asians aren’t among them (the groups are Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.) ...is cold comfort. > But since you raise that document, on the more substantive hand, it’s notable that a standard conservative complaint about common teaching methods allegedly encountered under “Common Core” standards (which is not a feature of the standards themselves) is present as one of the features of “white supremacy” in teaching against which the document is directed. And what is this about American conservatism? I'm talking about whether Asians should go completely unmentioned in a policy document on racial equity for Californian math pedagogy. And Asians are not necessarily US conservatives, especially with respect to funding public education.