5 ms·

What you said has nothing to do with the discussion. I think 100% of readers here understand math problems can be solved in different ways and math teaching sho

What you said has nothing to do with the discussion. I think 100% of readers here understand math problems can be solved in different ways and math teaching should not choosing only one approach as the "right" one. But it is obvious that this is not the point in the discussion of the statements like "White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... The focus is on getting the 'right' answer."

eesmith 5y ago
I'm referencing the source material in the Newsweek article. How can it not relevant? You can read https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... yourself and see the full current context. I say "current" because it was updated in May 2021. The Newsweek article cites the original publication, which is at https://web.archive.org/web/20210212170440/https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210212170440/https://equitable... . The current document says: "There is a greater focus on getting the "right" answer than understanding concepts and reasoning." This is immediately followed by the explanation: > Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict. Some math problems may have more than one right answer and some may not have a solution at all, depending on the content and the context. And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning. There's also (on a search for the word 'focus'): > And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning. ... NOTE! In the 2020 document, the quote is indeed "The focus is on getting the “right” answer. / The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Up-holding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." The original document asks teachers that instead of emphasizing questions with only one "right" answer to instead: > - Choose problems that have complex, competing, or multiple answers > Verbal Example: Come up with at least two answers that might solve this problem > Classroom Activity: Challenge standardized test questions by getting the “right” answer, but justify other answers by unpacking the assumptions that are made in the problem. > Classroom Activity: Deconstructed Multiple Choice - given a set of multiple choice answers, students discuss why these answers may have been included (can also be used to highlight common mistakes). > Professional Development: Study the purpose of math education, and re-envision it. Schooling as we know it began during the industrial revolution, when precision and accuracy were highly valued. What are the myriad ways we can conceptualize mathematics in today’s world and beyond? > - Engage with true problem solving > Verbal Example: What are some strategies we can use to engage with this problem? > Classroom Activity: Using a set of data, analyze it in multiple ways to draw different conclusions. > Professional Development: Study the art of problem solving by engaging in rich, complex mathematical problems. Consider whether your own content knowledge is sufficient to allow you to problem solve through math without the strategies you typically use. Do you interpret this 2020 document as arguing "Trying to get the right answer is white supremacy"? I don't. It's all about how "right" is a tricky concept, and influenced by the dominant culture. Nor does it come across like encouraging a "lifetime of innumeracy and being the patsies of those who do know math." And I don't see how someone could draw that conclusion after reading the source material. I can understand how someone can draw that conclusion after reading cherry-picked quotes. But that's why I think it's important to reference the original material. The points in the updated document are along the same lines as the original document, so it's not like the authors did a 180, but rather clarified their intent.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  I’m familiar with both the original and update. I’ve heard academics blithely agree that math has no objective truths. Perhaps we can agree on this: when talking about math education, rather than the philosophy of math, there is no objectively proper curriculum. Rather, the curricula referenced by EquitableMath and researched by Dr. Gutierrez represent available public school material in the USA. I think it’s an unfortunate choice in EquitableMath to talk about the characteristics of math and the characteristics of math education as inextricably joined. We know that’s not true on a global scale, with or without the path-dependence that led to white supremacy as part of the wider politics around education. Do we have common ground in saying that the objective of this dialogue is to improve math education so that pupils of any background have the skills to participate in a problem-solving job interview?
  - eesmith 5y ago
    While it seems nitpicky to point out, the updated document does not use the term "objective truth". Nor "objective" nor "truth." It does use the term "objectivity." As you likely know, page 5 stresses: > The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces. It then lists "Objectivity" as one of the "terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun." I know nothing about their research, much less their definition, and am not able to comment meaningfully on if it can even be applied to the concept "objective truth". What I do know is that most of the pop culture derision of this paper, including some comments here on HN, are not based on actually reading the paper but on cherry-picked quotes. > We know that’s not true on a global scale I do not know what your statement means, much less understand how you know that. It's clearly concerning the US. I don't think it's meaningful to extrapolate it to the rest of the world. (Is white supremacy as characterized by Jones and Okun an issue in every country? I find that hard to believe.) > Do we have common ground in saying that the objective of this dialogue is to improve math education so that pupils of any background have the skills to participate in a problem-solving job interview? Not at all. I don't believe schools should be viewed as producing products to be consumed by employers. They also produce citizens, who likely need some math fluency in order to understand certain issues (to say nothing of biology and other fields). And they produce self-employed people who never have a job interview. (I don't think Bill Gates ever had a job interview.) And "problem-solving jobs" is such a wide-ranging topic that it would include preschool educator, commercial fisher, and bike mechanic - fields which I don't think require much math education.

eesmith 5y ago

I'm referencing the source material in the Newsweek article. How can it not relevant? You can read https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... yourself and see the full current context. I say "current" because it was updated in May 2021. The Newsweek article cites the original publication, which is at https://web.archive.org/web/20210212170440/https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210212170440/https://equitable... . The current document says: "There is a greater focus on getting the "right" answer than understanding concepts and reasoning." This is immediately followed by the explanation: > Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict. Some math problems may have more than one right answer and some may not have a solution at all, depending on the content and the context. And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning. There's also (on a search for the word 'focus'): > And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning. ... NOTE! In the 2020 document, the quote is indeed "The focus is on getting the “right” answer. / The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Up-holding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." The original document asks teachers that instead of emphasizing questions with only one "right" answer to instead: > - Choose problems that have complex, competing, or multiple answers > Verbal Example: Come up with at least two answers that might solve this problem > Classroom Activity: Challenge standardized test questions by getting the “right” answer, but justify other answers by unpacking the assumptions that are made in the problem. > Classroom Activity: Deconstructed Multiple Choice - given a set of multiple choice answers, students discuss why these answers may have been included (can also be used to highlight common mistakes). > Professional Development: Study the purpose of math education, and re-envision it. Schooling as we know it began during the industrial revolution, when precision and accuracy were highly valued. What are the myriad ways we can conceptualize mathematics in today’s world and beyond? > - Engage with true problem solving > Verbal Example: What are some strategies we can use to engage with this problem? > Classroom Activity: Using a set of data, analyze it in multiple ways to draw different conclusions. > Professional Development: Study the art of problem solving by engaging in rich, complex mathematical problems. Consider whether your own content knowledge is sufficient to allow you to problem solve through math without the strategies you typically use. Do you interpret this 2020 document as arguing "Trying to get the right answer is white supremacy"? I don't. It's all about how "right" is a tricky concept, and influenced by the dominant culture. Nor does it come across like encouraging a "lifetime of innumeracy and being the patsies of those who do know math." And I don't see how someone could draw that conclusion after reading the source material. I can understand how someone can draw that conclusion after reading cherry-picked quotes. But that's why I think it's important to reference the original material. The points in the updated document are along the same lines as the original document, so it's not like the authors did a 180, but rather clarified their intent.

ttyprintk 5y ago
I’m familiar with both the original and update. I’ve heard academics blithely agree that math has no objective truths. Perhaps we can agree on this: when talking about math education, rather than the philosophy of math, there is no objectively proper curriculum. Rather, the curricula referenced by EquitableMath and researched by Dr. Gutierrez represent available public school material in the USA. I think it’s an unfortunate choice in EquitableMath to talk about the characteristics of math and the characteristics of math education as inextricably joined. We know that’s not true on a global scale, with or without the path-dependence that led to white supremacy as part of the wider politics around education. Do we have common ground in saying that the objective of this dialogue is to improve math education so that pupils of any background have the skills to participate in a problem-solving job interview?
- eesmith 5y ago
  While it seems nitpicky to point out, the updated document does not use the term "objective truth". Nor "objective" nor "truth." It does use the term "objectivity." As you likely know, page 5 stresses: > The terms used in the engagement section of this resource are ideas presented in the dismantling Racism workbook (2016) notebook, grounded on the work of Jones and Okun (2001). It is important to read this article first to fully understand the terms that are identified as characteristics of white supremacy culture in organizations. We contextualize these ideas into the math classroom to make visible how white supremacy culture plays out in these spaces. It then lists "Objectivity" as one of the "terms used to identify white supremacy characteristics as defined by Jones and Okun." I know nothing about their research, much less their definition, and am not able to comment meaningfully on if it can even be applied to the concept "objective truth". What I do know is that most of the pop culture derision of this paper, including some comments here on HN, are not based on actually reading the paper but on cherry-picked quotes. > We know that’s not true on a global scale I do not know what your statement means, much less understand how you know that. It's clearly concerning the US. I don't think it's meaningful to extrapolate it to the rest of the world. (Is white supremacy as characterized by Jones and Okun an issue in every country? I find that hard to believe.) > Do we have common ground in saying that the objective of this dialogue is to improve math education so that pupils of any background have the skills to participate in a problem-solving job interview? Not at all. I don't believe schools should be viewed as producing products to be consumed by employers. They also produce citizens, who likely need some math fluency in order to understand certain issues (to say nothing of biology and other fields). And they produce self-employed people who never have a job interview. (I don't think Bill Gates ever had a job interview.) And "problem-solving jobs" is such a wide-ranging topic that it would include preschool educator, commercial fisher, and bike mechanic - fields which I don't think require much math education.