2 ms·

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 talkin

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

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.