17 ms·

The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]. The FAQ is at [2] and d

The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]. The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. They are not banning gifted & talented programs or advanced students taking accelerated courses. They are not taking algebra out of the curriculum, although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. They are adding more statistics and probability, which I think are crucial in today's society. What they are fundamentally doing is breaking up the classic U.S. staged path where you learn algebra for a year, then geometry for a year, then back to algebra / pre-calc for a year, then maybe take statistics or calculus as an elective, etc. Instead, all branches of math will be taught in an integrated approach focused around applied problems. This is how a lot of European math courses are taught. In fact, I think HN would appreciate the shift from focusing on pure numbers and classic formulas to more applied uses of math, including algorithms, probability, data collected and analyzed in charts, etc. Students also forget a lot of algebra when they do a year of geometry by itself, then have to go back to algebra / pre-calc. It also does mean that in the transition, it will be harder for students to "test out" of the classic algebra I/II, geometry, pre-calc sequence, because it will just be "year X integrated math." But the framework does not forbid gifted and talented programs or anything like that. There will just be a few awkward years while the curriculum shifts. Now, there are some on the left who advocated for the elimination of gifted and talented programs altogether, for equity reasons. They did not get what they wanted in the new California framework. That hasn't stopped a lot of people from looking at what California is doing and imagining it is actually some kind of Harrison Bergeron dystopia, when that is absolutely not the case. [1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ [2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I’ve read most of the text. It’s pretty misleading to say the guidelines don’t ban accelerated courses, because they don’t really have a concept of “banning” things in general; they’re a vision of what the curriculum should look like, not a list of rules. The guidelines do make it pretty clear that accelerated classes are not part of the vision.
hintymad 5y ago
Ironically, California is so mismanaged and corrupted that many counties simple do not have gifted programs. Yeah, the 6th wealthiest state in the world couldn't afford a god damn gifted program, all the in name of so-called equity and inclusiveness. It's not the well-made families that get hurt. It is the families who try to make ends meet get hurt. Their kids are simply deprived the opportunity to continuously learn and get challenged. And for that, I won't forgive California's politicians and bureaucrats. It's also funny you mentioned that California will emphasize more on "applied math". I mean really? We're talking about high school maths. They are so simple and so fundamental that there shouldn't be a distinction between the applied and the theoretical. Teaching "applied maths" is simply a coded word for watering down the standard.
mherdeg 5y ago
Thanks very much for adding this context! I have not read the full docs and based on what I've read so far I don't feel like I'm thoroughly qualified to answer "is California removing Algebra from middle school?" Which, if they did, would I think be a mistake. What I can see is: (1) Chapter 7 of the first field review draft says that they intend to de-recommend "Algebra I" for people in grade, in favor of something called "CA CCSSM" which incorporates concepts of algebra. They seem to say that CA CCSSM is much more thorough and comprehensive than Algebra I and is a better choice for students who are showing particularly strong math skills. "In grade eight, the CA CCSSM are significantly more rigorous than those from previous grade-eight content standards. They address the foundations of algebra by including content that was previously part of the Algebra I course—such as more in-depth study of linear relationships and equations, a more formal treatment of functions, and the exploration of irrational numbers. … The rigor of the CA CCSSM for grade eight means the course sequencing needs to be calibrated to ensure students are able to productively engage with the additional content. Specifically, students who previously may have been able to succeed in an Algebra I course in eighth grade may find the new CA CCSSM for grade-eight content significantly more difficult. The CA CCSSM provides for strengthened conceptual understanding by encouraging students—even strong mathematics students—to take the grade eight CA CCSSM course instead of skipping ahead to Algebra I or Mathematics I in grade eight." (2) The FAQ and accompanying diagram say that they intend to recommend "Algebra I" as one of three options for a 9th grade curriculum -- with the other standard options being "Integrated I" and "MIC I". I think the idea this diagram presents is that 9th/10th grade carries Algebra I/Geometry or Integrated 1/Integrated 2 or MIC 1/MIC 2, and then you can spend 11th/12th grade studying other concepts in detail like statistics (great choice IMHO) or calculus. That's the diagram here: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/images/mathfwfaqs.png https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/images/mathfwfaqs.png (3) Critics of this proposal (writing at https://bit.ly/cmfanalysis https://bit.ly/cmfanalysis cited in the guest blog post linked here) argue that postponing Algebra I from 8th grade to 9th grade reduces the opportunity for students to study calculus in detail in high school. I happen to agree that calculus concepts might not be the most important -- maybe it's more important to get a good grounding in statistical thinking as opposed to integral calculus? Maybe it's better to learn really strong proof skills and approach calculus directly via real analysis? I dunno. I guess what would bug me would be if kids didn't get abstract thinking early. The core concept of algebraic thinking to me as a nonexpert is treating things as variables rather than concrete numbers, and being able to reason about changing a function or a family of functions rather than a specific line or curve. But what confuses me overall here is -- why does the CA Math Framework still include Algebra I as a 9th grade program? If the new 8th grade CA CCSSM is indeed so rigorous that stronger math students should take it, and if it includes the essentials of Algebra I, then why waste another year on the concepts again? I don't understand.
kaitai 5y ago
It's quite reminiscent of the Common Core fight. No one read the standards. I mean, you ask someone to sit in front of you and read "Summarize categorical data for two categories in two-way frequency tables. Interpret relative frequencies in the context of the data (including joint, marginal, and conditional relative frequencies). Recognize possible associations and trends in the data." and they just don't get that worked up. Instead it was a cultural fight over power, control, and who gets to set the agenda, that ignored the fact that Republicans participated in creating the Common Core. Nothing gets people to the polls like "schools brainwashing children" -- see Glenn Youngkin. We have the shittiest math education in the developed world, and it comes down to teacher training, teacher support, professional development, and ensuring that children are fed and in safe situations where they can do laundry and wear non-smelly clothes to school [1]. In Finland that is understood, and lo and behold, good scores overall. In the US we think that curriculum is a magic bullet. Like changing the textbook will change what kids learn. As a former math professor, this is bullshit. I can take whatever curriculum you want in math and transform it to meet students where they're at -- because I f*(&ing know math. Too many of our teachers don't, and it's our fault as a society. I left education because of the crap wages and that creeping feeling that my individual efforts to better things just couldn't match the magnitude of the problems. America keeps being a magic-bullet country. The vaccine will fix COVID, so we don't need societal support for public health measures. Right or left, I don't care; the right thinks "individual responsibility" is the magic bullet in the face of infrastructure problems, funding problems, everything, while the left thinks technocratic solutions or "being correct" will be the fix. I strongly support the shift to more applications of math, more stats and probability, more analysis of real-world systems. There is plenty of room to challenge gifted students in this context and I have done so myself -- you do need the time and support to build scaffolded projects so when "that kid" is done you can say, "Well, what about this?" and when that other kid is still struggling you can break it down. The factory grind of education in American and the fact that many math teachers don't even have a degree in math means that is quite difficult to put in place. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/schools-laundry-rooms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/schools-laundry-rooms....
skyde 5y ago
it does not forbid gifted & talented but you know damn well in practice the effect is it will completely kill all gifted & talented programs
cperciva 5y ago
they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. The point of high school Geometry was never to compute areas of fields. Trigonometry is far more useful for that anyway. The point of high school Geometry is that it is the first introduction to rigorous mathematical proof -- and has been, ever since Euclid's Elements.
- ThinBold 5y ago
  It is in geometry one can experience a spectrum of evidence from a picture (animated or not, interactive or not) to a line-to-line modus ponens proof. Not to mention the historical value that Euclid invented a literary genre that is now called "proofs". Good luck teaching kids "more useful" stuff like data science and quantum computing. High school teachers don't understand these topics and are more likely to teach them ineffectively. Now that's harmful and no one can blame geometry anymore.
- showerst 5y ago
  While both are clearly important, if we only have so many hours in the day I'd rather a high school student have a grasp on basic stats than basic formal proofs. As a data point of one (heh there's that stats again...) my two high school geometry classes 15 years ago never touched any proofs. I have no clue if they still teach that way. Edit: just noticed that I'm replying to someone who is far more knowledgeable about math than me. I stand by my point though, people like Colin can seek that out in more advanced classes.
  - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
    "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I had proofs in HS geometry way back when. I also hated it and it was the worst I ever did in a math class K-12.
- ivanech 5y ago
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I had originally assumed the criticisms were exaggerated, but the more I read about the new curriculum the less comfortable I am. It seems every defense is built around hedges like this one: > although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers Which suggests to me that they really are trying to walk back the complexity of the education, perhaps as part of a goal to force the variance of educational progress into a narrower range within classes. The language is so vague that it's hard to understand exactly what they're trying to do, which I think is their point. If they wanted to emphasize advanced education topics it would have been front and center in the plan. Instead, it seems like a footnote that we're supposed to assume will get taken care of in some future iteration of this integrative math program.
- octernion 5y ago
  The entire point is not to emphasize the advanced education topics -- which are actually offered pretty universally in California schools -- but to increase the number of students actually _taking_ those classes through the entire pipeline, and to embed those concepts in a more consistent, structured way. I'm not sure why how you get "walk back the complexity of education" when it's obvious that the current system is broken.
  - syki 5y ago
    I believe you are mistaken. One of the goals is to deny that people have different intellectual abilities. They seek to get rid of tracking and advanced courses. These reforms are related to what is being advocated by www.equitablemath.org. From their website: Students are tracked (into courses/pathways and within the classroom). This is a sign of white supremacy in their view. See this PDF: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
    - magicalist 5y ago
      What does this have to do with the actual changes being made?
cgh 5y ago
Thanks. The new emphasis on stats and probability is so important and is something I wish I’d had before taking my first university stats courses. There’s probably no branch of math more important to everyday life and maintaining an educated discourse in society.
monocasa 5y ago
Ironically, geometry literally means "the measuring of land" because it's a field derived from the bronze age super powers, who needed to resurvey the farming plots after each river flood. A farmer might actually have some benefit knowing it really well.
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  Also, it helps to have some intuition of geometry when you're actually building something (whether that be construction, mechanical engineering, woodcutting, papercrafting, you name it...) Geometry is one of those things that you can teach in the utmost horrible way though (make students memorize theorems verbatim), I understand why students can perceive it as incredibly boring and useless.
6f4f06c00484d34 5y ago
>They are not taking algebra out of the curriculum, although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. this blurb alone invalidates everything else you have to say. you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about.
- dang 5y ago
  Regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this, so I've banned the account. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ben7799 5y ago
Interesting thing with the integrated approach is my high school had that approach. That was private school, and I entered high school in 1990. I wonder how long European countries have been using this approach. The curriculum at my high school very deliberately blended all the mathematical subjects across the first 3 years with Calculus becoming dominant by the end of the 3rd year. However the entire goal of the integrated program was to maximize the amount of Calculus students could get through. I got not one year but two years of Calculus effectively by the end of HS and had no problem passing the AP calc exam. Probably only 10% of my HS class did that though, and that was already at a selective private school. Integrated is great as long it gets students to the same place.. it's still really important to get as many talented students into Calculus before HS graduation.
gautamdivgi 5y ago
Does it really help though? I mean parents with resources will always put their kids through private math courses which can be more rigorous and give their children an advantage in AP Math/Calc/etc. I don't think the disparity in math learning is from school.
- candiodari 5y ago
  Yes but this will hide that such a disparity exists.
crackercrews 5y ago
Unfortunate that this is the top post since almost all of the replies disagree with it. Would be better if another root-level comment were at the top.
abecedarius 5y ago
> manufactured outrage Have you ever seen Terence Tao signing up for a manufactured outrage? Alan Kay? If you're the type to read technical papers you'll recognize a bunch more names on the list of signers. Furthermore the language in the post was calm and measured.
- krastanov 5y ago
  There is another comment in this thread that addresses this very well: > I find it interesting with many of these criticisms that subject matter experts on maths, sciences, etc think that they are also subject matter experts on the pedagogy of maths, science, etc especially at a high school level. The people you mentioned are my idols, same as the authors and hosts of this blog post. But there is a world of difference between being a great scientist and being a great K12 teacher.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    My comment left out this aspect only because the names aren't familiar to me: > The signatories include ... educators with decades of experience teaching students at all levels ... people vested in mathematical high-school education, such as ...
    - krastanov 5y ago
      That is a well-intentioned but simply wrong statement in the blog. One of the letter authors is what I would call a professional educator in some way (a non-profit). The rest are university professors and a few are industry scientists. They are certainly not "people with experience teaching at all levels" even if they believe that. Same with the signatories. The vast majority are university professors. These people are generally great at what they do and frequently terrible at teaching, *especially* when teaching K12 students. I have seen it first hand as I have been organizing K12 events (not for "gifted" kids) and have been tutoring gifted students competing in the international physics Olympics over the last 8 years while working at Yale, Harvard, and MIT (as a graduate student and postdoc). Teaching competitive physics, teaching college students, teaching K12 students, and doing research are 4 completely different things. The signatories are certainly amazing at the research, but I have seen first hand how that type of professionals are just terrible at teaching K12 students while thinking they are doing great. Even worse, we usually pat ourselves on the back for having a single-day event with cool math organized for the K12 students, but never bother with the year-long battle to actually lift all boats. Obviously this is just my personal anecdote, but I do claim I have been very invested in exactly this type of education and have seen how well-meaning crazy-smart professors are failing to teach K12 students (in their once-a-year charity event) while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
threatofrain 5y ago
Talking about "testing out" and "gifted" programs is a complete distraction here, since very few students "test out", and taking Algebra in middle school is not considered a "gifted" program. With regards to math in California, gifted programs are largely not a story. A pillar of Equitable Math is that all students should be at the same level up until the last year of high school.¹ The re-arrangement of subjects is not the hotspot of contention, and neither is the disagreement over "deepness". The contention is over whether or not there ought to exist a faster track which, for example, permits students to take Algebra in middle school. This has been specifically derided as a sustainer of white supremacy under the Equitable Math discussion. A return to gifted programs as the way to deal with students with differences in math preparation and ambition would be a return to administrative opacity. A failure to specify tracks which allow students to take Algebra in middle school would be a solid win for private schools and after-school programs like RSM. Under Equitable Math, the last year in high school is the only year of differentiation. [1]: https://equitablemath.org https://equitablemath.org
- naasking 5y ago
  > A return to gifted programs as the way to deal with students with differences in math preparation and ambition would be a return to administrative opacity. I mean, if they're going to eliminate gifted programs for an advanced academic students, then they should eliminate sports teams for advanced athletic students by parity of reasoning. Isn't the star quarterback just as unfairly advantaged by family and genetics as the smart math geek?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Again, gifted programs are largely not a story in CA math. Students taking Algebra in middle school are not in a separate gifted and talented program, they are just in one of many pathways as specified by the Common Core. For example, in some nice school districts, about half of the students in middle school are on track for Algebra by 8th grade. These don't apply to any special program, there is no lottery, and they aren't hand-picked by teachers or administrators.
csee 5y ago
> the framework does not forbid gifted and talented programs How do I square this with their claim that the CMF is "placing obstacles (such as doubling-up, compressed courses, or outside-of-school private courses) in the way of those who want to take advanced math in higher grades."?
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  pretty easily, I think. even taking the claim as given, "placing obstacles" is not the same as "forbidding"
  - csee 5y ago
    This is semantics, no? Couldn't the obstacles be so large that it's practically the same as forbidding? When I read "they're not forbidden", I take that to also mean that there's few new obstacles.
  - nickff 5y ago
    This is a classic tactic. How many trees do you need to make a forest? How many pebbles make a dam?
  - sct202 5y ago
    To get around the obstacles most kids will need a very motivated parent who can advocate for them with admins, and that basically will just harm kids who's parents don't have the time/resources/charisma to make it happen for their kid.
Youden 5y ago
> The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. I don't know whether it's intentional but the FAQ reads like it's intending to deceive me. They answer questions with "no we're not doing that", then follow up with how they do exactly that with different words. For example: Q: "Does the draft Mathematics Framework eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs?" A: "No. The draft Mathematics Framework does not eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs (including programs that offer Integrated Math 1 or Algebra 1 courses to grade eight students). The draft Mathematics Framework emphasizes the importance of following the sequenced progression of topics laid out in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and considers the latest research on the impact of skipping grades or undermining the sequences progression." They're not "eliminating", they're "emphasising" and "considering". Maybe what they're doing really isn't eliminating but it sure reads like it is. The tone reads like corporate damage control. 'We didn't "spill" the oil, we misplaced it.'
- richk449 5y ago
  > They're not "eliminating", they're "emphasizing" and "considering". It is almost as if words have actual meanings ...
  - michaelterryio 5y ago
    Yes, “for now we aren’t eliminating because we could never force that through, but we will definitely be eliminating at the right opportunity and this moves us toward that”.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
"The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]." This is not manufactured outrage. I have read the framework (and many of the sources cited as support for the recommendations), and I am outraged. If you follow the footnotes, you'll find instances where: - the framework incorrectly states the conclusion/claim in the paper/study/web-page - the framework relies on a claim in a paper/study/web-page, when the paper/study/web-page lacks sufficient evidence to support the claim due to poor experimental design, poor interpretation, or lack of evidence altogether "The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations." The FAQ does not accurately portray the implications of the recommendations. (I read both the framework and FAQ a few months ago.)

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

I’ve read most of the text. It’s pretty misleading to say the guidelines don’t ban accelerated courses, because they don’t really have a concept of “banning” things in general; they’re a vision of what the curriculum should look like, not a list of rules. The guidelines do make it pretty clear that accelerated classes are not part of the vision.

hintymad 5y ago

Ironically, California is so mismanaged and corrupted that many counties simple do not have gifted programs. Yeah, the 6th wealthiest state in the world couldn't afford a god damn gifted program, all the in name of so-called equity and inclusiveness. It's not the well-made families that get hurt. It is the families who try to make ends meet get hurt. Their kids are simply deprived the opportunity to continuously learn and get challenged. And for that, I won't forgive California's politicians and bureaucrats. It's also funny you mentioned that California will emphasize more on "applied math". I mean really? We're talking about high school maths. They are so simple and so fundamental that there shouldn't be a distinction between the applied and the theoretical. Teaching "applied maths" is simply a coded word for watering down the standard.

mherdeg 5y ago

Thanks very much for adding this context! I have not read the full docs and based on what I've read so far I don't feel like I'm thoroughly qualified to answer "is California removing Algebra from middle school?" Which, if they did, would I think be a mistake. What I can see is: (1) Chapter 7 of the first field review draft says that they intend to de-recommend "Algebra I" for people in grade, in favor of something called "CA CCSSM" which incorporates concepts of algebra. They seem to say that CA CCSSM is much more thorough and comprehensive than Algebra I and is a better choice for students who are showing particularly strong math skills. "In grade eight, the CA CCSSM are significantly more rigorous than those from previous grade-eight content standards. They address the foundations of algebra by including content that was previously part of the Algebra I course—such as more in-depth study of linear relationships and equations, a more formal treatment of functions, and the exploration of irrational numbers. … The rigor of the CA CCSSM for grade eight means the course sequencing needs to be calibrated to ensure students are able to productively engage with the additional content. Specifically, students who previously may have been able to succeed in an Algebra I course in eighth grade may find the new CA CCSSM for grade-eight content significantly more difficult. The CA CCSSM provides for strengthened conceptual understanding by encouraging students—even strong mathematics students—to take the grade eight CA CCSSM course instead of skipping ahead to Algebra I or Mathematics I in grade eight." (2) The FAQ and accompanying diagram say that they intend to recommend "Algebra I" as one of three options for a 9th grade curriculum -- with the other standard options being "Integrated I" and "MIC I". I think the idea this diagram presents is that 9th/10th grade carries Algebra I/Geometry or Integrated 1/Integrated 2 or MIC 1/MIC 2, and then you can spend 11th/12th grade studying other concepts in detail like statistics (great choice IMHO) or calculus. That's the diagram here: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/images/mathfwfaqs.png https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/images/mathfwfaqs.png (3) Critics of this proposal (writing at https://bit.ly/cmfanalysis https://bit.ly/cmfanalysis cited in the guest blog post linked here) argue that postponing Algebra I from 8th grade to 9th grade reduces the opportunity for students to study calculus in detail in high school. I happen to agree that calculus concepts might not be the most important -- maybe it's more important to get a good grounding in statistical thinking as opposed to integral calculus? Maybe it's better to learn really strong proof skills and approach calculus directly via real analysis? I dunno. I guess what would bug me would be if kids didn't get abstract thinking early. The core concept of algebraic thinking to me as a nonexpert is treating things as variables rather than concrete numbers, and being able to reason about changing a function or a family of functions rather than a specific line or curve. But what confuses me overall here is -- why does the CA Math Framework still include Algebra I as a 9th grade program? If the new 8th grade CA CCSSM is indeed so rigorous that stronger math students should take it, and if it includes the essentials of Algebra I, then why waste another year on the concepts again? I don't understand.

kaitai 5y ago

It's quite reminiscent of the Common Core fight. No one read the standards. I mean, you ask someone to sit in front of you and read "Summarize categorical data for two categories in two-way frequency tables. Interpret relative frequencies in the context of the data (including joint, marginal, and conditional relative frequencies). Recognize possible associations and trends in the data." and they just don't get that worked up. Instead it was a cultural fight over power, control, and who gets to set the agenda, that ignored the fact that Republicans participated in creating the Common Core. Nothing gets people to the polls like "schools brainwashing children" -- see Glenn Youngkin. We have the shittiest math education in the developed world, and it comes down to teacher training, teacher support, professional development, and ensuring that children are fed and in safe situations where they can do laundry and wear non-smelly clothes to school [1]. In Finland that is understood, and lo and behold, good scores overall. In the US we think that curriculum is a magic bullet. Like changing the textbook will change what kids learn. As a former math professor, this is bullshit. I can take whatever curriculum you want in math and transform it to meet students where they're at -- because I f*(&ing know math. Too many of our teachers don't, and it's our fault as a society. I left education because of the crap wages and that creeping feeling that my individual efforts to better things just couldn't match the magnitude of the problems. America keeps being a magic-bullet country. The vaccine will fix COVID, so we don't need societal support for public health measures. Right or left, I don't care; the right thinks "individual responsibility" is the magic bullet in the face of infrastructure problems, funding problems, everything, while the left thinks technocratic solutions or "being correct" will be the fix. I strongly support the shift to more applications of math, more stats and probability, more analysis of real-world systems. There is plenty of room to challenge gifted students in this context and I have done so myself -- you do need the time and support to build scaffolded projects so when "that kid" is done you can say, "Well, what about this?" and when that other kid is still struggling you can break it down. The factory grind of education in American and the fact that many math teachers don't even have a degree in math means that is quite difficult to put in place. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/schools-laundry-rooms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/schools-laundry-rooms....

skyde 5y ago

it does not forbid gifted & talented but you know damn well in practice the effect is it will completely kill all gifted & talented programs

cperciva 5y ago

they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. The point of high school Geometry was never to compute areas of fields. Trigonometry is far more useful for that anyway. The point of high school Geometry is that it is the first introduction to rigorous mathematical proof -- and has been, ever since Euclid's Elements.

ThinBold 5y ago
It is in geometry one can experience a spectrum of evidence from a picture (animated or not, interactive or not) to a line-to-line modus ponens proof. Not to mention the historical value that Euclid invented a literary genre that is now called "proofs". Good luck teaching kids "more useful" stuff like data science and quantum computing. High school teachers don't understand these topics and are more likely to teach them ineffectively. Now that's harmful and no one can blame geometry anymore.
showerst 5y ago
While both are clearly important, if we only have so many hours in the day I'd rather a high school student have a grasp on basic stats than basic formal proofs. As a data point of one (heh there's that stats again...) my two high school geometry classes 15 years ago never touched any proofs. I have no clue if they still teach that way. Edit: just noticed that I'm replying to someone who is far more knowledgeable about math than me. I stand by my point though, people like Colin can seek that out in more advanced classes.
- jelliclesfarm 5y ago
  "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
- ghaff 5y ago
  I had proofs in HS geometry way back when. I also hated it and it was the worst I ever did in a math class K-12.
ivanech 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

I had originally assumed the criticisms were exaggerated, but the more I read about the new curriculum the less comfortable I am. It seems every defense is built around hedges like this one: > although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers Which suggests to me that they really are trying to walk back the complexity of the education, perhaps as part of a goal to force the variance of educational progress into a narrower range within classes. The language is so vague that it's hard to understand exactly what they're trying to do, which I think is their point. If they wanted to emphasize advanced education topics it would have been front and center in the plan. Instead, it seems like a footnote that we're supposed to assume will get taken care of in some future iteration of this integrative math program.

octernion 5y ago
The entire point is not to emphasize the advanced education topics -- which are actually offered pretty universally in California schools -- but to increase the number of students actually _taking_ those classes through the entire pipeline, and to embed those concepts in a more consistent, structured way. I'm not sure why how you get "walk back the complexity of education" when it's obvious that the current system is broken.
- syki 5y ago
  I believe you are mistaken. One of the goals is to deny that people have different intellectual abilities. They seek to get rid of tracking and advanced courses. These reforms are related to what is being advocated by www.equitablemath.org. From their website: Students are tracked (into courses/pathways and within the classroom). This is a sign of white supremacy in their view. See this PDF: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
  - magicalist 5y ago
    What does this have to do with the actual changes being made?

cgh 5y ago

Thanks. The new emphasis on stats and probability is so important and is something I wish I’d had before taking my first university stats courses. There’s probably no branch of math more important to everyday life and maintaining an educated discourse in society.

monocasa 5y ago

Ironically, geometry literally means "the measuring of land" because it's a field derived from the bronze age super powers, who needed to resurvey the farming plots after each river flood. A farmer might actually have some benefit knowing it really well.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago
Also, it helps to have some intuition of geometry when you're actually building something (whether that be construction, mechanical engineering, woodcutting, papercrafting, you name it...) Geometry is one of those things that you can teach in the utmost horrible way though (make students memorize theorems verbatim), I understand why students can perceive it as incredibly boring and useless.

6f4f06c00484d34 5y ago

>They are not taking algebra out of the curriculum, although they are cutting geometry a bit, which doesn't make as much sense today as it did 100 years ago when far more people grew up to be farmers or ranchers. this blurb alone invalidates everything else you have to say. you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about.

dang 5y ago
Regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this, so I've banned the account. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ben7799 5y ago

Interesting thing with the integrated approach is my high school had that approach. That was private school, and I entered high school in 1990. I wonder how long European countries have been using this approach. The curriculum at my high school very deliberately blended all the mathematical subjects across the first 3 years with Calculus becoming dominant by the end of the 3rd year. However the entire goal of the integrated program was to maximize the amount of Calculus students could get through. I got not one year but two years of Calculus effectively by the end of HS and had no problem passing the AP calc exam. Probably only 10% of my HS class did that though, and that was already at a selective private school. Integrated is great as long it gets students to the same place.. it's still really important to get as many talented students into Calculus before HS graduation.

gautamdivgi 5y ago

Does it really help though? I mean parents with resources will always put their kids through private math courses which can be more rigorous and give their children an advantage in AP Math/Calc/etc. I don't think the disparity in math learning is from school.

candiodari 5y ago
Yes but this will hide that such a disparity exists.

crackercrews 5y ago

Unfortunate that this is the top post since almost all of the replies disagree with it. Would be better if another root-level comment were at the top.

abecedarius 5y ago

> manufactured outrage Have you ever seen Terence Tao signing up for a manufactured outrage? Alan Kay? If you're the type to read technical papers you'll recognize a bunch more names on the list of signers. Furthermore the language in the post was calm and measured.

krastanov 5y ago
There is another comment in this thread that addresses this very well: > I find it interesting with many of these criticisms that subject matter experts on maths, sciences, etc think that they are also subject matter experts on the pedagogy of maths, science, etc especially at a high school level. The people you mentioned are my idols, same as the authors and hosts of this blog post. But there is a world of difference between being a great scientist and being a great K12 teacher.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  My comment left out this aspect only because the names aren't familiar to me: > The signatories include ... educators with decades of experience teaching students at all levels ... people vested in mathematical high-school education, such as ...
  - krastanov 5y ago
    That is a well-intentioned but simply wrong statement in the blog. One of the letter authors is what I would call a professional educator in some way (a non-profit). The rest are university professors and a few are industry scientists. They are certainly not "people with experience teaching at all levels" even if they believe that. Same with the signatories. The vast majority are university professors. These people are generally great at what they do and frequently terrible at teaching, *especially* when teaching K12 students. I have seen it first hand as I have been organizing K12 events (not for "gifted" kids) and have been tutoring gifted students competing in the international physics Olympics over the last 8 years while working at Yale, Harvard, and MIT (as a graduate student and postdoc). Teaching competitive physics, teaching college students, teaching K12 students, and doing research are 4 completely different things. The signatories are certainly amazing at the research, but I have seen first hand how that type of professionals are just terrible at teaching K12 students while thinking they are doing great. Even worse, we usually pat ourselves on the back for having a single-day event with cool math organized for the K12 students, but never bother with the year-long battle to actually lift all boats. Obviously this is just my personal anecdote, but I do claim I have been very invested in exactly this type of education and have seen how well-meaning crazy-smart professors are failing to teach K12 students (in their once-a-year charity event) while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

threatofrain 5y ago

Talking about "testing out" and "gifted" programs is a complete distraction here, since very few students "test out", and taking Algebra in middle school is not considered a "gifted" program. With regards to math in California, gifted programs are largely not a story. A pillar of Equitable Math is that all students should be at the same level up until the last year of high school.¹ The re-arrangement of subjects is not the hotspot of contention, and neither is the disagreement over "deepness". The contention is over whether or not there ought to exist a faster track which, for example, permits students to take Algebra in middle school. This has been specifically derided as a sustainer of white supremacy under the Equitable Math discussion. A return to gifted programs as the way to deal with students with differences in math preparation and ambition would be a return to administrative opacity. A failure to specify tracks which allow students to take Algebra in middle school would be a solid win for private schools and after-school programs like RSM. Under Equitable Math, the last year in high school is the only year of differentiation. [1]: https://equitablemath.org https://equitablemath.org

naasking 5y ago
> A return to gifted programs as the way to deal with students with differences in math preparation and ambition would be a return to administrative opacity. I mean, if they're going to eliminate gifted programs for an advanced academic students, then they should eliminate sports teams for advanced athletic students by parity of reasoning. Isn't the star quarterback just as unfairly advantaged by family and genetics as the smart math geek?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Again, gifted programs are largely not a story in CA math. Students taking Algebra in middle school are not in a separate gifted and talented program, they are just in one of many pathways as specified by the Common Core. For example, in some nice school districts, about half of the students in middle school are on track for Algebra by 8th grade. These don't apply to any special program, there is no lottery, and they aren't hand-picked by teachers or administrators.

csee 5y ago

> the framework does not forbid gifted and talented programs How do I square this with their claim that the CMF is "placing obstacles (such as doubling-up, compressed courses, or outside-of-school private courses) in the way of those who want to take advanced math in higher grades."?

weeblewobble 5y ago
pretty easily, I think. even taking the claim as given, "placing obstacles" is not the same as "forbidding"
- csee 5y ago
  This is semantics, no? Couldn't the obstacles be so large that it's practically the same as forbidding? When I read "they're not forbidden", I take that to also mean that there's few new obstacles.
- nickff 5y ago
  This is a classic tactic. How many trees do you need to make a forest? How many pebbles make a dam?
- sct202 5y ago
  To get around the obstacles most kids will need a very motivated parent who can advocate for them with admins, and that basically will just harm kids who's parents don't have the time/resources/charisma to make it happen for their kid.

Youden 5y ago

> The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations. I don't know whether it's intentional but the FAQ reads like it's intending to deceive me. They answer questions with "no we're not doing that", then follow up with how they do exactly that with different words. For example: Q: "Does the draft Mathematics Framework eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs?" A: "No. The draft Mathematics Framework does not eliminate middle school mathematics acceleration programs (including programs that offer Integrated Math 1 or Algebra 1 courses to grade eight students). The draft Mathematics Framework emphasizes the importance of following the sequenced progression of topics laid out in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and considers the latest research on the impact of skipping grades or undermining the sequences progression." They're not "eliminating", they're "emphasising" and "considering". Maybe what they're doing really isn't eliminating but it sure reads like it is. The tone reads like corporate damage control. 'We didn't "spill" the oil, we misplaced it.'

richk449 5y ago
> They're not "eliminating", they're "emphasizing" and "considering". It is almost as if words have actual meanings ...
- michaelterryio 5y ago
  Yes, “for now we aren’t eliminating because we could never force that through, but we will definitely be eliminating at the right opportunity and this moves us toward that”.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

"The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]." This is not manufactured outrage. I have read the framework (and many of the sources cited as support for the recommendations), and I am outraged. If you follow the footnotes, you'll find instances where: - the framework incorrectly states the conclusion/claim in the paper/study/web-page - the framework relies on a claim in a paper/study/web-page, when the paper/study/web-page lacks sufficient evidence to support the claim due to poor experimental design, poor interpretation, or lack of evidence altogether "The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations." The FAQ does not accurately portray the implications of the recommendations. (I read both the framework and FAQ a few months ago.)