10 ms·

I started reading the California Math Framework but stopped partway through the intro, when I got to the part that says: > we reject ideas of natural gifts and

I started reading the California Math Framework but stopped partway through the intro, when I got to the part that says: > we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents It must be nice to think about a world in which every child is an equally-capable blank slate. But we do not live in that world. We live in a world where some people are tall, and somewhat more likely to be successful basketball players. And some people find math easy, and are somewhat more likely to succeed in math. When you start out with flawed assumptions, it's not surprising when your prescriptions (no advanced math for anyone!) are foolish and counterproductive.

guerrilla 5y ago
> is an equally-capable blank slate. It seems like tabula rasa idealism has made a serious resurgence in leftist and liberal circles and the scary thing is that nobody (other than extremists saying nonsense) is really talking about this explicitly. Somehow we went from a bunch of stuff being cultural constructs to literally everything is a cultural construct and then this somehow became extremely widespread in no time at all. We need to have this conversation out-loud.
- ng12 5y ago
  Careful there, Harrison Bergeron.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Every single one of us has things we support in-public but don't sincerely support in-private. Most of the time this isn't a problem because the endorsements we make don't end up affecting our own personal lives. I have not met a single parent who didn't want to try and give their own children an advantage over the others. It is one thing to support "equity in education", but when parents sense that these activists are trying to dumb-down the curriculum, I expect significant pushback. Especially because this is quite literally a "won't somebody please think of the children" issue.
  - csee 5y ago
    Why would there be pushback if they can just send their kids to private schools and not bear the negative consequences? Virtue signalling is actually advantageous to them. If they handicap all the public school kids then their own kids will be more likely to get into the top schools that manufacture scarcity.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I suspect plenty of parents will begin the process of trying to get their kinds into a private school, but it still requires a lot of resources and effort. I sense that most parents would try to fight this while simultaneously trying to find a way out while the process goes on. As for the competitive advantage, I think that only works for the children who are already in the private school system.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      It will also drop the average test score at public schools, thus getting the woke crowd to lower the standards again! The cycle repeats itself.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Sending your kids to a private school is already considered suspect these days in some circles. And, conversely, some people specifically send their children to public schools for ideological reasons.
      - akomtu 5y ago
        Suspect in what sense?
        int_19h 5y ago
        In a sense that it's considered classist and/or racist to do so.
    - VLM 5y ago
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  > tabula rasa idealism has made a serious resurgence in leftist and liberal circles Maybe from liberals, but from what I've seen not the left. Marx's mantra is literally "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", it has nothing to do with liberal conceptions of tabula rasa idealism. I've never seen a leftist who asserts that people start from a blank state and can be "anyone" depending on the circumstances, that statement will get you accused of having bourgeois sensibilities who ignore the material forces of the world.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Well, I can't say the same as that's the majority of where I see it from right now. I don't follow MLs on twitter but most of who I follow are anarchists and democratic socialists.
  - rendang 5y ago
    Here is a noted leftist writer who is not necessarily arguing for the strongest case of "blank slatism" but is definitely pushing in that direction here, claiming that inherent differences are overemphasized. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/we-dont-know-our-potential https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/we-dont-know-our-pote...
- twblalock 5y ago
  It's not just the assumption of a blank slate -- it's the assumption that because everyone is a blank slate, differences between people must be the result of oppression or racism of some kind, and that the primary purpose of education is not to teach, but rather to fight that oppression. Even mathematics education is now being twisted by this -- it's now seen as more important for math classes to pursue equality/equity than it is to teach math. One outcome of this is a levelling effect -- an equal outcome for all students, in which they all possess average mathematical skills, is preferred to a situation in which some students perform above average.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Somehow we went from a bunch of stuff being cultural constructs to literally everything is a cultural construct and then this somehow became extremely widespread in no time at all. The people who were critical of the first moves in this direction and explicitly said it would be a slippery slope were dismissed at the time. We're still moving in that direction. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to something more reasonbale.
jonahx 5y ago
> and somewhat more likely to be successful basketball players. And some people find math easy, and are somewhat more likely to succeed in math. I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but there is no "somewhat" about it. The differences can be and often are stark, and we shouldn't shy away from saying that if we want an honest and productive conversation. It does not exclude the also-true fact that good education, practice, and other controllable environmental factors play an important role.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Absolutely. Some people are gifted. Not everybody is, otherwise it wouldn't be called that. They are better than other people at certain things. It may be math, it may be athletic ability, it may be music or another artistic talent. We should be nurturing and developing individuals in what they are naturally best at, as that tends to also be what they like to do and probably leads to happier and more successful lives.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > we shouldn't shy away from saying that if we want an honest and productive conversation What makes you think anybody wants an honest and productive conversation? One half is just trying to get the other half to slip up and say something - anything - they can cancel them for saying. The other half is just keeping their heads down and trying not to lose their job for heresy.
Angostura 5y ago
Context is important, no? I'm not sure how you got to read that bit, without reading the preceding rationale: > Research is also clear that all students are capable of becoming powerful mathematics learners and users (Boaler, 2019a, c). This notion runs counter to many students’ ideas about school mathematics. Most adults can recall times when they received messages during their school or college years that they were not cut out for mathematics-based fields. The race-, class-, and gender-based differences in those who pursue more advanced mathematics make it clear that messages students receive about who belongs in mathematics are biased along racial, socioeconomic status, language, and gender lines, a fact that has led to considerable inequities in mathematics. >In 2015, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, and colleagues interviewed university professors in different subject areas to gauge student perceptions of educational “gifts”—the concept that people need a special ability to be successful in a particular field. The results were staggering; the more prevalent the idea, in any academic field, the fewer women and people of color participating in that field. This outcome held across all thirty subjects in the study. More mathematics professors believed that students needed a gift than any other professor of STEAM content. The study highlights the subtle ways that students are dissuaded from continuing in mathematics and underscores the important role mathematics teachers play in communicating messages that mathematics success is only achievable for select students. This pervasive belief more often influences women and people of color to conclude they will not find success in classes or studies that rely on knowledge of mathematics. >Negative messages, either explicit (“I think you’d be happier if you didn’t take that hard mathematics class”) or implicit (“I’m just not a math person”), both imply that only some people can succeed. Perceptions can also be personal (“Math just doesn’t seem to be your strength”) or general (“This test isn’t showing me that these students have what it takes in math.” My other class aced this test.”). And they can also be linked to labels (“low kids,” “bubble kids,” “slow kids”) that lead to a differentiated and unjust mathematics education for students. That leads to the principals: > ● All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). > ● The belief that “I treat everyone the same” is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities (Langer-Osuna, 2011).
- 5y ago
BeetleB 5y ago
If we were to abandon a policy after the first objection we can raise over some disagreement we have with the policy, then all policies would be rejected. This is not an intelligent way to evaluate it. It's not whether gifted students exist - it's the extent they should be catered to. Society benefits more when you raise the average than when you foster the top 0.1%. Even Soviet mathematicians who moved to and taught in the US after the fall of the Soviet Union said something to the effect of "sucks for talented folks, but better for society" when they compared it to Soviet education. With that context, whether they exist or not is really a rounding error. Most gifted students will do well eventually whether we have special programs for them or not. And it's challenging to show strong net positives for society if you did have those programs. As in, actual data that supports having them, vs mere anecdotes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- freemint 5y ago
  Not catering to the gifted is a dangerous game for society as an disproportionate amount of progress is made by gifted which are properly nurtured. > Gifted will do well regardless whether we have special programs for them or not. This is very much not true. Only gifted with rich or caring parents will do well. Others might suffer a lot. Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school. The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. They can still construct programs for people who are performing better in math. The discussion is about innate talent, not whether we treat people who do well in math differently.
skulk 5y ago
Have there been any studies separating "natural talents and gifts" from a privileged upbringing where education was prioritized from the moment of birth? I don't think enough attention is paid to what happens during the critical period of early child development (0-3 years of age). If it turns out that "natural talents and gifts" are really just due to a better critical period for the child, then the liberals here are really shooting themselves in the foot with this argument.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Check out "twin studies" for good evidence that nature plays a significant role, not just nurture.
  - freemint 5y ago
    Are you aware of Twin studies that also control for pregnancy? Meaning two quiet identical children are born and raised by mothers of different social class?
    - csee 5y ago
      Possibly but they're not perfect either. If the hypothesis is that discrimination post-birth is tied to innate characteristics, then presumably both twins will face similar discrimination and this will correlated their environment, even though they've never met and were raised by different people. That said, twin studies do provide substantial evidence that giftedness is highly heritable and probably significantly genetic.
      - freemint 5y ago
        I mean either you are aware of such studies or you aren't. What do you mean with you are possibly aware of such studies? I am well aware of how twin studies but any claim about the genetic component kinda falls apart for me based on them as the children were in the same pregnant mother at the same time.
bsder 5y ago
> When you start out with flawed assumptions This is not a flawed assumption with respect to baseline high school learning. People can be taught much more mathematics and science than they normally learn. This is not limited to STEM--people can be taught to write much better than they normally learn, as well. The trick with the students is getting to the students before the "I'm not a <X> person/<X> isn't for me" kicks in. That means you have to get them in the 5th-8th grades--5th is a bit early/8th is a bit late.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  > People can be taught much more mathematics and science than they normally learn. I don't disagree. But holding back advanced students is no way to accomplish this.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    Really frustrating that these sorts of arguments usually devolve into making no distinction between "basically everyone can pass a high school math curriculum with the right resources and support" and "not everyone can be a world class mathematician". Those are both true!
  - bsder 5y ago
    People talk about "holding back advanced students", but, in the real world, this never happens. My father (a high school teacher for almost 4 decades) used to say: "I can't stop an advanced student even if I wanted to--sheer boredom will propel them to do something." For him, dealing with an advanced student was the easiest thing in the world and took practically no effort--a little extra work with a slight bit of focus and they're off and running. At that point, he could practically forget about them until they raised an interrupt. My own personal experiences in school also reflect this. Most of my teachers forced me to turn in "normal" homework, pointed me at something more advanced, and let me at it while occasionally checking in on me or offering advice. Sure, they did this so that they could get me off their plate to focus on someone else. But, to be fair, what they had me doing is also the essence of learning--self-directed engagement with an unfamiliar knowledge base via intrinsic motivation. And, to be fair, if your "advanced" student can't operate in that regime, are they really that "advanced" after all? Far too many parents think their children are "advanced" when they are merely a touch above average and really do fit inside the "standard" curriculum. The real problem in high school is motivating average to below-average students who want to be anywhere but in class. Video games, hanging with friends/dates, vaping/CBD, etc. is way more compelling than anything having to do with school. Getting through to those students is difficult and has very little to do with the curriculum. The biggest irony is that the same people who preach that there are intrinsic differences always seem to forget that concept when it comes time to hire and pay teachers. Funny that.
markus_zhang 5y ago
It's actually a lot better if they reject ideas of natural gifts and talents but at the same time admit that a lot of those "gifts" are given post-birth by childhood education. In that case we might miss a few natural gifted children but could raise alertness to family education (that schools simply cannot substitute).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nouveaux 5y ago
How about the difference between boys and girls? "It must be nice to think about a world in which every boy and girl is an equally-capable blank slate. But we do not live in that world. We live in a world where some people are tall, and somewhat more likely to be successful basketball players. And boys find math easy, and are somewhat more likely to succeed in math. When you start out with flawed assumptions, it's not surprising when your prescriptions (no advanced math for anyone!) are foolish and counterproductive." This is what society used to believe. How was that productive and wise?
- naasking 5y ago
  I must have missed the part where girls were not expected to do just as well as the boys if they wanted to advance, and if they didn't perform as well, then we just changed the criteria for what constitutes success so the gender outcomes were equal. Women proved they were just as capable, arguably even more capable in many subjects, so we obviously do live in that world where the genders are equal in this sense.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nouveaux 5y ago
    I agree with your comment but that's not what I was responding too.
dzdt 5y ago
Here is the full context. Our current media environment includes a lot of cherry-picking to provoke outrage. Better to judge from a more complete text: Learning Mathematics: for All Introduction Students learn best when they are actively engaged in questioning, struggling, problem solving, reasoning, communicating, making connections, and explaining. The research is overwhelmingly clear that powerful mathematics classrooms thrive when students feel a sense of agency (a willingness to engage in the discipline, based in a belief in progress through engagement) and an understanding that the intellectual authority in mathematics rests in mathematical reasoning itself (in other words, that mathematics makes sense) (Boaler, 2019 a, b; Boaler, Cordero & Dieckmann, 2019; Anderson, Boaler & Dieckmann, 2018; Schoenfeld, 2014). These factors support students as they develop their own identities as powerful mathematics learners and users. Further, active-learning experiences enable students to engage in a full range of mathematical activities—exploring, noticing, questioning, solving, justifying, explaining, representing and analyzing—making clear that mathematics represents far more than calculating. Research is also clear that all students are capable of becoming powerful mathematics learners and users (Boaler, 2019a, c). This notion runs counter to many students’ ideas about school mathematics. Most adults can recall times when they received messages during their school or college years that they were not cut out for mathematics-based fields. The race-, class-, and gender-based differences in those who pursue more advanced mathematics make it clear that messages students receive about who belongs in mathematics are biased along racial, socioeconomic status, language, and gender lines, a fact that has led to considerable inequities in mathematics. In 2015, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, and colleagues interviewed university professors in different subject areas to gauge student perceptions of educational “gifts”—the concept that people need a special ability to be successful in a particular field. The results were staggering; the more prevalent the idea, in any academic field, the fewer women and people of color participating in that field. This outcome held across all thirty subjects in the study. More mathematics professors believed that students needed a gift than any other professor of STEAM content. The study highlights the subtle ways that students are dissuaded from continuing in mathematics and underscores the important role mathematics teachers play in communicating messages that mathematics success is only achievable for select students. This pervasive belief more often influences women and people of color to conclude they will not find success in classes or studies that rely on knowledge of mathematics. Negative messages, either explicit (“I think you’d be happier if you didn’t take that hard mathematics class”) or implicit (“I’m just not a math person”), both imply that only some people can succeed. Perceptions can also be personal (“Math just doesn’t seem to be your strength”) or general (“This test isn’t showing me that these students have what it takes in math.” My other class aced this test.”). And they can also be linked to labels (“low kids,” “bubble kids,” “slow kids”) that lead to a differentiated and unjust mathematics education for students. A fundamental aim of this framework is to respond issues of inequity in mathematics learning; equity influences all aspects of this document. Some overarching principles that guide work towards equity in mathematics include the following: ⦁ Access to an engaging and humanizing education—a socio-cultural, human endeavor—is a universal right, central among civil rights. ⦁ All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). ⦁ The belief that “I treat everyone the same” is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities (Langer-Osuna, 2011). ⦁ Student engagement must be a design goal of mathematics curriculum design, co-equal with content goals. ⦁ Mathematics pathways must open mathematics to all students, eliminating option-limiting tracking. ⦁ Students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, and language are resources for learning mathematics (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006; Turner & Celedón-Pattichis, 2011; Moschkovich, 2013). ⦁ All students, regardless of background, language of origin, differences, or foundational knowledge are capable and deserving of depth of understanding and engagement in rich mathematics tasks. [1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter1.docx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter1.doc...
itronitron 5y ago
> we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents That is not surprising to hear as it was written by people that have invested a large part of their careers in the educational system. "Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach Gym."

guerrilla 5y ago

> is an equally-capable blank slate. It seems like tabula rasa idealism has made a serious resurgence in leftist and liberal circles and the scary thing is that nobody (other than extremists saying nonsense) is really talking about this explicitly. Somehow we went from a bunch of stuff being cultural constructs to literally everything is a cultural construct and then this somehow became extremely widespread in no time at all. We need to have this conversation out-loud.

ng12 5y ago
Careful there, Harrison Bergeron.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Every single one of us has things we support in-public but don't sincerely support in-private. Most of the time this isn't a problem because the endorsements we make don't end up affecting our own personal lives. I have not met a single parent who didn't want to try and give their own children an advantage over the others. It is one thing to support "equity in education", but when parents sense that these activists are trying to dumb-down the curriculum, I expect significant pushback. Especially because this is quite literally a "won't somebody please think of the children" issue.
- csee 5y ago
  Why would there be pushback if they can just send their kids to private schools and not bear the negative consequences? Virtue signalling is actually advantageous to them. If they handicap all the public school kids then their own kids will be more likely to get into the top schools that manufacture scarcity.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I suspect plenty of parents will begin the process of trying to get their kinds into a private school, but it still requires a lot of resources and effort. I sense that most parents would try to fight this while simultaneously trying to find a way out while the process goes on. As for the competitive advantage, I think that only works for the children who are already in the private school system.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    It will also drop the average test score at public schools, thus getting the woke crowd to lower the standards again! The cycle repeats itself.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Sending your kids to a private school is already considered suspect these days in some circles. And, conversely, some people specifically send their children to public schools for ideological reasons.
    - akomtu 5y ago
      Suspect in what sense?
      - int_19h 5y ago
        In a sense that it's considered classist and/or racist to do so.
  - VLM 5y ago
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
> tabula rasa idealism has made a serious resurgence in leftist and liberal circles Maybe from liberals, but from what I've seen not the left. Marx's mantra is literally "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", it has nothing to do with liberal conceptions of tabula rasa idealism. I've never seen a leftist who asserts that people start from a blank state and can be "anyone" depending on the circumstances, that statement will get you accused of having bourgeois sensibilities who ignore the material forces of the world.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Well, I can't say the same as that's the majority of where I see it from right now. I don't follow MLs on twitter but most of who I follow are anarchists and democratic socialists.
- rendang 5y ago
  Here is a noted leftist writer who is not necessarily arguing for the strongest case of "blank slatism" but is definitely pushing in that direction here, claiming that inherent differences are overemphasized. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/we-dont-know-our-potential https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/we-dont-know-our-pote...
twblalock 5y ago
It's not just the assumption of a blank slate -- it's the assumption that because everyone is a blank slate, differences between people must be the result of oppression or racism of some kind, and that the primary purpose of education is not to teach, but rather to fight that oppression. Even mathematics education is now being twisted by this -- it's now seen as more important for math classes to pursue equality/equity than it is to teach math. One outcome of this is a levelling effect -- an equal outcome for all students, in which they all possess average mathematical skills, is preferred to a situation in which some students perform above average.
naasking 5y ago
> Somehow we went from a bunch of stuff being cultural constructs to literally everything is a cultural construct and then this somehow became extremely widespread in no time at all. The people who were critical of the first moves in this direction and explicitly said it would be a slippery slope were dismissed at the time. We're still moving in that direction. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to something more reasonbale.

jonahx 5y ago

> and somewhat more likely to be successful basketball players. And some people find math easy, and are somewhat more likely to succeed in math. I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but there is no "somewhat" about it. The differences can be and often are stark, and we shouldn't shy away from saying that if we want an honest and productive conversation. It does not exclude the also-true fact that good education, practice, and other controllable environmental factors play an important role.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Absolutely. Some people are gifted. Not everybody is, otherwise it wouldn't be called that. They are better than other people at certain things. It may be math, it may be athletic ability, it may be music or another artistic talent. We should be nurturing and developing individuals in what they are naturally best at, as that tends to also be what they like to do and probably leads to happier and more successful lives.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> we shouldn't shy away from saying that if we want an honest and productive conversation What makes you think anybody wants an honest and productive conversation? One half is just trying to get the other half to slip up and say something - anything - they can cancel them for saying. The other half is just keeping their heads down and trying not to lose their job for heresy.

Angostura 5y ago

Context is important, no? I'm not sure how you got to read that bit, without reading the preceding rationale: > Research is also clear that all students are capable of becoming powerful mathematics learners and users (Boaler, 2019a, c). This notion runs counter to many students’ ideas about school mathematics. Most adults can recall times when they received messages during their school or college years that they were not cut out for mathematics-based fields. The race-, class-, and gender-based differences in those who pursue more advanced mathematics make it clear that messages students receive about who belongs in mathematics are biased along racial, socioeconomic status, language, and gender lines, a fact that has led to considerable inequities in mathematics. >In 2015, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, and colleagues interviewed university professors in different subject areas to gauge student perceptions of educational “gifts”—the concept that people need a special ability to be successful in a particular field. The results were staggering; the more prevalent the idea, in any academic field, the fewer women and people of color participating in that field. This outcome held across all thirty subjects in the study. More mathematics professors believed that students needed a gift than any other professor of STEAM content. The study highlights the subtle ways that students are dissuaded from continuing in mathematics and underscores the important role mathematics teachers play in communicating messages that mathematics success is only achievable for select students. This pervasive belief more often influences women and people of color to conclude they will not find success in classes or studies that rely on knowledge of mathematics. >Negative messages, either explicit (“I think you’d be happier if you didn’t take that hard mathematics class”) or implicit (“I’m just not a math person”), both imply that only some people can succeed. Perceptions can also be personal (“Math just doesn’t seem to be your strength”) or general (“This test isn’t showing me that these students have what it takes in math.” My other class aced this test.”). And they can also be linked to labels (“low kids,” “bubble kids,” “slow kids”) that lead to a differentiated and unjust mathematics education for students. That leads to the principals: > ● All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). > ● The belief that “I treat everyone the same” is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities (Langer-Osuna, 2011).

5y ago

BeetleB 5y ago

If we were to abandon a policy after the first objection we can raise over some disagreement we have with the policy, then all policies would be rejected. This is not an intelligent way to evaluate it. It's not whether gifted students exist - it's the extent they should be catered to. Society benefits more when you raise the average than when you foster the top 0.1%. Even Soviet mathematicians who moved to and taught in the US after the fall of the Soviet Union said something to the effect of "sucks for talented folks, but better for society" when they compared it to Soviet education. With that context, whether they exist or not is really a rounding error. Most gifted students will do well eventually whether we have special programs for them or not. And it's challenging to show strong net positives for society if you did have those programs. As in, actual data that supports having them, vs mere anecdotes.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
freemint 5y ago
Not catering to the gifted is a dangerous game for society as an disproportionate amount of progress is made by gifted which are properly nurtured. > Gifted will do well regardless whether we have special programs for them or not. This is very much not true. Only gifted with rich or caring parents will do well. Others might suffer a lot. Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > Being in a program for gifted for me made the difference between being thrown out of a school because I never did the homework and being invited and having my flights paid to a conference in Japan where I gave a presentation while in the last grade of school. The state can provide this without believing you have a naturally innate ability in mathematics. They can still construct programs for people who are performing better in math. The discussion is about innate talent, not whether we treat people who do well in math differently.

skulk 5y ago

Have there been any studies separating "natural talents and gifts" from a privileged upbringing where education was prioritized from the moment of birth? I don't think enough attention is paid to what happens during the critical period of early child development (0-3 years of age). If it turns out that "natural talents and gifts" are really just due to a better critical period for the child, then the liberals here are really shooting themselves in the foot with this argument.

crackercrews 5y ago
Check out "twin studies" for good evidence that nature plays a significant role, not just nurture.
- freemint 5y ago
  Are you aware of Twin studies that also control for pregnancy? Meaning two quiet identical children are born and raised by mothers of different social class?
  - csee 5y ago
    Possibly but they're not perfect either. If the hypothesis is that discrimination post-birth is tied to innate characteristics, then presumably both twins will face similar discrimination and this will correlated their environment, even though they've never met and were raised by different people. That said, twin studies do provide substantial evidence that giftedness is highly heritable and probably significantly genetic.
    - freemint 5y ago
      I mean either you are aware of such studies or you aren't. What do you mean with you are possibly aware of such studies? I am well aware of how twin studies but any claim about the genetic component kinda falls apart for me based on them as the children were in the same pregnant mother at the same time.

bsder 5y ago

> When you start out with flawed assumptions This is not a flawed assumption with respect to baseline high school learning. People can be taught much more mathematics and science than they normally learn. This is not limited to STEM--people can be taught to write much better than they normally learn, as well. The trick with the students is getting to the students before the "I'm not a <X> person/<X> isn't for me" kicks in. That means you have to get them in the 5th-8th grades--5th is a bit early/8th is a bit late.

crackercrews 5y ago
> People can be taught much more mathematics and science than they normally learn. I don't disagree. But holding back advanced students is no way to accomplish this.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Really frustrating that these sorts of arguments usually devolve into making no distinction between "basically everyone can pass a high school math curriculum with the right resources and support" and "not everyone can be a world class mathematician". Those are both true!
- bsder 5y ago
  People talk about "holding back advanced students", but, in the real world, this never happens. My father (a high school teacher for almost 4 decades) used to say: "I can't stop an advanced student even if I wanted to--sheer boredom will propel them to do something." For him, dealing with an advanced student was the easiest thing in the world and took practically no effort--a little extra work with a slight bit of focus and they're off and running. At that point, he could practically forget about them until they raised an interrupt. My own personal experiences in school also reflect this. Most of my teachers forced me to turn in "normal" homework, pointed me at something more advanced, and let me at it while occasionally checking in on me or offering advice. Sure, they did this so that they could get me off their plate to focus on someone else. But, to be fair, what they had me doing is also the essence of learning--self-directed engagement with an unfamiliar knowledge base via intrinsic motivation. And, to be fair, if your "advanced" student can't operate in that regime, are they really that "advanced" after all? Far too many parents think their children are "advanced" when they are merely a touch above average and really do fit inside the "standard" curriculum. The real problem in high school is motivating average to below-average students who want to be anywhere but in class. Video games, hanging with friends/dates, vaping/CBD, etc. is way more compelling than anything having to do with school. Getting through to those students is difficult and has very little to do with the curriculum. The biggest irony is that the same people who preach that there are intrinsic differences always seem to forget that concept when it comes time to hire and pay teachers. Funny that.

markus_zhang 5y ago

It's actually a lot better if they reject ideas of natural gifts and talents but at the same time admit that a lot of those "gifts" are given post-birth by childhood education. In that case we might miss a few natural gifted children but could raise alertness to family education (that schools simply cannot substitute).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nouveaux 5y ago

How about the difference between boys and girls? "It must be nice to think about a world in which every boy and girl is an equally-capable blank slate. But we do not live in that world. We live in a world where some people are tall, and somewhat more likely to be successful basketball players. And boys find math easy, and are somewhat more likely to succeed in math. When you start out with flawed assumptions, it's not surprising when your prescriptions (no advanced math for anyone!) are foolish and counterproductive." This is what society used to believe. How was that productive and wise?

naasking 5y ago
I must have missed the part where girls were not expected to do just as well as the boys if they wanted to advance, and if they didn't perform as well, then we just changed the criteria for what constitutes success so the gender outcomes were equal. Women proved they were just as capable, arguably even more capable in many subjects, so we obviously do live in that world where the genders are equal in this sense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nouveaux 5y ago
  I agree with your comment but that's not what I was responding too.

dzdt 5y ago

Here is the full context. Our current media environment includes a lot of cherry-picking to provoke outrage. Better to judge from a more complete text: Learning Mathematics: for All Introduction Students learn best when they are actively engaged in questioning, struggling, problem solving, reasoning, communicating, making connections, and explaining. The research is overwhelmingly clear that powerful mathematics classrooms thrive when students feel a sense of agency (a willingness to engage in the discipline, based in a belief in progress through engagement) and an understanding that the intellectual authority in mathematics rests in mathematical reasoning itself (in other words, that mathematics makes sense) (Boaler, 2019 a, b; Boaler, Cordero & Dieckmann, 2019; Anderson, Boaler & Dieckmann, 2018; Schoenfeld, 2014). These factors support students as they develop their own identities as powerful mathematics learners and users. Further, active-learning experiences enable students to engage in a full range of mathematical activities—exploring, noticing, questioning, solving, justifying, explaining, representing and analyzing—making clear that mathematics represents far more than calculating. Research is also clear that all students are capable of becoming powerful mathematics learners and users (Boaler, 2019a, c). This notion runs counter to many students’ ideas about school mathematics. Most adults can recall times when they received messages during their school or college years that they were not cut out for mathematics-based fields. The race-, class-, and gender-based differences in those who pursue more advanced mathematics make it clear that messages students receive about who belongs in mathematics are biased along racial, socioeconomic status, language, and gender lines, a fact that has led to considerable inequities in mathematics. In 2015, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, and colleagues interviewed university professors in different subject areas to gauge student perceptions of educational “gifts”—the concept that people need a special ability to be successful in a particular field. The results were staggering; the more prevalent the idea, in any academic field, the fewer women and people of color participating in that field. This outcome held across all thirty subjects in the study. More mathematics professors believed that students needed a gift than any other professor of STEAM content. The study highlights the subtle ways that students are dissuaded from continuing in mathematics and underscores the important role mathematics teachers play in communicating messages that mathematics success is only achievable for select students. This pervasive belief more often influences women and people of color to conclude they will not find success in classes or studies that rely on knowledge of mathematics. Negative messages, either explicit (“I think you’d be happier if you didn’t take that hard mathematics class”) or implicit (“I’m just not a math person”), both imply that only some people can succeed. Perceptions can also be personal (“Math just doesn’t seem to be your strength”) or general (“This test isn’t showing me that these students have what it takes in math.” My other class aced this test.”). And they can also be linked to labels (“low kids,” “bubble kids,” “slow kids”) that lead to a differentiated and unjust mathematics education for students. A fundamental aim of this framework is to respond issues of inequity in mathematics learning; equity influences all aspects of this document. Some overarching principles that guide work towards equity in mathematics include the following: ⦁ Access to an engaging and humanizing education—a socio-cultural, human endeavor—is a universal right, central among civil rights. ⦁ All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents (Cimpian et al, 2015; Boaler, 2019) and the “cult of the genius” (Ellenberg, 2015). ⦁ The belief that “I treat everyone the same” is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities (Langer-Osuna, 2011). ⦁ Student engagement must be a design goal of mathematics curriculum design, co-equal with content goals. ⦁ Mathematics pathways must open mathematics to all students, eliminating option-limiting tracking. ⦁ Students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, and language are resources for learning mathematics (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006; Turner & Celedón-Pattichis, 2011; Moschkovich, 2013). ⦁ All students, regardless of background, language of origin, differences, or foundational knowledge are capable and deserving of depth of understanding and engagement in rich mathematics tasks. [1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter1.docx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter1.doc...

itronitron 5y ago

> we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents That is not surprising to hear as it was written by people that have invested a large part of their careers in the educational system. "Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach Gym."