9 ms·

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 bui

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?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children must always be at the same level up until their last year. This is what is in contention, and not whether the Common Core needs more revision in terms of depth or rearrangement of subjects. Under the Common Core, children in middle school who are ready for Algebra may opt for Algebra, and children who benefit from a delay may opt for a delay — but this is viewed by Equitable Math as sustaining White Supremacy in math education.
      - magicalist 5y ago
        > all children must always be at the same level up until their last year But that's not what's happening, so, again, what does that have to do with the actual changes being made?
        syki 5y ago
        It’s the goal.
        magicalist 5y ago
        ...of some people but not the recommendations?
        threatofrain 5y ago
        Equitable Math is not "some people". It's the original branding for the program under contention in this forum.
        magicalist 5y ago
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > I'm not sure why how you get "walk back the complexity of education" The parent comment literally admitted that they were removing specific complex topics. That is what I was responding to.
  - burnished 5y ago
    But also replacing it with other perhaps more pertinent advanced topics? Hard to have a fruitful discussion without a curricula to discuss
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > The parent comment literally admitted that they were removing specific complex topics. you quoted and responded to > 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 so which specific and complex topics are you referring to in the OP?
syki 5y ago
I teach math at a community college. It is all about removing complexity. The idea in education is that everyone is intellectually equal. Therefore the racial achievement gap in mathematics is due to racism. The solution is to change things. Too many POC students aren’t placing into college level math therefore get rid of placement test and get rid of remedial courses. Create new college algebra with just in time tutoring and voila, no more racial achievement gap. If you dumb things down enough everyone passes and we can pat ourselves on the back and claim to have solved the racial achievement gap. My complaint about these reforms is that the root cause of the issue is not being addressed. This has long term negative effects. My own anecdotal experience is that what used to be a C is now an A or a B in my classes and I’m passing people who don’t know anything. I’m judged by the passing rate so I’m maximizing that metric. These reforms are just doing what I’m doing but in a less forthright way.
- skyde 5y ago
  i’m 100% agree with what you said. When i was in university the math teacher gave us access to previous year exam so we can (study/practice) with them. I quickly found that we are now getting 40% on those math test which result in an (A+) because they grade in the curve but 20 years ago the real average for this teacher exams where around (75%) and those exam had question of similar difficulty. TLDR: an A+ today is not the same as an A+ 20 years ago
- csee 5y ago
  > My complaint about these reforms is that the root cause of the issue is not being addressed. The root cause is well outside of the scope of schools to address. Perhaps they can help to a small extent through things like lunchtime meals. But curriculum reform itself will never narrow the gap more than a tiny amount. Childhood nutrition, single parent households, health of mother during pregnancy, culture/respect towards education as a virtue in the community and household, education level of parents and the time they have to play and talk with their kids. All these things are going to impact the capabilities of young school children and feed into outcome gaps between various groups (Black vs White, poor vs rich). I believe most proponents of "math equity" actually know all this, and are just maliciously virtue signalling either because they're jealous that their own kids aren't doing well, or for social credit.
eslaught 5y ago
Did you take geometry in a California public school? I did about 20 years ago, and my impression was that it's an extremely fluffy course that would absolutely benefit from being condensed, or at least rewritten. California math education (again, at the time I took it) was already extremely oddly paced. The Algebra 2/Trig class I took was extremely aggressive, and then the year of pre-calc that followed it [1] had about 2 weeks of novel content spread over a year's worth of teaching. I was initially a year behind most of my classmates (starting in junior high), then skipped ahead to do Calculus BC alongside everyone who'd been a year ahead of me---and aced it. On the other hand, the people who were really advanced had already gone on to college courses at that point and basically hadn't bothered with anything in the system for many years. In short, it's a mess and has been for decades. If they can clean it up a bit and make the pacing more even and integrated, I think that would be a net win. [1]: "Introduction to Analysis", I think they called it.
- fastaguy88 5y ago
  I took geometry more than 50 years ago. From my perspective, it was useless then as well. As far as I can tell, its goal was to illustrate the importance of mathematical proofs. Perhaps they are important to mathematicians, and I suppose they would be important if lots of high-school and college mathematics were potentially incorrect, so we needed a proof to reassure ourselves, but for most of us, even those who actively use mathematics, proofs are a waste of time. It would be better for students to become more comfortable with abstractions beyond multiplication.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Real geometry is more important these days since computer graphics, photo and video editing and such are so common.
    - chongli 5y ago
      The geometry of computer graphics is differential geometry of curves and surfaces. As a topic it requires a strong background in linear algebra and multi variable calculus. Not something a typical high school student has any preparation for.

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?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children must always be at the same level up until their last year. This is what is in contention, and not whether the Common Core needs more revision in terms of depth or rearrangement of subjects. Under the Common Core, children in middle school who are ready for Algebra may opt for Algebra, and children who benefit from a delay may opt for a delay — but this is viewed by Equitable Math as sustaining White Supremacy in math education.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > all children must always be at the same level up until their last year But that's not what's happening, so, again, what does that have to do with the actual changes being made?
      - syki 5y ago
        It’s the goal.
        magicalist 5y ago
        ...of some people but not the recommendations?
        threatofrain 5y ago
        Equitable Math is not "some people". It's the original branding for the program under contention in this forum.
        magicalist 5y ago
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I'm not sure why how you get "walk back the complexity of education" The parent comment literally admitted that they were removing specific complex topics. That is what I was responding to.
- burnished 5y ago
  But also replacing it with other perhaps more pertinent advanced topics? Hard to have a fruitful discussion without a curricula to discuss
- magicalist 5y ago
  > The parent comment literally admitted that they were removing specific complex topics. you quoted and responded to > 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 so which specific and complex topics are you referring to in the OP?

syki 5y ago

I teach math at a community college. It is all about removing complexity. The idea in education is that everyone is intellectually equal. Therefore the racial achievement gap in mathematics is due to racism. The solution is to change things. Too many POC students aren’t placing into college level math therefore get rid of placement test and get rid of remedial courses. Create new college algebra with just in time tutoring and voila, no more racial achievement gap. If you dumb things down enough everyone passes and we can pat ourselves on the back and claim to have solved the racial achievement gap. My complaint about these reforms is that the root cause of the issue is not being addressed. This has long term negative effects. My own anecdotal experience is that what used to be a C is now an A or a B in my classes and I’m passing people who don’t know anything. I’m judged by the passing rate so I’m maximizing that metric. These reforms are just doing what I’m doing but in a less forthright way.

skyde 5y ago
i’m 100% agree with what you said. When i was in university the math teacher gave us access to previous year exam so we can (study/practice) with them. I quickly found that we are now getting 40% on those math test which result in an (A+) because they grade in the curve but 20 years ago the real average for this teacher exams where around (75%) and those exam had question of similar difficulty. TLDR: an A+ today is not the same as an A+ 20 years ago
csee 5y ago
> My complaint about these reforms is that the root cause of the issue is not being addressed. The root cause is well outside of the scope of schools to address. Perhaps they can help to a small extent through things like lunchtime meals. But curriculum reform itself will never narrow the gap more than a tiny amount. Childhood nutrition, single parent households, health of mother during pregnancy, culture/respect towards education as a virtue in the community and household, education level of parents and the time they have to play and talk with their kids. All these things are going to impact the capabilities of young school children and feed into outcome gaps between various groups (Black vs White, poor vs rich). I believe most proponents of "math equity" actually know all this, and are just maliciously virtue signalling either because they're jealous that their own kids aren't doing well, or for social credit.

eslaught 5y ago

Did you take geometry in a California public school? I did about 20 years ago, and my impression was that it's an extremely fluffy course that would absolutely benefit from being condensed, or at least rewritten. California math education (again, at the time I took it) was already extremely oddly paced. The Algebra 2/Trig class I took was extremely aggressive, and then the year of pre-calc that followed it [1] had about 2 weeks of novel content spread over a year's worth of teaching. I was initially a year behind most of my classmates (starting in junior high), then skipped ahead to do Calculus BC alongside everyone who'd been a year ahead of me---and aced it. On the other hand, the people who were really advanced had already gone on to college courses at that point and basically hadn't bothered with anything in the system for many years. In short, it's a mess and has been for decades. If they can clean it up a bit and make the pacing more even and integrated, I think that would be a net win. [1]: "Introduction to Analysis", I think they called it.

fastaguy88 5y ago
I took geometry more than 50 years ago. From my perspective, it was useless then as well. As far as I can tell, its goal was to illustrate the importance of mathematical proofs. Perhaps they are important to mathematicians, and I suppose they would be important if lots of high-school and college mathematics were potentially incorrect, so we needed a proof to reassure ourselves, but for most of us, even those who actively use mathematics, proofs are a waste of time. It would be better for students to become more comfortable with abstractions beyond multiplication.
- naasking 5y ago
  Real geometry is more important these days since computer graphics, photo and video editing and such are so common.
  - chongli 5y ago
    The geometry of computer graphics is differential geometry of curves and surfaces. As a topic it requires a strong background in linear algebra and multi variable calculus. Not something a typical high school student has any preparation for.