6 ms·

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 mat

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.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    The letter isn't saying that all of them teach at all levels. It's true that I'm a lot more familiar with tech reputations than education reputations. OTOH education is an unusual field in that practically everyone has decade-plus full-time intimate first-hand experience with it; and more in the case of parents. What do you think of the claim that the policy will increase inequality of preparation because better-off parents will bypass public education more? It sounds like you might have more light to shed on that.
    - krastanov 5y ago
      I am hesitant of having an opinion. These are luminaries that I look up to, but I fundamentally disagree with their opinion on this topic. Probably partially because I have been very frustrated with snobbish and disconnected[1] attitude towards K12 education among scientists. But to actually answer your question. Better-off parents already bypass public education, even if not completely. If this new program works (not a given), the problem will not be exacerbated, rather more students will be prepared to reach for these "gifted programs" (which in many cases, even if expensive, usually have good fee-waivers as this gives them more credibility). [1] Obviously just a personal opinion. But in the interactions I have had in this context I feel I have seen a lot of inflated but unsubstantiated sense of competence.
      - abecedarius 5y ago
        Thanks. I guess I can see this working out if the classes end up being taught better on average (aiming for deeper understanding instead of faster advancement along a standard track to "advanced" math), and if the better-off parents generally appreciate this. If we did successfully get better teaching then it'd be natural for a greater proportion of the disadvantaged to discover they're interested in real math, too. (I wouldn't bet on it, personally, and I don't think the infusion of wokeness is mainly about helping more people to understand math better. Hopefully I'm too cynical. The Common Core math stuff seems like progress, for instance.)
        5y ago
crackercrews 5y ago
> But there is a world of difference between being a great scientist and being a great K12 teacher. Very good point. K12 teachers know a lot, but they may not know much about the path to becoming a world-renowned scientist. The signers of this letter know that path from their own experience and the experience of their colleagues. They may not be educators but they have intimate understanding of the education process of bright children.
- krastanov 5y ago
  Oh, this is a good point that did elude me. As long as some form of gifted programs continue existing (which, given my flawed reading of this document, they will continue existing, just by virtue of demand), I do not see it being a problem. You will raise the bottom significantly while not really changing the top.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Gifted programs are largely not a thing in Californian math. When we're talking about children who opt to take Algebra in middle school, or children who opt to take Calculus in high school, we aren't talking about gifted programs. We're talking about alternative pathways in math. A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children of any given grade ought to be in the same math class, and that there ought not be any standard specification for, say, taking Algebra "early" in middle school. The explicitly stated reasoning by the program authors is that this disparity sustains White Supremacy in math. A child who is ready for Algebra would be best served by opting into a classroom where a teacher has been polishing a year-long discourse on Algebra, as opposed to creating an ad-hoc gifted program. A return to gifted programs would be a return to administrative opacity.

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.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  The letter isn't saying that all of them teach at all levels. It's true that I'm a lot more familiar with tech reputations than education reputations. OTOH education is an unusual field in that practically everyone has decade-plus full-time intimate first-hand experience with it; and more in the case of parents. What do you think of the claim that the policy will increase inequality of preparation because better-off parents will bypass public education more? It sounds like you might have more light to shed on that.
  - krastanov 5y ago
    I am hesitant of having an opinion. These are luminaries that I look up to, but I fundamentally disagree with their opinion on this topic. Probably partially because I have been very frustrated with snobbish and disconnected[1] attitude towards K12 education among scientists. But to actually answer your question. Better-off parents already bypass public education, even if not completely. If this new program works (not a given), the problem will not be exacerbated, rather more students will be prepared to reach for these "gifted programs" (which in many cases, even if expensive, usually have good fee-waivers as this gives them more credibility). [1] Obviously just a personal opinion. But in the interactions I have had in this context I feel I have seen a lot of inflated but unsubstantiated sense of competence.
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      Thanks. I guess I can see this working out if the classes end up being taught better on average (aiming for deeper understanding instead of faster advancement along a standard track to "advanced" math), and if the better-off parents generally appreciate this. If we did successfully get better teaching then it'd be natural for a greater proportion of the disadvantaged to discover they're interested in real math, too. (I wouldn't bet on it, personally, and I don't think the infusion of wokeness is mainly about helping more people to understand math better. Hopefully I'm too cynical. The Common Core math stuff seems like progress, for instance.)
      - 5y ago

crackercrews 5y ago

> But there is a world of difference between being a great scientist and being a great K12 teacher. Very good point. K12 teachers know a lot, but they may not know much about the path to becoming a world-renowned scientist. The signers of this letter know that path from their own experience and the experience of their colleagues. They may not be educators but they have intimate understanding of the education process of bright children.

krastanov 5y ago
Oh, this is a good point that did elude me. As long as some form of gifted programs continue existing (which, given my flawed reading of this document, they will continue existing, just by virtue of demand), I do not see it being a problem. You will raise the bottom significantly while not really changing the top.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Gifted programs are largely not a thing in Californian math. When we're talking about children who opt to take Algebra in middle school, or children who opt to take Calculus in high school, we aren't talking about gifted programs. We're talking about alternative pathways in math. A central pillar of Equitable Math is that all children of any given grade ought to be in the same math class, and that there ought not be any standard specification for, say, taking Algebra "early" in middle school. The explicitly stated reasoning by the program authors is that this disparity sustains White Supremacy in math. A child who is ready for Algebra would be best served by opting into a classroom where a teacher has been polishing a year-long discourse on Algebra, as opposed to creating an ad-hoc gifted program. A return to gifted programs would be a return to administrative opacity.