3 ms·

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 educ

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.)
  - krastanov 5y ago
    On the other hand for a strong case against my belief, this seems like a good start https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt-drive-californias-math-policy/663374 https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt... It is cited in the open letter's supporting document. It would take some very serious effort to read through these resources and try to disentangle the biases of the authors, but I guess this meltdown would not have happened if reading social/ed science papers was easy.

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.)
- krastanov 5y ago
  On the other hand for a strong case against my belief, this seems like a good start https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt-drive-californias-math-policy/663374 https://edsource.org/2021/one-districts-faulty-data-shouldnt... It is cited in the open letter's supporting document. It would take some very serious effort to read through these resources and try to disentangle the biases of the authors, but I guess this meltdown would not have happened if reading social/ed science papers was easy.