5 ms·

From my understanding, they revisit this framework every 8 years. California is doing poorly in 8th grade math scores, so I think they want to make changes to i

From my understanding, they revisit this framework every 8 years. California is doing poorly in 8th grade math scores, so I think they want to make changes to improve that.

adamomada 4y ago
Goodhart's law In action?
prepend 4y ago
It seems like such a bonehead solution to the problem. Of course if you’re doing poorly in math scores, you can make math easier in the hope to increase scores. It’s sad that the state is proposing these changes. I remember in school there were kids who argued “algebra is stupid, who needs it, why waste time” and there were one or two sympathetic teachers who would respond “well, I rarely have to use algebra to balance my checkbook” or something silly. It seems like those kids have grown up, gained power, and are literally pushing the argument that this math isn’t important.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  The person quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler) is a "Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Mathematics Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education" who "won the award for best PhD in education from the British Educational Research Association" I'm not saying I agree with the proposed California Framework. As a formerly gifted maths student, I hate it. But let's not dismiss the rigorous work of an academic who is attempting to improve education for a public education body for a state with 40 million people as "bonehead" (or "woke nonsense" as another commenter did). 90% of the reasons why kids say "<subject> is stupid, who needs it" it's because they are not enjoying it or struggling with it and using this as a defense mechanism. Noone who is doing WELL at a school subject dismisses it as useless. So maybe, just maybe, it's worth evaluating the education process to make it easier to teach kids to give them the foundations that then the more gifted ones can invest and build on top of, and everyone comes out with baseline math competency.
  - chmod600 4y ago
    The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    A Professor of Mathematics Education is a role that fits into a woke section of academia and generally publishes woke forms of advocate research. Many people can study mathematics education without studying much mathematics at all. When the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense, I'm not convinced by an advocacy researcher saying it's rigorous work.
    - deanCommie 4y ago
      https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Can you make specific arguments instead of devolving to shorthand dogwhistles that are completely up to the interpretation of the reader. The term 'woke' has no meaning, depending on the context it's anything between "We should shame all white people for the crimes of their ancestors" to "We should make a movie with a female lead". By using it, you leave it ambiguous as to where on the spectrum you fall.
      - TimPC 4y ago
        The specific argument is that the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense. The other specific argument is that a researcher in mathematics education doesn't need to take a lot of mathematics. The inference is that we should trust the former set of people more even on matters of mathematics education.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I believe this is a paper from her thesis work: http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boaler.pdf http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boale... It’s mainly a qualitative analysis that wouldn’t pass for rigorous in any real scientific or engineering field.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I think the argument (though not necessarily one I agree with) is a spin on what you said: The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM. That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's. The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's. The key questions are 1) Is that actually better (I certainly think bringing up the floor is a good idea, but at what cost)? 2) Is this policy even going to get us there?
  - prepend 4y ago
    I like your example breakdown, but my understanding that by removing calculus as an option it’s lowering the ceiling so we’d end up with: 0% A, 25% B, 25% C, 25% D, 25% F. I guess there is a societal discussion to be had if we should trade off losing As to reduce Fs. But I think that first there’s not a dichotomy between approaches so the only way to get fewer Fs is to reduce the number of As. I think there are ways to improve education that doesn’t remove the opportunity to excel. And framing it as the California proposal or failing math is unfair. I think what surprises me so is that they continue to propose these solutions that seem to reduce the overall math capabilities being produced.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      I think you should do some primary research. This threads article argues that calculus is impossible, but the actual reality is [0]: The draft Mathematics Framework includes calculus in the possible high school pathways, and also suggests ways to enable more students to get access to calculus. It notes that many high schools currently organize their coursework in a manner that requires eighth grade acceleration in order to reach calculus or other advanced mathematics courses by senior year. While some students succeed with this approach, acceleration has proved a problematic option for other students who could reach higher level math courses but would benefit from a stronger foundation in middle school mathematics. There is nothing in this about actually removing calculus for high achievers, and this there’s an argument against it, it’s what I laid out: “is it better to push more kids into calculus at all costs or should we focus on raising the floor?” It’s honestly a very similar argument to the (popular on HN) argument of “not everyone needs college” And to be quite frank, this isn’t coming from nowhere, this is modeled on the success of other western countries with higher math scores across the board. [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp
leodr21 4y ago
Are other states doing the same thing too?

From my understanding, they revisit this framework every 8 years. California is doing poorly in 8th grade math scores, so I think they want to make changes to improve that.

adamomada 4y ago

Goodhart's law In action?

prepend 4y ago

It seems like such a bonehead solution to the problem. Of course if you’re doing poorly in math scores, you can make math easier in the hope to increase scores. It’s sad that the state is proposing these changes. I remember in school there were kids who argued “algebra is stupid, who needs it, why waste time” and there were one or two sympathetic teachers who would respond “well, I rarely have to use algebra to balance my checkbook” or something silly. It seems like those kids have grown up, gained power, and are literally pushing the argument that this math isn’t important.

deanCommie 4y ago
The person quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Boaler) is a "Nomellini-Olivier Professor of Mathematics Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education" who "won the award for best PhD in education from the British Educational Research Association" I'm not saying I agree with the proposed California Framework. As a formerly gifted maths student, I hate it. But let's not dismiss the rigorous work of an academic who is attempting to improve education for a public education body for a state with 40 million people as "bonehead" (or "woke nonsense" as another commenter did). 90% of the reasons why kids say "<subject> is stupid, who needs it" it's because they are not enjoying it or struggling with it and using this as a defense mechanism. Noone who is doing WELL at a school subject dismisses it as useless. So maybe, just maybe, it's worth evaluating the education process to make it easier to teach kids to give them the foundations that then the more gifted ones can invest and build on top of, and everyone comes out with baseline math competency.
- chmod600 4y ago
  The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
- TimPC 4y ago
  A Professor of Mathematics Education is a role that fits into a woke section of academia and generally publishes woke forms of advocate research. Many people can study mathematics education without studying much mathematics at all. When the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense, I'm not convinced by an advocacy researcher saying it's rigorous work.
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Can you make specific arguments instead of devolving to shorthand dogwhistles that are completely up to the interpretation of the reader. The term 'woke' has no meaning, depending on the context it's anything between "We should shame all white people for the crimes of their ancestors" to "We should make a movie with a female lead". By using it, you leave it ambiguous as to where on the spectrum you fall.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      The specific argument is that the Mathematicians and Scientists are screaming that the policy is nonsense. The other specific argument is that a researcher in mathematics education doesn't need to take a lot of mathematics. The inference is that we should trust the former set of people more even on matters of mathematics education.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 4y ago
  I believe this is a paper from her thesis work: http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boaler.pdf http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/EMAT6990Sp10/JRME1998-Jo_Boale... It’s mainly a qualitative analysis that wouldn’t pass for rigorous in any real scientific or engineering field.
RC_ITR 4y ago
I think the argument (though not necessarily one I agree with) is a spin on what you said: The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM. That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's. The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's. The key questions are 1) Is that actually better (I certainly think bringing up the floor is a good idea, but at what cost)? 2) Is this policy even going to get us there?
- prepend 4y ago
  I like your example breakdown, but my understanding that by removing calculus as an option it’s lowering the ceiling so we’d end up with: 0% A, 25% B, 25% C, 25% D, 25% F. I guess there is a societal discussion to be had if we should trade off losing As to reduce Fs. But I think that first there’s not a dichotomy between approaches so the only way to get fewer Fs is to reduce the number of As. I think there are ways to improve education that doesn’t remove the opportunity to excel. And framing it as the California proposal or failing math is unfair. I think what surprises me so is that they continue to propose these solutions that seem to reduce the overall math capabilities being produced.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I think you should do some primary research. This threads article argues that calculus is impossible, but the actual reality is [0]: The draft Mathematics Framework includes calculus in the possible high school pathways, and also suggests ways to enable more students to get access to calculus. It notes that many high schools currently organize their coursework in a manner that requires eighth grade acceleration in order to reach calculus or other advanced mathematics courses by senior year. While some students succeed with this approach, acceleration has proved a problematic option for other students who could reach higher level math courses but would benefit from a stronger foundation in middle school mathematics. There is nothing in this about actually removing calculus for high achievers, and this there’s an argument against it, it’s what I laid out: “is it better to push more kids into calculus at all costs or should we focus on raising the floor?” It’s honestly a very similar argument to the (popular on HN) argument of “not everyone needs college” And to be quite frank, this isn’t coming from nowhere, this is modeled on the success of other western countries with higher math scores across the board. [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp

leodr21 4y ago

Are other states doing the same thing too?