5 ms·

Sounds like more woke nonsense. Sounds nice and easy to a layman from a super high level but not practical or put through any kind of rigorous rational thought.

by nafix 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vkou 4y ago
> Sounds like more woke nonsense You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. It's not some kind of novel woke nonsense, though, it's how math instruction on this continent has been happening over the past X decades. The wokies are pushing back on this nonsense.
- nafix 4y ago
  Like I said, sounds good to a layman in general terms (just how you explained it). But the actual implementation is half-baked, short-sighted, and favors a weak/easy solution rather than something more well thought out and complex.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    Ok, so what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of? I feel too often the people who play the 'woke nonsense' card think that we should just allow the current failings to continue, and any work to help struggling groups is wrong.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of? The cited issue was that higher level math courses were making other students feel like they weren't cut out for math. So it seems more like the issue is a mindset one. They shouldn't be looking at better performing kids and think "I can never do that". We should be instilling a better growth mindset to these kids, so they understand that they can overcome their inabilities. The "woke" solution of removing high level courses actually achieves the opposite. It reinforces the idea that such a level is inachievable for some people so it should be cut out for all people.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...
        vkou 4y ago
        So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?
        woojoo666 4y ago
        Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses
        vkou 4y ago
        The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education. If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.
        dahfizz 4y ago
        > If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial. If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general. I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      > what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of? Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential? If the current system is untenable, then I would force all students to have one "tutor" period. Everyone has to take a tutor period, so the social stigmatization you're worried about it not a factor. This way, kids gets extra help in their "worst" subject (decided by some combination of grades / introspection/ parental involvement). This way, the kids who need more help in math can get it, without pulling down the kids who belong in more advanced classes.
      - cortesoft 4y ago
        > Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential? That is the purpose, but I agree that I don’t think it will work. I am saying we need to keep trying, and not dismiss any attempt to fix the issue as woke nonsense.
- twofornone 4y ago
  >You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome based on the totally untrue premise that we are all equally capable given identical environments. The only possible resolution to this goal, given the obvious uneven distribution of innate human ability, is the handicapping of those who are capable, because there fundamentally is no way to boost those at the bottom to match the middle and top. And I don't think people understand how dangerously pervasive this mindset has become, as it is also the foundation for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the equally misguided idea that given equal opportunity all demographics would see equal representation in a true meritocracy.
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    > No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. I think the nonsense is making a decision about who is and isn't cut-out for math at such a young age, and keeping them hemmed into that path for the duration of their education. That's not merely recognizing the top, middle, and bottom - it's creating it. I see that as a worthy thing to try to avoid. I also think we should strive to avoid falsely concluding that all persons are equally capable. But every decision is one that creates tradeoffs. I don't know what should be done. I'm an observer on this topic, and I think there's a lot of hubris in this thread from others oh so certain they know what's best.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      What's the longest we can go without streaming and still meet reasonable targets? The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar. This means an informed discussion needs to be had about the costs of lowering the bar against the costs of early streaming. I think people are rather strongly against lowering the bar to the point of effectively removing calculus from high school based on the general reaction in this thread.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  'you aren't good at math/math is hard' may be nonsense, no doubt. 'you can be good at math/math is easy' may be an equal nonsense. This seems to be a symmetrical situation to me. You can absolutely underrate or overrate a person's abilities to do X. I don't see how one is preferable to the other. Both are pretty destructive when taken to their extreme logical conclusions. For example, from the relative underrepresentation of blacks in advanced math classes, you can draw a conclusion that math as a science is inherently racist/white supremacist. Such sentiments can be sometimes seen in discussions and I consider them dangerous, toxic nonsense.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math. Or, similarly, that every kid that the same capacity for it or ability to pickup math concepts. Because it seems to me that if you have experience with any sampling of children where N>1, you'll see that's simply not true.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 4y ago
    > I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math. I'm not, there are always extreme outliers and exceptions, but I do believe that the vast majority of children can meet the incredibly low bar for mathematics education that is considered normal in North American schools. I also believe that teaching them to be afraid of math, (and having their teachers be afraid of math) is a major contributing factor for why so many of them struggle so much to meet that bar.
    - dorchadas 4y ago
      > (and having their teachers be afraid of math) This is a huge part of the issue I feel. I know way too many elementary school teachers who are afraid of math themselves and struggle to understand it. Is it any wonder the kids they teach don't? It causes big problems when they get to me for mathematics in high school.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > (and having their teachers be afraid of math) This is a big one. I was in sixth grade when my science teacher told me that the boiling point of water was 132F, because she thought you added 32 to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit. This problem runs all the way down, from teachers colleges to the kinds of people who apply to be K-12 teachers. That fearing math is okay and normal is pervasive in the culture and it’s not clear to me you can even do anything about it other than implement gating math credentials for teachers that would exclude a huge fraction of teaching school graduates.
    - 4y ago

Sounds like more woke nonsense. Sounds nice and easy to a layman from a super high level but not practical or put through any kind of rigorous rational thought.

by nafix 4y ago

Sounds like more woke nonsense. Sounds nice and easy to a layman from a super high level but not practical or put through any kind of rigorous rational thought.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vkou 4y ago

> Sounds like more woke nonsense You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. It's not some kind of novel woke nonsense, though, it's how math instruction on this continent has been happening over the past X decades. The wokies are pushing back on this nonsense.

nafix 4y ago
Like I said, sounds good to a layman in general terms (just how you explained it). But the actual implementation is half-baked, short-sighted, and favors a weak/easy solution rather than something more well thought out and complex.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Ok, so what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of? I feel too often the people who play the 'woke nonsense' card think that we should just allow the current failings to continue, and any work to help struggling groups is wrong.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    Wouldn't cutting out high level math courses make even more kids underperform below what they are capable of? The cited issue was that higher level math courses were making other students feel like they weren't cut out for math. So it seems more like the issue is a mindset one. They shouldn't be looking at better performing kids and think "I can never do that". We should be instilling a better growth mindset to these kids, so they understand that they can overcome their inabilities. The "woke" solution of removing high level courses actually achieves the opposite. It reinforces the idea that such a level is inachievable for some people so it should be cut out for all people.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...
      - vkou 4y ago
        So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?
        woojoo666 4y ago
        Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses
        vkou 4y ago
        The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education. If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.
        dahfizz 4y ago
        > If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course? If you can run a < 5 minute mile, you are not going to benefit from jogging at a pace set by the slowest pace. If you're that slowest kid, being forced to jog will be hugely beneficial. If you think the bar is too low for the non-advanced classes, that's fine. You should be advocating for more rigour and mathematics across the board, not less. The stratification of classes is orthogonal to math education not being rigorous enough in general. I don't know how it works in CA, but where I grew up the regular math classes were perfectly good math classes. But if you excelled in math, and wanted to focus on it, you could take the honors and AP level classes. Most of the kids in the regular math wanted to instead focus their time and energy on AP history, or literature. I found the system to work quite well. Nobody was "pigeonholed" and everyone got the fundamental education in all subjects that they needed.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > what would your approach be to address the issue of huge groups of kids underperforming what they are actually capable of? Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential? If the current system is untenable, then I would force all students to have one "tutor" period. Everyone has to take a tutor period, so the social stigmatization you're worried about it not a factor. This way, kids gets extra help in their "worst" subject (decided by some combination of grades / introspection/ parental involvement). This way, the kids who need more help in math can get it, without pulling down the kids who belong in more advanced classes.
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      > Huh? Are you suggesting that removing upper level maths classes helps kids achieve their potential? That is the purpose, but I agree that I don’t think it will work. I am saying we need to keep trying, and not dismiss any attempt to fix the issue as woke nonsense.
twofornone 4y ago
>You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome based on the totally untrue premise that we are all equally capable given identical environments. The only possible resolution to this goal, given the obvious uneven distribution of innate human ability, is the handicapping of those who are capable, because there fundamentally is no way to boost those at the bottom to match the middle and top. And I don't think people understand how dangerously pervasive this mindset has become, as it is also the foundation for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the equally misguided idea that given equal opportunity all demographics would see equal representation in a true meritocracy.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  > No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. I think the nonsense is making a decision about who is and isn't cut-out for math at such a young age, and keeping them hemmed into that path for the duration of their education. That's not merely recognizing the top, middle, and bottom - it's creating it. I see that as a worthy thing to try to avoid. I also think we should strive to avoid falsely concluding that all persons are equally capable. But every decision is one that creates tradeoffs. I don't know what should be done. I'm an observer on this topic, and I think there's a lot of hubris in this thread from others oh so certain they know what's best.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    What's the longest we can go without streaming and still meet reasonable targets? The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar. This means an informed discussion needs to be had about the costs of lowering the bar against the costs of early streaming. I think people are rather strongly against lowering the bar to the point of effectively removing calculus from high school based on the general reaction in this thread.
inglor_cz 4y ago
'you aren't good at math/math is hard' may be nonsense, no doubt. 'you can be good at math/math is easy' may be an equal nonsense. This seems to be a symmetrical situation to me. You can absolutely underrate or overrate a person's abilities to do X. I don't see how one is preferable to the other. Both are pretty destructive when taken to their extreme logical conclusions. For example, from the relative underrepresentation of blacks in advanced math classes, you can draw a conclusion that math as a science is inherently racist/white supremacist. Such sentiments can be sometimes seen in discussions and I consider them dangerous, toxic nonsense.
khazhoux 4y ago
I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math. Or, similarly, that every kid that the same capacity for it or ability to pickup math concepts. Because it seems to me that if you have experience with any sampling of children where N>1, you'll see that's simply not true.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 4y ago
  > I don't understand if you're saying that every kid is equally good at math. I'm not, there are always extreme outliers and exceptions, but I do believe that the vast majority of children can meet the incredibly low bar for mathematics education that is considered normal in North American schools. I also believe that teaching them to be afraid of math, (and having their teachers be afraid of math) is a major contributing factor for why so many of them struggle so much to meet that bar.
  - dorchadas 4y ago
    > (and having their teachers be afraid of math) This is a huge part of the issue I feel. I know way too many elementary school teachers who are afraid of math themselves and struggle to understand it. Is it any wonder the kids they teach don't? It causes big problems when they get to me for mathematics in high school.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > (and having their teachers be afraid of math) This is a big one. I was in sixth grade when my science teacher told me that the boiling point of water was 132F, because she thought you added 32 to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit. This problem runs all the way down, from teachers colleges to the kinds of people who apply to be K-12 teachers. That fearing math is okay and normal is pervasive in the culture and it’s not clear to me you can even do anything about it other than implement gating math credentials for teachers that would exclude a huge fraction of teaching school graduates.
  - 4y ago