4 ms·

I don't know if it's still there in the revision, but in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject i

by luca3v 4y ago

I don't know if it's still there in the revision, but in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" Edit: in the new version it has been changed to "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
Sounds like the author didn't have any.
- andrewprock 4y ago
  She doesn't even have a math degree.
- archagon 4y ago
  Sounds like you’re making shit up.
juve1996 4y ago
> "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated" I mean, I would hope this is true. I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them. Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providing the best general education it can for all people and making as many people as possible productive. If you looked at society 500 years ago you could assume that only certain people were smart enough to read and write.
- mbg721 4y ago
  Actual math is irrelevant to this whole argument, just as actual literacy was irrelevant ~500 years ago. This isn't about math ability, it's about the fact that STEM is an obstacle to woke bureaucrats' projection of power.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    I'm not sure if I buy the woke-alarmism that is rife on HN. Reading the framework, I don't see any of this "wokism." It seems like any other guided/misguided attempt to improve the school system that has already taken feedback into account. This entire HN thread is filled with "back in my days" and "wokism" but no one actually is disputing the content of the framework itself with actual evidence.
- caddemon 4y ago
  It really depends on how you define "high-level". Yeah the attitude that some people "just can't do math" is not good, I don't disagree with you there. But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes. It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    > But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Certainly some people are better at things than others - but so what? I know plenty of people that excelled in math in grade school and struggled in high school, also many more that excelled in high school and struggled in college. Some, like myself, struggled in grade school and excelled in high school. The difference was motivation. > Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes. And how many brilliant kids moved just a bit too fast and lost interest? The thing is you only view things one way. You forget that a fast ramp-up in difficulty can turn away many students who could've turned out to be brilliant scientists and engineers. > It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it. I don't agree that it is a philosophical statement, having read it, it seems pretty straightforward. The alarmism about the woke mob is overstated.
    - caddemon 4y ago
      As mentioned by OP: > in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" The people that wrote said publicly available draft are still involved with this plan, and have not personally nor explicitly backed down from the statement. It's a good sign that some moderation has been introduced to the text, but it seems clear to me there are still some pretty extreme beliefs amongst those leading this thing. Whether the "woke alarmism" is over the top or not, I don't think it should be controversial to say that a philosophical statement is at the root of this plan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Equitable Math folks would agree with that assessment even. I also don't think that criticism of a specific model of leveled courses should be used to dismiss all leveled courses. You talk about kids that are rushed ahead or that perform differently at different points in their math "career" - which could certainly be problematic if levels are rigid throughout the educational timeline and leave little choice to students. Yes sometimes it is implemented that way. But it is not impossible nor even particularly impractical to implement a more flexible levels system that would mitigate those concerns. There are schools that have done this well, California school system was not one of them. This proposal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

by luca3v 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

Sounds like the author didn't have any.

andrewprock 4y ago
She doesn't even have a math degree.
archagon 4y ago
Sounds like you’re making shit up.

juve1996 4y ago

> "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated" I mean, I would hope this is true. I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them. Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providing the best general education it can for all people and making as many people as possible productive. If you looked at society 500 years ago you could assume that only certain people were smart enough to read and write.

mbg721 4y ago
Actual math is irrelevant to this whole argument, just as actual literacy was irrelevant ~500 years ago. This isn't about math ability, it's about the fact that STEM is an obstacle to woke bureaucrats' projection of power.
- juve1996 4y ago
  I'm not sure if I buy the woke-alarmism that is rife on HN. Reading the framework, I don't see any of this "wokism." It seems like any other guided/misguided attempt to improve the school system that has already taken feedback into account. This entire HN thread is filled with "back in my days" and "wokism" but no one actually is disputing the content of the framework itself with actual evidence.
caddemon 4y ago
It really depends on how you define "high-level". Yeah the attitude that some people "just can't do math" is not good, I don't disagree with you there. But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes. It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.
- juve1996 4y ago
  > But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Certainly some people are better at things than others - but so what? I know plenty of people that excelled in math in grade school and struggled in high school, also many more that excelled in high school and struggled in college. Some, like myself, struggled in grade school and excelled in high school. The difference was motivation. > Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes. And how many brilliant kids moved just a bit too fast and lost interest? The thing is you only view things one way. You forget that a fast ramp-up in difficulty can turn away many students who could've turned out to be brilliant scientists and engineers. > It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it. I don't agree that it is a philosophical statement, having read it, it seems pretty straightforward. The alarmism about the woke mob is overstated.
  - caddemon 4y ago
    As mentioned by OP: > in chapter one of the earlier draft of the California framework it said, in a prominent place "we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents" The people that wrote said publicly available draft are still involved with this plan, and have not personally nor explicitly backed down from the statement. It's a good sign that some moderation has been introduced to the text, but it seems clear to me there are still some pretty extreme beliefs amongst those leading this thing. Whether the "woke alarmism" is over the top or not, I don't think it should be controversial to say that a philosophical statement is at the root of this plan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Equitable Math folks would agree with that assessment even. I also don't think that criticism of a specific model of leveled courses should be used to dismiss all leveled courses. You talk about kids that are rushed ahead or that perform differently at different points in their math "career" - which could certainly be problematic if levels are rigid throughout the educational timeline and leave little choice to students. Yes sometimes it is implemented that way. But it is not impossible nor even particularly impractical to implement a more flexible levels system that would mitigate those concerns. There are schools that have done this well, California school system was not one of them. This proposal is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.