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.
'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.
>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.
> 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.
Perhaps a simple solution is worth a try: publicly praise/acknowledge those who excel, while also teaching that it's okay to not be at that level [yet]. Encourage peer mentorship, so that the more advanced ones can help someone who struggles. For the outliers who are absolutely stuck in the "I don't care" mindset, apply additional resources to find alternate ways to make the material matter to that individual (practical examples, scenarios, hands-on application, etc.). Ask other students who are interested what real world uses they can think of for the material/topic/equation/concept. If something works, consider implementing that method for the entire class earlier on for the next class.
This is where the goalposts generally get shifted toward teacher resources and/or pay. That's fine to discuss as well, but likely not a significant factor for the above suggestions.
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.
> The people designing this curriculum seem to say they can't get rid of streaming without dramatically lowering the bar.
If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats.
But, of course, it's easier to just throw your hands up into the air, and just bifurcate people at Grade 7 into 'good math' and 'bad math' tracks.
>If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats
Their peers in other countries are working with culturally and genetically different populations. Intelligence is 70%+ heritable, you do the math, as taboo as it may be. Then add in the difference between a culture that prizes academic achievement versus one that is ambivalent or worse, prioritizes sports or music over education, and you have more than enough to explain the divergence between nations, as well as demographic groups in the US.
Parents and peers/communities. If the US is any indication, teachers are incapable of instilling appreciation for learning once scholastic achievement is branded "uncool".
You underestimate the impact that schooling has on culture. As a school-age child, you spend more time being socialized and educated by your teachers, than by your parents.
> If over twelve years of math instruction you can't figure out how to teach the average child algebra, trigonometry, logarithms, and the very basics of calculus, I would advise the educators to look into why their peers in other countries are managing to accomplish these feats.
You think they're doing it with "Common Core" and "ethnic" rainforest math, let alone this new "data science" insanity? You couldn't be more mistaken on that. Take a look at the popular Russian and Singapore Math. Not even the smallest trace of the failing "progressive education" thinking, just a lot of solid, high-quality, direct, rigorous, focused teaching.
Can't we agree that both extremes are wrong? While I agree that it is wrong to assume there is no such thing as innate human ability, and it is wrong to assume everyone can achieve equally, you seem to be arguing the opposite; that there is nothing that can be done to improve achievement for those who are struggling.
This simply isn't true. There are things that can be done to improve the outcome for students, and we should continue to work to try to improve the success of all students. This doesn't mean that you expect everyone to achieve equally, just that you can help people achieve more than they would have without the help.
I also find this argument a bit paradoxical; if you truly believe that innate ability is the only determining factor for how well students do, then why do you worry about handicapping those who are capable? It shouldn't matter if we force them into classes they are too advanced for, since how we educate them doesn't matter and only natural talent matters.
It seems that you believe schooling does affect achievement, since you want to make sure we aren't holding back the high achievers, yet you are saying at the same time we shouldn't worry about how we educate the low achievers because they are stuck where they are no matter what. You can't argue that it matters for high achievers but not for low achievers, that doesn't make any sense.
> There are things that can be done to improve the outcome for students, and we should continue to work to try to improve the success of all students.
How would you suggest we do this?
Without a dramatic reinvention of our education system, you have to fill a room with N students and 1 teacher. If you want that teacher to be maximally effective at "improving outcomes" - how do we do that?
The proposal here is to group the kids strictly by age. Every kid in grade X gets the same math class. This will inevitably lead to the math class being irrelevant to some portion of the class. Some kids will be so far behind the teacher may as well be speaking a foreign language, and some kids will be bored out of their mind because the material is moving too slow.
By being a little more intelligent in choosing our groups of N student, we can maximize the relevance of what the teacher is teaching and therefore better improve the success of all students.
I don’t know how we do it, I am not an education expert. I am simply saying we should keep trying new ways to try to help lower performing student improve until we find one that works. We shouldn’t just give up and write them off as being unable to improve.
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.
> 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.
I would agree with this. The standards aren't super high -- from my POV as someone who always excelled in math. But it's clear (to me, at least) that even the "incredibly low bar" is actually quite challenging, at every grade level, for very many students.
Speaking of teachers... my own grade-school math development, decades ago, was stunted by the fact that my teacher didn't know anything about linear algebra. I asked her for help deciphering my "Amiga 3-D Graphics Programming" book, and she concluded that the vector and matrix notation must be a bunch of typos. Arrgh!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Why do you assume it is a zero sum game? We can have high level math courses and improve the quality of lower level ones (if you think they are problem). Or if you are saying that students shouldn't be forced into lower levels just because they aren't getting good grades, then yeah sure, let people join high level courses based on passion and not achievement. I think that's an entirely separate debate though.
> 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.
If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?
> If you can't run a five-minute mile, and are therefore put into a PE class where you never run, do you think you'll ever get into a shape where you can?
People all over this thread are making the assumption that the non-advanced math class is equivalent to no math class at all. That doesn't make any sense to me, and does not match my experience of regular, honors, and AP classes in high school.
Accepting your premise, the issue in your case is that the PE class needs to run more. Pulling all the talented athletes into that shitty class without changing the curriculum at all will strictly cause harm.
> 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.
> 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.
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.