At first, this article from yesterday made me very sad for my younger siblings, But, I suppose it’s just one of the many pieces of context that the admissions officers will consider. If CA makes it harder for public school students to advance in math, they will be evaluated differently than students from other states.
This is such a foolish approach. Math is power. Removing opportunity hurts everyone particularly low income students. Kids will continue to progress they will just do it outside public schools, in an even less equitable fashion. More kids will pursue Korean math school, Russian Math School, AOPS, CTY, etc. The kids without parent advocates don’t have a chance.
When groups struggle with math they need intervention at a young age and perhaps continuously. This approach makes “equity” look like a big boot. I also think it is rooted in anti-Asian racism.
1 Like
Seems like someone is taking an out-of-context sentence (“the push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided”) to claim a point that is not really what is being said.
The context found in chapter 8 of Mathematics Framework - Mathematics (CA Dept of Education) (page 7) is:
In other words, they are unsatisfied with the “race to calculus (and sometimes beyond) in high school so you can repeat it in college” phenomenon that seems to be increasingly common these days, rather than having acceleration to calculus be for students who really are strong enough in math for it to be the optimal path for them.
This seems a lot like the same recent thread (about Virginia math curriculum changes) over again.
7 Likes
That seems to be like how it currently is in most places.
California public schools were once considered quite good. I guess that was a long time ago now. What a shame.
1 Like
I am a parent. My perspective on this is that this is a problem brought on by grade inflation. When I was in high school, virtually no one got a 4.0 GPA.
Now, colleges have to choose among multitudes of straight A students. So they started looking at test scores.
Advantaged kids did tons of test prep in order to stand out. Many colleges decided that was unfair to disadvantaged students and went test optional or test blind.
That put more pressure on students to accelerate through classes and take as many APs as possible to stand out. But, again, this hurts disadvantaged students so now they are trying to prevent advantaged students from “gaming” the system.
But that will just lead to an ever more insane level of competition in the area of extracurriculars and is frankly unfair to gifted students.
Unless they want to move to a true lottery system, colleges need to have some basis upon which to differentiate among students. I think we need to go back to a system where grades were more meaningful, but I am not sure how that would be done exactly or made consistent from school to school.
If you want to respond to what was actually written, specifically criticize what was written. Reason makes a habit of finding something wrong with any initiative that aims to provide help for low income families. So its interpretation of the framework is hardly going to be an objective analysis.
The people at “Reason” are generally people who do very well in the system as it is now. They are also very smart and know how to write extremely well. So they use the considerable talents to find ways to attack any policy of initiative which threatens to upset the status quo in a way that is disadvantageous for them.
That is perfectly legitimate. However, people should not be using their descriptions of these policies and initiatives as though they are objective descriptions of reality.
So posting here, attacking what Reason claims that CA DOE wants or doesn’t want is silly. Getting mad about it, and making predictions or claims about it, without actually knowing what it says it is also silly.
It is like reading a newspaper from the USSR saying that “America passes laws which take money from the very poorest Americans and gives it to the Richest!!”, and then going on about how evil America s without actually reading the laws that are being quoted.
Mind you, this initiative will likely not work since it doesn’t address the main reasons behind inequities in education.
Every one of these policies, no matter how much goodwill is put into it, has, by the time it is implemented, loopholes you can drive a Bentley through. So that the wealthiest people will still end up being the ones to benefit.
So the good people at Reason need not fear. All those Bleeding Heart Liberals will not upset the most important part of the status quo - that the people who have money and power now will continue to enjoy the benefits of their privilege.
5 Likes
I clicked through to the actual proposal. It is a long, tough, badly written tome.
I agree that the race to calculus is a race to nowhere for most students. I agree many public school kids don’t get optimal math education. And that many students don’t think they are good at math, when it is really the educational system that is failing, not them.
I vehemently disagree that there is no such thing as a math brain. I can hold the two ideas in my head at the same time - that all kids deserve and thrive in high quality math programs, AND some kids are better at math than others and deserve and thrive in an accelerated program. The proposal doesn’t say otherwise, but it comes darn close and seems to me is written evasively and vaguely, knowing it will be taken out of context as justification for stripping accelerated tracks out of schools.
I also think the inclusion of social justice in math is awkward and weird. Math shouldn’t be political. I know I know, everything is political and access to quality math education is certainly political. But in my fantasy land, math class being a true politics free zone is the ultimate educational success. More politics isn’t the cure for what is ailing math education.
9 Likes
Math isn’t political, but math education has always been political.
Education, including math education, is long overdue for a dose of increased equity. Unfortunately, the same people who have failed so spectacularly in developing the present inequitable education methods are now being tasked with making it more equitable.
I cannot wait.
Most education policy is based on education theory which is often unburdened by actual data. It is generally opposed by people who also have no data, but have different philosophies, and therefore different theory.
I may be pleasantly surprised, though, and the new initiative may indeed replace the old way of memorizing templates and how to use them through thousands of tiresome repetitions, guaranteed to induce math hatred in the most math loving kid. Perhaps math classes will be focused on teaching kids math through problem solving. Maybe it teach kids to understand how math works, and why. Maybe the curriculum will be based on methods that have been proven to work, rather than should work. Theoretically. Maybe kids will get homework which is a review of concepts and ideas, rather than 3,000 iterations of the same arithmetic problem.
Maybe.
Maybe there will also be Peace in the Middle East.
2 Likes
The proposal is full of unsubstantiated proclamations, which is particularly ironic in a proposal about math education.
If I ruled the math universe, it would have all small problem based classes. Like 12 students max. And data science for everyone.
2 Likes
The Virginia proposal is actually good: includes statistics and data modelling for everyone, plus algebra1&2 + geometry+elements of precalc for all, with a default starting point in 8th grade. It articulates with a variety of classes in 11-12th grade, ensuring High schools will provide a decent choice to students with varying levels and needs.
The biggest issue wouldn’t have been for advanced students but for teachers if they’d been expected to teach 8-10th students with completely different levels, and that hasn’t been clarified AFAIK.
Hopefully colleges will let it be known that advanced classes outside of calculus will be considered as rigorous-- economics and business majors need calculus but not in the same depth as engineering students. CS majors who took AP calc +discrete math may end up being better served than by taking MVC (even though CS requires a high level of math).
For people genuinely interested in math curricula, the new IB curriculum is worth a look, too.
2 Likes
That article has a biased and kind of silly interpretation of what is happening. Others have it right – this isn’t about locking kids out of taking higher level math classes. It’s about helping more kids advance along the path together so that they can all get to a high level of math if that will be useful. Our CA district stripped out the advanced math tracking in middle school about 7 years ago, right as my son (a senior now) was getting there. They then allow kids to take an advanced track in HS once they test in in 8th grade. My kid chose not to pursue the advanced path and is still in Calculus this year. As a friend of a friend (CA math teacher) put it in another forum: " People are blowing this out of proportion. The changes are: 8th grade math covers much more than previously, including many Algebra 1 subject, statistics and data analysis. Algebra 1 in 9th goes much further than currently. And there is a clear path to Calculus in 12th." This will help MORE kids take higher level math classes.
1 Like
What is a real problem, as I see it, is the philosophical basis for the changes, which are exemplified by the following quotes:
“Math is really about language and culture and social justice, and no one is naturally better at it than anyone else, according to the framework.”
“All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents,” reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. “The belief that ‘I treat everyone the same’ is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities.”
“Teachers can support discussions that center mathematical reasoning rather than issues of status and bias by intentionally defining what it means to do and learn mathematics together in ways that include and highlight the languages, identities, and practices of historically marginalized communities.”
(My emphases).
So now the concept of “2 + 2 = 4” has to be framed in the context of how The Man has oppressed “marginalized communities”? And that some people are not more or less gifted in mathematics?
I’m sorry, but this is just complete and utter nonsense. Mathematics is an expression of the way the universe works; 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal truth. If someone can’t understand that, it isn’t a question of racial oppression, or an “issue of status and bias”; they just don’t get it because of the way that they are wired.
Further, the statement that people do not have “natural gifts and talents” just shows a profound ignorance of human nature. I do not have a natural ability or talent for math, and mathematical concepts do not come easily to me as they do to others; but it isn’t a result of societal injustice, that’s just the way I am. I have always had to work harder to do well in math; but, again, that isn’t a result of societal injustice, that’s just the way I am. I do not have an easy time with the abstract concepts that underlie calculus, as well as more advanced types of mathematics; but, again, that is a function of the way that my mind works and is not related to societal oppression.
To lay the blame for innumeracy or other difficulties in mathematical achievement solely on perceived victimization by The Man, while ignoring the multitude of variations in human ability, is simply doing a disservice.
8 Likes
Why is this thread in the MIT forum?
2 Likes
San Francisco did this 7 years ago driven by the same person who is driving this. Jo Boaler. Calculus enrollment dropped a lot (link below is from years ago when a parent filed a sunshine request). It has only gotten worse. For a clearer picture of what will happen I feel like there needs to be deep dive and audit in to San Francisco huge opportunity gaps (it did not make anything better for disadvantaged communities).
6 Likes
It is interesting to note that six outposts of Russian Math School opened in the Bay Area during this time. Not in the LA area though, because Koreans dominate math schools here. So, if you have $3000 a year AND the knowledge needed to access AND time your kid can have a deep understanding in math. At least locally, you can find the school math level that meets your interest and ability. Our middle schools has three tracks. Most people use the schools or online programs to supplement somewhat weak instruction, particularly if the school uses Everyday Math.
But who thinks that any of these schools are actually going to build deep subject matter expertise by going slowly?
1 Like
Some kids can build deep subject matter expertise without going slowly.
1 Like
It’s been an utter disaster here. My kids didn’t go to a top ten college. They are both at WPI. One is graduating as an electrical engineer in two weeks and my daughter is a rising bio tech sophomore. We need diversity in STEM. And with more colleges going test blind it’s become even more important for everyone to have access. LA Times just had an article about this very thing.
I’ve said this over and over and over again to no avail. I am really happy this has entered the national conversation because maybe now there will be a closer look at San Francisco and the huge gaps. Until now everyone has just taken the PR at face value while the opportunity gaps increase year after year. I’ve said this before, this isn’t a holodeck simulation, this affects the trajectory of people and the loss of access is immeasurable. People with means are not going to pay the price when it all goes south.
SF shut the door on 8th grade Algebra in refusing to allow anybody to take it and in doing so made Calculus for the privileged who could afford to pay to get around it (me) and the private school children who are allowed to take it.
LA Times article on what is going on at the UCs.
some pertinent paragraphs:
“Majors matter, they say. At UC Irvine, admissions officers had to review a record 108,000 applications for freshmen spots. Almost half of the students applied to just six of 85 majors — with biological sciences the top choice, selected by nearly 12,000 applicants. Other popular majors were business administration, nursing science, computer science and psychology.”
“Without standardized test scores to guide selections for competitive majors requiring strong calculus and statistics skills, Leaman said, reviewers took a close look at whether students took a progression of increasingly more challenging math classes, including college-level AP courses.”
6 Likes
WPI is a very good school, also.
3 Likes
“WPI is a very good school, also.”
Right? I went there in the early 80s. It has evolved in to such a fantastic school and I urge everyone, especially women and minorities to look there. I’m just so impressed with what my kids are learning and experiencing.
My reason for saying it’s not a top 10 school is too often people think parents are clout chasing for the kids to take Calculus in 12th grade and it only matters for top 10. It does not.
2 Likes