Should social justice be part of math education?

[Little Raven]

California says maybe.

If everything had gone according to plan, California would have approved new guidelines this month for math education in public schools.

But ever since a draft was opened for public comment in February, the recommendations have set off a fierce debate over not only how to teach math, but also how to solve a problem more intractable than Fermat’s last theorem: closing the racial and socioeconomic disparities in achievement that persist at every level of math education.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

The draft also suggested that math should not be colorblind and that teachers could use lessons to explore social justice — for example, by looking out for gender stereotypes in word problems, or applying math concepts to topics like immigration or inequality.

...

Even in heavily Democratic California — a state with six million public school students and an outsize influence on textbook publishing nationwide — the draft guidelines encountered scathing criticism, with charges that the framework would inject “woke” politics into a subject that is supposed to be practical and precise.

I can only imagine.

[Jaymann]

Sample math problem:

Which group will be most capable of fixing structural mathematical inequity?

A. 50 million white males
B. 10,000 white women
C. 500 transgender individuals
D. 1 black woman

[AWS260]

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

This is the much more important element of the draft guidelines, in my view (and in fairness to the NYT, most of their article is focused on this, not the social justice portion).

I am not a Californian, but I have seen enough of New York City's "gifted and talented" program to know that it's an engine for preserving inequity. There's an entire cottage industry devoted to helping children get into gifted programs, which of course only well-off families can afford.

[noxiousdog]

I am not a Californian, but I have seen enough of New York City's "gifted and talented" program to know that it's an engine for preserving inequity. There's an entire cottage industry devoted to helping children get into gifted programs, which of course only well-off families can afford.

Gifted and talented has always been part of public school and there were no extra charges in Texas.

[Remus West]

I am not a Californian, but I have seen enough of New York City's "gifted and talented" program to know that it's an engine for preserving inequity. There's an entire cottage industry devoted to helping children get into gifted programs, which of course only well-off families can afford.

Gifted and talented has always been part of public school and there were no extra charges in Texas.

Being in the programs doesn't cost more. Getting extra tutoring and preparation so that your child is placed into the program is another matter entirely. You're being naive if you think there is not a much higher percentage of "gifted and talented" among well off families that has nothing to do with natural ability.

That said, lowering the bar because some people have an advantage in clearing it doesn't seem like a good method of raising overall achievement. They would be better off funding things like head start programs and after school programs that provide the extra support for those that have the talent but not the resources.

[noxiousdog]

Being in the programs doesn't cost more. Getting extra tutoring and preparation so that your child is placed into the program is another matter entirely. You're being naive if you think there is not a much higher percentage of "gifted and talented" among well off families that has nothing to do with natural ability.

I'm sure it depends on the state and the program. There's no test to prepare for here either. It's an interview. To get to the interview you overrate your kid's abilities and get their teachers to do the same. I'd be far less concerned about small programs like that, and far more about private schools.

[Little Raven]

There's no test to prepare for here either. It's an interview. To get to the interview you overrate your kid's abilities and get their teachers to do the same. I'd be far less concerned about small programs like that, and far more about private schools.

This is true, but just leads to another form of discrimination. The Texas system rewards children who are lucky enough to have parents involved enough to lobby on their child’s behalf. Any parent devoted enough to the cause can probably get their child in, but a bright kid with checked out parents is likely to be left by the wayside.

[noxiousdog]

There's no test to prepare for here either. It's an interview. To get to the interview you overrate your kid's abilities and get their teachers to do the same. I'd be far less concerned about small programs like that, and far more about private schools.

This is true, but just leads to another form of discrimination. The Texas system rewards children who are lucky enough to have parents involved enough to lobby on their child’s behalf. Any parent devoted enough to the cause can probably get their child in, but a bright kid with checked out parents is likely to be left by the wayside.

No, they really can't. The classes are too small.

To be honest, I don't really care. The solution is not to end G&T programs. Democratize it? Sure. But it's not a pay for play scheme, and we should be enhancing it, not complaining about it.

I'm very bothered by any philosophy that making everybody average is the right solution, and that's what it sounds like you guys are saying.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm very bothered by any philosophy that making everybody average is the right solution, and that's what it sounds like you guys are saying.

"Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen," she said in a grackle squawk, "has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous."

[RunningMn9]

I obviously didn’t grow up in modern times, but in ye olden times, parents were completely uninvolved in G/T selection. Teachers nominated students based on assessments they made during the year working with the student.

When my kids where in grade school it was the same thing. A letter came home saying that our son was selected. A couple of weeks later he realized that it involved doing extra work, and he was promptly asked to stop coming.

By that time, schools here realized that you can be gifted or talented in things other than math which were worth encouraging and my daughter was selected for artistic ability. I don’t remember how long that lasted.

At no point in the process where my wife and I involved, beyond approving their entry/exit from the program.

[noxiousdog]

I have no idea how much weight is placed on teacher assessment vs. parental assessment. I just know we got a questionnaire.

[Remus West]

I'm very bothered by any philosophy that making everybody average is the right solution, and that's what it sounds like you guys are saying.

AGreed.

I'm not on board with the way G&T programs are run but I'm even less on board with saying we shouldn't push those who are capable to do more/deeper thinking.

What we should be doing is looking for a way to equalize access not eliminate opportunity.
Also, there is way more that goes into it than just what happens in school. Economic stresses as well as social stresses play their own part in maintaining the status quo of these programs.

[noxiousdog]

I'm very bothered by any philosophy that making everybody average is the right solution, and that's what it sounds like you guys are saying.

AGreed.

I'm not on board with the way G&T programs are run but I'm even less on board with saying we shouldn't push those who are capable to do more/deeper thinking.

What we should be doing is looking for a way to equalize access not eliminate opportunity.
Also, there is way more that goes into it than just what happens in school. Economic stresses as well as social stresses play their own part in maintaining the status quo of these programs.

Indeed. We are in agreement.

[Defiant]

I don't think eliminating advanced classes and holding back kids that can do more is a good idea, so I agree with this:

That said, lowering the bar because some people have an advantage in clearing it doesn't seem like a good method of raising overall achievement. They would be better off funding things like head start programs and after school programs that provide the extra support for those that have the talent but not the resources.

I'd also say increase the resources/classes so that all students that are capable of doing well in such classes can take them, rather than forcing them to compete with each other and choosing the top 30 or whatever.

And now I want to rewatch Stand and Deliver.

[TheMix]

And now I want to rewatch Stand and Deliver.

I don't know if I have ever watched it from start to finish, but I will automatically stop channel surfing and watch it if it's on. Excellent movie. Olmos is brilliant as the teacher.

[RunningMn9]

I have no idea how much weight is placed on teacher assessment vs. parental assessment. I just know we got a questionnaire.

Yeah, to clarify, I am only speaking about the school districts I grew up in, in NY and NJ, and the school district that my kids went through in NJ. Presumably the process is different in different districts/states.

[Isgrimnur]

In HS, third period was routinely hijacked for writing practice to prep for the standardized test. Didn't matter what the subject was, it was "writing day".