4314

That is more true when the House and Senate are controlled by the same party. But when you don’t control the Senate, or the Senate control is weak, you have to take that in account.

4315

Sure, but I’m not about to blame Pelosi for things that pass the House and then fail in the Senate. She manages her caucus effectively and the things she puts forward get passed by the House. She can’t do anything about Joe Manchin or Mitch McConnell, except to make them look stupid occasionally, and I don’t really expect her to.

4316

She also needs to appear effective. Passing stuff in the house, and seeing it fail in the Senate might send a message when the Senate is controlled by the GOP (although, it’s a mixed message at times) but passing stuff in the house, and seeing it fair in the senate when the Democrats appear the control the senate makes the Democrats look pretty ineffective.

4317

To whom? If she wants to be re-elected, the voters of her district will re-elect her. If she wants to be Speaker again, the Dems in the House will make her Speaker. The members of the Senate don’t have a say, and history won’t care at all that she passed some signaling bills that appealed to the voters but couldn’t get through the Senate. If anything, they’ll credit her with them.

4318

Sure, that’s true of any organized political party, but we’re talking about the Democrats here.

She has had some standout moments in herding all the cats in the right direction. Like how she killed social security privatization dead when a good chunk of her caucus was onboard.

4319

Well, she is stepping down this year, so that isn’t a concern, but she needs to appear effective to the people of the US.

Honestly, you don’t think people’s views of her impact their voting in the election ?

4320

Yes, I think she’s very good at the job.

4321

not really, whoever the leading Dem is will be a boogeyperson to Trumpies.

The only way she hurts things is if she causes Dems to stay home which she doesn’t.

4322

I have to disagree. Her ability to get things done is a reflection of the democrat party as a whole being able to get things done.

When the media talks about the Dems in Disarray, it is a discussion as much about Nancy Pelosi as it is the party as a whole.

The last few years, we were constantly nashing our teeth about whether or not, Pelosi would bring impeachment charges against Trump. I think that had a lot of impact on whether people would make the effort to vote.

4323

I don’t know why California hates smart kids, but I know I’m not the only one of the forum who would have gone crazy in school without fast-tracked/ gifted/advanced classes in school.

4324

This is what my state used, and it bit me in the ass , because i learned one lesson from elementary and middle school, and that was laziness. I didn’t have to try, so I didn’t.

When I started to have to try and compete, I didn’t know how, and combined with an issue I had all my life that I didn’t understand until later, I self-destructed. The military saved me, thankfully I was white and America still had 2nd chances back then.

4325

Yeah, that sucks.

4326

If they actually wanted to make everyone excel, that would be one thing, but the fact that they are specifically saying that kids shouldn’t even be taught calculus in highschool, even if they are capable of learning it, seems like they actually just trying to drag the most capable students down. That seems misguided.

That being said, I’m actually of the belief that the way we teach mathematics in the US is somewhat archaic, and needs to be heavily revamped, and some of the stuff presented in that framework does highlight such things. The framework, for those interested, is here… but it’s very long.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/

Things like common core are often criticized, especially by parents, because “it doesn’t make sense”. Indeed, a lot of the methods taught in common core are quite confusing to people of genX and earlier… and this is problematic, because then we have a hard time helping our kids.

But I’ve looked through things like common core, and while the methods they were teaching seemed odd, after taking some time to understand what they were doing, I can confirm that they do in fact make sense.

The issue is that traditionally, math in America has been taught in a fairly rigid manner that focused a lot on memorization. The thing is, it never really taught folks what math was ACTUALLY about, which is (at least to me) the manipulation of information and data. A lot of basic processes are taught through memorization, but most math teachers never really go into what the POINT of those processes are.

So you end up with a minority of students who are “good at math”, who are basically kids who through some degree of natural intuition, arrive at a deeper understanding of how to manipulate numbers. Most people end up learning what essentially amounts to basic arithmetic.

Methods in a system like common core are actually trying to convey a deeper understanding of math. The reason that adults often have trouble understanding it, is twofold:

  1. Most adults don’t actually understand math. Now, folks are gonna get mad if you say this to them… because they THINK they understand math. But really, they don’t. They understand basic arithmetic. While this was fine in the past, it’s really not good enough for the future.
  2. Even folks who DO understand math, don’t understand the methods used in common core. We basically came up with our OWN methods, in our heads, that do similar things… grouping numbers and chunking problems, etc. But if you have a deeper understandinging of math, and are willing to take the time to sit down with common core, it is in fact possible to understand what’s going on with it. It does in fact make sense.

So, back to the CA math framework… I think there are likely good and bad things in there. From a quick skim, it highlights some legitimate issues. It also seems like it gets a bit too far up its own ass trying to bring social issues into play, perhaps at the expense of certain very concrete, fundamental aspects of math. At the end of the day, when it comes to math, it’s about determining objective truth, not opinion.

We should strive to enable every kid to learn math… and I think that’s very possible. And not just basic arithmetic, but rather a deeper, fundamental understanding of math.

We should not suggest that real math is something that we can water down to a degree where everyone just “feels” like they are good at math though, or limit advancement to the lowest common denominator.

4327

I was about to respond to it, then I realized it was a Reason article. One that reads like a grumpy-old-man list of grievances against modern education. So it’s hard to take it seriously. Anyone got a cite from a non grumpy-old-man source as to what California is actually doing here? I’m guessing it’s something far more benign.

4328

The reason article cites the actual framework, which I linked to directly. There definitely are some things in there which seem, to me, to be wrongheaded.

4329

While I’m on board with gifted classes and that kids need more not less math, it’s hard to take Reason.com’s take on cherry picked bits of a draft of a framework.

A quick scan of the document seems to indicate my suspicion was correct.

“The department’s solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.”

What the document actually does is not lay down a prohibition, but strongly advocate for a single track (and then provide evidence for that position). That’s not subtle change in language and it’s an intentional one to create outrage.

Anyway, it also says a little further down in the example it gives:

In a de-tracking initiative, New York City’s school districts stopped teaching “regular” or “advanced” classes in middle school, and instead provided all students with content it previously labeled as “advanced.”

So what is being advocated is not giving all kids the basic math, but giving them all the advanced math.

4330

I’m not interested in reading a lengthy framework document, so I’ll walk away from this topic I guess. But I’m not convinced there’s anything to actually be concerned about until I see something for a source I trust a bit more. Education topics tend to bring out grumpy-old-man kneejerk reactions to any changes from how it was done “back in my day” so my operating assumption is that this is standard manufactured outrage. I believe Fox tried this last week with math standards in VA and got debunked fairly quickly.

4331

Here’s what the document actually says about this. Consider that one potential purpose of an education system is to produce a general population with a wide body of knowledge and enable as many people as possible to take as wide variety of roles as possible in a modern technological culture. The reality is that gifted kids don’t really need help–speaking as one who was taken out of class to design board games or learn to move a turtle around with Logo commands.

Though many high schools offer integrated mathematics, high school mathematics courses are often structured in such a way (e.g., algebra-geometry-algebra 2- precalculus) calculus is considered the main course for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM)-oriented students, and is only available to students who are considered “advanced” in middle school—that is, taking algebra in eighth grade. In order to reach algebra in grade eight, students must cover all of middle grades math in just two years (or else skip some foundational material). This means that many school systems are organized in ways that ultimately decide which students are likely to go into STEAM pathways when they begin sixth grade. This reality leads to considerable racial- and gender-based inequities and filters out the majority of students out of a STEAM pathway (Joseph, Hailu, Boston, 2017). Moreover, English learners have disproportionately less access, are placed more often in remedial classes and are steered away from STEAM courses and pathways (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). High school mathematics courses such as data science should exist as a viable option whether students consider STEAM or non-STEAM career options.

Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement, the inequitable pathway becomes even more problematic. Many students remain unaware that their status at the end of fifth grade can determine their ability to attend a top university; if they are not in the advanced mathematics track and on a pathway to calculus in each of the subsequent six years of school, they will not meet this unstated admission requirement. This mathematics pathway system, typical of many school districts, counters the evidence that shows all fifth graders are capable of eventually learning calculus, or other high-level courses, when provided appropriate messaging, teaching, and support . The system of providing only some students pathways to calculus, or statistics, data science or other high-level courses has resulted in the denial of opportunities too many potential STEAM students—especially Latinx and African American students. At the same time, arbitrary or irrelevant mathematics hurdles block too many students from pursuing non-STEAM careers. Mathematics education must support students whether they wish to pursue STEAM disciplines or any other promising major that prepares them for careers in other fields, like law, politics, design, and the media.

4332

Yeah, reading all the bits they quote Reason clearly went looking for quotes to remove from all context and wrap in their own insinuations to rile up the rubes.

You can basically tell that any time Reason or a similar outlet says something like “prohibited!” the reality is at most “recommended” if it even happened at all.

4333

If you dig into the chapter on 9-12 math, it doesn’t actually explicitly state that calculus isn’t important, as the Reason article suggests.

Instead, it suggests that it may be mistaken to rush kids towards calculus, without establishing a deeper understanding of the fundamentals and conceptual understanding that underpins it. That probably is correct. Memorizing how to perform integration isn’t really that useful on its own, for the reasons I discussed above.