I used to disrupt the **** out of math class. I thought I was just bored and having some fun at the expense of the teacher but it seems I was actually decolonizing the curriculum before that was actually a thing. Do I get an award?
How can the study of numbers be prejudiced? Is it discriminatory access to the education, or are the results somehow used to further discrimination?
How can the study of numbers be prejudiced?
If all the examples in the textbook are white people?
How can the study of numbers be prejudiced? Is it discriminatory access to the education, or are the results somehow used to further discrimination?
From what I can tell, the valid part is criticism of the education system as biased. Basically, schools tend to reflect middle-class values, which are dominated by white culture. Working class kids struggle due to that, and it disproportionately affects non-white kids. So, it's a criticism of how maths is taught, not the more abstract notion of mathematics.
There is also a view that maths is used as a tool of oppression, for example, statistical studies are often unintentionally biased towards a majority group. To some degree, this can be addressed by improving the design of statistical studies, but it's also a reflection that society tends to reflect the preferences of majorities.
But then you get the lunatic fringe who don't really know what mathematics is and argue that it's just a construct of old white men, etc. The word "algebra" actually comes from Arabic and the foundations of mathematics were laid by men who do not fit the traditional definition of "white", so this is utter nonsense. It is kinda amusing, but it's also really harmful because there's an implicit premise that black kids shouldn't be expected to be good at maths. Same thing goes with the argument that valuing written language is a sign of "whiteness", it implies that we shouldn't expect non-white kids to be good at reading or writing. Utter nonsense.
Definitely a special definition of the word violence being used. I'm absolutely open to the notion of implicit or unconscious bias in education but I don't think that sort of rhetoric helps. It's an easy point of criticism for anyone who wants to discredit what he's saying and dismiss the idea that there's bias in the system.
But then you get the lunatic fringe who don’t really know what mathematics is and argue that it’s just a construct of old white men
Wont somebody think of the Mesopotamia tax collectors!
I’m absolutely open to the notion of implicit or unconscious bias in education but I don’t think that sort of rhetoric helps.
Thats pretty much where I got to.
Have I stumbled into the Daily Mail comments section by mistake?
Actually, rhetoric is probably the wrong word, it's jargon. Which is fine if you're only communicating with people in your field but not so good if it's going out to a wider audience.
When I was doing maths o-level, I was the only engaged white kid amongst the Asians. All the rest of the white kids sat at the back and talked.
Have I stumbled into the Daily Mail comments section by mistake
No, defo STW chat forum. Do you have anything to contribute?
For my part. The argument that educational structures can themselves be racist is something I know precious little about. And would be keen to hear differing views on it.
This is a good take on the issue IMO rather than the knee jerk response of the OP.
https://feltonkoestler.wixsite.com/realworldmath/post/2017/10/25/privilege-and-oppression-in-math-ed
It makes the point about how research focussed on black students failing can be seen as part of a racist system rather well, and summarises the other issues.
To me the prof in the OP does come across as a bit extreme in his language, but I feel like posts like the OP's that cherry pick these extreme examples are being used to discredit the whole concept of CRT etc.
This is a good take on the issue IMO rather than the knee jerk response of the OP.
No, it's not a good take. There is a serious problem in education that minority kids do not achieve the same outcomes as majority kids. This is not limited to "memorizing the teacher's way of doing things", quite the opposite. Kids with more privileged backgrounds get a richer education from the very beginning because their parents have more time and money to spend on educating them before they even start school (reading books each night before bed, for example). That leads to what's known as a "Matthew effect" (from "the rich get richer, etc.), where higher performing kids accelerate away from the lower performing kids. Fixing this problem requires directing resources to where they are needed, which means you need to diagnose the problems. That's no more racist or violent than a doctor conducting diagnostic tests to try to help a sick patient.
The higher performing kids will generally do better on all sorts of assessments. They have more experience conceptualizing abstract problem and developing strategies to solve them because they had a huge head start before they started formal education. Changing the assessments won't make the problem go away. This paragraph is utter nonsense:
This labeling of "high" and "low" kids is unfortunate because it primarily relies on an overly-narrow definition of mathematical smartness and learning. If you limit math to memorizing the teacher's way of doing things and quickly calculating the answer then, yes, some kids will be faster than others. However, if you expand math to include explaining your thinking, representing mathematical ideas visually, developing multiple strategies, justifying your work, and making connections between important ideas (you know, all the things mathematicians actually do), then it's much less common for one child to excel in all of these areas. In fact, often the child who is good at the quick/memorization version of math will struggle in some of these other areas. And we have some really great classroom-tested and research-based methods for teaching that kind of mathematics to mixed groups of kids.
These are his qualifications:
Dr. Mathew Felton-Koestler has a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science, an M.S. in Education and Mathematics, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with a specialization in Mathematics Education from The University of Wisconsin—Madison
But I'm sure you are sufficiently qualified to call what he says 'utter nonsense', based on some stuff you read on twitter.
But I’m sure you are sufficiently qualified to call what he says ‘utter nonsense’
I most certainly am. But not based on reading stuff on twitter.
But I’m sure you are sufficiently qualified to call what he says ‘nonsense’.
This is a very poor point, it's just an appeal to authority. If you follow that through then we can never be critical of those with a higher level of qualification in a field.
I once got sent a young earth creationist 'documentary' in which people with actual degrees and PhDs in geology made their case for the earth being 6000 years old. They were far more qualified than me in geology but I was quite comfortable calling it nonsense.
Cool. What are your qualifications?
I would imagine someone so well qualified as yourself wouldn't be cherry-picking the most extreme examples of a concept and using them to discredit the whole idea and anyone who propounds it. But I'm not an expert.
This is a very poor point, it’s just an appeal to authority. If you follow that through then we can never be critical of those with a higher level of qualification in a field.
I'm not saying what he says is all correct and can't be questioned, but to my mind it's quite clear the OP has an agenda here and isn't willing to listen to anything that doesn't fit that agenda.
There are valid points made a out how maths teaching can reinforce white supremacy etc but the OP has decided it's all bollocks.
But I’m sure you are sufficiently qualified to call what he says ‘utter nonsense’, based on some stuff you read on Twitter
Given the context here, you can’t se the irony in your post? Let’s just defer to the wisdom of an accepted authority.
I’m with most of the above; understand the sentiment in that the author wants equal opportunities in the way minorities are taught, but the way the paper is worded and presented seems to be expressly to cause an argument or jump on a broader rhetoric which in my view isn’t necessary and devalues the argument.
But hey what do I know - I’d shut Twitter down if it was up to me; seems to be better ways to make progress than the vapid echo chambers on the platform.
Let’s just defer to the wisdom of an accepted authority.
It was more: let's not dismiss out of hand someone who has clearly studied this issue in depth, by cherry-picking parts that you think sound bad and ignoring all of the perfectly valid points made, because you've already made your mind up.
I'm deeply suspicious of people who try to mock/scorn the idea that our education system might reinforce systemic racism etc. There's a pretty clear agenda there IMO.
It's an American take on the issue in an American context.
There is a serious problem in education that minority kids do not achieve the same outcomes as majority kids
But you need to look at the data to understand which minorities are struggling in which areas as the picture is not a simplistic one. Some minority groups do well some are very poorly served by the system. The tendency to homogenise minority groups together means that we assume that all Black kids are the same when quite clearly their family wealth, expectations, ethnic background and area they live in are strong factors in how well they do at school.
I would imagine someone so well qualified as yourself wouldn’t be cherry-picking the most extreme examples of a concept and using them to discredit the whole idea and anyone who propounds it.
Nowhere have I said that "the whole idea" is discredited (although I'm not sure which specific idea you are referring to).
What I said was:
1. There are serious problems in education, working class kids and non-white kids suffer badly from this.
2. It's very easy to unintentionally introduce bias into statistical studies. These can be addressed to some degree, but there are often inherent problems when you have dominant majority groups in your sample. The mathematics itself is not biased, the problem is that the statisticians haven't understood the complexity of what they're studying.
3. The notion that mathematics itself (and written language) is somehow inherently White is nonsense. It is kinda amusing seeing people believe rubbish like this, but it can have profoundly harmful effects on minority students when silly ideas like this are used to guide policy. It will also harm wealthier white kids, but their parents have the money and resources to overcome the shitty education that results so it's the poor, non-white kids who end up suffering the most from bad educational policy.
I’m deeply suspicious of people who try to mock/scorn the idea that our education system might reinforce systemic racism etc. There’s a pretty clear agenda there IMO.
It all comes back to data on outcomes, similarly if you look at the outcomes of Black women in NHS maternity wards compared to other groups you would suspect systematic racism in midwifery and maternity services
The notion that mathematics itself (and written language) is somehow inherently White is nonsense
This is a massively reductive/straw-man type take on what they're saying though. I mean they directly say the opposite when they suggest there could be more focus on Arabic contributions to maths, for instance.
Nowhere have I said that “the whole idea” is discredited (although I’m not sure which specific idea you are referring to).
Your OP seemed generally scornful of the concept of decolonising the curriculum which I suppose is an outcome from CRT, and subsequent posts have backed that up. I'm not arguing CRT is established fact and all correct but you seem eager to dismiss anything to do with it.
rather than the knee jerk response of the OP
I'm not seeing that at all, their second post going into more detail seemed pretty balanced.
But then you get the lunatic fringe who don’t really know what mathematics is and argue that it’s just a construct of old white men, etc. The word “algebra” actually comes from Arabic and the foundations of mathematics were laid by men who do not fit the traditional definition of “white”, so this is utter nonsense. It is kinda amusing, but it’s also really harmful because there’s an implicit premise that black kids shouldn’t be expected to be good at maths. Same thing goes with the argument that valuing written language is a sign of “whiteness”, it implies that we shouldn’t expect non-white kids to be good at reading or writing. Utter nonsense.
This whole bit is just a big straw-man AFAICS.
People say:
'maths, as it is currently taught in schools, isn't leading to good outcomes for black kids'
And you say:
'what do you mean black kids are bad at maths, don't say that, it's harmful'
When I was doing physics at Cambridge my supervision partner for second year maths was a Black Tanzanian. He was very good at maths. Much better than me.
My working life is now spent teaching alevel physics. I think 90% of my students aren't white. A huge chunk of my job is teaching maths.
A key drive in education is and has to be ensuring all students achieve their maths potential. There is a huge potential cost to minority students if they are receiving the message that the maths as a subject is not culturally not theirs. I think there are weaknesses in the way that we teach and examin maths. But addressing those would benefit all students. There are also huge barriers to maths education that schools have no control over.
I think that maths education might be much more linguistic and inflexible in America. So I'm wary of applying American work in this field to the UK
This whole bit is just a big straw-man AFAICS.
People say ‘maths, as it is currently taught in schools, isn’t leading to good outcomes for black kids’ and you say ‘what do you mean black kids are bad at maths, don’t say that, it’s harmful’
By rephrasing what the OP said to reflect your own interpretation of it your are building a straw man of your own.
I’m not seeing that at all, their second post going into more detail seemed pretty balanced.
Or me I actually seen a well written response discussing why it was right but based on bad statistics. The only knee jerk reaction I’ve seen is a claim about it being like the Daily Mail.
I think that maths education might be much more linguistic and inflexible in America. So I’m wary of applying American work in this field to the UK
I was about to post something similar. A friend of mine posted an article about how autistic pupils are treated in the US and loads of people worked themselves into a lather over it. I'm not sure it was even true of the US system but it certainly wasn't true of what happens here.
By rephrasing what the OP said to reflect your own interpretation of it your are building a straw man of your own.
Kinda yes, but I think my interpretation of the reductiveness of his characterisation of the arguments is pretty accurate. I'm sure he thinks his are too, but he's wrong and I'm right. 🙂
But you need to look at the data to understand which minorities are struggling in which areas as the picture is not a simplistic one. Some minority groups do well some are very poorly served by the system. The tendency to homogenise minority groups together means that we assume that all Black kids are the same when quite clearly their family wealth, expectations, ethnic background and area they live in are strong factors in how well they do at school.
I've added emphasis. I think this is the key point, education and social policy in general is very complex. The children of educated Black parents with solid incomes will tend to do just fine because their parents provide the resources and guidance that kids need. The children of White school dropouts with alcohol or drug addiction will almost certainly suffer. However, especially in the U.S. where the Twitter link is referring to, being Black makes it much more likely that the parents will be poor so it's easy to oversimplify it. Similarly, many minority kids have immigrant parents who are likely to have extremely high levels of motivation and also put a lot of emphasis on education.
However, if you expand math to include explaining your thinking, representing mathematical ideas visually, developing multiple strategies, justifying your work, and making connections between important ideas (you know, all the things mathematicians actually do), then it’s much less common for one child to excel in all of these areas.
In my experience most teachers are quite aware of these ideas even if government ministers aren't.
maths, as it is currently taught in schools, isn’t leading to good outcomes for black kids’
That doesn't mean that maths as a subject is inherently racist though, does it?
I’m not saying what he says is all correct and can’t be questioned
Well, which parts do you question? Are you qualified to question him? He does have a PhD., after all.
