Yes, I agree that the document does a poor job of communication to outsiders. As I suggested above, I think that in a kind of way, that’s a strength of the document.
Not that I think I can do much better. If you’re seeing the word ‘paternalism’ as only an insult, rather than a description, there’s a vast gap that needs to be bridged.
My question would be whether it was written for outsiders, or only for an audience who understood the underlying concepts? If the latter, then it’s not a flaw, any more than a scientific paper using scientific words is a flaw.
I would also be wary of ever judging anything that’s so jargon-heavy as this if you’re not familiar with the field in question. You can maybe judge it as “not useful for outsiders,” but not so much saying it’s actually promoting racism.
I am personally aware of some issues where racial issues can show up in math—particularly in word problems where assumptions are made using common experiences for white people, but not for those of color. If word problems do have value, then they need to be cross-cultural, or at least vary the culture they present.
This has been proposed as one of the issues in standardized testing. I don’t, however, remember the examples.
Finally, I’m just wary at this point of any time I see any site start pushing the “PC/SJWs/etc has gone too far” narrative for any story. I’ve been burned way too many times to think that the analysis will be fair.
I did read the next paragraphs, and they seem to be suggesting replacing showing your work… with other ways of showing your work. Maybe they should have defined what they are objecting to more narrowly so it actually makes sense.
As for the audience, presumably it is teachers, who are experts in teaching and not whatever it is you need to be an expert in to understand this document properly.
I didn’t link to or quote any such site in my OP, I linked to the document itself for people to evaluate on its merits. The only analysis is that of posters here, so you are complaining about a problem that doesn’t exist.
I was the kid who never showed my work, because while I’m really not great at advanced math, I’m quite good at doing calculations in my head-- but that didn’t mean I didn’t lose track of something, forget to carry, or add when I needed to subtract, when I was in a hurry to get a lot of problems done.
When I got to a teacher who finally said to me “If I can see that you made a simple error in calculations, but that you worked the problem correctly, and understand the concept I’m trying to teach, I can give you partial credit-- 3/5 or even 4/5 points. But if you don’t show your work, I have to give you a 0 when the answer is wrong.”
This was in the days when calculators were verboten, ostensibly because “we wouldn’t always have access to them, so we needed to know how to work problem out,” but I actually suspect it was because even though most kids’ families had one at home, there were still a few who did not, and to be fair to them, we couldn’t use them.
The main issue I can see with “showing your work” is something that came up when I was in high school in Indiana, where issues were more with class and education levels than race, but anyway, I remember a kid in my algebra class turning in scrap paper-- “work”-- that was on the back of a bill of some sort, because she ran out of notebook paper, and there was no other blank paper in the house.
That flabbergasted me. I had lived only in houses where the adults were highly educated and worked in academia. There was paper everywhere. There was a home-office in the house, with at least a ream each of typing paper, computer printer paper, and lined writing paper. I had several blank notebooks in my room, and if I’d run out, I could have borrowed from my cousins, or, if I’d run out while doing homework, and asked an adult, and said I needed a notebook, paper from the office wouldn’t do, I would have been taken to the store right there and then, not handed an old bill and told to write on the back.
Which, then, of course, makes me wonder about making videos. I know a lot of kids have phones, even kids from families that are nor wealthy, but if a kid isn’t going to have a phone, it’s likely going to be a kid who is already struggling because of issues related to having enough supplies and workspace, not to mention time, because this is likely to be a kid who has to work.
This is generally an issue I always see with “creative” assignments, though. They always require money. Extra credit assignments often as well. So even though they are meant to benefit kids who are struggling, those kids come disproportionately from low-income families.
Doesn’t that roughtly translate to: I follow xxx on Twitter to receive the latest in right-wing talking points?
Oh yeah, that is the come-to-Jesus moment for my students too, and you’d think they’d have figured it out before they got to college. You are preventing me from giving you any of that sweet sweet partial credit!!
Also too, too damn true.
I wish you had posted whatever article you saw reporting this. Because your OP claims “a booklet on ‘anti-racist’ mathematics instruction that apparently has been sent out to teachers in Oregon” but I couldn’t find any evidence that this booklet was sent to any teachers in Oregon.
All I was able to find was that a math newsletter from the Oregon DOE sent to teachers (well, actually posted on their website) linked to the website that hosts that document in the context of a possible training course. The link to the document you posted was found in one Fox News article I saw, but was not in the newsletter from the DOE. You can find the rest of the toolkit here if you want to learn more about the program: Homepage - Math Equity Toolkit
I see no evidence that the DOE encouraged anybody to take the course (which is what Fox News claimed) or endorsed the viewpoints in the booklet.
To me it stinks of a “look at those crazy liberals indoctrinating our kids that math is racist!” story, with cherry-picking of a document from a website that hosts at least half a dozen documents. But YMMV.
I didn’t read any article; I saw it mentioned on Twitter, and that was all the context given. I was interested in what people thought about the contents of the booklet, assessed on its own merits.
Y’know one thing I noticed a long time ago about those lists of action words given in connection with Bloom’s taxonomy? Not a one of them includes “calculate”. Nor “measure”, nor any of the other action words that make up the bulk of math and science work.
So the best-case assumption for this thing is that it’s completely useless, and that’s only if you don’t completely misunderstand it (which is very easy to do), in which case it’s actively harmful. That’s… not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Except that the direction (at least, as given by a competent teacher) is “show your work”, not “show work using the specific method outlined in class”. I’ve seen students showing their work where their work consisted entirely of equations. I’ve also seen students show their work, consisting entirely of words. I’ve seen students show their work, consisting entirely of diagrams. Or combinations of all of those. I’ve even seen students showing their work using gestures, though until recently, it’s been very difficult to turn in work of that sort. And all of those are acceptable versions of “show your work”. If this pamphlet were saying to accept multiple different versions of work, it would be good advice (though it still wouldn’t have anything to do with race).
Absolutely. I believe that is the point of that part of the pamphlet. The specific words aren’t “showing your work is white supremecy”; they are "White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when…Students are required to “show their work.”
Now, a lot of what is on that page reads as nonsense to me (specifically: “Thus, requiring students to show their work reinforces worship of the written word as well as paternalism.”). But if the criticism is of “requiring specific methods in order to get full credit, using the right jargon and arranged in the right way”, then I can see how that could perpetuate racial inequalities of outcome in math education.
As a father of a 4th grade math student I see this a lot, actually. My kid has his preferred methods but often the teacher is requiring they use a specific method for a specific problem. If he doesn’t get the “borrow to find a happy number” method but instead likes the “rote algorithm” or “breaking the problem up” methods then he gets marked down. He can get very frustrated when the required demonstration is a wordy one (he’s better at math than writing).
I agree.
I do agree with the statement in the booklet that sometimes teachers require “showing work” because they don’t have the time (or inclination) to have one-on-one interaction with the students to determine if the students understand the process. Which does put extra emphasis on language and writing skills at the expense of math skills.
It’s even worse now when so much is done on devices, IMO. I can’t imagine how a student that struggles with their iPad or typing could do well in the math class my son is in. And I can see how that struggle might break along racial lines.
I always thought your first reason applied, i.e. they wanted us to become adept at basic arithmetic. By the time I got to high school, calculators were allowed. I don’t think it was because they stopped giving a damn about poor kids, I think it was because they assumed we were now adept at basic arithmetic and calculators could speed that stuff up so we could concentrate on more advanced subject matter like algebra, calculus, and physics.
I read that PDF with an open mind, and in agreement with the base principle that some forms of education probably have an unintentional racial bias.
I came away with the judgment that it’s overwrought and unworkable crap. Just another example of a kernel of a reasonable enough idea, stretched beyond the point of absurdity.
Just to take a point in isolation… “showing your work” is said to promote white supremacy? How? It’s just a process of confirming the student’s understanding.
Likewise with all the emphasis on group work. Maybe students learn better in groups, and groups are sometimes helpful, but the mission of each school is to ensure that every individual is educated to the best of their ability. If people don’t have to perform individually then we don’t know how well we have done.
Good intentions, awful praxis.
Yes, but by missing the ax to grind that the sources you used had, the result is to miss the usual nutpicking those sources go for.
Nutpicking combines elements of several other fallacies; it primarily relies on guilt by association as it seeks to tarnish a group’s reputation by associating it with what the “nut” is saying or doing, knowing that their statements or actions are generally considered to be unacceptable, if not outright reprehensible. Secondly, it is a type of ad hominem as it attacks an opponent’s character (via the negative association), rather than countering the opponent’s actual views or arguments.
The advent of the Internet (especially in conjunction with Sturgeon’s Law) has made nutpicking far easier due to the massive expansion of recorded, publicly available and searchable material. Similar to Skarka’s Law, it’s practically always possible to find some random whackjob whose opinions can be associated with your opponent’s school of thought, and it’s certainly much easier than it would have been in ancient Greece.
Notice that it does not deny what other posters say when qualifying that pamphlet as having a lot to criticize, the point here is that as others already mentioned, it is not clear that this was a change already made and at what levels in the organization.
This “sentence” from the document:
The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so.
is currently the subject of an interesting discussion over on LanguageLog:
Language Log » An Escher sentence? (upenn.edu)
Stop worshiping the written word, @hibernicus. Judging the pamphlet-writers based on the words they wrote is racist.
The document can not be read on its own. You have to go to the links to understand what they mean by White Supremacy Culture, where, for example, you can read that “paternalism” means:
• decision-making is clear to those with power and unclear to those without it
• those with power think they are capable of making decisions for and in the
interests of those without power
• those with power often don’t think it is important or necessary to understand
the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions
• those without power understand they do not have it and understand who does
• those without power do not really know how decisions get made and who
makes what decisions, and yet they are completely familiar with the impact
of those decisions on them
No, it’s paternalist. What’s racist, is mistaking paternalism for racism.
You racist!
Seriously, though, I get that paternalism is a bad thing in interactions between adults, but isn’t it sort of unavoidable in the instruction of small children?
Kinda, but I didn’t get the impression that the pamphlet in question was intended only for teachers of small children.
Well, elementary/junior high age, at least. They’re not seriously suggesting that having college students make music videos about binomials is solid pedagogy, are they?