Absolutely racism has an effect on math instruction. If, for instance, a student is too poor to afford a calculator, or scratch paper, that’ll definitely hurt their math education, and racism is one reason for poverty. And racists who believe that black students can’t possibly be good at math will undoubtedly discourage and demotivate students, which will also hurt their education.
But that doesn’t mean that the instruction itself is racist.
Thanks, I suppose I missed the previous discussion.
I’ve reached a point now where I’m totally unwilling to entertain these types of academic (to be generous) discussions about some fringe argument. All it does is serve to amplify it and give it merit simply by supplying it oxygen.
I would have liked to see this thread die upon arrival.
People are perfectly capable of realising that racism can have an effect on mathematics instruction and still disagreeing with the authors about the specifics and the best way of addressing the problem.
And since a bad solution can be worse than no solution, I strongly disagree that we should avoid criticising these ideas. Plenty of earlier efforts at educational reform have done more harm than good, and later been reversed.[quote=“Jas09, post:80, topic:932992”]
The project (not this pamphlet) was linked in a blurb about a continuing education option in a district newsletter sent to math teachers. You can see the newsletter here: Math Educator Update: February 2021
[/quote]
So it’s part of a continuing education course for teachers.
Thanks for the background, that addresses one criticism of it.
Presumably they will be at least be taught the background concepts before using the document, which will help with understanding it. However, it doesn’t address other issues people have with it.
It’s part of a continuing education course offered to teachers, was written by educational experts, and is part of an increasingly popular movement. On what basis do you dismiss it as fringe?
That problem still has only one correct answer, and ironically the only way you’d know what method children used to reach it is if they showed their work.
The thing I remember from school, is that most often the point of maths problems was to practice applying a method we had just been taught. Because they were simplified for students, many times there might be easier ways of solving the practice problems, but that would miss the point. We were supposed to practice the harder method so we would be able to apply it later, to problems where the easier methods did not work. And later we would be given a mixed set of problems and encouraged to pick the best method for the job.
Maybe there are better ways to teach mathematics than this. But many of the criticisms of the existing methods seem to miss the point, and it’s still not at all obvious that there is any connection to white supremacy, other than ‘America is a majority white country and this is how maths is currently taught there’.
Prove it. As far as I can tell it’s a fever dream you cooked up.
Um what? Are you one of those people who thinks CRT is a right wing conspiracy to discredit the left? Or are you claiming I wrote the document myself and it’s all an elaborate hoax??
Perhaps you should author a workbook of your own entitled, “Dismantling Racism in Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction Instruction”. 
I disagree with y’all both :). There are real-world uses for both sorts of problems:
Math curricula that use only one type of problem are inferior to those that use both types.
What do the kids you teach think of those two sorts of problems? I remember my classmates hating word problems, they wanted to be asked ‘What’s 3 x 3/4?’ not some question involving buttermilk.
Depends on what you’re calling an “answer”. Believe me, there are plenty of math teachers who would mark one of the above-quoted answers to the ticket-price problem “right” and the other one “wrong” because the student “didn’t use the procedure we learned in class”. I get students in college classes who are STILL sore about a previous math teacher having done that to them, and not unreasonably so IMHO.
Well, you can see in the quoted problem that the students are explicitly asked to explain their reasoning. AFAICT, what the project creators are objecting to is not the overall concept of requiring students to justify their results logically and verbally, but rather the formulaic phrasing “Show your work”. (Even in college math, students can interpret that phrase very differently, with some of them thinking it just means to write out all the numbers that they plugged into the calculator,)
Yeah, I get why some math teachers do this, but I think overall it can be counterproductive. The whole point of math is that it gives us all these ways to get from knowledge that we know we have (e.g., how much Diego and Andre paid for different numbers of concert tickets) to knowledge that we didn’t know we had (e.g., whether Diego’s and Andre’s tickets were priced the same), using only the information that we’ve already got.
When a student has a breakthrough moment of figuring out one of those pathways to knowledge via a reasoning procedure different from the one that was taught, ISTM that the very worst response in that situation is to just mark them wrong for not using the prescribed procedure. That’s discouraging the type of perception that we most want to encourage.
Unsurprisingly, if we focus math education primarily on drilling students in prescribed procedures, and mark them wrong for thinking independently about how to solve the problem differently from the prescribed procedure, they are not going to like it when we suddenly confront them with problems that do require actually thinking independently about how to solve the problem.
Yeah, I think we’re all in agreement that the pamphlet creators are trying to solve a genuine problem—namely, that persistent white-supremacist culture in a historically white-supremacist society can negatively impact the education of non-white students even in ostensibly “culture-free” subjects like mathematics—and have come up with some valid solutions in changing pedagogical approaches.
The flaw in the project is that not all the solutions are particularly relevant to the problem of white supremacy, even if they’re good ideas in the broader context of math pedagogy in general.
Agree 100%.
My impression was that many preferred mechanically following an algorithm to questions where they actually had to think about what they were doing. But perhaps that was due to the way we had all been taught.
That seems like a fair summary. Actually, it sounds like the course overall may be more geared towards issues facing ESL students than POC. I wonder if the fact that racial issues are currently receiving more interest and notice may have something to do with this ‘branding’?
I was thinking, based on my reading here at the SDMB, that ‘race’ is such an undefined concept, that their use of that branding was just as valid as anything I see here.
I’m not immersed in American Culture, and to me ‘race’ has to do with some abandoned biological/evolutionary concepts, so every reference to ‘race’ is problematic. But I defy you to give an exhaustive definition of the concept: if people knew what ‘racism’ is, you wouldn’t have threads like 'Is it racist to …"
This is awfully personal for a post in IMHO. Asking for cites is okay. Aggressively implying another poster is making stuff up isn’t. Please tone it down going forward.
Bingo! Reading the document this was exactly what sprang to mind. The authors of this document are making the assumption that the reader is well versed in critical race theory, and all of the buzzwords associated with it. For example it is clear that when they refer to white supremacy they aren’t talking about Neo-nazis but instead of a more subtle form or white-normative thinking. Without this background it is very hard to follow what sort patterns they are trying to avoid with the techniques and introspection’s they are offering. Effectively I felt like I was being told that 6x7 was 42, while 8x9 was 72 without being told what multiplication was.
They had some links at the beginning to other documents regarding fighting white supremacism but those were similarly reliant on the assumption that the reader understood and accepted a whole racial theory that was never specified.
If this was meant as a resource for teachers it would have definitely been helped by a lengthy section on what they are talking about for the currently unwoke.
Yeah, honestly that is what bothers me about a lot of ideas and practices that are currently popular among left-leaning educators. (I mean, I am a left-leaning educator, but the ones who aren’t me…) It just feels like there’s this whole set of jargon and assumptions that are basically impenetrable to people who haven’t had a particular type of education – the type that is itself a marker of privilege – and there’s often no real attempt to make it accessible to everybody else.
And YES, to the average layperson “white supremacy” connotes neo-Nazis or the Klan, and it drives me crazy when people use it to mean, essentially, “structural racism” – something that there is already a perfectly good term for!
The language they use makes it sound like causation and correlation have been confused. I’m not sure what all the jargon used in that paper means to its authors or intended readers, but yes, to the average observer it will sound like an illogical use of the word ‘racist’. But however that is interpreted I don’t think it means much in the face of a lack of concern over how racism has affected teaching of math. Except for that language confusion, which I think is less of a problem with the intended audience, the paper is full of excellent ideas for changing the way math is taught and has some chance of improving the situation if actually tried. Nothing there is likely to be a bad solution which will make the situation worse as far as I can tell.
I think the criticism in this thread is misplaced, the identifiable problems are minor compared to the common approach in math education which is to ignore racism based on the belief that numbers can’t be racist, and heavily reinforced through a strong dose of “that’s how it was taught to me”. It isn’t working well for all students and change is necessary.
How do we know, though? The history of education is littered with well-intentioned reforms that either didn’t help or in some cases were worse than the methods they replaced. Instead of linking their suggestions to ‘white supremacy’, I wish the authors had linked to studies showing that their suggestions actually helped students.
I think the real problem is that we are expecting teachers to fix a problem caused by the whole of society, and that is impossible no matter what educational reforms they embrace.
I’ve been tutoring a math class in a mostly-minority urban school, and i think some of the issues that paper send to be trying to address are real. I wouldn’t call them “white supremacy”, but i feel like a lot of the class is structured to reward blind obedience to authority, not critical thinking. And the core of math is critical thinking. Maybe I should read the paper for ideas.
I skimmed all the pamphlets in that Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction project (the one linked in the OP is just the first in the series), and I found them thought-provoking and in many respects helpful.
The middle-school math content is less relevant for my teaching, but I am definitely getting some immediate use out of the awareness training on connections between perceptions of language proficiency and math proficiency in students for whom English is not their first language.
But I agree with Buck_Godot and others that this project is presented from an "insider’’ perspective for people who are already involved in middle-school math education and aware of current discussions on race and racism within modern pedagogy. It’s small wonder that some of the jargon is heavily triggering to some conservatives with an "outsider’’ mindset, who are already paranoid about how “political correctness” and “wokeness” are destroying civilization and ruining our children’s lives etc. etc. etc.