|
moebius2778 posted:Well, if anyone's curious, the San Francisco Unified actually has their math curriculum online here. More specifically, the proposed sequence of classes is here. Of note, at the high school level, it's Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II or Algebra II + Pre-calc, and then either AP Calculus, AP Stats, or Pre-calc. Actually looks pretty similar to my high school's mathematics curriculum. Three cheers for any school district which eliminates trigonometry/keeps trig around only insofar as it's useful for calculus (which is my impression of the Algebra II + pre-calc option). Reasonably gifted kids are gonna end up where they were gonna end up anyway (i.e., calculus) so there's basically nothing lost in giving a hand up to kids who will benefit from having an extra year of math maturity.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm saying that whether or not I can do sophomore level math by hand on paper, possibly with no calculator in 40 minutes is irrelevant to whether I can make use of sophore and college level math in the real world using real world tools and I'd like to teach people to drive who may not have the skills to be a certified mechanic. Really working that red text today, huh? Teaching mathematics as a kind of magic ("I don't need to know how it works, I just need the relevant MATLAB commands") is likely both to increase the number of shoddy engineers in the world, and disadvantage those who, in learning the mechanics, are preparing to go on to do work in fundamental fields, i.e., the ones that permit you to be so intellectually lazy and disinterested. Where would you be, exactly, without decades of mathematical research into numerical analysis?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This might be insulting if it could be taken seriously but here's why it can't: Society is built by specialists who produce tools which other people put to use. A painter isn't intellectually lazy for not studying the chemistry of their paints or the metallurgy of their sculpture and the world wouldn't function if they had too. Alright, I'll bite. Exactly what topics would you cut from math curriculum in favor of giving high schoolers an extremely naive and non-technical understanding of differential equations and integral calculus?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:I mean, if you want to go down this path, there's way too much material on trigonometry (especially needlessly convoluted identities) and conic sections, and two column proofs in geometry are mostly a waste of time. I totally agree about trigonometry and said so up-thread. More broadly, there's a lot of fat that could be cut, in the sense that algebra homework along the lines of "apply the quadratic formula twenty times in a row" is not a productive use of students' time, and contributes to popular perception of math as tedious and uninteresting. I'm partial to the proofs in geometry, but only because that's the only place in most high school curricula where that sort of logical formalism shows up, i.e., it's the only place where the student can be asked "how do you know this" and not respond "because the formula says."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
What solution are you proposing? Ending all advanced classes?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The point of high school is to not specialize, but rather to assure a standardized level of skills and knowledge that (in theory) every high school graduate has, regardless of what school they graduated from. Some jobs may require a higher educational level than that or some more specialized skills not covered in a standardized education, in which case those students can go to college and specialize in one particular field, but the point of high school is to ensure that every graduate has a wide-ranging level of basic knowledge, skills, and life skills that could be potentially applied toward many jobs. If they want to be an engineer or some other knowledge-heavy field, they may need specialized education on top of that, but the point of high school is to provide a basic but comprehensive education that is applicable to every industry. Now, when I say "basic but comprehensive", I don't mean "college prep", I mean "ability to read, write, and do simple math" - and high school is failing even at that! If this is the point of high school, we should be permitting a not-insubstantial number of kids to graduate at 15. At least some of the time, honors and AP classes function as a sop to kids who should really be at a local CC already getting their general ed out of the way. Of course, if we were to permit that, we'd face the same social problems caused by tracking, but even more so, since there would arise a massive stigma against those who got their diploma at the normal age kids do now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why, exactly? There's nothing in there that requires that "a not-insubstantial number of kids" to run out of classes after two years. He didn't say anything about banning honors classes, or AP classes. He said that the purpose of public education ought to be to educate everyone up to a certain standard, and that the minimal level of this standard is failing to be met. Now, implicit in your response would thus be the belief that educating everyone up to this minimal standard requires "permitting a not-insubstantial number of kids" to only spend two years in high school. Which in turn has a host of other implications. My response was to Main Paineframe, who said Main Paineframe posted:[T]he point of high school is to provide a basic but comprehensive education that is applicable to every industry. Now, when I say "basic but comprehensive", I don't mean "college prep", I mean "ability to read, write, and do simple math" - and high school is failing even at that! This is incredibly important - a number of studies suggest that over 10% of American adults are straight-up illiterate, and many more are barely literate. The latest numbers, from a recent federal study, say that 14% of American adults are essentially illiterate, and 29% of American adults have only "basic" reading abilities at best. Clear statistics are harder to find for math, but anecdotal accounts suggest the situation there is only slightly better.plants because they're too illiterate to read written directions[/url]. If you're saying that there are other objectives in high school education, then I agree, chief among them socialization. But if the paramount objective of high school is to achieve these basic proficiencies, what do you do with the ones who already have, and who are nevertheless compelled to attend? They have achieved the desired end; why shouldn't they go and continue their intellectual development in a place that doesn't mandate you take gym? At some point, incidentally, socialization doesn't hold as a worthwhile end either. My best friend's little sister dropped out of high school at 16, took an equivalency exam, and went straight to community college. I thought this was very clever, as I had no idea it was possible. If you're capable, why bother with tedious junior English, when you can do slightly-less-tedious college freshman English and get credit for transfer?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what Main Paineframe is saying either. What is being said is that the minimal, absolute minimal, standard of universal education is failing to be met by our schools, so the priority shouldn't be on focusing on the "gifted" kids, it should be about getting things up to that minimal standard of everyone being able to read and write and do math. I agree that "gifted" students shouldn't be the priority, but, uh, if the purpose of our high schools is to educate our students to that minimal standard, then what's left for those who have as of grade 10? Inasmuch as high schools can also teach intellectually challenging material past that point, aren't they necessarily favoring "gifted" students? Effectronica posted:Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with gym, porky. Awwwwwwwwww.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're missing the point. The purpose is to ensure everyone reaches a certain standard. Nobody is actually saying that that minimum standard is all that should be achieved, or that you can't educate people beyond even a more acceptable standard. I am not missing the point. In the abstract, "the purpose is to ensure everyone reaches a certain standard," inasmuch as currently we are not reaching that standard, requires more resources. And, if you've read the thread, eliminating advanced courses has been proposed as a means to do so. You can alleviate this with "more resources should be dedicated toward education," which I agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Talking out of your rear end is rude. He meant to say "high school math is purely algorithmic," which is correct. Outside of geometry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:See above. It's more than just "can you read written instructions and perform simple arithmetic", it's about providing "a wide-ranging level of basic knowledge, skills, and life skills that could be potentially applied toward many jobs" - and calculus is among those things. You don't need to go to college to start a business, but calculus is extremely helpful in the kinds of economic calculations you need to do if you're starting one responsibly. I don't quite understand. Are you saying that calculus is part of a "basic but comprehensive education," which you argue the school system is failing to provide? That's fine, as far as it goes, but it's difficult to criticize schools for not teaching kids calculus when they legitimately don't give a poo poo. (Source: I was a kid who made it to calculus who didn't give a poo poo.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's not a question of getting poo poo on. Can you read, or are you just putting up a somewhat convincing fake? Your compulsion to insult everyone who disagrees with you is amusing in light of your supernatural thread, in which you convinced everyone who wasn't you that you're an idiot lunatic. It's cool that you think you're smarter than everyone else, but it'd be nice if you did literally anything to justify that notion before going off on people with opinions with which you disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Holy poo poo what a lot of hot garbage. There appears to be a strong inclination in this thread to take one's personal, anecdotal experiences and generalize them. I had an experience which was wholly different than and contrary to yours -- which one of our experiences was correct? Which one should be generalized? (Neither of them.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:A gifted student who is forced to take a less challenging curriculum may be bored but will still be better off than most other students and perform better at college and likely end up with a much better job. What's your evidence for this claim? I have anecdotal personal experience which differs. I don't object to you being correct, I just want some evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 20:08
|
|