New-Hoo-Hoo Math

From Wikipedia:

"Lehrer's explanation of the two calculations is entirely correct, but presented in such a way (very rapidly and with many side remarks) as to make it difficult to follow the individually simple steps, thus recreating the bafflement the New Math approach often evoked when apparently simple calculations were presented in a very general manner which, while mathematically correct and arguably trivial for mathematicians, was likely very confusing to absolute beginners and even contemporary adult audiences."



The song was recorded in 1965.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Today we have many people up in arms over the Common Core standards.  Perhaps you've seen videos of outraged parents detailing how ridiculous their child's math homework is - often in the same confusing manner Lehrer used, and certainly out of context with the classroom lesson.

Prior to this week I knew practically nothing about the Common Core.  However, I have a handy rule of thumb:  If the Koch Bothers are spending money to sway public opinion about something, chances are that the point of view that they want you to have does not align well with your best self-interest.  It's not much, but as a Liberal Agnostic I've been told that I have no moral compass, so it will have to serve.

The first point I'd like to make is that the Common Core standards do not set classroom curricula.  It does not set lesson plans.  It's just a set of standards adopted by several state governors to make it easier for schools to comply with the No Child Left Behind law (remember that gem?).  So if your child's math homework looks like a mess to you, take it up with her teacher and the school board, and maybe give them a chance to explain things.  If they tell you that their hands are tied because it's all because of Common Core, you can call bullshit on that.  Here's a handy FAQ published by NPR so you don't end up looking like a fool.  

The second thing I really want to point out is this:  Unless you had Miss Wedgebottom for math when she was fresh out of college, and she's still teaching math by the time your progeny are ready for school, then odds are they your kids will not have the same teachers that you did.  Instead, they will have teachers who learned things the old way, and have some ideas of their own on how to pound knowledge into Little Johnny's head  Heck, in thirty years maybe old Mrs. Bumblebritches (nee Wedgebottom) has learned some new ways of doing things.  Regardless, it's probably not the way you were taught. This is just how it is, folks.  I went through it too, when my kids would ask for help.  I could tell them the way I was taught to do it, but that wasn't the way they were being taught at school.  My two were ten years apart and it was the same with both of them.  Time marches on.

I remember (none too fondly) having to do multiplication tables.  I thought it was a supreme waste of time and extremely boring to boot.  As a young scholar, I'd have jumped at the chance to prove that I knew how to get these answers without having to memorize every single one.  How many of you whippersnappers had to do multiplication tables?   

It's always possible that some elementary school teacher is being unrealistic and maybe slightly whacko, or just not doing a good job.  I've seen my share of these.  But before jumping onto the nearest convenient bandwagon, a little research will help your cause (and your child) much more than any amount of misplaced outrage.

Guest Post - Arthur Payton

(the following article references this blog post.)

Mr. Walsh seems to be offended by the idea of people being offended, and in the writing of his post has broken his own rules (or "Absolute Truths"). He has taken offense, which in his own words is his own decision, and has decided the intent of others. I sincerely doubt that the statement "I'm offended by that" is one that is intended to offend, so he really shouldn't be taking offense from it if he truly believes in his own rules. By writing his lengthy blog post, he has dwelled upon the offense rather than behaving as a "functioning adult," and has only sidestepped the fifth rule because his "trendy internet thing" where he frowned upon something was done without a picture of himself holding up a piece of paper.

He is taking a rather extremist position on the topic, when really this is something that is often a matter of context. The video tries to juxtapose "microaggression" with physical and sexual aggression, but the two are not the same and should not be held on the same level. We're talking about different levels of aggression, centered in different levels of society. This doesn't invalidate the potential for harm found in "microaggressions," since they are simply a continuation or "left-over" from other types of aggression which are no longer socially acceptable.

The primary difficulty I have with Mr. Walsh's stance is that I am a proponent for a compassionate society. In my opinion, in a compassionate society a person who has been truly offended by something should not be made to feel invalidated because the "offender's" intent is more important than the effect achieved. After all, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, yes? Why is it more important to insist that those affected by systemic discrimination "toughen up" and ignore that discrimination (which can then carry on unchecked, and grow in severity), than it is to offer a sincere apology for a mistaken intent? If the listener cannot decide the intent of the speaker, why does the speaker get to decide whether the listener is offended? If someone is offended, why does the speaker get to decide that their words were inoffensive?

That's really what this seems to boil down to: an argument against apologizing for jokes, statements, or actions which are at the expense of another (individual or group), or even apologizing for an unintended effect. It is an insistence that others are weak and must improve themselves at the speaker's direction (which is privileged behavior), rather than a call for personal growth and betterment as an individual or as a society.

Do I think holding open a door for a woman is wrong? No, though I tend to hold it open for anybody, regardless of sex, ethnicity, or ability. But I can understand the mindset which might take offense, and so if someone was offended I would apologize. After all, I would probably take offense if someone offered to help me learn the alphabet.

That said, the other side of that compassionate society also requires that the person who is offended take time to consider the intent of the person who offended them. It requires open, non-hostile communication between the two, so that both intent and effect may be understood and the interaction can be learned from on both sides. Essentially, it requires learning and understanding -individuals- (micro-level) instead of groups (macro-level). Like I said at the beginning this is often a matter of context, being situational and dependent upon both the people involved and the environment the interaction takes place within.

This is nothing new. People have said for years that you can't say anything without offending somebody. With the Internet as the setting for many interactions, it's simply a matter of "somebody" being much closer. The question is, are we called to dismiss these others, to ignore them, or are we called to understand them?