This is the most racist document I have ever read. "The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false" is on p. 65.
That’s a problem with grammar and language; not math.
The agenda behind the pamphlet is obvious. I liked this gem from the page at issue:
>Schooling as we know it began during the industrial revolution, when precision and accuracy were highly valued. What are the myriad ways we can conceptualize mathematics in today’s world and beyond?
These thing WERE highly valued? They are no longer? And weren’t they valued BEFORE the industrial revolution? Indeed, was not the Industrial Revolution possible in the first place due to the high value put on precision and accuracy?
As for the 'highly valued' bit; one could argue that mathematics built for problem solving creative issues (including in computer programming) is now valued more than it was then. That could lead to different curriculum than before.
You don't land a rocket on Mars by valuing anything other than precision and accuracy.
The laws of the universe just don't care about anything else.
I don't think I can rephrase it better than the document already states:
> And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer.
It is hugely useful to be able to interrogate misleading paths to seemingly correct but ultimately incorrect answers. Half of standardized test answers seem to be written to intentionally capture such missteps.
It talks about not being either/or in regards to succeeding, not dismissing students because they don't have a good grasp of mathematical language, not being super harsh about sticking to the curriculum. This just sounds like Waldorf or Montessori school stuff.
It almost feels targeted: occupy the mathematicians' time with the modest specifics to divert their attention away from the, err, praxis in the framing.
Under a literal or charitable reading, it's not a problem. It's making the point that systemic racism can pop up in a number of places on a map of the educational landscape. That's fine. It's true. It's not saying that those places themselves inherently constitute white supremacy culture.
However, this all hinges entirely on the reading being charitable or at the very least literal -- and if there's one life lesson that my interactions with others keep hammering home, it's that people are not generally literal or charitable. People are fuzzy association machines. Literal meanings can sometimes protect you in a court of law or court of academics. Charitability can protect you among friends. Absent those two narrow, tenuous exceptions, that paper gives wokescolds permission to label any of a dozen core aspects of teaching as "white supremacy culture," insofar as school administration allows it to do so, which by my estimation they absolutely will.
I sincerely hope this fear is misplaced.
I personally am unbothered because this is a document for curriculum designers with real explanations of their arguments, and I doubt that it will encourage a culture-wide opposition to, for example, "right answers." I'm not sure how someone, meaning to avoid racism, would problematically de-emphasize right answers. To my mind, the only likely negative result would be ineffectual scolding. But I'm open to being proven wrong.
(Please note that one or two examples of teachers being unjustly fired is not terrible persuasive, in the same way as one or two marijuana-related deaths is not evidence that marijuana is a society-wide epidemic.)
It seems like a toolkit for identifying how seemingly innocuous ideas could support existing power structures in our society. Why should that be shunned?
"Classrooms are often microcosms of the world around us and reinforce dominant (or white) ways of being."
> It seems like a toolkit for identifying how seemingly innocuous ideas could support existing power structures in our society. Why should that be shunned?
It lacks intellectual rigor and is unfalsifiable, yet the burden of proof rests on the accused. Perhaps the tools we use to teach math are suboptimal, but to assert that they are "racist" or "white" (in a harmful sense) is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
It should be possible to experimentally demonstrate that certain teaching methods improve the outcomes towards racial equity, then give recommendations based on those results. If this isn't possible, how could we achieve racial equity by making all these assertions, then requiring teachers to reflect upon them? Clearly, if the teachers are biased by white supremacy, all of their conclusions must be biased as well.
The entire pamphlet is 100% crazy. I can't imagine how anyone could read this charitably, it's quite obviously the work of people who have totally lost their minds. The entire concept of labelling ordinary aspects of any imaginable education system as "white" is fundamentally racist.
> Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.
> And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer.
Example from my life: We mentor a black girl in high school physics. The Physics teacher misinterpreted her age assuming she was a 3rd or 4th year (which is a common culturual/racial gap, not intentional but structural!) when she is a freshman. The teacher in consequence also misintepreted where she 'should' be at in her ability to manage school life, homework, comprehension etc.
After he learned his mistake he reframed his perception of the students efforts at learning, and was able to teach her. She successfully passed that class trying again after narrowly failing the first time.