Closing the Math Gap for Boys
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> I know of no initiative for disadvantaged young men of color that comes close.
Neither do I. I look forward to the post-mortem explaining why this program will turn out to be a failure like all the others.
When it comes to disadvantaged and struggling students, tutoring has been tried countless times. As the article points out, it typically fails. What is Chicago's Match program doing differently? If the answer is, "not much", we should expect it to fail. In that case, the initial indications of success could be a statistical fluke, an uncorrected selection effect, or even biased researchers "juking" the stats.
It took some digging, but I found a paper on the pilot study.[1] This preceded the one mentioned by the NYT, and had just 106 students. I don't see any glaring errors, but I don't spend a ton of time reading academic papers. They at least admit potential issues with scaling (the program relies on volunteers to keep costs low) and the poor statistical power of their study. Figures 5 through 8 are particularly damning.
I'd love it if this program worked, but I'm not optimistic.
1. http://www.matcheducation.org/s/Crime-Lab-pilot-study-paper_...
It would be interesting to see a similar study where you divided students into 3 groups - those who would receive no tutoring, those who would receive tutoring from recent college graduates and those who would receive tutoring from someone at least twenty years older than the student.
From the article: “It’s friendship and pushing — they nag them to success,” Barbara Algarin, the executive director of Match Education, which runs the tutoring program, told me. “These students can make remarkable progress when they appreciate that their tutor is in their corner. The math connection leads to better study skills and a love of learning. Grades improve across the board.”
That's essentially parenting, not friendship.
All the nagging in the world from someone you don't trust just makes you stonewall. Conversely, a push from a slightly older, more accomplished peer can be very motivating. Some sports examples might include a varsity player telling a JV player:
"Come on, just one more lap!"
"We're not leaving the field till you get a goal past me."
Etc.
What is needed is to change the kids' MINDSET about math. How do we make them WANT it? They've already decided it's boring and difficult.
Basically, instead of teaching, i think the school ciriculunm should try to pique the interest of the students, and make them intrinsically motivated to find out more. How to do this depends on how good their teachers are, and atm, not many teachers can do this even if they want to, because they are required to teach a certain amount of 'standard' stuff, and leaves not much room for the teacher's own brand/style.
Look at this from the UK a few years ago. Most teachers were found to lack basic math skill. I doubt US/Canadian teachers are any different.
"Only one third of the teachers tested for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary were able to calculate that 1.4 divided by 0.1 is 14, while only four out of 10 could work out that 2.1 per cent of 400 is 8.4. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7236780/P...
"Fewer than four out of 10 of those who sat the test – designed for 11-year-olds – could calculate 2.1% of 400, and only a third answered correctly that 1.4 divided by 0.1 was 14. Overall, four out of ten scored 40% or below, only one got all the answers correct and the average mark was 12 out of 27 or 45%."
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/feb/14/primary-tea...
I'm not sure I'm completely with the economists on this one, but I can definitely see some of the points. I think doing something like this in the K-8 years would be far more effective than in the H.S. years where kids should start to be more independent.
If cities could work with local businesses to allow STEM employees to volunteer (paid by the company) a couple days a month at a local school, in addition to getting parents to volunteer 2-3 days a month, this could get the coverage needed and starting at much younger ages before a lot of the issues start to settle in.
I think that's a great idea. Some management types can checkmark 'social responsibility' that someone added to the company's mission statement, and employees get to have some mini sabbatical and feel good about themselves, probably come back with more energy.
Not questioning it, just curious.
The 2012 results for USA, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm, for Maths, Reading and Science show the gender gap to be better than the average with a trend towards constancy; ie contrary to the GP's claim. However, I wouldn't want to say on my cursory view of their summaries that the GP was wrong.
Just because you question their sources does not mean you are personally attacking them.
Nursing, on the other hand, is in itself a vocation. One studies nursing, presumably, to become a nurse, and not usually as a means to some other end.
Therefore, a lack of boys' interest in math would be potentially different from a lack of boys' interest in nursing, in that innumeracy (just like illiteracy) tends to limit individual outcomes much more severely than lack of interest in a particular vocational path such as nursing.
What no one will admit is that these differences in preference may be matters of nature as well as nurture. Even if they aren't, these things change very slowly. I don't expect to see men equally represented in nursing, social work, or primary education at any point in the future except through a quota system.