I’m confused about math

I was interested in this map that purports to rate the quality of math teaching. It’s from the National Council on Teaching Quality, and at first I thought it explained a phenomenon I’ve noticed.

Minnesota grade schools aren’t doing a good job preparing students with math skills. It’s the #1 obstacle to young people coming into science and math majors, especially biology (if they aren’t strong in math in the first place, they aren’t going to even try physics; everyone wrongly thinks you don’t need math to do biology.) We get students who fail the algebra requirement*, which surprises me every time. What are the schools doing? Back in my day, the high schools had a college prep track which told you that you at least needed pre-calc (trigonometry, etc.) to get into a good college. How do you get through middle school without algebra and geometry?

They have a state-by-state breakdown of their evaluation. I looked at Minnesota’s. It expresses a lot of sentiments I agree with: we should “require districts to adopt and implement high quality math curricula,” but they say we fail on that. We should “require elementary programs to address math specific pedagogy,” and again they say we don’t, but I don’t have any experience working directly with grade school math programs, so I’m taking their word on it. Then I notice that the way NCTQ assesses schools is with checklists of various aspects of teaching, and it’s all yes/no stuff. What are “high quality math curricula”? It seems to me that there ought to be something a little more quantitative about that.

Then I looked at their evaluation of our universities’ math teacher prep, and we get low marks, but again there’s a lack of specificity. All they score is how many hours of instruction math education students get in 4 areas, and the only evaluations are “does not meet” or “fully meets” their quota for instruction hours. And the variation is wild! On “Numbers & Operations+Algebraic Thinking,” for instance, some of our colleges provide 0 hours of instruction, while others provide 100 hours. I think the assessment is a bit inconsistent, and maybe not aligned with the goals of the specific programs.

I’m not trying to make excuses for the schools. I’ve been looking at their products, the students, for years and have been unsatisfied with their end result.

They declare that “13% of Minnesota programs earn an A or A+ by dedicating adequate instructional time to both math content and pedagogy” where again, they’re scoring them by this single metric. 26% of our colleges fail by that metric. Also, to get an A, the “program requires at least 135 instructional hours across the five topics and at least 90% of the recommended target hours for each topic,” but there are only four topics listed. I guess someone failed arithmetic, or copy editing.

I had to look at Alabama‘s evaluation. The South in general is scoring very well on math education, so good for them. They get lots of checkmarks in the binary metrics, for instance Alabama does “require elementary programs to address math specific pedagogy” where Minnesota doesn’t, but now I’m wondering what that means. “16% of Alabama programs earn an A or A+ by dedicating adequate instructional time to both math content and pedagogy,” but 24% fail.

I think we could all improve the quality of math education, but I didn’t find any of their reports particularly useful, and they seemed almost arbitrary. So I looked up the NCTQ, and discovered that it was the product of a conservative think-tank, and was associated with the US News & World Report, the magazine that publishes scores for colleges every year (I do not like them, even if my university scores well in their assessments). Then I read this review:

Now, to be candid, I am fed up with our nation’s obsession with data-driven instruction, so I don’t share the premises of the report. The authors of this report have more respect for standardized tests than I do. I fear that they are pushing data-worship and data-mania of a sort that will cause teaching to the test, narrowing of the curriculum, and other negative behaviors (like cheating). I don’t think any of this will lead to the improvement of education. It might promote higher test scores, but it will undermine genuine education. By genuine education, I refer to a love of learning, a readiness to immerse oneself in study of a subject, an engagement with ideas, a willingness to ask questions and to take risks. I don’t know how to assess the qualities I respect, but I feel certain that there is no standardized, data-driven instruction that will produce what I respect.

And then there is the question that is the title of this blog: What is NCTQ?

NCTQ was created by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2000. I was on the board of TBF at the time. Conservatives, and I was one, did not like teacher training institutions. We thought they were too touchy-feely, too concerned about self-esteem and social justice and not concerned enough with basic skills and academics. In 1997, we had commissioned a Public Agenda study called “Different Drummers”; this study chided professors of education because they didn’t care much about discipline and safety and were more concerned with how children learn rather than what they learned. TBF established NCTQ as a new entity to promote alternative certification and to break the power of the hated ed schools.

I should have read that before wasting all that time trying to interpret the data in the report. And now I understand how Texas and Florida did so well in the NCTQ evaluations.

We still have a problem in poor math preparation. I don’t think turning a bunch of conservative ideologues loose on the schools will solve it.

*I should mention that my university invests a lot of effort in remedial instruction to bring students’ math skills up to the level they need to succeed in our majors.

I’m way ahead of you, Nature

I saw the rising tide of belligerent white nationalism coming, and knew I had to revise how I teach genetics. I’ve seen the kids who come out of public schools thinking that every feature is the product of simple Mendelian genetics, I’ve witnessed a president who declares that he’s got “good genes”, meaning white and German ancestry, I’ve read Quillette. There’s so much misinformation and bad science out there driving hateful ideologies, and my genetics teaching has been slowly adapting to combat it. I guess I’m going to have to accelerate my instruction, now that Nature has told me I must: Eugenics is on the rise again: human geneticists must take a stand.

I agree.

One of the things that made last semester rough is that I revised a big chunk of the class. I decided I had to abort a unit on developmental genetics — which hurt, I love developmental genetics, and it’s important — and we instead spent several weeks on ethical genetics. Throughout the term I brought up examples of the misappropriation of genetical ideas to prop up ugly ideologies, but then, damn it, we elected a know-nothing racist bigot to the presidency, and he immediately started flooding scientific agencies with bullshit.

At a hearing in February, the now-confirmed head of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, reiterated his past comments that Black children should receive different vaccine schedules from white children because of variations in their immune systems.

Kennedy’s motives in this regard are unclear. But after making numerous demonstrably false statements about vaccination, he is providing another layer of reasoning that the scientist whose work Kennedy cites described as “twisting the data far beyond what they actually demonstrate” while promoting racial essentialism: the false belief that people of different ‘races’ have inherently distinct biology.

Meanwhile, although Trump stated at his inaugural address that his administration “will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based”, an executive order he signed in March condemns as “corrosive ideology” the Smithsonian Institution’s promotion in its museums and research centres of the view that race is not a biological reality, but a social construct.

Yeah, I’ve got to start playing hardball here, and get explicit about rebutting specific racist ideas. I’ve been general about coaching students in ethical behavior and allowing them to bring up problematic topics, but I think next year I’m going to incorporate a few case studies of bad genetics, I’m not sure what I can pare out to make time, but there are definitely things I must expand.

Education is key to inoculating future generations against unscientific ideas and correcting currently held beliefs. Research into education at secondary-school and university levels has shown that particular teaching approaches, including those that focus on multifactorial inheritance and genetic ancestry, can help to guard against scientific racism and genetic essentialism.

These conversations must extend to researchers’ engagement with the public to both educate and advocate for science more broadly. Grass-roots efforts could help, such as Science Homecoming, an effort to encourage scientists to write opinion pieces in their local newspapers.

Yes! More about multifactorial inheritance! I think that will come at the expense of cutting back on Mendel. His ideas are fundamental, but I can cover them more succinctly. This stuff matters more than a limited set of experiments on pea plants, which were great in the 1860s, but are perhaps misleadingly simplified.

It’s also an important part of this goal:

Those in leadership positions must protect marginalized faculty members, staff and trainees, who will continue to be targeted in the coming years. Although many funding programmes focused on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) are no longer available, the ideals of DEIA — which are core to scientific progress — must be upheld.

Will do! Fortunately, I’m at a good progressive liberal university, and the students will be receptive to it all. The people who oppose DEIA are the freaky weird fringe.

I wish I could laugh anymore

It’s from McSweeney’s. It’s a joke.

The all-gender bathrooms will be changed to “both-gender” bathrooms because, as biology tells us, there are only two genders.
(The biology department has informed us that this is not true.)
The biology department has been dissolved.

Ha ha, it’s satire that exaggerates a potential problem, therefore it’s funny. Ha ha.

Except…it includes a link to an article on the American Association of University Professors site.

Similarly, the University of North Texas administration recently censored the content of more than two hundred academic courses, including by mandating the removal of words such as race, gender, class, and equity from undergraduate and graduate course titles and descriptions.6 These actions were allegedly taken in response to state legislation banning certain diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and practices, even though the legislation specifically exempted academic course content. While university administrators and faculty members may be compelled to comply with legislation and court orders, even where these run counter to professional and constitutional principles, they remain free to register their disagreement. And under no circumstances should an institution go further than the law demands. Yet, the examples above depict an eagerness to obey on the part of administrative officers, portending a bleak future for higher education.

Wait…is this still satire? Should I keep laughing? Is the AAUP, normally a pretty damned serious site, joking?

No?

I tell you, don’t go to college in Texas. Get out of the state as quick as you can. There may be good colleges there, but the state government is certifiably insane and will be chopping the hell out of the education system there.

Less than two weeks in, and already the creationists are stirring

The regressive politicians are still playing this same stupid game: they hate evolution, but they can’t just switch to stuffing creationism into science curricula (yet), so they instead water down and weaken the science, replacing “evolution” with fuzzy pseudonyms. Gutsick Gibbon explains what’s going on in Iowa right now.

They tried this same stunt in Minnesota almost 20 years ago. Science educators in this state got mad and confronted them at every turn. It worked then, and their efforts were foiled, and that’s what Iowans need to do now.

Also relevant: Milo Rossi dissects pseudoscience. We all need to get fired up.

True horror

I saw The Substance tonight. It was disturbing. I can appreciate body horror, but this was body horror, full on splatter and gore and women transforming into grisly disintegrating smears of goo, all with a feminist message about the commodification of women’s bodies. Just terrifyingly icky.

But the real horror wasn’t the movie, it was the old guy in the back row of the audience who was laughing throughout the show. He needs to be put on a watch list, but I’m afraid I just put my head down and rushed out of the theater before he could dismember me, so no, I wouldn’t recognize him.

I hope he didn’t follow me home.

Insufferably credulous “journalists”

Ainsley Earhardt, one of the “Fox and Friends” airheads, is very excited about the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

We’re all excited about him. How wonderful is it that we don’t — might, we might not have to worry about our children with autism or our kids with, you know, developing cancer or, you know, just — it’s wonderful that he wants to clean up our foods. Our foods, in Europe, when we go to Europe, we can eat pasta, we can eat pizza, we don’t gain any weight. I know you walk a lot, but you don’t gain weight. You feel fresh, you feel clean. You come back here, you start eating pasta and you gain weight immediately.

Again, so there’s something wrong with our foods. It’s the pesticides, the chemicals. We want all of that out. We’re excited that he’s a leader. He’s very knowledgeable. He has said he’s going to give you choice. He’s not going to take away vaccines. Everyone’s not going to get polio. He said if you want a vaccine, you can vaccinate your kids, but I’m giving you choice. And he says he’s going to be transparent.

Yay! RFK will end autism and cure cancer by “cleaning up” our food. He’ll remove “chemicals” from our food!

Let’s not equate autism with cancer, but no, RFK is not going to prevent either of those. He’s not going to eliminate pesticide use. What’s driving our agricultural system is money: pressure to increase yields and lower costs, and corporate consolidation to make farms bigger and service Big Ag. These are Republicans. They aren’t going to change the system, but are more likely to amplify it.

You know, I’m pretty sure that Europe doesn’t have magical pasta and pizza with no calories (Europeans in the comments, tell me if I’m wrong.) What they do have is smaller portions, which, as a resident of the American midwest, I can tell you would elicit howls of protest here if we suggested that maybe you don’t need 3 pounds of carbohydrates with every meal. That’s not going to change, either. Also, another reason you might not get as fat in Europe is that European cities are much more walkable — you don’t drive to the all-you-can-eat buffet at Pizza Ranch. So sure, RFK is going to persuade Americans to drive less, walk more, eat less, and pay more for food from small family farms, and Fox News will call it “wonderful”.

Oh god. The future looks bleak.

Posturing buffoon

Trump wants to destroy the Department of Education. Can he actually do that?

Technically, yes.

However, “It would take an act of Congress to take it out,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, told Vox. “It would take an act of Congress to radically restructure it. And so the question is whether or not there’d be appetite on the Hill for abolishing the department.”

That’s not such an easy prospect, even though the Republicans look set to take narrow control of the Senate and the House. That’s because abolishing the department “would require 60 votes unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster,” Jal Mehta, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Vox.

So probably not. If it gets to the point that Trump’s whims of all sorts can be implemented, we’ll be so screwed that we’ll be praying for the Canadians to invade. If he did manage to get his wish, I don’t think he’s aware of the consequences.

Closing the department “would wreak havoc across the country,” Valant said. “It would cause terrible pain. It would cause terrible pain in parts of the country represented by congressional Republicans too.”

Much of that pain would likely fall on the country’s most vulnerable students: poor students, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. That’s because the department’s civil rights powers help it to support state education systems in providing specialized resources to those students.

As usual, the Republican electorate was too stupid to realize that they were hurting themselves. Or maybe they think it was worth it to hurt their citizens who are handicapped, or gay, or trans, because while it is taking money away from them, it’s taking that money specifically from people they hate.

Even if the DOE isn’t abolished, they can worm their way into it and wreck all kinds of policies. For instance…

Trump officials could also attempt changes to the department’s higher education practices. The department is one of several state and nongovernmental institutions involved in college accreditation, for example — and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) has threatened to weaponize the accreditation process against universities he believes to be too “woke.”

I’m at a university that I would generally class as “woke,” and that’s a good thing. I have so many students who I wouldn’t get to know if we were anti-woke, which generally involves only supporting straight white Christian men.

I think I see the problem here

An ironic slogan

As we get closer to the election, the frenzy of the media becomes increasingly apparent. All the stories about polls, about uncommitted voters, about wild rumors about immigrants, etc., it all has a purpose — to make us increasingly anxious and desperate for more “news”, that is, the stuff the media tells us will help us resolve our uncertainty. Except, of course, it isn’t what we need. I know how I’m going to vote, I informed my opinion on that by seeing what the candidates do and say, and all the caterwauling about how my neighbors will vote or how people a thousand miles away will vote doesn’t matter.

But that is what the media feeds on.

The machine is churning so fast right now that the works have been exposed. Sprockets have sprung, circuits are frayed, the housing is cracked, and the real engines of the news are exposed. It’s billionaires meddling.

The choice in the next election is obvious to every informed citizen, but the Washington Post went full chickenshit and decided this was the year they can’t make an endorsement. The publisher, William Lewis, had to twist himself into knots to justify that act of cowardice.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

In the name of ethics, the rule of law, and respect for human freedom, the paper nobly refuses to support the candidate who opposes a fascist with no ethics, contempt for the law, who wants to lock up and deport millions of Americans. That is such a chickenshit excuse. You know the real motivation: they are afraid Trump might win, and they are preemptively kneeling before the monster who’d abuse his power to silence media that is critical of him.

And, of course, the Washington Post is owned by a billionaire, Jeff Bezos, who is probably pissed off at the only reasonable (if flawed) candidate who is talking about mild policy that might cost him another yacht. The thumb is on the scales.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, another major newspaper, the LA Times, refused to endorse a candidate who opposes Trump, and has lost the support of much of its staff.

Mariel Garza, who was until days ago the Los Angeles Times’ editorials editor, said she resigned from her post in protest after the paper’s owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked an endorsement the editorial board had planned to make for Harris. Soon-Shiong appeared to push back in a social media post, in which he claimed the editorial board was asked to “draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate” so readers could make an informed decision, but claimed the board did not follow through. Editorial board members Robert Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Karin Klein also resigned in protest, with both citing their disappointment over the blocked endorsement.

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a South African billionaire who bought his way into a position of influence. I can think of another South African billionaire who is poisoning our democracy. Maybe we should deport them all?

There are things we can do — weak, belated things, but it’s something. You can write a letter to the editor of the WaPo. It probably won’t get published, but increasing the tally of people who state their contempt for the editorial cowardice can help. Do like Martin Baron.

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump’s presidency, denounced the decision starkly.

“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” Baron said in a statement to NPR. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

Or even better, if you are a subscriber, cancel it right now. I did. The darkness approaches. Don’t expect the Washington Post to light a candle.

Debate schmebate

Great. We’re having a another presidential debate tomorrow. I predict it will be a debacle.

I won’t predict who will win, because that is going to be shaped by people’s subjective impressions and the way impressions will be shaped by the media. And one thing I can definitely predict is that the media will fuck it up.

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

This debate shouldn’t be happening, because in a functional democracy the senile narcissist running for the Republican party should have been repudiated long ago.

Retro gamers ahoy!

Back in the olden days, you know, the 20th century, I had a favorite computer game: Hellcats Over the Pacific. It was a flight simulator that ran on 68020 Macs; it was a simple, fairly crude game that was smooth and fun for it’s time. Most importantly, you could fire it up and do a mission in 20 minutes or so.

It took up 59K of disk space. How many games can you say that about nowadays?

To my short-lived joy, there is a Mac simulator that allows anyone to play the game on their browser. Check it out. See what glorious computer graphics enthralled us in the 1990s.

Oh gosh. Such flat terrain, 8-bit color, blocky objects made up of what, 10 or 20 polygons?

I can’t do it. Not after playing No Man’s Sky. It was still a great game in 1991, though.