Ep 15. Modern relevance in the math curriculum with Brian Conrad
Aug 25, 2023
auto_awesome
Join math professor Brian Conrad as he discusses modern applications of math, debunking myths about the math curriculum, and the importance of a strong math background in quantitative fields. He also highlights issues found in a draft of the California Math Framework and emphasizes the need for better material to convey the relevance of math to students. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in math or education.
The California Math Framework (CMF) misrepresents neuroscience claims, highlighting a significant issue with its misleading use of neuroscience to support its arguments.
The CMF contains dishonest citation misrepresentations regarding tracking, assessment, and devaluing advanced math, exposing a lack of attention to detail and integrity in the document.
The absence of content experts during the drafting process of the CMF led to deficiencies in the document, particularly regarding data science education, highlighting major flaws in the CMF.
Deep dives
Misrepresentation of Neuroscience in CMF
The podcast episode discusses how the California math framework (CMF) misrepresents neuroscience claims and their implications for math education. One example highlighted in the podcast is a paper cited in the CMF that supposedly found enhanced brain communication and improved student achievement when numbers were seen as visual objects. However, it is revealed that the paper actually focused on adults, not students, and did not involve any brain imaging. Additionally, the study examined large arrays of dots, not the visual representation of numbers as claimed. This highlights a significant issue with the CMF's misleading use of neuroscience to support its arguments.
Issues with Tracking, Assessment, and Devaluing Advanced Math
The podcast episode exposes several dishonest citation misrepresentations in the CMF regarding tracking, assessment, and devaluing advanced math. The CMF's preferred narrative against tracking supports the idea that students should not be separated by ability before grade 11. However, the citation used to back this claim was misinterpreted, as it referred to a different meaning of tracking that didn't apply to students in local public schools. Similarly, the CMF advocated against grading homework and devalued advanced math, presenting an inaccurate perception that these practices were inequitable. Critically, the misrepresentations in the CMF were repeatedly highlighted, demonstrating a concerning lack of attention to detail and integrity in the document.
Failure to Involve Content Experts and Missed Opportunities
The podcast episode highlights the absence of content experts, such as university math teachers and data scientists, in the process of drafting the CMF. This absence led to significant deficiencies in the document, particularly regarding data science education. The CMF's misleading claims about data science's superiority and its subjective impacts on marginalized groups lack expert guidance and scientific grounding. A missed opportunity to rectify this was replacing the data science chapter in the CMF with an appendix written by genuine data science experts to provide reliable guidance and connect math curriculum to future careers. The lack of involvement from content experts and missed opportunities to provide accurate and comprehensive information are major flaws in the CMF.
The Committee of Ten Myth
The myth that the Committee of Ten in the late 19th century set the high school curriculum on a pathway to calculus is completely false. The actual 1892 report from the Committee of Ten does not mention calculus at all. In fact, the report supports anti-tracking in math and proposes separate math pathways for technical colleges and bookkeeping/commercial arithmetic. The push against calculus in the curriculum is misguided, as calculus is essential in modern fields such as data science, AI, and machine learning. The myth is often repeated without fact-checking.
The Area C Loophole
There was a loophole discovered in the University of California's Area C requirement for math. The loophole allowed certain data science courses to substitute for algebra two, potentially leaving students unprepared for quantitative degrees. This loophole was based on a flawed analogy between data science and statistics. The validation process meant for flexible language requirements was misused to allow mathless data science courses to validate algebra two. The loophole was exposed through emails revealing the intentional rubber-stamping of such courses. The UC and CSU systems have since revoked the approvals, and the issue highlights the importance of ensuring accurate course requirements and avoiding misleading alternatives.
Join Anna Stokke in discussion with Dr. Brian Conrad, who is a math professor and director of undergraduate studies in math at Stanford. They discuss some modern-day applications of math, and he gives some advice for parents who wonder what type of math their kids should learn to be ready for a four-year college degree in STEM or other quantitative fields.
Listeners will receive an update on what happened with the California Math Framework since the two episodes featuring Jelani Nelson (Episodes 11 & 12). As well, Brian Conrad shares examples of the many false or misleading citations he found permeating a 1000-page draft copy of the CMF. The discussion of those findings illustrates how citation misrepresentation can lead to misunderstandings about math and data science among the general public.
This episode is a must-listen for parents, teachers, policy makers and anyone with an interest in math or education.
