Not-so-common Common Core... (Remarkable Post)

A super post from biologist Lior Pachter addressing Common Core from a different angle, employing unsolved problems (LOT of potential food for thought here):

https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/unsolved-problems-with-the-common-core/

As Pachter puts it, he believes there is a major "shortcoming in the almost universal perspective on education that the common core embodies:
The emphasis on what K–12 students ought to learn about what is known has sidelined an important discussion about what they should learn about what is not known."

Pachter proposes several unsolved problems that can be introduced to young people at different levels.  While admitting that K-12 students aren't likely to find solutions to such problems he argues that the problems "provide many teachable moments and context for the mathematics that does constitute the common core, and (at least in my opinion) are fun to explore (for kids and adults alike). Perhaps most importantly, the unsolved problems and conjectures reveal that the mathematics taught in K–12 is right at the edge of our knowledge: we are always walking right along the precipice of mystery. This is true for other subjects taught in K–12 as well, and in my view this reality is one of the important lessons children can and should learn in school."

Just a remarkable post I commend to all educators! (some of the perspective Pachter is proposing I think may already be inherent to the goals of Common Core, but not in the precise way he outlines).

James Tanton on Common Core

James Tanton has started a video series in support of Common Core. The first is below. Anyone involved in this debate should probably view it (important stuff!):

Teach the Children Well...

Fitting I s'pose that I should start a new year with Keith Devlin, who has probably graced my posts more often than any other individual. His blog-year started off (yesterday) with another piece about the educational system in his ongoing attempt to persuade Americans of the need for Common Core. I'm afraid by now he's preaching to the choir -- views on this topic are so hardened. Either you believe in Common Core (perhaps with some reservations, but nonetheless support it), or you think it the product of overly-liberal educators and incompetent, intrusive government... and not a lot of wiggle-room in-between.
Keith writes succinctly at one point:

"The fact is, any parent who opposes adoption of the CCSS is, in effect, saying, 'I do not want my child prepared for life in the Twenty-First Century.' They really are. Not out of lack of concern for their children, to be sure. Quite the contrary. Rather, what leads them astray is that they are not truly aware of how the huge shifts that have taken place in society over the last thirty years have impacted educational needs."

Common Core opponents focus on the past, which somehow they think was just fine, while Keith is focused on the future, especially in terms of needed job skills for rising generations.
He also links to some great TEDTalks (Sugata Mitra and Ken Robinson) that I suspect most readers here have seen... but if you haven't, by all means, watch.

Read Keith's entire piece here:
http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2015/01/your-fathers-mathematics-teaching-no.html

A central part of his post is a chart showing the "skills" most sought-after in new workers by Fortune 500 companies back in 1970 versus 1999 (is there not an even more up-to-date list?)
"Problem-solving," which didn't appear in the top 10 in 1970, is #2 in 1999 (and certainly one of the impetuses for education change). In fact, the top 3 sought-after skills had completely changed by 1999, and I have to give some cynical, non-mathematical commentary about the other two:

1)  #3 on the list is "interpersonal skills," non-existent in the top 10 from 1970! I can't help but think that this is partly the result of today's world becoming a courser, less-civil place than the world of 1970. Perhaps in 1970 it was presumed that if you made it to adulthood and were seeking employment, then you had sufficient interpersonal skills for a workplace -- today employers must seek out people with such interpersonal skills! Also, on an even more cynical note, I suspect there are more jobs today (sales, marketing, public relations, management etc.) that require a person to be persuasive and controlling of others, than in 1970, when "honesty" or "sincerity" may have been greater virtues than the ability to manipulate and sway people.

2)  Meanwhile, #1 on the 1999 list is "Teamwork" (it was #10 in 1970) -- this troubles me a bit! One of the most common questions prospective employees hear these days is along the lines of "Are you a team player?" I've felt for some time now that this is often code for, "will you do whatever the company asks you to, regardless of laws and ethics?" Employers don't want workers with consciences or personal ethics (who might object to something or be whistleblowers), so much as company drones who will 'look the other way' when needed and march to the company anthem. That's a broad generalization, but from observation of big business behavior over the last 3 decades (yes, there are some ethical businesses out there; their numbers just seem in steady decline).

I usually agree with Dr. Devlin's views, but was once troubled by a response he gave me to a question I posed to him last year. He wrote:
"...the only possible answer to the provision of good education in this country is by private enterprise. The state system is a century out of date and broken beyond repair."

Wow!, "broken beyond repair"... As a proponent of public education and critic of private industry, that gloomy reply stung! The thought of private companies in charge of our education system (and it's already happening in some places) disturbs me (I continue to believe it possible for public education, and for that matter, big government, to work successfully). Keith is part of a small entrepreneurial company (BrainQuake, Inc.) and I suppose his optimism stems in part from that experience. I'm not concerned with enterprises of that size... but am worried by the companies that will, if Keith's company is successful, gobble up his enterprise and strictly subordinate whatever its good works and intentions are, to a bottom-line (...and then burp, ignominiously).

No doubt in my mind that Dr. Devlin is right and the educational system badly needs reforming... but it's so much broader than that... the Fortune 500 itself is also in desperate need of reform! And, unfortunately, I'm not convinced either will happen anytime soon.

Keith and I are close to the same age, and he once again closed out his post with some classic 60's music... so once again he inspires me to do the same ;-):

"...for parents, the transition has been hard"

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, especially since Math-Frolic really isn't an education blog… except that this isn't a DEAD horse; it's very much alive and kicking, and I see no near-term end to it... another piece, from NY Times, on why current-day parents have so much trouble with Common Core:

http://tinyurl.com/ms2pq38

a couple of sentences that capture the essence:

"Even supporters of the Common Core say changes are being pushed too quickly. Rushing to institute a new math curriculum does not make sense if you are 'planning to get the job done in a rational way,' said Phil Daro, one of three principal writers of the Common Core math standards.
"Tensions over the Common Core have been heightened because the standards are tied to new standardized tests being introduced in many states. Teachers are fretting that their performance ratings will increasingly depend on how their students perform on these tests."

and further on:

“ 'Imagine, if you will, if the state government came down to Detroit and said in six weeks you have to be 100 percent metric,' said Jonathan Marceau, a fourth-grade teacher in Shelby Township, Mich…"

or this from a parent: “They say this is rigorous because it teaches them higher thinking. But it just looks tedious.”

It's nice to know that parents are so passionately interested in their children's education… it's less clear whether that passion can lead from disagreement and controversy, to resolution and progress???

ADDENDUM (7/2/14): Dr. Keith Devlin has now responded to this NY Times piece here:
http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-power-of-dots.html

Math… Performing vs. Learning

Stanford's Jo Boaler defends Common Core in this recent 20-min. YouTube video:

Keith and Common Core

"The CCSS were created to ensure that all students who graduate from an American high school do so with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life in the Twenty-First Century, regardless of where they live." -- K. Devlin

Dr. Keith Devlin addresses the math Common Core debate in his latest posting for Huffington Post (he supports CC):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-keith-devlin/common-core-math-standards_b_5369939.html

...just from the first two comments to his piece, I can imagine this is going to generate some lively, effusive discussion!
In all honesty, it's hard for me to see how this whole debate ever ends well, both sides, pro and con, having quite hardened, opposing views. Even if Common Core works well, it might be years, or even a generation, before we are able to fully recognize that. Meanwhile, in the short-term (which seems to be all people focus on these days) there are bound to be difficulties with the implementation of this education overhaul, and both sides are poised to blame each other for whatever travails result.
[None of that, by the way, is meant as a criticism of Keith's piece, which I think is great, but just an acknowledgment, that I don't believe it will be persuasive to the audience it's aimed at: generations of adult parents who have only ever known one way of learning math; or, as Keith writes, "...they were only ever exposed to the algorithmic-skills math instruction developed for earlier times -- a form of teaching that is hopelessly inadequate for life in today's world."]  I hope I'm wrong, but, from my standpoint, this whole squabble isn't looking pretty heading into the future... :-(

Teaching, Conceptualizing, Common Core

As much as I try to avoid the primary/secondary education debates, I'd feel remiss if I didn't pass along two of the pieces from this morning's Web:

1) California teacher Fawn Nguyen interviewed by Cathy O'Neil on Common Core:
http://mathbabe.org/2014/04/23/interview-with-a-high-school-math-teacher-on-the-common-core/

2) Grant Wiggins on "conceptual understanding" (longread +comments):
http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/

Fascinating (to me) how something (Common Core) intended to bring unification/standards, is instead stirring up vastly more debate and discussion than likely ever anticipated, with resolution seemingly a long way off. One thing I'm not clear on (as a non-educator), maybe someone can quickly clarify, is Common Core being sharply debated in realms OTHER than math (i.e., English/verbal content), or is the debate mostly a math thing?

Monday Miscellany

...Science fiction, savantism, mushy Common Core, MOOCs, take your pick:

1) Both math and science fiction geeks should find Sol Lederman's latest wide-ranging podcast with Chuck Adler, physicist and recent author of "Wizards, Aliens, and Starships," interesting; lots of ideas tossed around:

http://wildaboutmath.com/2014/02/13/chuck-adler-inspired-by-math-33/

2) I sometimes take note of prodigies and savants here, and the Jason Padgett story is one of the most interesting (Jason attained his mathematical artistic talents only after having been mugged and receiving a severe head injury). A new book out, "Struck By Genius," chronicles his story:

http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0544-04560-6

3) and then there's this:

“If you were to graph the creative flexibility afforded our highly educated and maximally qualified teachers over time with common core, you would find that both the first derivative of the function and, most alarmingly, the second derivative of the function, are negative. There is no point of inflection as the function approaches infinity (i.e., increasingly decreasing teacher autonomy, with no turnaround in sight.)”

If you haven't a clue what that's all about, read the rest of an engineer's commentary on Common Core here:

http://tinyurl.com/lu5e4w2

4) Finally, MOOCs are full of good, bad, and uncertainty, and continue receiving lots of criticism from outside observers -- sure, there are various numbers/statistics that give rise to such negative views, BUT I for one continue to think we're still very early in the game of a revolutionary development.  Perhaps no one has thought about (and worked on) MOOCs any more than Keith Devlin, and so another quick take from him defending their future: