Florida's rejection of math textbooks "due" to CRT

[dismalist]

Combining two subjects in a single worksheet in mathematics was a favored method of Nazi pedagogy, basically sliming in the desired content to dress up the arithmetic. These thigs are called "word problems", I believe :

In 1934 the MR commissioned a Handbook for Teachers with the title "Mathematics in
the Service of National Socialist Education". The editor of the Handbook, the teacher Adolf
Dorner, wrote in it, when in appeared in 1935:
This handbook methodically strives to hammer into the people the basic facts
that determine the policy of the government.13
The Handbook had many assignments of military character but also of the following:
Problem from A. Dorner (ed. 1935): Mathematik im Dienste der nationalpoli-
tischen Erziehung (Mathematics in the Service of National Socialist Education)
This collection was commissioned by the "Mathematischer Reichsverband" (Reich Mathematical
Association), where the pure mathematician Georg Hamel was the "Führer"
"Assignment 97.: A mentally ill person costs 4 German marks (RM) a day, a cripple 5,50 RM, a
criminal 3,50 RM. In many cases a civil servant has only 4 RM per day, a public employee barely
3,50 RM, an unskilled worker not yet 2 RM per head of the family. (a) represent these figures
graphically.
According to cautious estimates there are 300 000 mentally ill persons, epileptics etc. in nursing
homes. (b) home many loans for young families at 1000 RM without refund1 could be spent from
this money each year?" (42)
Footnote 1: For each child that is born alive in the marriage one fourth of the original loan is relinquished.
Of course, this kind of assignments looks almost criminal today, with us looking back at
the period and with our knowledge of Auschwitz.

From https://publimath.univ-irem.fr/numerisation/ACF/ACF08076/ACF08076.pdf
[/quote]

Same with the commies:


Try North Korea

Question 1:

   

During the Fatherland Liberation War [North Korea's official name for the Korean War] the brave uncles of Korean People's Army killed 265 American Imperial bastards in the first battle. In the second battle they killed 70 more bastards than they had in the first battle. How many bastards did they kill in the second battle? How many bastards did they kill altogether?

Question 2:

   

South Korean boys, who are fighting against the American imperialist wolves and their henchmen, handed out 45 bundles of leaflets with 150 leaflets in each bundle. They also stuck 50 bundles with 50 leaflets in each bundle. How many leaflets were used?

https://theworld.org/stories/2013-04-24/can-you-solve-north-korean-math

[ergative]

Along those same lines, the Soviets were really big on promoting literacy. Therefore . . .

[dismalist]

Along those same lines, the Soviets were really big on promoting literacy. Therefore . . .

[In 1923] the curriculum was changed radically. Independent subjects, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, the mother tongue, foreign languages, history, geography, literature or science were abolished. Instead school programmes were subdivided into "complex themes", such as "the life and labour of the family in village and town" for the first year or "scientific organisation of labour" for the 7th year of education.

Initial pro-literacy propaganda efforts included instituting spaces in villages, particularly, that would facilitate the spread of literacy through the countryside. For example, in the early 1920s, Bolsheviks built "Red Rooms," reading rooms in villages across Russia, to serve as propaganda centers by which texts sent by the Party were disseminated to local communities.

In the pro-literacy propaganda campaigns within trade Unions, the Party-line contained in pamphlets and other pieces of propaganda focused on "true literacy" as the ideal literacy level for workers

"Run, spot, run" differs from "kill the expropriators".

[Wahoo Redux]

I think this is an archetypal example of correlation without causation and an archetypal example of gross hyperbole.

If one has to exaggerate this badly to make a point, one does not have a point to make.

[ergative]

"Run, spot, run" differs from "kill the expropriators".

That's kind of my point. What degree of similarity are you trying to draw here between authoritarian regimes and educational strategies? The below leads me to believe you're going for maximal generality.

Combining two subjects in a single worksheet in mathematics was a favored method of Nazi pedagogy.

But teaching across the curriculum is hardly the same as using word problems to justify genocide. So:

If one has to exaggerate this badly to make a point, one does not have a point to make.

[marshwiggle]

But teaching across the curriculum is hardly the same as using word problems to justify genocide.

"Teaching across the curriculum" is an education theory like "learning styles". Both of them suffer from the idea that it's much easier to come up with supposed scenarios in some directions than in others. Even if "learning styles" worked, it would be basically impossible to make all content accessible in all all learning styles.  Similarly, math and reading are probably the subjects that show up most in other areas, mainly because they are basic skills. Content that consists of factual information, which is typical in many other subjects, doesn't have any natural reason to appear in other subjects. So shoehorning factoids from subjects into other ones often stands out as completely contrived and unnatural (as in these examples) and so they invite all kinds of abuses of the idea. (Turning the place someone was born into a multiple choice algebra question is innocuous, but pointless.)

[jimbogumbo]

dismalist, you went off the deep end there.

"Nazi's drink milk! Don't let Timmy be a Nazi! OJ (oops) only!"

[jimbogumbo]

(Turning the place someone was born into a multiple choice algebra question is innocuous, but pointless.)

Disagree. Teachers do this all the time. One obvious benefit is less drill/rote homework or class time for students when this is done. Many good teachers then use the time saved to focus on deeper learning /discussions of material.

There is benefit, and absolutely no harm if it is not outrageous indoctrination of the sort dismalist cited. 

[marshwiggle]

(Turning the place someone was born into a multiple choice algebra question is innocuous, but pointless.)

Disagree. Teachers do this all the time. One obvious benefit is less drill/rote homework or class time for students when this is done. Many good teachers then use the time saved to focus on deeper learning /discussions of material.

There is benefit, and absolutely no harm if it is not outrageous indoctrination of the sort dismalist cited.

Regular indoctrination, on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

[jimbogumbo]

(Turning the place someone was born into a multiple choice algebra question is innocuous, but pointless.)

Disagree. Teachers do this all the time. One obvious benefit is less drill/rote homework or class time for students when this is done. Many good teachers then use the time saved to focus on deeper learning /discussions of material.

There is benefit, and absolutely no harm if it is not outrageous indoctrination of the sort dismalist cited.

Regular indoctrination, on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

Sure.

"Be a hard worker Jimmy"

"Be kind, rewind"

"As ye sow so shall ye reap"

"Remember the Golden Rule"

"Vote!"

And in primary grades, the all important "Keep your hands to yourself"

[little bongo]

That's the problem with throwing words around as if they mean only what you want them to mean, like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.

Do you wear clothes and relieve yourself in bathrooms and rest rooms? Good for you. You were indoctrinated.

[mahagonny]

So all the lefty faculty need to do is tell the public 'Now that we've established that moral indoctrination has always been part of the job, you can trust us. Let us indoctrinate your children, because we are trained in our fields, and we love your kids. And we'll even let you know when we're done changing their gender.'

[Wahoo Redux]

Regular indoctrination, on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

Marshy, can you be specific about the "indoctrination" you are observing here?

I see a literature lesson combined with a math lesson.  Angelou is a great poet for kids, BTW.  I'll say it again: What possible objection could anyone have to Angelou unless one is A) a racist, B) a chauvinist, C) anti-poetry, or D) reactionary without real thought? 

If these two subjects were separated, would these lessons still be "indoctrination?"

Heck, if they had combined poetry and math when I was a kid I probably would have done much better at math.

[Parasaurolophus]

Regular indoctrination, on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

Marshy, can you be specific about the "indoctrination" you are observing here?

I see a literature lesson combined with a math lesson.  Angelou is a great poet for kids, BTW.  I'll say it again: What possible objection could anyone have to Angelou unless one is A) a racist, B) a chauvinist, C) anti-poetry, or D) reactionary without real thought? 

If these two subjects were separated, would these lessons still be "indoctrination?"

Heck, if they had combined poetry and math when I was a kid I probably would have done much better at math.

Marshwiggle doesn't think a math class should mention that she was sexually abused by a family member when she was a child, or that she worked as a pimp, stripper, etc.

How that rises to indoctrination, I'm not sure--except that I'd worry that (1) the presentation trivializes the issues, and (2) a cursory presentation of the subject (e.g. if some math instructor somewhere just adopted the worksheet without using it as part of a doubled class) does more to harm perceptions of Angelou, and of Black people in general. (But that, of course, is as nothing next to the sin of Politicizing Mathematics the Pure.)

[mahagonny]

Regular indoctrination, on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

Marshy, can you be specific about the "indoctrination" you are observing here?

I see a literature lesson combined with a math lesson.  Angelou is a great poet for kids, BTW.  I'll say it again: What possible objection could anyone have to Angelou unless one is A) a racist, B) a chauvinist, C) anti-poetry, or D) reactionary without real thought? 

If these two subjects were separated, would these lessons still be "indoctrination?"

Heck, if they had combined poetry and math when I was a kid I probably would have done much better at math.

If I were you, I wouldn't bother myself. The answer has to do with abstruse theory that's understood by persons of moral inclination. You'd just get frustrated wrapping your brain around it.
There. How do you like it?