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

[dismalist]

At mine we each got a paper bag with a treat inside.  Some got 2 cookies while others got 1.  Some had 1 cookie and 1 cracker.  The goal was to see if we would look around and share with others.  I had no problem eating my 2 cookies.  This was some new faddish social justice experiment.

Share? Social justice? Nay, voluntary exchange! Make at least one person better off and no one worse off.

Wish I had taught that class. But I wouldn't have called it math. :-)

[nebo113]

Does anyone wonder why deSantis went after math texts?  Why not social studies, language arts??  A warning shot to other publishers?

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Does anyone wonder why deSantis went after math texts?  Why not social studies, language arts??  A warning shot to other publishers?

That is a good question. Hmm.

[Anselm]

Does anyone wonder why deSantis went after math texts?  Why not social studies, language arts??  A warning shot to other publishers?

I will venture a guess and say that with math he can easily say that social issues and controversies should be kept out of the textbooks but you really can't do that with social studies.

[jimbogumbo]

You and I both agree that problems are written poorly I suspect. I was just letting dismalist know (as a public service, heh) that he was a tad incorrect.

They wasn't teaching game theory.

Well aware; it goes far beyond game theory.  I was hoping you'd look at the definitions of fair. In elementary school fair division implies equally. Think also in probability where fair means equally likely.
[/quote

But they weren't studying probability theory, either.

If one says: In elementary school fair division implies equally, one is claiming truth by definition.

dismalist said: If one says: In elementary school fair division implies equally, one is claiming truth by definition.

jimbogumbo says: don't make me say duh. That's what I meant when I said the teacher should be better informed.

[jimbogumbo]

It's already been about 20 years when my daughter was in an early grade and had a math homework problem, from the textbook, that said: There are six children and six ice cream cones. How do you divide the ice cream cones fairly?

I went through the roof, going so far as to complain to the teacher that fairness could mean many things and that it didn't belong in a math problem. She had no clue what I was complaining about.

That's when the idea of Catholic school first came into my head.

Obviously the person who bought the ice cream should sell to make the highest profit. What is this insanity of "fairness"?

In Catholic School, Jesus gets the ice cream.

At mine we each got a paper bag with a treat inside.  Some got 2 cookies while others got 1.  Some had 1 cookie and 1 cracker.  The goal was to see if we would look around and share with others.  I had no problem eating my 2 cookies.  This was some new faddish social justice experiment.

Anyhow, regarding the ice cream, I would expect to see evenly instead of fairly.

I must admit that I am too lazy to read this whole thread but did anyone come up with an actual example of CRT being used in a math class?

Not that I saw. Just statistics used in problems. Statistics that made people "uncomfortable".

[dismalist]

Not that I saw. Just statistics used in problems. Statistics that made people "uncomfortable".

Why would anyone want to do that? Clearly, it's not about  statistics or math. As far as learning is concerned, I'd call it pollution.

Some people's pollution is other people's natural smelling salts. School choice solves the problem.

Voucherize, voucherize.

[ciao_yall]

Does anyone wonder why deSantis went after math texts?  Why not social studies, language arts??  A warning shot to other publishers?

My guess is math gets people a little het up in general, what with mathophobia, New Math, etc.

And it's "supposed" to be morally neutral and fact-based. So it wouldn't take long to find a word problem that someone could read CRT or Satanic Worship or Homosexual Grooming or whatever they feared.

[dismalist]

Does anyone wonder why deSantis went after math texts?  Why not social studies, language arts??  A warning shot to other publishers?

My guess is math gets people a little het up in general, what with mathophobia, New Math, etc.

And it's "supposed" to be morally neutral and fact-based. So it wouldn't take long to find a word problem that someone could read CRT or Satanic Worship or Homosexual Grooming or whatever they feared.

One can't possibly mean that math is not morally neutral.

Fact based? Well, if it doesn't have something to do with the real world for long times, it gets decadent [according to Johnny von Neumann]

[ciao_yall]

At mine we each got a paper bag with a treat inside.  Some got 2 cookies while others got 1.  Some had 1 cookie and 1 cracker.  The goal was to see if we would look around and share with others.  I had no problem eating my 2 cookies.  This was some new faddish social justice experiment.

Anyhow, regarding the ice cream, I would expect to see evenly instead of fairly.

I must admit that I am too lazy to read this whole thread but did anyone come up with an actual example of CRT being used in a math class?

When I was in high school I went to an event where some of us got stickers on our name tags and others did not. None of us really noticed. The teachers told us about the experiment and we were like "Oh, yeah. Nope, no biggie."

[jimbogumbo]

Not that I saw. Just statistics used in problems. Statistics that made people "uncomfortable".

Why would anyone want to do that? Clearly, it's not about  statistics or math.

That is absurd. The whole point of statistics is to look at precisely this kind of data and make reasoned conclusions.

It is completely the statistics and math.

[marshwiggle]

Not that I saw. Just statistics used in problems. Statistics that made people "uncomfortable".

Why would anyone want to do that? Clearly, it's not about  statistics or math.

That is absurd. The whole point of statistics is to look at precisely this kind of data and make reasoned conclusions.

It is completely the statistics and math.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[mythbuster]

To answer a few questions about how it works in Florida. It was math textbooks this year because textbooks are evaluated on a rotating basis by topic. This year was the math review year. Next year is history/social studies. So you can look forward to much more fireworks then, when DeSantis is fully invested in his Presidential run.

Someone upthread was concern about holocaust denialism. Not in Florida schools! Holocaust education was mandated back in 1994. You thank all the Jewish grandparents for that one: https://www.holocaustresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FL-HolocaustMandate.pdf

And just this week we now have "Victims of Communism Day", and mandated state education on the perils of communism. https://www.flgov.com/2022/05/09/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-to-honor-victims-of-communism-and-preserve-history-of-the-freedom-tower/

[pgher]

I had an epiphany this morning: The CRT furor is about Truth & Reconciliation. Truth is only possible if there is the possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible with a full accounting of and acceptance of the truth. Ideally, T&R is mediated by a third-party.

There is the perception that some people want truth--a full accounting of and teaching of the racist oppression of the past--but offer no possibility of reconciliation. The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied.

In response, some people want reconciliation--"what's done is done, so let's move on"--without the offer of any truth. There's no need to teach the history. Just accept the world as it is.

The reality is that we must have both. We must have a full accounting of the systemic racism of America's past, and the way those systems extend to the present. But we also must have the promise of a possibility of reconciliation. There must be some possibility that the systemic racism can be rectified in a way that enables us all to live together.

I don't know if that is possible, but I do think that this is a helpful framing of the controversy. (I say all this as a cishet white man who is fully aware of his privilege, but don't know what to do about it.)

[marshwiggle]

I had an epiphany this morning: The CRT furor is about Truth & Reconciliation. Truth is only possible if there is the possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible with a full accounting of and acceptance of the truth. Ideally, T&R is mediated by a third-party.

There is the perception that some people want truth--a full accounting of and teaching of the racist oppression of the past--but offer no possibility of reconciliation. The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied.

In response, some people want reconciliation--"what's done is done, so let's move on"--without the offer of any truth. There's no need to teach the history. Just accept the world as it is.

The reality is that we must have both. We must have a full accounting of the systemic racism of America's past, and the way those systems extend to the present. But we also must have the promise of a possibility of reconciliation. There must be some possibility that the systemic racism can be rectified in a way that enables us all to live together.

I don't know if that is possible, but I do think that this is a helpful framing of the controversy. (I say all this as a cishet white man who is fully aware of his privilege, but don't know what to do about it.)

This is a good synopsis. One of the obstacles to a solution is precisely the definition of systemic racism (or of any "systemic" discrimination). Specifically, the difference of opinion is based on the question of whether different outcomes between different groups is implicit evidence of systemic discrimination, or alternatively whether cultural differences between groups can be significant and different outcomes based on these factors do not implicitly represent discrimination.