A cactus beginning to bloom. This is either a fish hook or hedgehog cactus.
Did you hear that Elon Musk, Andrew Yang and Steve Wozniak signed a letter asking artificial intelligence labs to put a pause on their development? Around 1,000 tech gurus signed the letter asking for a pause on development until shared safety protocol could be developed, implemented, and reviewed by independent experts.
What do they know that we don’t?
Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who released ChatGPT-4, admitted he was a little scared of what they’ve created. But he didn’t sign the letter.
A headline popped up on my phone stating what jobs would be lost first to AI. Accounting, mathematics and writing. It’s predicted 20% of jobs will be wiped away. That’s 20% of our workforce with no insurance or income.
I’m reminded of a freelance writing job that kept me busy during the early days of the pandemic. I featured small businesses for a trade magazine and another magazine highlighted parks and rec. I’d receive an email from the editor with a list of contacts and questions to ask. Each story had to include several things, like the square footage of the business and revenue. The assignments began to feel robotic because it was so formulaic. What kept it interesting were the people I interviewed. They had unique stories of how they created their businesses and what they were doing to make things work during the pandemic.
If you take people out of the equation, what do we have left? What are your thoughts?
There’s a Facebook group I joined prior to our move called “Leaving California.” I think they have more than 50,000 members. I found the group helpful to learn from other people, what movers they hired, where they were moving to and why. Today I clicked on it out of habit and found an article called “In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math” by Robby Soave. The sub head states: “The new framework aims to keep everyone learning at the same level for as long as possible.” It’s from the website Reason, which until this morning I’ve never seen.
My daughter and Waffles at her college graduation.
Here’s an excerpt:
“California’s Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus.
“The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don’t make it past basic algebra. The department’s solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.
“The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12,” reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. “In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes.”
I understand that putting kids on certain tracks may have unintended consequences like getting stuck with fewer opportunities to learn. I do know that kids develop individually at different rates and sometimes someone may be slow in one subject only to have it click later on. However, I really disagree with this following paragraph:
“All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents,” reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. “The belief that ‘I treat everyone the same’ is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities.”
My issue is the rejection of natural gifts and talents. As someone who wasn’t a whiz kid at math, I recognized kids with more talent. My son and daughter for example are both better at math and took more advanced classes than I did. I wasn’t horrible but I struggled in Physics and Trig.
The author of the article agrees with me and suggests more choice of more subjects as an answer:
“This approach is very bad. Contrary to what this guidance seems to suggest, math is not the end-all and be-all—and it’s certainly not something that all kids are equally capable of learning and enjoying. Some young people clearly excel at math, even at very early ages. Many schools offer advanced mathematics to a select group of students well before the high school level so that they can take calculus by their junior or senior year. It’s done this way for a reason: The students who like math (usually a minority) should have the opportunity to move on as rapidly as possible.”
For everyone else… well, advanced math just isn’t that important. It would be preferable for schools to offer students more choices, and offer them as early as possible. Teens who are eager readers should be able to study literature instead of math; young people who aren’t particularly adept at any academic discipline might pick up art, music, computers, or even trade skills. (Coding doesn’t need to be mandatory, but it could be an option.)
If equity in Math is the new standard of our public schools, I have some questions.
Do we recognize natural talent in athletics? Or does everyone get to make the varsity team?
Do you think students who are gifted in a subject should be held to the level of the entire class?
Should there be gifted classes? Should kids skip grades? What will be the end result of keeping everyone the same?
Does everyone need calculus and advanced math classes to be successful? Why or why not?
