Posted on 06/30/2016 2:27:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
Gardner did a tremendous amount of damage to elementary education with the multiple intelligences movement. It was a huge trend. Teachers fell all over themselves, dividing their classes into the different types of learners, then only presenting material in activities associated with those types.
I get that there are kinesthetic learners. The problem is, at some point, you have to put down the play dough canoe and actually learn to read. In other words, multiple intelligences works well to describe that over time learners develop favored/preferred methods of processing information, but it’s a lousy learning theory to organize an educational system, when children are still trying to develop those methods.
No, you don't -- if you think that it's nothing more than putting together open source software.
Let me put it in terms that you can understand, as an RF engineer: You have certain physical limits that you have to live with. They are laws of physics that you can't change. As frequencies get higher and wavelengths get smaller, those characteristics change and you have to live with them.
Electrical engineers have similar constraints, at least in the digital world. Integrated circuits get smaller and components are closer together, but there's still that pesky speed of light that constrains how fast you can clock the device. And despite the shrinking lithography and growing of the die size, they can only cram so many gates on a chip.
When I started in the software business, we had similar constraints: all of the different capacities (CPU, I/O, and RAM) were very limited, and it took a lot of creativity to use it effectively. The few networks in use were a fraction of the speed that you can get on your phone today.
One example I use for people that haven't experienced it: my iPhone is over 100 times faster than the fastest "supercomputer" that filled an entire room 35 years ago (that's floating point performance, measured by LINPACK). RAM and I/O bandwidth have even higher multipliers.
Software development has expanded to take advantage of all of this additional capacity. Problems that were intractable even a decade ago are now possible to solve. But, that additional capacity comes at a price: complexity.
Software is longer constrained by any significant physical limits. So, the complexity has increased exponentially. Using a digital analogy: think of it as a nearly infinite state machine, where most of the states are unknown and can't easily be anticipated.
This is what software engineering is about: managing this complexity effectively, either minimizing it or at least making more of the many states testable. But, it's not "higher math": at its core, it's really a management process.
However, the truth is: most people in application development don't do this independently. They do it by following a process or framework built by someone that does know how to do it. In the past, that was one of my responsibilities, and it was a challenge. Today, there are entire suites of tools that help. There has also been a lot of development of design methodologies that help a lot.
But none of this requires advanced math. It does require disciplined thinking and attention to detail.
Who is flogging? I say you don’t let kids give up on hard math classes. You help push them as far as they can go, whatever that is. You say “don’t bother you’ll never need it”
And by doing that, you lose entire generations that simply throw up their hands and write off the subject of math altogether. Sure, a handful of them succeed, but the rest can't make change for a dollar without a cash register doing it for them.
You are simply wrong. You apparently have been your whole career as a Lego builder.
No, most of my career in software development occurred before there were "Legos". I actually wrote the few that we used.
Who is flogging? I say you don’t let kids give up on hard math classes. You help push them as far as they can go, whatever that is. You say “don’t bother you’ll never need it”
If a student is interested in pursuing an advanced math class, then give them every opportunity. The same is true for all of the sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. But, what you are advocating is pushing them to the point of failure.
Who’s the ass?
You still are. But, you are quickly graduating to adding "hole".
Yes you did. Not only do you suck at math, software “engineering” you are further challenged by the English language. It’s a wonder you even bother to get out of bed every day!
Look, you started this confrontation, and with every paragraph you are escalating it. Is this how you act in real life? If so, no wonder you are so bitter.
Removing ANY math is “removing math curricula”. You give up. I want kids exposed to it and challenged by advanced math.
I don't give a damn what you want.
School isn't a experiment for you to force feed students, just to see what happens. Unfortunately, public school systems are full of people like you -- who unilaterally decide to impose a new experiment like "bilingual education for everyone", only to cancel it after a few months when it fails miserably and the students have to scramble to catch up. (and no, I'm not making this example up)
Laugh it up pal. Chances are you are working for someone who understands advanced math to some degree. They are laughing at you.
No, I'm not working for anyone, these days. I retired, and am enjoying nearly every minute of it, except when I encounter asses like you.
But, you are right: I did work for someone that understands advanced math.... myself.
Agreed. But higher math requirements for everyone, regardless of their aptitudes and aspirations does not make sense because we are not all the same. God did not make us that way.
I happen to have been pretty good at math and enjoyed it. But I am weak in other areas, for example languages.
I also am no musician. I took piano lessons for 10 year and it was clear I was never going to be very good at it (however I excelled in music theory ... which is mostly math). What if everyone were required to be proficient in 2 languages and meet a level of musical ability to get a high school diploma or a college degree? I suspect a lot of people like me would fail. Yet I have no object to being required to take foreign language classes or musical lessons … I think it is good to be exposed to many different things.
It has gotten a little better, thanks to to computer-based instruction -- at least at the elementary level.
A simple example: a math drill, in which the computer presents the problem both visually on the screen, and audibly through the headphones. The computer also can react to the student, based on his correct or incorrect answers.
But, I agree with your point -- they have to learn to read, one way or another.
I'm fortunate, as my brain is wired for visual learning -- even to the point that I can look at a phone number and recall it the next day, but if you recite a phone number to me, I can't recite it back immediately.
yawn.
You miss the point, and you profess no aptitude for trying to get it. So we’ll just leave it at that.
I may well be an asshole, and you are as well, except I don’t doom kids to ignorance. That probably makes me less of an asshole than you.
What’s next? Just give everyone an “A” because thinking is hard?
It depends on what you mean by "proficiency". I can quickly develop the ability to read a foreign language. But, I've never been able to develop the ability to listen and understand one.
Yet I have no object to being required to take foreign language classes or musical lessons … I think it is good to be exposed to many different things.
As I wrote in an earlier posting, providing opportunities for someone to investigate or pursue different things is great. But, requiring someone to take classes in a non-essential subject is completely different.
One of the elementary schools in my district decided to force everyone into bilingual education. It was a disaster, and they had to pull the plug after only a few months, and the students had to make up the gap in order to advance the following year.
Yes, that's different than just a foreign language class. But, it's an example of how a mandated "experiment" can go wrong, and the kids suffer.
I'm all for giving students opportunities to pursue their passion or just try stuff out. But, it should be their decision, not the decision of someone who thinks everyone should share their passion.
Yes, we are in agreement.
In my example ‘proficient’ would mean full fluency in a 2nd language, writing, speaking, understanding spoken language. This would be comparable to requiring that someone pass tests in higher math.
Translation: you have no combative response, so you are just blowing it off.
I may well be an asshole, and you are as well, except I don’t doom kids to ignorance. That probably makes me less of an asshole than you.
Being uninterested in advanced math doesn't make someone ignorant. And knowing advanced math doesn't exclude someone from ignorance -- you are an object example.
What’s next? Just give everyone an “A” because thinking is hard?
As I wrote before: give the kids the opportunity to pursue advanced subjects, but don't subject them to it just to see if they fail or succeed. Your method is like throwing kids in the pool: if they drown, oh well....
In my state, students have to pass a test to advance to the next grade, starting in 5th (they take the test in 4th, but it's just a baseline to identify who is at risk). If they don't pass, they spend their summer in remedial classes.
Frankly, the teachers don't like it. And, the reception is mixed among everyone else. But, it's the result of so many kids graduating without even basic skills and/or knowledge.
The results are published (by school), and it has become a factor in property values. Single-family homes in certain areas are in very high demand.
But, the truth is that it's really a metric of the quality of students, rather than the school. But, that's another discussion.
nicely said.
“Being uninterested in advanced math doesn’t make someone ignorant. And knowing advanced math doesn’t exclude someone from ignorance — you are an object example.”
LOL....are you done yet?
You are, most unfortunately, too stupid to know how stupid you are. I can’t help you. Arguing with you serves no purpose - for you or me.
So take your parting shot. Even your insults are uncreative and betray a lazy mind.
It’s not that I mind being insulted, but I would appreciate it if they were good, creative and if possible humorous.
So do your best, Lego-man.
I don't need to say a thing.
There's nothing worse that I can say about you other than to quote you.
Every word you post makes my point for me.
Have a nice day.
That’s not a good enough insult. That’s pathetic actually.
Try again.
But I think there is a book called How to Lie with Statistics that will teach you everything you need to know about the subject.
A very good book. You can find it on Amazon, and there's even a PDF (a poor quality scan) you can download.
A friend of mine, who was once a statistician by trade, has a first edition copy of the book (printed before he was born). It's a prized possession.
Ironically, the author (Darrell Huff) was actually a free-lance journalist.
To be clear: this is not Tom Lehrer in the video (he is in his 80's now). It's someone lip-syncing the song, with the "missing blackboard" beside him to illustrate. In the original recording, Lehrer was onstage, playing the piano and singing for a live audience.
For those of you not old enough to remember, this was a satirical take on how math was taught in US schools during a brief period in the 1960's, in the wake of Sputnik. It has been described as absolutely correct, but turning a relatively simple process into something that is very confusing for beginners. This teaching methodology has been all but abandoned, unless the student is pursuing an advanced math curricula, or another one that requires it.
The song was performed in the early 60's, but was recorded in 1965. I once played it for a friend that taught elementary math in an earlier career, and she was laughing so hard that she was practically in tears by the time it was finished.
I was in grade school during that period, and I was even able to use the ability to add/subtract numbers in other bases than 10 (8 and 16). Binary logic was useful in the years of assembly programming and small amount of digital system design that I did.
But, I remember how frustrating it was for many people, and altogether useless for people that didn't pursue computer hardware or software careers. Consequently, these subjects are still taught in schools, but in computer courses.
heh heh heh heh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.