Saturday, November 30, 2019

Small Business Saturday Post

Table of Contents

1. Pappas Question of the Day
2. Small Business State Meet Saturday
3. Starting Line: Freshman Year
4. Mile 1: Sophomore Year
5. Mile 2: Junior Year
6. Finish Line: Senior Year
7. Cross Country and Academics
8. McFarland USA
9. T-Minus: The Race to the Moon, Pages 46-72
10. Conclusion

Pappas Question of the Day

Today on her Mathematics Calendar 2019, Theoni Pappas writes:

cos ?/sqrt(3) = 1/2,
0 < ? < 270

To solve this equation, it might help to multiply both sides by sqrt(3):

cos ? = sqrt(3)/2

So we must find the angle whose cosine is sqrt(3)/2. We should have already memorized such an angle -- 30 degrees. So our desired angle is 30 -- and of course, today's date is the thirtieth.

Some readers may ask whether this truly counts as a Geometry problem (akin to Chapter 14 of the U of Chicago text), rather than an Algebra II or Precalculus trig problem. The rule of thumb is that if it mentions angles greater than 90 (or less than zero), then it's not a Geometry problem.

Our problem mentions the range 0 < ? < 270, but the actual answer is acute. Notice that this range, Quadrants I-III, is the largest quadrant range in which the answer is unique, since the other angle with a cosine of sqrt(3)/2 is in Quadrant IV (330 or -30 degrees).  If it weren't for that brief mention of angles in other quadrants, this would be a true Geometry problem.

But I decided to bend my rules and post today's problem anyway, for one simple reason -- it appears that Theoni Pappas will not have a Mathematics Calendar for 2020. I was preparing for my annual Cyber Monday order and found no calendar listed on Amazon. We know that she doesn't have a calendar every year -- for example, she had no 2017 calendar. Then again, she is getting up there in years -- she is now 75 years old. I hope that nothing has happened to her.

On the other hand, I do see another math calendar listed on Amazon, by Rebecca Rapoport. She first created her calendar in 2018, but Pappas had 2018 and 2019 calendars, so I didn't notice. I'm strongly considering ordering Rapoport's calendar on Cyber Monday.

Meanwhile, I haven't posted many Pappas problems in November. It's not that she doesn't have Geometry problems -- it's just that nearly all of them have landed on non-blogging days. For example, during Thanksgiving break, there were Geometry problems last Saturday, Monday, and then on Turkey Day itself. All of them were on days I simply didn't post.

Those three problems are nonetheless interesting for me to discuss, so let me briefly describe them:

Last Saturday: It is an exterior angle problem -- the exterior angle of a triangle is 80 degrees, and the remote interior angles are 57 and x. So of course x = 23, matching the date of the 23rd. Her answer is correct, but unfortunately she didn't draw it properly -- the 80-degree angle is drawn to appear obtuse.

Monday: Find the diagonal of a quadrilateral. It is a midpoint quadrilateral problem -- the length of the relevant side of the midpoint quad is 12.5. So the diagonal is 25, matching the date of the 25th. I have no problem with her answer, except that for some reason, the two sides of the midpoint quad are 14 m and 12.5 (with no dimension).

Thanksgiving: Find the diagonal of a "square-based rectangular solid." We are given the volume as 1536 cm^3 and the height as 4.

Notice that "square-based" isn't enough to find a unique answer -- the dimensions of this box could be either {4, 4, x} or {4, x, x}. The latter makes more sense, but it's difficult to tell from the drawing (since it's a 3D figure) that the length and width are equal. If we use {4, x, x}, then we ultimately reach the intended answer. Even though x isn't a whole number, the desired diagonal turns out to be 28, matching the date of the 28th.

Black Friday: Yesterday's problem isn't Geometry, but it contains a blatant error (as opposed to the milder mistakes I mentioned from earlier this week):

Five dice are stacked as shown. Some faces are hidden within the stack. How many pips are hidden?

There are nine faces that are hidden -- the top and bottom of four of the dice, and only the bottom of the top die. The trick to solving this problem is that opposite faces of a die add up to 7 -- so the opposite faces of the lower four dice add up to 28. All that's left is the bottom of the top die -- and the top of the top die happens to have six pips showing. So the hidden face of that die is 1. We add this to the 28 we found earlier to obtain 29, matching the date of the 29th.

But here's the error -- the side faces of the dice are also drawn in. These faces should be irrelevant to our solution, except there's one problem -- the visible face of the top die has 1 pip showing. Thus the top die must have two 1's -- the 1 on the side, and the 1 on the bottom! That the bottom face is 1 is significant, since it's needed to get the answer to be 29. To avoid this problem, Pappas should have drawn any number of pips on the side of the top die (2-5) other than 1.

Yet I don't worry about the errors too much -- the Pappas calendar has been a delight. I will miss the calendar in 2020, and I hope that the 2019 calendar isn't her last.

Small Business State Meet Saturday

Today is Small Business Saturday, the day after Black Friday and two days after Thanksgiving. It was created by American Express in order to encourage Christmas shopping at local stores. It can be shown that "Saturday after Thanksgiving" is equivalent to "last Saturday in November," which makes the date easy to find on a calendar.

But Small Business Saturday has only existed since the start of the decade. To me, the Saturday after Thanksgiving has had another meaning -- the day of the California State Cross Country Meet. This is a race of about three miles (actually five kilometers) in length.

I've mentioned my career as a high school distance runner several times on the blog (most recently on Halloween and All Saints Day, when I spoke to the XC runner in the class I subbed for). Therefore, I'll devote today's post to a full discussion of my cross country career. After all, it's still Thanksgiving break as well as State Meet Saturday.

Note: Much of today's post is a cut-and-paste from last year.

But first, let me point out the significance of the date. The State Meet was always held the Saturday after Thanksgiving. In fact, the dates of all the races can be determined by counting backwards from State Meet Saturday (or Thanksgiving). On the other hand, the dates of the first day of school, the second semester, and the last day of school are determined at many schools by counting forward from Labor Day, not Thanksgiving.

For example, here were some key dates from my own days as a XC runner:

  • First race of the season: 12 Saturdays before State Meet (first Saturday in September)
  • Last dual meet of season: 4 Thursdays before Thanksgiving (last Thursday in October)
  • League Finals: 3 Thursdays before Thanksgiving (first Thursday in November)
  • Section Finals: Saturday before Thanksgiving (penultimate Saturday in November)
  • State Meet: Saturday after Thanksgiving (last Saturday in November)

Since then, some of these dates have changed. For example, there's now a tendency for dual meets in many leagues (including my own) to be held on Wednesdays, not Thursdays. The first race of the season is also now a week earlier (the last Saturday in August). But the State Meet hasn't changed.

[2019 update: This year, I even heard of a XC race that occurred on the penultimate Saturday in August, but that might have been just to avoid Labor Day weekend.]

In other high school sports, such as football, the dates have changed dramatically -- the season starts nearly a month earlier now than my own high school days. This is mainly so that there's enough time to hold the state finals comfortably before Christmas. (In my days, there were no state football finals.)

Football season now begins 14 weeks before Thanksgiving (in mid-August). The season itself is 11 weeks long (enough for ten games and a bye week). In November, four rounds of sectional playoffs take place (at least here in the Southern Section -- the state's largest section). The first round is three weeks before Thanksgiving and the last round is this weekend. Tonight, a sectional finals game takes place between arguably the top two teams in the nation -- Mater Dei and St. John Bosco. (The game is still in progress as of the moment I published this post.) Then there are two weeks for state semifinals and state finals.

I often wondered why the new football schedule would take effect last year, when Thanksgiving fell on its earliest possible date (November 22nd). It would have been less a shock for players and coaches had the transition occurred this year, when Turkey Day is as late as possible (the 28th).

That's enough about football -- let's get back to my sport, cross country. In today's post, I wish to tell you the story of how I became a high school cross country runner.

Starting Line: Freshman Year

I admit that growing up, I'd never thought of myself as an athlete, much less a distance runner. I've heard that I had a slender frame -- a runner's body. But still, running races wasn't something that I had an urge to do. For most sports, I was often the proverbial "last person picked."

I remember one day in seventh grade, when the P.E. teacher had all students compete in two races on the track -- 200 meters and 400 meters. After the races, she told the first few runners in each race to stand up and be acknowledged. I was one of the top runners in the 400, but not the 200. As I stood up, another student -- one of the top 200 runners -- remarked that we weren't the fastest runners. In a way, he was right -- the 200 is a pure sprint. The 400, while not exactly a distance race, nonetheless isn't a pure sprint either. Speed matters, but endurance starts to make a difference too. The other guy had the speed, but lacked the endurance to keep up with runners like me in the long sprint.

Throughout middle school P.E., we occasionally had to do a mile run on the track. I remember one such four-lap run in eighth grade. After the first lap I was ahead of all my classmates. After the second and third laps I was in second place. I finished the race in third place. If I recall correctly, my time was just under eight minutes, good enough for an "A" in the mile run. (Ten minutes was a "B," twelve minutes was a "C," and any time over twelve was a "D" provided a full mile was completed.)

Early the following summer, I received a letter. It was from the coach of a sport that I had never heard of -- cross-country running. He was inviting me to join the team. At first I was intimidated -- three miles sounded like such a long distance. But then I reminded myself that I had a runner's body, and I was unlikely to be successful in any other sport. And so I joined the team.

On the first day of practice, the coach told me to run three miles on the track. Then he led the rest of the team on a "short" distance run to the mall and back -- a round trip of just over four miles. I completed the dozen laps on the track, but I had to stop and rest several times.

Summer practices were held thrice a week. Mondays were for long road runs, while Wednesdays were for intervals on the track. Other types of workouts were held on Thursdays. At the end of each summer workout, the coach would give us all sodas.

One memorable workout occurred on Monday, August 14th. For the workout, the coach had planned an eight-mile road run -- four miles out, four miles back. For the first three miles, I tried to keep up with my more experienced teammates. We managed to catch every green light until we reached the three-mile mark. It was the first time that I'd ever run the length of a XC race without stopping -- though it took me about a half-hour.

I stopped to catch my breath, while the rest of the team continued to run. I decided that since I was still a novice runner, I wouldn't be able to complete the full eight-mile workout. Typically, the coach would have us run the return part of each workout along the side of the "river" (which here in Southern California really means something like "flood control channel"). This way, we'd be able to avoid red lights and run the distance without stopping.

And so I ran three miles along the river bike path back to school. But for some reason, the gate leading from the river back to the street was locked. I'd either have to run an extra mile to the next street (and yet another mile to get back) and hope the gate was unlocked, or try to climb the fence. I was too tired even to climb the fence. Instead, I decided to take a shortcut directly across the river. I remind you that this isn't a real river (like the Mississippi) -- it's only a few feet across and only a few inches deep.

But the force of this river was powerful -- once I stepped in, it's impossible even to stand up! The river swept me several miles away from the school (and in the opposite direction from where my teammates were running). I was saved only because one person driving on a bridge spotted me -- and she just happened to have a cell phone. (This was in 1995, so cell phones were rare.) A fireman was summoned, and he intercepted me one mile farther down the river.

What should I have done? Either I should have simply climbed over the gate, or perhaps waited for the teammates running the extra two miles to catch up. (I'd already run to a second gate hoping it would be open, and there was no guarantee the others would have run past the second gate if they were already climbing over the first one.)

A few weeks later, the season began. The early-season schedule had us racing twice a week -- on Thursdays there would be a non-league dual meet (that is, a race against one other school that isn't in our league) and on Saturdays there were weekend invitationals against many schools. In my first Thursday meet my time for three miles was around the mid-24's, and in my second invitational nine days later, my time was in the mid-21's. The coach joked that if I could keep this up, I could run it nine minutes by the end of the season! (Of course, that would be a world record by fat.)

In reality, by the time the league dual meets began I didn't keep improving by a minute every race (no one can). But in my third invitational -- the huge Dana Hills Invitational -- I broke 21 minutes. That is to say, I ran under 21 minutes for the first time (I believe my time was 20:50).

This was the year that I moved from one school to another. As it turned out, the week of the move was the same week as League Finals, and so I didn't actually complete my freshman season.

At my new school, Cross Country season was over, but many runners move on to track. The distance races that most XC runners participated in are 800, 1600, and 3200 meters. (For those who don't know the conversion, 1600 meters is almost one mile.)

Mile 1: Sophomore Year

At my new school, the season schedule was a little different. The first race of the season was always a time trial (that is, we ran against the clock, not another school). It also marked the main fundraiser of the season -- tickets to a pancake breakfast. Also, there were no non-league dual meets -- the five league dual meets fell on the five Thursdays in October, followed by League Finals. The time trial as well as three of the league meets took place on our home course.

But I always had trouble filling out the athletic clearance papers in time for the start of the season. So instead, my first race of the season was the third Saturday. This is another huge invitational -- the Woodbridge Invitational. Held on that high school's campus, the Woodbridge race regularly produces our fastest times of the year. That day, I broke 20 minutes for the first time.

Another major race that we prepared for was the Mt. SAC Invitational. This race regularly takes place in mid-October, on the second Saturday before League Finals. The name Mt. SAC refers to a community college, but that word "Mt."/"Mount" gives away what the course was like. It's the hilliest XC course that we run on. During the weeks leading up to Mt. SAC, we would have "hill repeats," which are like intervals except they're run on a nearby hill. These workouts were often led by our two senior captains.

I never looked forward to hill repeats, or any hill workouts. But they're very helpful -- after running six, seven, eight miles on hills in practice, the three-mile Mt. SAC course was a cinch! Of course, my times at Mt. SAC were never as good as Woodbridge -- that year, my Mt. SAC time was mid-20's.

The following Thursday was the last dual meet of the season -- Halloween. That year, Thanksgiving fell on its latest possible date (the 28th) and so the last dual meet was four weeks earlier. It marked the only time I've ever raced on Halloween. (Nowadays, with league meets on Wednesdays, last year's early Thanksgiving led to League Finals on Halloween.) The final dual meet was held on our home course, and that day I ran a few seconds slower than Woodbridge.

A week later was my first League Finals, held at a local park. That day I capped off the season with my third (or maybe fourth) sub-20 performance.

Mile 2: Junior Year

Once again, I wasn't cleared to run in races until Woodbridge. Once again, I set another PR, or personal record, as I broke 19 that day.

That year, our school had many fast runners. Some of our top runners were hoping to advance all the way to the State Meet. But only Varsity runners were allowed at postseason races. The Varsity team consisted of seven runners plus two alternates -- and our top nine runners all had sub-17 times.

Since my PR was just barely under 19 minutes, I had to run Junior Varsity, not Varsity. All juniors and seniors not on Varsity were relegated to the JV team. As it turns out, not many members of the Classes of 1998 and '99 had joined the cross country team -- and of the few who did, most of them ran Varsity.

Excluding the alternates, I was the only junior not on Varsity -- and for most of the season there was only one non-Varsity senior as well. This made running in JV races a lonely affair.

At the end of the season, our Varsity runners indeed ran in the postseason races. The section prelims and finals were both held at Mt. SAC -- and this underscores the importance of preparing for hilly courses and doing well at the Mt. SAC Invite. The state meet was held at Woodward Park in Fresno, where it's still held to this day. (Recall that Fresno is the one of the Central California cities that opposed Prop 7 and supports the biannual clock change.)

Meanwhile, my season ended at League Finals, which were held at a local university. At the end of the season, I received an award for the most improved JV runner -- but then again, there weren't that many JV runners in the first place.

Finish Line: Senior Year

For once, I was actually cleared in time for the opening time trial. If I recall correctly, my time was right around 19 minutes. At Woodbridge I set another personal best, but only by a few seconds as opposed to the huge PR's I'd set the previous two trips to this invite.

I knew from the start of the season that there was no way I'd make the Varsity team. Two seniors from the previous year had graduated, but two new freshmen had joined the team -- and they were already running under 16 minutes. (One was the younger brother of two other XC runners.) Of course, I wasn't named a senior captain either -- all four Varsity seniors became captains.

But this time, we had a full JV team. The incoming Class of 2000 juniors was a much larger class of runners, and only two of them ran Varsity. I actually end up finishing in first place at two of the JV dual meets held on our home course -- and my times continued to improve throughout the year. At the last dual meet, my time was just one second slower than my Woodbridge time.

League Finals were held at the same university as the previous year. I knew that it was my final XC race and so I wanted to run as fast as I could. Along the final stretch I couldn't help but stare at my stopwatch to make sure that I had a good time. My time for my final race was 17:43, which was good enough for fourth place. The winner was our alternate Varsity runner who finished exactly a minute ahead of me, and the only other JV senior (who had missed his junior year of XC) finished exactly a minute behind me.

It's now believed that the League Finals race was somewhat short of three miles. Using a conversion factor that we were given after the race, my time converts to 17:57 for three miles. Therefore I can still say that I'm a sub-18 runner. At the end of the season, I received an award for the most outstanding JV runner -- and this is less trivial since we had a full JV team.

I still consider breaking 18 minutes in XC to be one of my greatest personal accomplishments -- even when compared to my times on the track. I fell just short of breaking five minutes in the 1600. I suppose my goal for the 3200 was 11 minutes (in other words, 5:00/mile for one mile, 5:30/mile for two miles, and 6:00/mile for three miles), but I never came close. I think I only ran the 3200 once during my senior year -- and I believe that my fastest ever 3200 was actually the first two miles of the XC race held on our home course. Instead of the 3200, I often ran the 800 -- and I don't even recall much about my 800 times. (I believe my best time was about 2:20-ish.)

Cross Country is the One True Sport. Everything else is just a game.

Cross Country and Academics

Some sports -- especially football and basketball -- have a reputation for attracting students who aren't interested in academics. For players hoping to get into Division I colleges, it's often an uphill battle to remain academically eligible by earning good grades and high SAT scores.

But this isn't the case with Cross Country. It seems that most Cross Country runners have excellent academic records. Most of my teammates were part of our magnet program. I wasn't -- but only because most students apply for the magnet in eighth grade, while I was still attending another district at the time. (As I wrote earlier, I transferred in the middle of freshman year.) Two years later, I was finally admitted to the magnet program -- in fact, it happened on the very day of League Finals.

The magnet program is considered to be a year ahead of the regular program. Therefore as a junior, I attended English and history with the sophomores. Some of those students would become my JV teammates the following year.

I suspect the reason that XC runners, unlike football players, basketball players, or other athletes, do well in school is because XC runners are used to doing something difficult and boring (that is, running) for long periods of time. We're used to working hard, enduring, and being persistent as we strive towards a goal, a finish line, that might be far away. This isn't to say that other athletes don't work hard, but the difference is that they're used to getting quick, visible results. We XC runners are more likely to think in terms of the big picture.

That XC runners tend to excel academically is most noticeable when we take a look at the LA City Section Finals results. In both the boys and girls Division I races, the top school is Granada Hills -- a charter that's best known for winning national Academic Decathlon titles. Two of the other top teams are El Camino and Pacific Palisades -- other charters with strong academic programs. I doubt that any of the Granada Hills Varsity runners are also on the Academic Decathlon team. Instead, the rigorous academic environment invites both Academic Decathletes and distance runners (who again are used to working hard for long periods of time).

In my last post, I wrote about Floyd Thursby, who decries teachers who don't want to work the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. He once also wrote about the last week of school -- and how many schools have teachers turn in grades early, so the last week is wasted. Many students believe that they're entitled to a week of no academics at the end of the year anyway.

But that's not the XC way of thinking. Taking the last week off of school is like pulling up in a race before crossing the finish line. We need to run hard through the finish line -- and so likewise students need to work hard through the last day of school.

Senioritis wasn't in my mind when I was in the twelfth grade. I worked hard on the XC course throughout my senior year, and I believe that I'm one of the few seniors to PR in my final race. The other senior who won the JV race that day was a Varsity alternate, and so League Finals would not be his final race. (As an alternate, he did run at Section Prelims.) I was the rare non-Varsity senior who actually worked hard to improve my times my final year.

And in fact, I worked hard academically during my second semester of senior year. I'd never earned straight A's in a semester before, always ending up with at least one B (often in English). But I failed to reach my goal -- instead I ended up with all A's except for two B's, both in English. (The extra English class was required by the magnet since I was a year behind, as stated earlier.)

I want to encourage my students to think more like distance runners -- even if they never run more than a mile at a time. Just before I started working at the old charter two years ago, I wrote about distance running, and how I'd mention it in class to encourage students to work harder. It failed -- because bringing up past events or comparing the students unfavorably to myself aren't effective ways of getting them to make better choices. If I wish to convince my students in the future to think like distance runners, I should do so more subtly.

McFarland USA

Christmas specials started airing on CBS last night with the classic Frosty the Snowman. I wrote before that no school would actually hold classes on Christmas Eve (as shown in the episode) -- that would be even worse than Floyd Thursby Day. In New York, school regularly lasts until December 23rd, unless this is the weekend (or Monday, as it is this year, to avoid a one-day week). Thus this year, no school will be open later than Friday, December 20th.

2019 update: Actually I read that New York teachers actually had to fight to get Monday, December 23rd off this year. The district actually tried to have classes that day:


Oh, and I noticed several Floyd Thursby wannabes in the comment thread there as well.

One of my favorite Christmas specials airs on CBS tonight -- Robbie the Reindeer. As it turns out, Robbie is Rudolph's son, but unlike his father, Robbie gets to participate in the Reindeer Games. This is a competition similar to, say, a Cross Country race. (Indeed the steeplechase, in which Robbie competes, is actually a distance event in track -- the 3000 steeple.) Yes, that's why I like it -- because it reminds me of my own days of distance running. I'm glad that the Robbie special is airing today -- on State Meet Saturday.

The one beef I have with it is an inconsistency with the original Rudolph (which will air this upcoming Tuesday). In the original, Donner is Rudolph's father, but in tonight's special, Donner is Rudolph's daughter-in-law. Thus not only has Donner switched generations but genders as well.

Four years ago, there was actually a Cross Country movie -- McFarland USA. When the movie first came out, I briefly mentioned it on the blog. But every year on State Meet Saturday, I watch this movie again. So I turn it on right after the Robbie special.

[2019 update: This year, I actually played this movie several times while subbing, mostly for Spanish classes. I mentioned these viewings on the blog throughout the year.]

Here is a description of the movie as written on the back of the DVD case:

In the tradition of Disney sports movies comes McFarland, USA, based on the inspiring true story of underdogs triumphing over tremendous obstacles. This heartwarming drama follows novice runners who strive to build a cross-country team under Coach Jim White (Kevin Costner) in their predominantly Latino high school. Everyone has a lot to learn about each other, but when Coach realizes the boys' exceptional running ability, things change. Beyond their talent, it's the power of family, commitment to each other and work ethic than transforms them into champions -- helping them achieve their own American dream.

Indeed, McFarland USA takes place on the first State Meet Saturday, back in 1987. (And no, it wasn't called Small Business Saturday back then.)

One thing I notice about the movie is that at no point is the distance of the race ever mentioned. It's possible to deduce the distance from a few clues in the movie -- first Coach White drives alongside his athletes and notices that they're running at 12mph, or 5:00/mile -- and then later on, they cross the finish line at around 15 or 16 minutes. But the words "three miles" or "5K" are never explicitly mentioned in the film.

What makes this amazing is that a detailed description of the scoring system is given. Just as Coach White explains in the movie, first place counts as 1 point, second place as 2 points, third place as 3 points, and so on. The point totals for the top five runners are added up to give a team score -- and of course, the lowest score wins.

Indeed, this is what makes the final scene so dramatic. For most of the season, Danny Diaz is McFarland's slowest runner -- he's only on the team to join his two older brothers. Yet due to an injury, the school's fifth runner finishes well off his usual pace. But much to the coach's surprise, Diaz comes in as the fifth and final scorer -- and his points are low enough for McFarland to win. Thus the movie successfully explains why his finishing as McFarland's fifth runner is so significant -- yet the film never specifies the exact distance of the race!

(Hmm, I wonder whether leaving out the distance is intentional. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to inspire young high school students to try out for XC, but mentioning the distance might scare the potential runners away. Instead, focus on the fun and camaraderie displayed by the McFarland team.)

In the movie, the State Meet takes place in December -- and it appears to be in LA (since I thought I recognized Griffith Park in the background). In reality, the State Meet has never been held on any date other than the last Saturday in November, and it has never been held at any location other than Woodward Park in Fresno. What really makes the timing off is that the date the section finals, or "state qualifier," is given as November 26th. In 1987, this was a Thursday -- in other words, this was Thanksgiving Day. It's unlikely that a XC race would ever be held on the holiday itself. (That the coach rewards his runners by taking them to the beach on Thanksgiving is not an error -- this is California, after all.)

Here is a link to the actual results of the 1987 State Meet as depicted in the movie:


As you can see, the details of the race are correct in the movie. Danny Diaz really was McFarland's fifth finisher, with a time of 18:04. The distance of the race is 5K (5000 meters), which is a little more than three miles -- therefore my best time wouldn't have beaten Danny's. If I'd been in this race, my best time would have been closer to McFarland's sixth finisher (18:31).

A major theme in this movie is race -- as in ethnicity. (Yes, this is near the bottom of a vacation post, which is when I often write about race.) "White" is the name of the coach, but it's also his race. The runners, meanwhile, are all Hispanic. Thus when the runners call their coach "White" (or Blanco), the name has a double significance.

The first race that appears in the movie is an invitational. McFarland finishes in last place because they weren't used to running hills. (What did I say about hilly XC courses earlier?) So instead, White has them practice running on some mysterious white mounds in their hometown. The mounds turn out to be freshly picked almonds -- which offends the runners, many of whom spend hours every day doing the back-breaking work of picking them! (This explains why a recent DST/time zone proposal referred to the Central Valley as the "Almond Time Zone.") My own coach freshman year had to come up with some creative "hills" (either the bleachers at our school or the side of the flood control channels/riverbeds that I described earlier). My new school was closer to some real hills. (On that hill there was a hose that we sometimes drank water from, just like the runners in the movie.)

The next day, Coach White forgets his daughter's fifteenth birthday. Later on, he makes up for it with a traditional Mexican quinceanera. The family begins to embrace their new community.

Eventually, McFarland wins its first race -- a dual meet against Clovis, 27-28. Notice that the sum of the first ten natural numbers is 55, and so a score of 27 (or less) guarantees a victory. My own coach freshman year gave us the rule of thumb 1-2-5-9-10. These add up to 27, so if our school had the first, second, fifth, ninth, and tenth place finishers, we'd win the meet.

Oh, and Coach White has his runners prepare for the SAT. Yes, what was I saying about XC and academics earlier? At the end of the movie, it's revealed that all seven runners attend college. In fact, no one else in their respective families had yet to finish high school, much less college.

At the end of the movie, it's revealed that McFarland won nine state titles from 1987-2001. But it hasn't won any since. What happened?

Well, in 1987, McFarland won the Division III race. All the schools in the state were divided into three (now five) divisions based on enrollment. Since McFarland was a small school, it was always placed into one of the smaller divisions (from III to V).

But nowadays, divisions aren't based on enrollment but on performance. Due to its recent success, McFarland has been pushed up to Division I, where it must compete against Southern Section schools that are several times its size. This year, McFarland had only a lone individual girl at state -- her teammates didn't advance. The winning Division I team in boys, and the second place team in girls, are both from Great Oak in Temecula. The winning girls team this year is from Buchanan, just a few miles away from Woodward Park. (Great Oak has over 3000 students and Buchanan has about 2700, while McFarland has a mere 700.)

T-Minus: The Race to the Moon, Pages 46-72

Today's post is labeled "heroes" -- and in many ways, the McFarland XC runners are heroes. But I'm actually using this label to refer to the scientists who worked on the moon landing -- because they are heroes, too. It's time for us to return to Ottaviani's book.

We left off right here in Southern Calfornia. One scientist, Storms (nickname "Stormy"), is informing his family that he's leaving on a mission.

Wife: You're going to see Dr. von Braun?
Storms: Yep.
Son: Wow, Werner von Braun. I saw him on TV! Cool! Do you know what he wants, Dad?
Storms: Maybe. Not sure, though. Gotta go.
Wife: Stormy! When will you be back?

The next scene is set at North American Aviation -- Downey, California -- 1962. (One of my former districts where I subbed is Downey. This includes some subbing days mentioned on the blog. I know that there is now a street there named Columbia, and a museum where North American Aviation used to be located.)

Storms: NASA's already changing something?! What? Pure O_2 [oxygen] for the CSM? Don't like it! Dangerous! Gotta take it up with them this afternoon.

Here Ottaviani explains, "CSM = Command Service Module = What the astronauts will live in on the way to (and from) the moon." The scientists continue to argue over the project:

Storms: Discuss. We decide today.
John Paup: ...We don't get to build the Lunar Excursion Module if we choose this. It's bad for the company.
Harrison Storms: Yeah, but... the whole Apollo program, you know?
Paup: Yeah, I know.
Storms: All, right, decision. C.C.? Max?
Paup: The Space Task Group thinks LOR [Lunar Orbit Rendezvous] is the way to go.
C.C.: Speaking for the Rocket Launch and Booster Groups here at Marshall, I agree. Storms, can North American build a Lunar Excursion Module for LOR?
Storms: Nope. Can't do it. [An audible gasp is heard.] Doesn't matter though -- we'll get you there. Someone else will build the... thing... that lands. The point is to do it! So, any idiots out there thinking LOR isn't the right thing? [Many start shouting out questions.] OK, then it is settled. I will write the memo and get it approved. You people get back to work... and get it done. Let us go!

Let's skip forward some time to when the LOR is in orbit. John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the earth. (This is the climax of the Hidden Figures movie.)

Glenn: Why the...? Hmm. Say again your instructions please. Over.
Mission Control: We are recommending that the retro-package not, I say again, not be jettisoned.
Glenn: Roger, understand. I will have to make a manual 0.05 G entry when it occurs... Is that affirm?
Mission Control: That is affirmative, Friendship 7.
Glenn (falling rapidly towards earth): SXXKX -- Ship 7 XKSSX pack SKXXS let go. This is Friend -- SXXKX XXKSS real fire SKKXXX outside.
Mission Control: 7, this is Cape. What's your general condition?
Glenn: My condition is good, but that was a real fireball, boy. I had great chunks of that retro-pack breaking off all the way through.
Mission Control: Very good. It did break off, is that correct?
Glenn: Roger. Ready for impact, almost down. (His capsule in the water.) Condition OK. Does the capsule look like it's OK? Over.
Rescue Helicopter: Friendship 7, reference your last -- affirmative. Capsule looks good from here. Over.
Glenn: Roger, understand they want me to say in the capsule until rescue...
Russian #1: Ha, rescue! They need to rescue their cosmonauts.
Russian #2: The chief designer will find this most interesting.

The next scene continues from the Russian perspective. Two cosmonauts are about to learn about their next mission:

Commander: Valentina (Tereshkova), Valery (Bykovsky). No, sit... Please sit. So... You understand the upcoming mission?
Valentina: Yes, sir.
Valery: Sir. Yes sir.
Valentina: Excellent, a long-duration flight is an important milestone, and two at once? The wold will look up in amazement, and if we arrange things carefully -- they will see something even more amazing.
Commander: Come, let me show you what's next. As you know, you are the last of the Vostok missions. Next will be Voskhod.
Valery: But sir...
Commander: Yes, you see it. It's a Vostok capsule, but without the ejection seat. It will land, with retro-rockets. And we are removing some other unessential things, to make room for more than one cosmonaut -- if they don't all wear space suits.
Valentina: No suits? ...Sir?

Their mission is a success. Valentina becomes the first woman in space, and Valery is part of the first long-duration mission (nearly five days).

We now move up to the second Voskhod mission, with Pavel Belyayev and Alexei Leonov:

Alexei (floating in space): I'm... I'm feeling perfect.
Daughters (watching on TV): That's Daddy? What is he doing? Tell Daddy to get back inside!
Old man: Why is he acting like a juvenile delinquent? Everyone else can complete their mission properly from inside the spacecraft. He must be punished for this.

20 minutes later...

Alexei: Okay...

Later, the Voskhod is about to land back on earth:

Commander: Enough! First... Everybody sit down. What is our status?
Scientist: The automatic re-entry system has failed, and we can't, well...
Commander: Understood. Hand me that headset, please. ...One more orbit to prepare the manual retro-rockets and check Voskhod's altitude. It will take you extra time, so yes, you'll overshoot the landing site. Don't worry, Alexei... It will be fine.

(Soon, the cosmonauts finally land.)

Pavel: Well, the chief designer was right... We overshot the landing site from our mission profile! Plenty of wood out there, though -- tomorrow we'll make a campfire. It will keep us warm, and guide the rescue helicopter. But tonight? Well... not as cold as space at least, and fresh air!
Alexei: Hmm... and visitors.

(Some wolves start to growl and howl at the capsule, which is stuck in a tree.)

T-minus 4 years, 3 months, 27 days:

American Commander: ...No, no... we congratulate the Soviets on their spectacular success. It's a remarkable achievement.
Audience Member: How does this change the plans for Gemini 3.
Commander: No change. John [Young] and Gus [Grissom] are gonna fly the mission they trained for, which is to check out their spacecraft. They'll make sure it's ready for something big in Gemini 4.

(Meanwhile in Russia: "Here are some supplies! Aw...)

Audience Member: Something big? What?!
Commander: Thanks boys. That's all.
C.C.: We do have a surprise, don't we?
Commander: We'll have to come up with one.

Our final scene for now takes place at the Space Task Group's New Headquarters -- Houston, Texas.

Leader: Gentleman, we were planning a "Mini Eva" [extravehicular activity] scheduled for your Gemini 4 flight. But in light of recent events, we think it prudent to reevaluate the situation.

(Meanwhile in Russia: "And skis!" as the wolves keep on howling.)

Leader: As such, the profile has undergone rigorous and detailed --
Ed White (pilot): If I'm not just poking my head out the door, what will it be?
Jim McDwitt: "Yeah, if you're not gonna have us do medical experiments, tests, and other assorted junk... then what?
Leader: You'll get some new assorted junk.
Ed White: But Ed's gonna get a new suit, and a gun.

Conclusion

Sometimes I wonder what my XC teammates are doing now. One of the senior captains (from my sophomore year) eventually became a math teacher at our school, and he coached the girls XC team as well. Recently he stepped down from coaching and teaching math.

But now Thanksgiving break is almost over, and it's time to start thinking about teaching math (and other classes) again. Maybe someday I really will inspire my math students to think like distance runners -- but that's neither here nor there.

And the break is over -- but our reading of Ottaviani's book is not. Even though I would have liked to finish the book during the break, I'll extend our reading by one more week so that we can complete it.

Both of my districts will reopen on Monday, and so that's when my next post will be. I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Thanksgiving Eve Post

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Floyd Thursby Day and Traditionalists
3. Back to Barry Garelick
4. Commenter: Scott Draper
5. Commenter: Wayne Bishop
6. Commenter: SteveH
7. Commenter: Richard Phelps
8. Commenter: Ze'ev Wurman
9. T-Minus: The Race to the Moon, Pages 1-45
10. Conclusion

Introduction

Today is the day before Thanksgiving. This marks the first of two special posts that I'm blogging during Thanksgiving break.

This is the week during which nearly everyday has a special day. Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Thursday, is followed by Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber Monday. For some reason, Sunday doesn't have a special name -- perhaps it should something like Airplane Sunday, Flight Sunday, or Travel Sunday, since it's often the biggest travel day of the year.

Meanwhile, I have occasionally seen names for the days leading up to Thanksgiving. Some names for today, the day before Thanksgiving, refer to alcohol -- these include Black Wednesday, adding "out" to "Black," or changing "Thanks" to "Drinks." Since this is an educational blog, I don't wish to advocate alcohol here on the blog. (This despite my word "dren" being indirectly related to "drunk" -- both of which are based on spelling words backwards.)

Instead, perhaps we should call today Pizza Wednesday. The day before Thanksgiving is considered one of the five biggest pizza days of the year -- the others are Halloween, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, and Super Bowl Sunday. But those other days already have established names or refer to events other than pizza.

For the title of this post, though, I'll just stick to "Thanksgiving Eve."

Floyd Thursby Day and Traditionalists

I have my own personal name for yesterday -- Floyd Thursby Day. I named it after a traditionalist commenter, "Floyd Thursby," whose most common complaint was that too many teachers took off the Tuesday before Thanksgiving (in a district whose calendar has no school Wednesday-Sunday for the holiday).

Here's a link to the Edsource thread that inspired my name "Floyd Thursby Day":

https://edsource.org/2014/declaring-war-on-teachers-rights-wont-improve-childrens-access-to-a-sound-education/56538/56538

Last year, I made my big pre-Thanksgiving post on Floyd Thursby Day. This year, my plan was not post on Tuesday, because Floyd Thursby is no longer an active poster. A Google search reveals that he hasn't posted at all in 2019. So there shouldn't be any reason for me to make a big deal about Floyd Thursby vis-a-vis any other traditionalist.

But to this day, the Tuesday before Thanksgiving is a day I associate with traditionalism. And as it just so happens, another traditionalist made his first post in months on Floyd Thursby Day.

Before we go to that traditionalist, I point out that maybe I should call it "Floyd Tuesday" instead of "Floyd Thursby Day," so that it's more in line with Black Friday and Cyber Monday. "Thursby Tuesday" is awkward only because "Thursby" sounds so much like "Thursday." (Recall that "Floyd Thursby" isn't the commenter's real name -- it's a literary character.)

Back to Barry Garelick

The traditionalist who posted yesterday is, of course, Barry Garelick:

https://traditionalmath.wordpress.com/2019/11/26/how-much-deeper-understanding-do-students-really-need-dept/

In a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Dan Willingham, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Virginia, addresses a particular aspect of math education in the U.S.  Blaming poor math performance on bad curricula, he argues, overlooks that elementary school teachers may not have the deep understanding of math that is required to teach it. In fact they may actually fear math.

Let me quote some parts of Willingham's article here:

Dan Willingham:
The equal sign is another mathematical concept that’s often misunderstood. It means, of course, that whatever is on either side of the equal sign is equivalent. But many elementary students don’t understand the meaning of the equal sign. To them, it doesn’t signify equality, but instead means “put the answer here.” Imagine their confusion when, in algebra, they first encounter problems with numbers on both sides of the equal sign.

OK, so this yet another traditionalists' post debating the importance of understanding in math -- in short, Willingham and like-minded thinkers believe that there isn't enough emphasis here, while the traditionalists argue that there's too much emphasis here:

Willingham suggests that the solution might then be to find and hire those teachers who have “deep math knowledge” and who know how to convey it. I have no problem with hiring teachers who have a thorough understanding of math. What troubles me are the premises that students are doing fine with math facts and standard algorithms. Also I question the notion that providing students with a deeper understanding of math is what is needed to improve math education and its outcomes.

As usual, Garelick steers the conversation towards math facts and standard algorithms. He believes that the struggles of American math students are due to a lack of knowledge of math facts and standard algorithms rather than failing to understand equality.

But in Willingham's article, he writes:

This interpretation — that students lack conceptual understanding, and this absence of understanding matters more as math gets more difficult — fits the pattern of standardized test scores. As students advance, the percentage meeting grade-level targets on the NAEP declines. A similar trend is observed in international comparisons; American fourth-graders compete fairly well, but high-schoolers trail students from most other industrialized nations.

I'd like to see Garelick or another traditionalist address this. If the big problem is that American students don't know math facts or standard algorithms, then why aren't our fourth grade scores just as low as our twelfth grade scores? Instead, Garelick continues to criticize non-traditionalist math:

Over the past three decades—in large part propelled by NCTM’s standards that came out in 1989—the preoccupation with understanding has manifested itself with a de-emphasis on learning math facts. Also, standard algorithms for the basic operations are delayed while students are presented with alternate strategies that require making drawings or using convoluted methods. Such methods are nothing new; they were taught in the past, but after students had learned and mastered the standard algorithms. Now, however, they are taught first in the name of providing the conceptual understanding behind why standard algorithms work as they do. Simple concepts are made more complex under what passes as “deeper understanding.” Students I have seen entering high schools do not know their math facts, and use alternate inefficient strategies for simple operations such as multiplication.

To what "inefficient strategies for...multiplication" is Garelick referring here? I suspect he means the lattice method, which can be just as rigorous as, yet less confusing than, the standard algorithm.

The NCTM standards that Garelick mentions here (and on which the U of Chicago text is based) were, of course, the forerunner to the Common Core Standards:

The Common Core standards have effectively cemented in the math reform ideology that is increasingly incorporated in today’s elementary school textbooks. Adding to that are the bevy of ineffective teaching methods (inquiry- and problem-based learning, group work, so called differentiated instruction) pushed upon teachers in ed school and in professional development seminars. Teachers who elect to teach standard algorithms and teach in traditional manners are sometimes told to teach their lessons with “fidelity” to textbooks they are required to use. Young teachers who fear for their jobs will do so. Older teachers who may have the understanding that Willingham would like to see are sometimes told the same. Unlike the younger teachers, the older ones can simply retire.  And unlike the older teachers, the younger ones are likely the products of the ineffective math teaching I just described; they are likely as confused as many of the students we are seeing today.

Garelick moves on to the division of fractions, a sixth-grade standard:

Add to this the confusion around what constitutes “understanding” in students. What educationists believe is understanding is in most cases visualization—drawing diagrams that demonstrate what two-thirds divided by three-fourths looks like.  That is not at all what a mathematician means by understanding.  Also, being made to use formulaic “explanations” and dragging work out far longer than necessary with multiple procedures and awkward, bulky explanations is not a sign of understanding.

We already know what Garelick means here. Using the standard algorithm, a student should be able to find (2/3) / (3/4) = (2/3) * (4/3) = 8/9 in under a minute, while it might take over a minute just to draw the pictures. This is why Garelick wants to drop the pictures and just teach the algorithms.

OK, Garelick, suppose we were to give our students, at the end of sixth grade, a list of twenty, or even ten, fraction problems with mixed operations. How many of our sixth graders will consistently choose the correct algorithm at the right time to solve all the problems? And how many sixth graders will instead try to add the denominators for addition/subtraction problems, or even find a common denominator for multiplication/division problems?

The idea of drawing pictures is to show students why the algorithms differ for each operation, so that they'll know consistently which algorithm to choose. If it's not obvious to a student why we need common denominators for addition/subtraction, that student is less likely to find the common denominator when it's needed.

Here, by the way, is Willingham's solution to the problem:

Dan Willingham:
Rather than coaching others, the best math teachers should teach children. A corps of teachers with deep understanding of math and how to convey it could be full-time math instructors, beginning in kindergarten. It would be hard for someone with such limited contact to know the students well, and student-teacher relationships do affect student learning. Some schools find it worth it to use specialized instructors to teach music or physical education. The same should hold true for math.

I admit that kindergarten is a bit too young to have a specialist math teacher. In past posts, I once mentioned a "Path Plan" that provides specialist teachers for different subjects -- but even then, the youngest grade for which I ever proposed having more than one teacher is first, not kindergarten. As I later pointed out, some believe that even fifth grade is too early to have more than one teacher.

Commenter: Scott Draper

Let's get on with the comment thread. We begin with Scott Draper:

Scott Draper:
Totally agree. The scary fact that I think teachers don’t like to acknowledge is that students remember very little of what you teach them; they certainly won’t remember the “deeper understanding” aspect. That only comes with time, maturity, and practice.

The scary fact that I think traditionalists don't like to acknowledge is that students remember very little of what you teach them; they certainly won't remember all of the standard algorithms, and possibly not even all of their math facts.

Yes, Draper -- two can play at that game.

Scott Draper:
The main benefit to teaching the “why?” is that failure to supply the answer to that is that some students won’t buy into what you’re selling if you don’t. Once you tell them why something works, that obstacle disappears and they’re willing to learn what you’re teaching, although they later can’t remember your explanation.

OK, I'll partly agree with Draper here. Returning to Garelick's example of fractions, if all we have to do is show the "why" once (by drawing the diagram) and then that's enough for the students not to leave the assignment blank, then that's fine. We don't need to make them keep drawing diagrams at that point.

I admit that students' blank problems are a major issue of mine in the traditionalist debates. But another is their confusion with when to find a common denominator and when to operate on the denominators and numerators. My question is, does drawing pictures help students know when to perform which algorithm, by showing why a particular algorithm is needed?

Let's return to the example from earlier:

(2/3) + (3/4) =
(3/4) - (2/3) =
(2/3) * (3/4) =
(2/3) / (3/4)

Now imagine a student who tries to answer the addition problem by adding the denominators -- despite having been taught several times that adding the denominators is wrong. We can then show why adding thirds to fourths doesn't yield sevenths by drawing a diagram. The traditionalist would instead have to show the addition algorithm again -- and then the student might overcorrect by trying to find a common denominator for the division problem.

And so I believe that there's still a place for drawing pictures to solve fraction problems. Give me a class that seldom confuses these algorithms and there will no longer be a need for pictures.

By the way, when I subbed in a seventh grade math class last week, I saw one student attempt to find a common denominator for the following type of problem:

(2 + 3)/(3 + 4)

This is more like a PEMDAS problem than an addition of fractions problem. (Actually, the numerator was something more like 32 + 3, so that the answer would be an integer.)

Commenter: Wayne Bishop

We proceed with a comment from Wayne Bishop:

Wayne Bishop:
That was my reaction to Willingham’s op-ed as well; he has a history of being sensible and correct but it is too easy to take this one as an endorsement of Common Core or the NCTM non-standards.

So according to Bishop, the Common Core Standards are "non-standards." I wonder what sort of standards he would accept as being true "standards" rather than "non-standards." If Bishop is like most other traditionalists, then his true standards likely include either eighth grade Algebra I or senior year AP Calculus.

(And it goes without saying that when he says that Willingham is sometimes "sensible and correct," he means that the op-ed writer sometimes agrees with the traditionalists.)

Wayne Bishop:
The deep understanding that teachers need to have and to develop in their students is not a bunch of inefficient approaches or alternative algorithms instead of the standard algorithms of arithmetic and their usage. The correct deep understanding is as described by Liping Ma in her wonderful little book, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. She called it PUFM, Profound Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics, and assessed US elementary mathematics teachers negatively in comparison with those of her native China. The Chinese teachers were not only competent in the algorithms of arithmetic (that could not be consistently said of the US ones) they were able to “on the spot” create little word problems for which their solutions required the arithmetic. In this, the US teachers were almost at a complete loss. The Chinese teachers’ years of preparation, by contrast with ours, reflected that PUFM already at their early professional preparation. They were recruited at roughly our high school junior year followed by only a year or two of something akin to our old “normal schools”, the one year of college my mother had in preparation for teaching elementary school. New teachers are not then simply dumped into their own independent classrooms but work closely with experienced teachers who have been deemed particularly effective. What a concept.
Hmm, this sounds interesting. I've never read Liping Ma's book, and so I can't be exactly sure what this PUFM looks like. Thus I shouldn't really comment on it.

But Bishop does mention "normal schools." I've noticed that several traditionalists seem to be nostalgic for the days when teachers were trained via normal schools as opposed to our now common credentialing programs. I'm not quite sure why traditionalists find the "normal schools" superior -- except for the obvious difference that the normal schools promoted traditionalist math, while modern credentialing programs don't.

Also, Bishop tells us that "new teachers...work closely with experienced teachers" in China, but I don't see how that is significantly different from American student teaching.

Commenter: SteveH

I'm glad that I waited until today to blog, rather than yesterday, Floyd Thursby Day. That's because the extra day allowed time for a certain commenter -- of course, you already know who it is:

SteveH:
For a lot of people, it’s all about them – their area of specialty. It’s fine that he raises the math “anxiety” issue for elementary school teachers, but he then uses that to push his own (non-math expert) idea of what the solution is. His only real contribution to the debate is that because of the average “math anxiety” of non-math-certified teachers, then schools should hire specialists. I have no argument with that.

OK, so far we have one point of agreement between SteveH and Willingham. As I wrote above, I wonder whether we really need math specialists in kindergarten.

SteveH:
Many dislike anecdotal knowledges and cases, but anecdotes contain all of the information of what’s going on. If you study enough of them, then you will be able to split the issues and see patterns. If you just look at yearly state test results to decide “one thing” to fix (“additional vetting … in the classroom”), then you will always fail. Those who do the vetting are part of the problem, AND there is no ONE problem. You can’t collect “big data” and assume that all of the important information remains or that your biases won’t make you to see only what you want to see.

This sounds as if SteveH is opposing standardized tests (the "big data" of school). Of course, we know that it must be more complicated than that -- we know that he at least accepts the AP and IB tests, and possibly SAT/ACT as well. He only opposes the Common Core tests.

SteveH:
Willingham should know that this is a big systemic and psychological problem, not just one about “understanding.” Maybe he thinks the problem is us math experts, but we’re the ones who have lived it day-by-day, have done actual teaching in class, and have ensured that our kids are STEM ready. However, I had my son’s Kindergarten teacher lecture me about “understanding” in math. I’m not kidding. His first grade teacher told me that “Yes, he has a lot of superficial knowledge.” Anecdotes bite, but big data hides. Yearly state tests pass the buck so that parents are left a year late and many tutoring dollars short, and the big 7th grade math tracking decision ends up as a big whack in the head by a brick. I’ve talked to those capable kids and their parents. It’s too late for most. Their approach has been going on for at least two decades. Where are the results? When will reality break through assumptions? Willingham should study that.

OK, so the "anecdotes" that SteveH referred to earlier are his son's teachers in Grades K-1 and how they treated his son. Presumably, the "superficial knowledge" that his son had back then is that which traditionalists highly value -- knowledge of math facts and the standard algorithm (most likely of addition at that level). But instead of praising his son for being smart at math, his teachers made the above statements.

This is a tricky one. It's possible that someone who's great at addition in first grade might struggle with fractions years later -- adding the denominators instead of finding a common denominator. It's possible that someone with a "deeper understanding" in first grade is more likely to become a fifth grader who doesn't get the fraction algorithms mixed up.

But then, if I said all this to SteveH, he'd remind me that his son now has a math degree. He'd tell me that his son had no problems with fractions on his way to college -- and that it was all thanks to traditionalist teaching -- from SteveH himself and tutors (as he writes in this post). Therefore to him, the teachers in Grades K-1 were wrong to criticize his son -- they should have praised him and taught traditionally so that more students in his class were more like his son.

We already know what SteveH's "big 7th grade math tracking decision" is -- either the students are sent to his favored eighth grade Algebra I and senior year AP Calc classes, or else they're, as he puts it, "whacked in the head by a brick."

SteveH:
However, this requires a deemphasis of quantitative mastery skills. They have to “fuzzify” the difference between the best prepared students and the worst prepared students. In comes vague conceptual understanding ideas as the basis for proper development in math. Add to that their love of mixed-ability group learning that assigns too much importance and value to engagement.

To me, "engagement" means "not leaving assignments blank." How much do students learn more from -- a group assignment that they think is fun and actually work on, or a traditionalist p-set that they think is boring and leave blank?

SteveH:
We STEM parents will not let our kids fail, so we ensure proper mastery at home. That’s what I had to do for even my “math brain” son in K-6. I have so many examples of K-6 teacher-to-parent push-backs in terms of their assumptions and how they do things. We would never dare to challenge that. Thankfully, that all went away in high school.

OK, so that's SteveH's usual "fuzziness" of K-6 math vs. the "reality" of high school math.

SteveH:
I think a lot of this is their idea of natural learning where they present the grand ideas and provide engagement so that the rote skills will flow automatically. Just look at the music world. It ain’t gonna happen. Practice your scales, exercises, and etudes. Those are not just musically rote. There is subtle musical understanding going on. Educators have to deal with reality and not hide behind the vagueness of yearly tests. I was on a parent-teacher committee once where we discussed the school’s lower “problem solving” scores. Their solution? Spend more time on problem solving. It’s not rocket science (or STEM) thinking that’s going on here. It’s much simpler, but more difficult, than that.

Last week I subbed in a music class. It was vocal music, but next door was the band room. Take a guess what I heard coming from the band room that day. You're right -- either F-E-F or Bb-A-Bb. (In this case, I thought I heard both F-E-F and Bb-A-Bb.)

And so, SteveH wonders, why can't we teach math facts and standard algorithms -- the mathematical equivalent of F-E-F? Once again, I believe that students won't complete a task unless it is either easy, fun, or high-status. Musicians are high-status in our society, and so they are willing to perform tasks that are neither easy nor fun (as in F-E-F) in order to be successful. But mathematicians are definitely not high-status in our society, and so we must make tasks either easy or fun in order to avoid having students just leave the tasks blank. That's why F-E-F works for music but not math.

Commenter: Richard Phelps

The last commenter in the Barry Garelick thread is Richard Phelps:

Richard Phelps:
Also, I wonder if there is any bottom to deeper knowledge (a.k.a., “depth of knowledge” (DOK)) or deeper understanding. If there is no clear end to the process, it may be no more useful than an infinite programming loop or a Rube Goldberg machine. When I hear calls for deeper thinking or deeper understanding, my mind pulls up a picture of a child repeatedly asking “why?” after every explanation a parent gives them. Every why could be a valid question that could evoke a reasonable, substantive response. But, annoyance factor aside, at some point the next additional answer is not adding a whole lot to a child’s understanding of the initial concept.

Yes, it's possible for the "whys" to go on ad infinitum. Yes, it's possible to keep asking why 1 + 1 = 2 all the way until we reach Russell and Whitehead's axioms, or why 2 + 2 = 4 all the way until we reach the Metamath proof, or at the very least Peano's axioms.

To me, the only person who can stop the endless stack of "whys" is the one who asked these questions -- the student. If the student keeps asking "why" and leaves the assignment blank, then we must keep answering until the student stops talking and starts working. In this context, this includes "Why must we follow the standard algorithm?" (for multiplying, or adding fractions) or "Why can't we just add the denominators?" Otherwise, the student will leave the assignment blank.

Richard Phelps:
At some point, the next tiny possible addition to the child’s understanding is outweighed by the possible subtraction from understanding from the loss of clarity (due to the amorphousness and weight of all possible relevant explanations, no matter how tangential) and from the loss of time–there are opportunity costs. Conceivably, a student could spend twelve years learning basic arithmetic very, very well. By, in doing so, they will not be exposed to all the other math topics. Isn’t this why the allegedly “deeper” and “more rigorous” Common Core math is so slow?

I often point out that there's another teaching situation where "Why?" questions are regularly asked -- during classroom management. Thus we may hear, "Why do we have to follow this rule?" -- and an answer such as "to respect order in the classroom" might also be followed by "Why?" In past posts, I wrote that the ultimate answer to these "Why?" questions is, "Because I said so"

In mathematics, the analog of "Because I said so!" is a postulate. At some point, we must make basic assumptions that can't and shouldn't be proved, but must be taken on faith.

Phelps implies that traditionalist ideas -- basic math facts and standard algorithms -- should be taken as postulates that require no further explanation. He laments that "Common Core math is so slow" -- the idea being that if we can just get through math facts and standard algorithms fast, the students can get to eighth grade Algebra I.

But once again, if students don't know why they must do something, they'll leave it blank. Students who leave math assignments blank aren't getting to Algebra I quickly.

Commenter: Ze'ev Wurman

Even though Richard Phelps and SteveH are the last commenters at Barry Garelick, there's also a concurrent thread on the Willingham article at the Joanne Jacobs website:

https://www.joannejacobs.com/2019/11/when-teachers-dont-understand-math/

One of the commenters here is a major traditionalist, Ze'ev Wurman. But I must first quote another poster, Dennis Ashendorf, since Wurman's points are in response to Ashendorf's:

Dennis Ashendorf:
This is unpleasant to discuss, because it’s a cultural choice that isn’t efficient.
1. Children in elementary prefer having one teacher for all topics.
2. Math specialists haven’t given better results – as far as I know.
3. Yet, Math specialists are NEEDED more in Elementary than Secondary.
4. Third and Fourth grade are filled with subtle thought. Tests don’t show what must actually be understood (eg It’s the identity property that allows fractions to be renamed and this same identity property is what allows people to say “there is no such thing as division, just flip and multiply” which is standard nonsense.
5. Many American K6 teachers choose teaching K6 because math isn’t normally their strong suit.
6. Better curricula can help. For example Bridges or Japan Math. Still, showing the essence is very hard.
7. Bottomline: the benefits of good math instruction show up in future math classes, not the current one. Therefore, we’re caught in a loop unless we adopt a coherent progression in the curricula.
(Hmm, Ashendorf's #2-#3 appear to contradict each other. If math specialists haven't given better results, then why are they needed in elementary school?)

Ze'ev Wurman:
1. Evidence or not, this seems to be common practice around the whole world. Including in educationally high-achieving countries. Nevertheless, it’s not exclusive and specialist teachers do enter elementary classrooms in topics such as science or PE. So why not math?
2 lack of documented success in the US does not negate the point but rather its implementation. Some countries show success.
3.I think the point is valid, even if it was inartfully expressed. We already have math specialists in higher grades and we may need them also in elementary grades.
4.. Elementary tests, quite naturally, focus on lower-level skills and may, or may not, be good predictors for higher-level skills. That would be one possibility for explaining the drop in higher grade achievement. Another one would be that the higher grades curriculum treads water and wastes time, which happens to be my own belief after extensive analysis of Common Core standards.
5. Actually, it is not absurd, but the explanation is a bit more complicated. Elementary teachers as a group are characterized by emotional affinity with young children more than by their intellectual/academic performance (a lot of exceptions, obviously). It is likely that such group will tend to have weakness in its math affinity or preparation unless special attention is given to remedy that.
6. Better curricula might help them, where by “curriculum” I mean not only the content but also the pedagogy used in the classrooms. We seem to have weaknesses in both, yet educationally high-achieving countries show that relatively- young children can master serious intellectual concepts. For example, 4th and 5th graders in some South-Eastern Asian countries routinely solve math problems that our 8th graders struggle with. That doesn’t mean curricula alone, though—teacher training is important too.
7. Actually, there is a lot of research showing that under-challenging high ability students stymies their development. The belief that such kids don’t need challenge and guidance is simply wrong.
Note: this is not the response I would pen of my own volition, but the dismissive attitude of education_realist seemed to demand it. The issues are much more complex than can be summarized in a few bullet points.

OK, so at least Wurman addresses Ashendorf's #2 -- maybe math specialists would be successful if we actually had more of them. (Again, that's where my "Path Plan" comes in.)

In his #4, Wurman states that the reason for the drop in high school is that the high school curriculum "wastes time." In the past, he mentioned how the focus on transformations in Geometry is considered to be such a time-waster.

But then maybe we "tread water" slow down in high school because many students would find a rigorous, say, Algebra II class to be too difficult. If this is the case, then speeding up Algebra II won't improve NAEP scores, because such students will still get those problems wrong on the test.

T-Minus: The Race to the Moon, Pages 1-45

Here's something I have that might encourage students to try harder in math -- a reminder of why exactly we need to learn math. To me, those who excel in math are heroes -- and what better way to see this than to read Jim Ottaviani's series of science comic books!

As I promised, I will read Ottaviani's T-Minus: The Race to the Moon this week. I wanted to read this book before the 50th anniversary year (of the moon landing) ends, and so I ordered this book to arrive in time for Thanksgiving break.

So let's dive right in. The opening scene takes place at T-minus 12 years -- that is, twelve years before the first moon landing.

Radio: ...new UN headquarters in the Big Apple.
Scientist #1: Hooey.

This scene is set at NACA -- Langley, Virginia, 1957. In a footnote, Ottaviani explains: "NACA = National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Guess what it becomes? ...soon! (Hint: replace the C with another letter.)" But of course, we don't need to guess -- NACA became NASA. This is actually explained in the Hidden Figures book -- Katherine Johnson first worked at NACA. (But this isn't mentioned in the movie at all.)

Scientist #2: "Huee"? What's that stand for?
Scientist #1: Doesn't stand for anything. That's what President Eisenhower called the RAND report.
Scientist #2: What's a RAND report?
Scientist #1: C'mon, you know... "Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship."
Scientist #2: (changing the radio to music) He called it "Hooey."
Scientist #1: Ah, that's years ago, and that's politicians. You can't expect them to understand our sort of thing.
Scientist #2: Well, sure, but a world-circling spaceship? That is hooey. (turning off the radio) Tell 'em, C.C.
C.C.: Aw, I dunno 'bout that.

Let's move forward a few pages. T-minus 11 years, 10 months:

Scientist #1: Well, that's what I heard. The Russkies, they --
Scientist #2: Ah, don't you believe it. If our boy von Braun can't even get his Jupiter Rocket to launch, how can the Russkies put up a satellite?
Scientist #1: It's just a matter of time, fellas. All the attention is because it's the International Geophysical Year, that's all.
Scientist #2: A made up thing -- heck! It's not even a year. It's a year and a half.

Here's a footnote from Ottaviani: "International Geophysical Year = IGY = 1957-1958 -- A year when scientists around the world agreed to study the Earth, from pole to pole. It's true -- the IGY was eighteen months long. Those crazy scientists..." (And you thought that the eleven-day "Red Ribbon Week" was crazy this year!)

Scientist #2: What do you think, C.C.?
C.C.: 'Bout what -- rockets? Satellites? This is what I think: why don't we put a man on top o' one of 'em?
(They all laugh.)

We now view a scene from the Russian perspective. They are about to launch Sputnik I. In footnotes, Ottaviani writes, "The real Sputnik 1, not the model, weighed 184 lb. The R-7 rocket: An impressive 100 ft. tall and 280 tons -- but only one successful launch so far."

Russian: Chief? What's the plan? (Note: Ottaviani uses a backward "N" in the middle of the text to indicate that it's in the Russian language.)
Chief: Well, future missions will have animals -- maybe a dog -- and then after that we go to... Ah, you mean today. Start the countdown. We're already 17 days late for Tsiolkovsky's 100th birthday as it is.

Of course, the Sputnik I is launched successfully. From the American perspective:

Scientist: Huh. Got to do something about that.

Ottaviani writes, "Though the crystal ball is cloudy, two things seem clear."

  1. A satellite vehicle with appropriate instrumentation can be expected to be one of the most potent scientific tools of the twentieth century.
  2. The achievement of a satellite craft by the United States would inflame the imagination of mankind...
RAND Report "Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship" -- May, 1946

The plan now is to launch a satellite called Mercury-Redstone I:

Scientist #1: And what were you thinking here? I can't believe you didn't allow for...
Scientist #2: That's the way you do it. Put in some superfluous details... Tell C.C. it's done...
Scientist #1: And you're guaranteed it will be done... when he's finished with it! And by the way, Mercury is going to be more like an escape capsule than anything else. Won't be a spacecraft until the astronaut can steer it.

(in C.C.'s office)

Scientist #1: Okay, so... Most of what happens up there will have to be from a control room. Any idea how that's going to look?
C.C.: Pretty much like my secretary's desk over there. Maybe another phone or two... and a teleprinter.

Ottaviani explains: "Teleprinter = like email, only with gears and a typewriter-like printer (no screen). No graphics, but lots of sound."

Scientist #1: A few phones? You're nuts. Maybe that's okay for a simple up-and-down flight, but... if we put somebody in orbit..."

Soon the Mercury is ready to launch:

Scientist: 3-2-1-Liftoff!
Spectator: Where...

(The escape tower explodes. The launch is unsuccessful.)

T-minus 8 years, 3 months, 8 days. Baikonur Cosmodrome -- 1961.

Reporter: OK, Lieutenant Gagarin -- recording.
Yuri Gagarin: Dear friends, known and unknown to me... My dear compatriots, and all people of the world! ...Minutes from now, a mighty Soviet rocket will boost my ship into the vastness of space. What I want to tell you is this. My whole like is now before me as a single breathtaking moment..."

Mission Control: Dawn, calling Cedar.
Gagarin: Cedar, here.
Mission Control: Check and see if you can reach the envelope with the combination to unlock the manual controls.
Gagarin: Yes, easily.
Mission Control: Good, never mind the flight surgeons -- I know you will have no psychological problems in space, my little eagle. But I am also confident you won't need to fly the capsule yourself. I have everything under control from here.

Ottaviani explains: "Flight surgeon = Military medical officer." (The cosmonaut sings "alone along")

Assistant: This is Dawn, calling Cedar.
Mission Control: That's what I wanted to hear, shut that off. T-minus 15 minutes. T-minus 5 minutes.
Gagarin: Feeling the excellent spirits. (singing "...walk alone along the...") Roger, Dawn.
Mission Control: T-minus 1 minute. We wish you a good flight.
Gagarin: Poyekhali! (Ottaviani translates this as "Let's go!"
Mission Control: Preliminary stage... Intermediate stage... Main... Liftoff!

The Vostok I flight is successful. Yuri Gagarin becomes the first person to orbit the earth on April 12th, 1961 -- the flight lasted an hour and 48 minutes.

This flight gets the Americans' attention. President Kennedy announces that the US will land a man on the moon by the end of the decade of the 1960's:

Kennedy (on radio): No single space project in this period will be more impressive... None will be so difficult to accomplish.
C.C.: Is he crazy? How could he say "before this decade is out"?!
Kennedy: ...In a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon...
C.C.: It's one thing to sit around a table at noontime and play cards and flap our gums about going to the moon.
Kennedy: ...It will be an entire nation, for all of us must --
C.C. (turning off the radio): It's another thing for the President of the United States... to all of a sudden tell the whole world what we'r flapping our gums about!
Scientist #1: So what? We have designs... NASA can do this.
C.C.: C'mon, Max. You know as well as I do that Kennedy was right about that part at least... It ain't going to be just NASA.

The final scene takes place right here in Southern California -- near the Jet Propulsion Lab and North American Aviation:

Wife: Where are you off to this time, Stormy?
Stormy: Meeting von Braun later today.
Wife: Where?
Stormy: Huntsville. Gotta stop at the plant first, but then Alabama.

Conclusion

Well, that concludes my Floyd Thursby Day -- I meant Drensgiving -- I meant pre-Thanksgiving -- traditionalists' post. Let's see whether that Willingham article will generate any more discussion about these issues.

I will make one more holiday post during Turkey Day weekend.