7:05 -- That's right, this teacher has zero period. But the zero period class isn't history -- for some reason, it's P.E. instead. This regular teacher is a unique combination -- a history/P.E. teacher. For today, the students have free play -- they can either walk laps or play with a ball or Frisbee. Oh, and unlike Friday, I actually have to supervise the P.E. class today, especially considering that I must cover for the only zero period P.E. teacher.
8:15 -- This is homeroom. I show the class the announcements.
8:20 -- As is usual for middle schools, there is a rotation today, and it starts with fifth period. At this particular school, students report to third period for homeroom.
Fifth period is the first history class. All of this teacher's history classes are honors, and so there are very few behavior problems. Here in California, seventh grade is Medieval World History, and one major unit is the origins of Islam. I show the class a video and the students complete a guided worksheet for notes.
The video I show them is Rick Steves and his Europe series. This particular episode is called "Granada, Cordoba, and Spain's Costa del Sol" -- a region of Spain once ruled by Islamic Moors. I play this video on YouTube, and so I might as well link to the episode here as well:
I've written about the Islamic influence on Spain in the past on the blog. In Lesson 8-2 of the U of Chicago text, there is a photo of tessellations in the Alhambra, a museum in Granada, Spain. In the video, Rick Steves tells us that the Moors used math to build the Alhambra.
Whenever I sub for a history class, I like to tie what students are learning to the present day. In this case, near the end of the video, Steves meets a local who tells him that jamon iberico tastes good because it comes from free-range pigs. So I tie this to California Proposition 12, officially titled "Farm Animal Confinement Initiative."
9:15 -- Fifth period leaves and fourth period arrives. Sixth period is the teacher's conference period, which leads directly into the short break.
10:20 -- First period arrives. This is another honors class.
In this class, one girl asks me for a copy of a blank Middle East map so that she can prepare for her geography test, to be given tomorrow. But I don't know where the extra copies are. It's not until lunchtime when I realize that my clipboard has been covering the copies all along! By then, it's too late to give them to the girl. I hope she doesn't fail the test tomorrow just because I couldn't find the maps today.
11:15 -- First period leaves and second period arrives. This is another honors class.
12:05 -- Second period leaves and lunch begins.
12:50 -- Third period is this teacher's other P.E. class. As is the norm at this school, it begins with silent reading -- except that when P.E. rotates into the class after lunch, the students are to do a special two-lap walk instead. Then free play begins as with zero period.
2:00 -- Fourth period is technically not another conference period (though it's possible for him to have two since he also has a zero period) -- instead he's on a special assignment. But this is irrelevant to me, since I have to cover another teacher's class this period instead. It's another history class, but this time it's eighth grade U.S. history.
These students are also watching a video -- "Fireworks" from Schoolhouse Rock. It's a DVD, but it's also easy to find on YouTube:
In addition, the students complete a worksheet on Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
2:55 -- My school day ends, and I go home to type this blog entry.
As it turns out, the biggest classroom management issue of the day is in third period P.E., where one student accidentally tosses a Frisbee over the fence, beyond the campus boundary. Perhaps I could have prevented this by not handing them the Frisbee so close to the fence. Three boys are also engaged in excessive horseplay, and so I must leave their names for the teacher.
On one hand, P.E. class isn't representative of the math class I want to teach someday -- and indeed, I can't even call it "classroom" management since it's not a classroom. But still, I wonder whether seeing these same third period students first for homeroom (which is held in the teacher's actual history classroom) and then for "silent reading" (the laps) means that the first time they see me, I'm doing something other than establishing the rules with them. This follows a general pattern that I must work on ending -- the homeroom and silent reading classes tend to misbehave. (Fortunately, today "homeroom" and "silent reading" classes are one and the same.)
In the zero period class, some students leave the grassy area for the blacktop without permission.
The only history class that isn't honors is the eighth grade class. There's only one problem in this class, as one guy keeps disturbing the other students. One student he makes fun of is another guy who must wear a cast on his leg and use crutches for six months. The injured student is summoned to leave a few minutes early, and the joker asks, "How come he gets to leave early? Is it because he has to see a doctor about his leg?"
I can't believe this student can be so insensitive. I ask him whether he'd like to trade places and be unable to run for six months just so he can leave class six minutes early. I threaten to leave his name for the teacher (who would assign any such students a week of campus beautification). He does finally focus on his worksheet.
Tomorrow the seventh graders might be taking a geography test, but for us in Geometry, the Chapter 3 Test is today. That makes this into a traditionalists' post.
We've completed our reading of Eugenia Cheng's latest book. Even though I want this blog to be politically neutral, for the past 16 days, the blog has taken a hard leftward turn. This is because Cheng is clearly liberal (or progressive). Her left-wing politics permeate her latest book (unlike her first two books), and it's impossible to do our side-along reading without referring to progressive ideas.
In the past, I've linked to YouTube videos created by another mathematician, Vi Hart. Just like Eugenia Cheng, Vi Hart started out politically neutral, but then her videos started referring to liberal ideas as well. Fortunately, this year she's focused more on math in her videos, but within the past two years she posted videos supporting both Black Lives Matter and Net Neutrality -- which is also known by the pejorative "Obamanet," just like "Obamacare" and "Obamacore."
Conservative disappointment when someone reveals that he/she is liberal isn't just limited to mathematicians, of course. Just this week, right-wingers became upset when a famous singer, Taylor Swift, endorsed two Democrats.
But more often than not, teachers turn out to be left-leaning. I believe it's because education just happens to attract people who are left of center. Right-wingers tend to be business-oriented. It's no surprise, for example, that the one known conservative I've subbed for so far in this district is an Economics teacher. (I wrote about him in my late April/early May posts.)
Anyway, I do want to being some sort of political balance to my blog. So for today's traditionalists' post, let's return to Darren Miller's blog:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/
The "right" in the title of this blog means "right-wing" -- so Miller is a conservative. Of course, one day of writing about Miller's blog doesn't cancel out 16 days of Cheng's liberal politics. I wish that someone conservative could write a popular math book similar to Cheng's. Then I can make it our side-along reading book, and then we can spend three weeks reading the conservative perspective.
And in reading Miller's blog, we can apply Cheng's logic to the conservative position. Cheng herself admit that it's possible to be logical without agreeing with her all the time. The purpose of her book is for all of us to be more logical -- and that applies across the political spectrum.
Let's begin with one of Miller's recent posts that actually about traditionalist math:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2018/09/an-observation-on-progress-report-grades.html
Among other classes, I've taught pre-calculus (trig and analysis) for most of the 15+ years I've been at my current school. When completing progress report grades, I noted what I thought was a lot of D's and F's in my pre-calculus class, so I looked up past years' information. Sure enough, just as an example, last year I had only 1 D or F at the first progress report; this year I have 11. The contrast with other years is just as stark.
What happened? What's changed? I can't be sure, but this is the first year that pre-calculus students at my school had gone through so-called Integrated Math at our school as opposed to the Algebra 1-Geometry-Algebra 2 sequence. I don't know if that's the cause or not, but it's certainly a likely explanation.
We know that traditionalists usually oppose Integrated Math, even though it's the dominant math curriculum in most of the world (outside the US and Vietnam). But here Miller gives a concrete reason to oppose Integrated Math -- the grades in his Pre-Calculus class are much lower for students who completed three years of Integrated Math than those who took the traditional sequence.
Since Miller is a real classroom teacher, I must accept his evidence. And so I must ask, why does Integrated Math (which is taught in high-scoring math countries) lead to lower Pre-Calc grades?
Let's look at some of the comments.
Auntie Ann:
I'm so glad both my kid's middle school and high school used a 1990 versions of Dolciani for Algebra #1, #2 and for Trig.
(It's also nice that the textbooks are before the biggerization of modern textbooks.)
Here's another traditionalist endorsement of Dolciani. Recall that as a young student, my Algebra I class used Dolciani. This was in 1993-94, so it's likely that we used the 1990 version
ObieJuan:
The chinese have a word for it - "chiku" (see the link)
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-chinese-children-are-better-at-math-than-americans-2017-9
There is no secret to being good at math and science. It's just hard work!! But rather than have our students do that, we throw new methods and standards against the wall and hope something sticks! We ignore research (do your own - you'll find that direct instruction is best), and we do "what feels good".
Math and science jobs pay well because not many are willing to do the hard work that comes with it.
Exactly -- not many are willing to do the hard work. But that's exactly why direct instruction doesn't necessarily work -- direct instruction requires students to do the hard work of listening to the "sage on the stage" and completing the p-sets, but many students won't even do problem #1. One goal of the reform movement is to replace direct instruction with something that students will actually do.
Also, Obiejuan likes to an article about Chinese math. China, of course, uses Integrated Math.
None of this so far explains Miller's grade distribution. That is, unless we're saying that students will answer #1 on the p-sets in traditional classes like Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, but they refuse to answer #1 in Integrated Math.
There are also some posts in this thread on a particular Integrated Math curriculum, CPM. It's possible that students aren't doing well in Pre-Calc because the integrated curricula are bad -- but this doesn't mean that it's impossible to do well with an integrated curriculum (proof: China). Ironically, two of the traditionalists' favorite curricula -- Saxon (original) and Singapore -- are both based on integrated math. (But many traditionalists don't recommend Singapore math for any grade higher than sixth grade.)
OK, let's get ready for Miller's political posts. We begin with one of his shortest posts:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-first-labor-day.html
My First Labor Day...
...without forced unionism in over 20 years as a teacher.
Sweet.
Sweet.
Here Miller is clearly referring to the Janus decision. Even though Miller is a teacher, he opposes his teachers union because it tends to endorse Democrats while he is a Republican. Perhaps if the unions would endorse Republicans at least once in a while, he'd be less hostile to paying union dues.
Here's a stronger political post:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2018/09/commentary-on-liberal-temper-tantrum.html
It's impossible to discuss politics without mentioning the biggest news story. Yesterday, the Supreme Court gained its newest member, Brett Kavanaugh. Earlier in this post, I wrote that I like to tie history classes I sub in to current events. Well, in eighth grade US History, after showing the students the "Fireworks" video, I played another Schoolhouse Rock song, "Three Ring Government." I explained that Kavanaugh is a member of the third "ring" of the government, the Supreme Court. The first ring (the president) nominated him, and the second ring (Congress) voted for him on Saturday. Now that he's a Supreme Court Justice, his job is to make sure that laws passed by the second ring and signed by the first ring are constitutional.
I was only a year old during the summer of 1982. Therefore I have no idea regarding what really happened that summer -- and I won't disrespect either the Ford or Kavanaugh families by claiming that I know what really happened. But here's the important part of Miller's post:
Ultimately, as The Federalist’s David Harsanyi writes, “Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh. They Fear the Constitution.” The unions and others on the left believe that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. This means they can contort it to fit their political and social agendas. Brett Kavanaugh knows what the Constitution is about and, if his appointment is successful, will wisely rule the way the founders intended.
Here Miller writes that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is wise. Clearly, he believes that he has more individual power and freedom under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution than a "living, breathing" interpretation. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that they have more individual power and freedom under a "living, breathing" interpretation. Each party genuinely believes that its respective interpretation of the Constitution represents more power and freedom -- that is, both sides are working from different fundamental assumptions, or axioms.
Let's think back to Cheng's privilege cube, in which "rich white males" have the most privilege. Of course, the phrases "rich privilege," "white privilege," and "male privilege" didn't exist. Yet it is doubtlessly true that under the original 1787 Constitution, only "rich" (in the sense of "land-owning") white males could vote. Therefore, to liberals, "ruling the way the Founders intended" means maintaining those three types of privilege, and thus their "living, breathing" interpretation represents dismantling that privilege.
Conservatives, of course, would disagree. After all, the Constitution has been since amended so that those who aren't "rich" white males can vote. This is part of their argument that their stricter interpretation of the Constitution represents more individual power and freedom.
According to Miller, liberals don't care about what really happened in 1982. Instead, they would say whatever it takes to prevent the confirmation of an originalist justice. I personally believe that neither party truly cares about what happened in 1982. The priority of both parties is to install a justice who will defend their respective interpretation of the Constitution.
Once again, I don't know what really happened in 1982. The events of 1982 have no bearing on whether Kavanaugh will be confirmed as a justice, because he was confirmed yesterday. All that matters now is how Kavanaugh will interpret the Constitution.
But here's one thing that I do agree with conservatives. Disregarding the Founders as "dead white males" does nothing to advance the liberal position. It's a "thought-terminating cliche" designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic. Instead, liberals should argue why they fear that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution will lead to less individual power and freedom for many Americans.
Cheng writes a lot about "male privilege." Miller counters with an example of "female privilege":
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2018/09/female-privilege.html
There are two issues going on here. Let's think back to Cheng's diagrams. We know that she links "a man sexually harassing a woman" to "a person of privilege sexually harassing a person without privilege," which in turn links with "a woman sexually harassing a man" to "a person sexually harassing a person."
Cheng, like many liberals, starts at the middle level. But Miller, like many conservatives, starts at the top level. There should be no difference regarding the gender of the two people involved.
And then that leads to the second issue -- teacher and pupil. In fact, Cheng also draws a diagram for this situation. We know that she links "a teacher sexually harassing a pupil" to "a person of power sexually harassing a person under that power," which in turn links with "a pupil sexually harassing a teacher" to "a person sexually harassing a person."
In this case, both Cheng and Miller operate from the top level. Both agree that a teacher harassing a pupil should be harshly punished. But in the article that Miller links to, the offending teacher isn't punished harshly enough for Miller's liking. He concludes that something else must be at play -- and that something else must be "female privilege."
I agree with Miller that she should be punished more harshly. I probably wouldn't call it "female privilege," though maybe we inspect Cheng's two tree diagrams, and consider what effect the first diagram (in general, the average man is more powerful than the average woman) has on the second diagram (in this specific case, the female teacher is more powerful than the male student).
By the way, Miller sometimes posts at the Joanne Jacobs website as well:
https://www.joannejacobs.com/2018/10/resolved-all-students-should-take-debate/
Jacobs links to an article suggesting that all students should take debate. Miller comments here:
Darren Miller:
This assumes you have teachers who could tolerate such debate and have their own values and beliefs threatened.
Even though he doesn't state it here, he clearly fears that a liberal teacher might feel threatened by a conservative student debater.
Some of the other comments in the thread are about people who favor emotions over logic. This is a major theme of Cheng's book as well.
Here are the answers to the test. Notice that I added a few multiple choice questions in order to make the test more PSAT-like. I hope I didn't make the test too hard -- but once again, I wanted the test to be of PSAT-like difficulty as well.
Here are the answers:
1. 90 < x < 180 (graphed on a number line)
2. D
3. 22
4. 150, 30
5. B
6. 72
7. 72
8. y = 4x
9. 11, -1/11
10. -8
11. A
12. Any isosceles triangle (three sides, two congruent)
13. Any nonconvex nonagon (nine sides, not convex)
14. The midpoint quadrilateral should look like a rhombus.
15. Any five lines that don't form a pentagon (because they cross or don't connect)
16. Isosceles and scalene both branch out from triangle.
17. Any linear pair (the picture from #4 works)
18. Use a protractor. (#5 claims to be 52 degrees, but in #6, the same angle is 72 degrees!)
19. 160
20. 80
No comments:
Post a Comment