Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not really any better if they are just monitoring for "proprietary" information. These tests should not be able to hide from transparency under the guise of proprietariness. Next thing you know a kid will be sued for defamation for tweeting that Parcc is "stupid." For-profit concerns should not displace public education.

Whose public education is getting displaced as a result of Pearson's monitoring of social media?

When tests become proprietary data that students, teachers, and parents cannot openly discuss, that is a huge displacement of the proper role of public education.

+1000. I thought the role of education was to learn.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not really any better if they are just monitoring for "proprietary" information. These tests should not be able to hide from transparency under the guise of proprietariness. Next thing you know a kid will be sued for defamation for tweeting that Parcc is "stupid." For-profit concerns should not displace public education.

Whose public education is getting displaced as a result of Pearson's monitoring of social media?

When tests become proprietary data that students, teachers, and parents cannot openly discuss, that is a huge displacement of the proper role of public education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is "real math", and who gets to decide which math is real and which math is fake?

There is truth to math. It is not something made up like creationism.

Then why are people talking about fake math?

Actually the order of operations is made up, or more accurately a social convention. There's no reason it has to be that way.

You are a case in point. The whole problem under discussion is people like you who apparently don't understand important aspects of mAthematics wanting to influence math education. This is really not good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is "real math", and who gets to decide which math is real and which math is fake?

There is truth to math. It is not something made up like creationism.

Then why are people talking about fake math?

Actually the order of operations is made up, or more accurately a social convention. There's no reason it has to be that way.

Mmhmm

Anonymous wrote:

It's not really any better if they are just monitoring for "proprietary" information. These tests should not be able to hide from transparency under the guise of proprietariness. Next thing you know a kid will be sued for defamation for tweeting that Parcc is "stupid." For-profit concerns should not displace public education.

Whose public education is getting displaced as a result of Pearson's monitoring of social media?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is "real math", and who gets to decide which math is real and which math is fake?

There is truth to math. It is not something made up like creationism.

Then why are people talking about fake math?

Actually the order of operations is made up, or more accurately a social convention. There's no reason it has to be that way.

Anonymous wrote:What is "real math", and who gets to decide which math is real and which math is fake?

There is truth to math. It is not something made up like creationism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do car manufacturers monitor customers' use of the car after purchase? For speeding, not wearing seatbelts, texting while driving, etc. And then contact the local authorities to have violators fined or prosecuted?

How is this comparable?

This was a response to this post:

Pretty much every Fortune 500 and lots of other companies and organizations monitor social media for mention of them, particularly anything adverse... this is not at all unprecedented or unusual these days.

I seriously doubt these companies are actively searching social media for the purpose of finding law violations to point out to government authorities. That is what Pearson is doing. Searching children's social media for evidence of rule violation and reporting to schools/state. It's creepy.

Pearson is not searching children's social media for evidence of rule violation. Pearson is monitoring social media for people posting Pearson's proprietary stuff on social media. I'm guessing that the College Board also monitors social media in the same way, for the same reason.

Does it harm a car manufacturer if I speed after I buy a car from them? No. Does it harm testing companies if people post test questions on social media? Yes.

If you don't want companies to monitor your stuff on social media, then don't put stuff on social media.

It's not really any better if they are just monitoring for "proprietary" information. These tests should not be able to hide from transparency under the guise of proprietariness. Next thing you know a kid will be sued for defamation for tweeting that Parcc is "stupid." For-profit concerns should not displace public education.

What is "real math", and who gets to decide which math is real and which math is fake?

I think a problem is that people who are in math education who write these standards and curricula and tests are more focused on, and perhaps were more successful at learning, education-related concepts than math, and also haven't pursued higher math, and so don't know where math education can ultimately lead. So they are focused on teaching within the closed system of math education K-12 rather than knowing how to prepare students for college-level and higher math and what the goals and priorities should be. One priority should be to learn the universal language of real math, and another should be to know how to apply simple rules of math, like orders of operations, correctly.

X100

Anonymous wrote:And this is not true for all math teachers. Many are good. But their hands are tied by the curricula written by these people. There are too many people in STEM fields who are horrified by what is passing for math education now to ignore this disconnect.

Math education in the US has never been good. It happened to work well enough for the people in the STEM fields who grew up in the US, but that didn't make it good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

And this is not true for all math teachers. Many are good. But their hands are tied by the curricula written by these people. There are too many people in STEM fields who are horrified by what is passing for math education now to ignore this disconnect.

I think a problem is that people who are in math education who write these standards and curricula and tests are more focused on, and perhaps were more successful at learning, education-related concepts than math, and also haven't pursued higher math, and so don't know where math education can ultimately lead. So they are focused on teaching within the closed system of math education K-12 rather than knowing how to prepare students for college-level and higher math and what the goals and priorities should be. One priority should be to learn the universal language of real math, and another should be to know how to apply simple rules of math, like orders of operations, correctly.

Anonymous wrote:Here is another example of how many math "educator" types should not be writing the standards for mathematical education--they do not truly understand math, or at least the ones who write these tests do not. They make up tricks that are incorrect OR don't know math well enough to apply the tools and tricks that other math educators come up with.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/455659.page

That is not at all an example of how math educators should not be writing the standards, since an on-line test is at issue, and it's impossible to know who wrote it. If anything, it is an example of how somebody in FCPS picked out a bad on-line test to use.

It's also an example of how "PEMDAS" is a misleading mnemonic, and people should stop using it.