One thing I appreciate about this piece is that it points us to a profound question: what exactly do we think is causing wealth inequality? Concretely? We must be able to talk specifically about those causes if we hope to change them.
Poor quality math curricula didn't cause concentration of wealth. Improving them will not be sufficient to fix it. Imagining ourselves as having outsized power is tempting when conditions are bad, which means now is an especially important time to be scrupulous about what power is held by whom.
It is ironic that both of the authors you quote seem to making an unsubstantiated mathematical implication: that the power of math teachers is disproportionate compared to other groups. It's worth asking, as many of us do in our classrooms: "how do we know?" "How can we check?"
I support the impulse to "dig where we stand" -- to start with the power we have in our classrooms. It is not nothing, and we have responsibilities in how we use it. But we're going to have to work with a lot of other people, in a lot of other places, if we're serious about making big change. Implying that the math classroom is more powerful than any other place, or the only place with real power at all, might be intended to be motivational. But it's a motivation that artificially inflates our own importance, while devaluing the contributions of other groups. Both lead away from democracy, not towards it.
Casinos don't rely on patrons having incorrect or incomplete understandings of math. They build their profit into every aspect of the design, leaving enough to chance that *someone* can win, while making sure that it's never possible for *everyone* to win. They might *like* for you to believe that your math knowledge is the reason why you lose money, though. The less energy you have for strengthening cross-group relationships, inquiring critically into power structures, and building something new, the longer they make a profit.
Great thoughts, Myèlene. I’m the author of one of the books Dan critiqued. I agree with your assessment that everyone has a role to play in improving the state of American democracy. However, I maintain that math teachers absolutely do have a disproportionate influence. Here’s why:
The challenge that we’re facing is fundamentally one of irrationality and not analyzing important social issues through a critical lens. Instead, fueled by cable news and ideology-reaffirming social media, we retreat to emotion and fail to ground our disagreements in evidence or logical analysis. Since mathematics is a powerful lens for exactly this (logical analysis), then it stands to reason that math teachers have more influence in this regard than, say, the PE teacher or school nurse.
If we were talking about, say, obesity, then the health teacher might have the outsized role to play. But we’re not. Instead, the problem is deeper than that. Our acerbic discourse and counter-productive politics are rooted in a lack of reason. Since math teachers are the guardians of that toolset, then yes, they do have the largest role to play in starting a course correction.
(That said, I agree with Dan’s point that it isn’t necessarily fair to ask teachers to assume such a huge burden. He’s right: media moguls and technologists broke democracy, so the onus should be on them to fix it. But they won’t. They make too much money by polluting our discourse, just as oil companies make too much money by polluting our air. We as math educators may not have started the problem, but I believe we are the last line of defense.)
Mylène asks "which groups of PEOPLE have the power to fix this?" and you read that as "which groups of TEACHERS have the power here?" That's a really important difference. You're still looking to the classroom for solutions to problems that weren't created in the classroom, problems of a scale that classrooms have never yet solved, problems intentionally caused by people with vastly more resources than people in classrooms.
> He’s right: media moguls and technologists broke democracy, so the onus should be on them to fix it. But they won’t.
Media moguls and technologists aren't actually my targets. My targets are the people who exploit our environment, our workers, our people, to hoard wealth and power for themselves far above what anyone can possibly justify on the basis of hard work, morality, ingenuity, etc. Like you, I don't expect them to relinquish their power willing. We have to take it from them. Teachers will play a role in that process, but we envision that role quite differently.
Mylène - really glad to see you still thinking about edu-stuff.
I’m not familiar with who and what you’re interacting with Dan, but what this discussion inspires in me is the idea of what assumptions and conclusions are made by people writing comments on social media, or anywhere for that matter. I see faulty logic again and again. It seems like our whole education system would have plenty to do in this regard. It seems that a question that should be asked in every subject is what assumptions are your conclusions based on? Perhaps mathematics is where the structure of logic might be centered? Or perhaps every subject should establish its own structure of logic and continually have this reflective circle of discourse around assumptions and conclusions.
Does this make sense to you and apply in any way to the topic you addressed?
I think your implicit left wing bias shows in your recommended sources and your comments. Example: where you imply voter suppression in your commentary, I would see it as ensuring voter integrity. Both sides need to be respected as they are both elements that need to be balanced in the democratic Republic we call the US. You don't seem to do that. I have a lot of admiration for you Dan as a Mathematician, but please leave the politics out of math. Politics has ruined everything and if you continue on this road, you will ruin math as well.
Really beautifully written, Dan. Poetic. Unfortunately, your argument is problematic on two fronts.
First, my argument in “Dear Citizen Math” is that the way we’ve historically taught math is incomplete in that it overlooks math as a tool for exploring actual issues in society. The brokenness of democracy isn’t simply a justification for *why* we as math educators need to expand our understanding of what constitutes a complete math education. More, it’s evidence of the consequence of our having not.
Second, you claim that I find “common cause” with billionaires and that I don’t address the underlying issues. That’s false. In fact, the first chapter specifically addresses the role of cable news and social media in undermining American discourse. And there’s an entire chapter about the damage wrought by Facebook, Twitter, etc, and the dangers of personalization. (Page 107: “As we saw with cable news and social media, the personalization of facts may have broken our democracy. The personalization of school may ensure it’s never fixed.”)
I admire your passion, Dan. I love the way you write. On the first point, though, your argument is incomplete. And on the second, I fear that it’s dishonest.
Thanks for the response, Karim. If your argument were limited to "math is incomplete without exploring social issues," you'd get no disagreement from me. But your claim throughout the book is much stronger than that. You say math teachers "may have more influence over the trajectory of democracy than *anyone else in the country*," a huge claim, one which places an unfair burden on teachers and distracts us from the systems that actually influence the trajectory of democracy.
And, yes, you do reserve sharp criticism for social media and cable news. But with each critique, you continually turn back to teachers and their curriculum to fix them. Billionaires do too, many of whom have education philanthropies. And all of them would prefer we focus on curriculum and instruction instead of on their wealth, how they got it, and how it exacerbates every problem you describe in your book.
I agree with much of what you’re saying. And I understand why you think my placement of the onus on teachers to fix democracy is unfair. Believe me, it makes me angry what certain (maybe all) billionaires have done to us as a society. I wish they’d fix what they broke.
But I don’t think they will. Their toxicity is simply too profitable. (You’ll recall my discussion of how much MSNBC, Fox News, and Facebook make from advertising each year.)
Do I want teachers to bear all of this burden? Of course not. But if they don’t, who will? The way I see it, math class really may be our last best hope for fixing what ails us. I agree with you: it’s isn’t fair. But as a practical matter, do you see an alternative?
Sir, please forgive my ignorance. I did not yet read your book, I hope to one day. I must defend Dan Meyer. I do not believe both points you show are entirely true: Dan's entire career is spent trying to adjust American mathematics in schools to address societal issues through an overall and comprehensive approach. I do believe I agree with your analysis of historical math teaching, though, and though I've not proof from your writing and research, I'm sure you've evidence. Wherein his address of "common cause" alignment with those situated such that scapegoating on the teaching profession seems justified, I think you both are pointing out a factor that educators have opportunity to create mindsets in their students (or try to shape). Thank you {Phoenix Koh}
One thing I appreciate about this piece is that it points us to a profound question: what exactly do we think is causing wealth inequality? Concretely? We must be able to talk specifically about those causes if we hope to change them.
Poor quality math curricula didn't cause concentration of wealth. Improving them will not be sufficient to fix it. Imagining ourselves as having outsized power is tempting when conditions are bad, which means now is an especially important time to be scrupulous about what power is held by whom.
It is ironic that both of the authors you quote seem to making an unsubstantiated mathematical implication: that the power of math teachers is disproportionate compared to other groups. It's worth asking, as many of us do in our classrooms: "how do we know?" "How can we check?"
I support the impulse to "dig where we stand" -- to start with the power we have in our classrooms. It is not nothing, and we have responsibilities in how we use it. But we're going to have to work with a lot of other people, in a lot of other places, if we're serious about making big change. Implying that the math classroom is more powerful than any other place, or the only place with real power at all, might be intended to be motivational. But it's a motivation that artificially inflates our own importance, while devaluing the contributions of other groups. Both lead away from democracy, not towards it.
Casinos don't rely on patrons having incorrect or incomplete understandings of math. They build their profit into every aspect of the design, leaving enough to chance that *someone* can win, while making sure that it's never possible for *everyone* to win. They might *like* for you to believe that your math knowledge is the reason why you lose money, though. The less energy you have for strengthening cross-group relationships, inquiring critically into power structures, and building something new, the longer they make a profit.
Great thoughts, Myèlene. I’m the author of one of the books Dan critiqued. I agree with your assessment that everyone has a role to play in improving the state of American democracy. However, I maintain that math teachers absolutely do have a disproportionate influence. Here’s why:
The challenge that we’re facing is fundamentally one of irrationality and not analyzing important social issues through a critical lens. Instead, fueled by cable news and ideology-reaffirming social media, we retreat to emotion and fail to ground our disagreements in evidence or logical analysis. Since mathematics is a powerful lens for exactly this (logical analysis), then it stands to reason that math teachers have more influence in this regard than, say, the PE teacher or school nurse.
If we were talking about, say, obesity, then the health teacher might have the outsized role to play. But we’re not. Instead, the problem is deeper than that. Our acerbic discourse and counter-productive politics are rooted in a lack of reason. Since math teachers are the guardians of that toolset, then yes, they do have the largest role to play in starting a course correction.
(That said, I agree with Dan’s point that it isn’t necessarily fair to ask teachers to assume such a huge burden. He’s right: media moguls and technologists broke democracy, so the onus should be on them to fix it. But they won’t. They make too much money by polluting our discourse, just as oil companies make too much money by polluting our air. We as math educators may not have started the problem, but I believe we are the last line of defense.)
Mylène asks "which groups of PEOPLE have the power to fix this?" and you read that as "which groups of TEACHERS have the power here?" That's a really important difference. You're still looking to the classroom for solutions to problems that weren't created in the classroom, problems of a scale that classrooms have never yet solved, problems intentionally caused by people with vastly more resources than people in classrooms.
> He’s right: media moguls and technologists broke democracy, so the onus should be on them to fix it. But they won’t.
Media moguls and technologists aren't actually my targets. My targets are the people who exploit our environment, our workers, our people, to hoard wealth and power for themselves far above what anyone can possibly justify on the basis of hard work, morality, ingenuity, etc. Like you, I don't expect them to relinquish their power willing. We have to take it from them. Teachers will play a role in that process, but we envision that role quite differently.
Mylène - really glad to see you still thinking about edu-stuff.
Dan, this is so well written. Great job, you are spot on! I will be sharing this for sure! Thanks, Mitch!
I’m not familiar with who and what you’re interacting with Dan, but what this discussion inspires in me is the idea of what assumptions and conclusions are made by people writing comments on social media, or anywhere for that matter. I see faulty logic again and again. It seems like our whole education system would have plenty to do in this regard. It seems that a question that should be asked in every subject is what assumptions are your conclusions based on? Perhaps mathematics is where the structure of logic might be centered? Or perhaps every subject should establish its own structure of logic and continually have this reflective circle of discourse around assumptions and conclusions.
Does this make sense to you and apply in any way to the topic you addressed?
I think your implicit left wing bias shows in your recommended sources and your comments. Example: where you imply voter suppression in your commentary, I would see it as ensuring voter integrity. Both sides need to be respected as they are both elements that need to be balanced in the democratic Republic we call the US. You don't seem to do that. I have a lot of admiration for you Dan as a Mathematician, but please leave the politics out of math. Politics has ruined everything and if you continue on this road, you will ruin math as well.
Really beautifully written, Dan. Poetic. Unfortunately, your argument is problematic on two fronts.
First, my argument in “Dear Citizen Math” is that the way we’ve historically taught math is incomplete in that it overlooks math as a tool for exploring actual issues in society. The brokenness of democracy isn’t simply a justification for *why* we as math educators need to expand our understanding of what constitutes a complete math education. More, it’s evidence of the consequence of our having not.
Second, you claim that I find “common cause” with billionaires and that I don’t address the underlying issues. That’s false. In fact, the first chapter specifically addresses the role of cable news and social media in undermining American discourse. And there’s an entire chapter about the damage wrought by Facebook, Twitter, etc, and the dangers of personalization. (Page 107: “As we saw with cable news and social media, the personalization of facts may have broken our democracy. The personalization of school may ensure it’s never fixed.”)
I admire your passion, Dan. I love the way you write. On the first point, though, your argument is incomplete. And on the second, I fear that it’s dishonest.
Thanks for the response, Karim. If your argument were limited to "math is incomplete without exploring social issues," you'd get no disagreement from me. But your claim throughout the book is much stronger than that. You say math teachers "may have more influence over the trajectory of democracy than *anyone else in the country*," a huge claim, one which places an unfair burden on teachers and distracts us from the systems that actually influence the trajectory of democracy.
And, yes, you do reserve sharp criticism for social media and cable news. But with each critique, you continually turn back to teachers and their curriculum to fix them. Billionaires do too, many of whom have education philanthropies. And all of them would prefer we focus on curriculum and instruction instead of on their wealth, how they got it, and how it exacerbates every problem you describe in your book.
I agree with much of what you’re saying. And I understand why you think my placement of the onus on teachers to fix democracy is unfair. Believe me, it makes me angry what certain (maybe all) billionaires have done to us as a society. I wish they’d fix what they broke.
But I don’t think they will. Their toxicity is simply too profitable. (You’ll recall my discussion of how much MSNBC, Fox News, and Facebook make from advertising each year.)
Do I want teachers to bear all of this burden? Of course not. But if they don’t, who will? The way I see it, math class really may be our last best hope for fixing what ails us. I agree with you: it’s isn’t fair. But as a practical matter, do you see an alternative?
Sir, please forgive my ignorance. I did not yet read your book, I hope to one day. I must defend Dan Meyer. I do not believe both points you show are entirely true: Dan's entire career is spent trying to adjust American mathematics in schools to address societal issues through an overall and comprehensive approach. I do believe I agree with your analysis of historical math teaching, though, and though I've not proof from your writing and research, I'm sure you've evidence. Wherein his address of "common cause" alignment with those situated such that scapegoating on the teaching profession seems justified, I think you both are pointing out a factor that educators have opportunity to create mindsets in their students (or try to shape). Thank you {Phoenix Koh}