White privilege bolstered by teaching math

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2017, 05:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://education.illinois.edu/faculty/rg1

Probably because she's not just a "mathematics teacher"?

Curriculum and Instruction (which my masters is in). Makes sense considering her chapter was challenging curricula, equity in education, and the importance of mathematics versus other content areas. Basically the discipline looks at historical and current trends in teaching, assessment, and curricula development and seek to improvement teaching practices to meet the needs of our current learners. 


I'd have to read her entire chapter in the book (and likely look at other chapters for context) before giving a professional opinion on her views. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2017, 06:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Her ability to keep employment is literally based upon being a race baiter.

"Dr. Gutierrez' scholarship focuses on equity issues in mathematics education, paying particular attention to how race, class, and language affect teaching and learning."


If she concluded "they need more 2-parent families, their parents need to work with them more at home when they're particularly young, and they need to try harder" then she'd be unemployed. The only way she keeps getting money is if she can keep focusing on "equity issues" in "race".

Note it doesn't say IF it is due to race. It says HOW it is due to race.

race, class, and language all affect education. It's an accepted fact within education. I'd argue class is the biggest factor (and one of the reasons why we lag behind many other nations), but there's racial and language implications there. The current trend in education is finding ways to meet the diverse needs of our learners .

It also doesn't end with those three factors, but given that she is a latina woman, I can see why she focuses her own work in that area. 

[Dill]

(10-30-2017, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly who would those people be?  I'm interested in the labels you have chosen to apply to people.

William Shatner called, he wants to take arrogance classes from you.  He thought he was good but is literally in awe of how much more full of himself he could get.

An interesting choice of words.  I tend to view your posts as talking at people, not to/with them.  Belsnickel, Benton, Leonard, Zona, those are people who I view as actually engaging in  discussion (apologies to any I missed, this list is by no means exhaustive).  Just a friendly piece of advice, near non-stop condescension isn't a very effective way of communicating.

LOL, So when I speak of right and left posters I am "choosing" to apply labels to people. What are you doing when you protect the forum from "leftists"?

Something in my posts makes you feel condescended to. You are unable to specify it, but you have to talk about the feeling and charge me with "arrogance."

Just for the record: On thread after thread I have responded civilly to baiting posts from you (like the one cited above). When asked to define "liberal democracy" or explain scholarly standards, or whatever, I have done so with care and exactness. And I have answered follow up questions.

In response to my posts, you have called me "duplicitous," a "condescending ass," a plagiarizer and an "ideologue" who cannot be reasoned with, and expressed your "disgust" at my "ilk." I have never responded in kind. When I have politely asked you to leave off the personal abuse, you have taken that as more "condescension" and ramped it up.

I tend to view name calling as talking at people, not to/with them. Not a very effective way of communicating. Most of the model posters you list above probably agree because they never resort to personal abuse.

I have never refused to answer a question or explain a point to you or anyone in this forum or the previous one. But I am going to make an exception in your case. If you want to focus on the topic/substance on the thread I will gladly continue with you. But I am not going back and forth with you about my "condescension" or whatever triggers your anger.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2017, 11:38 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, So when I speak of right and left posters I am "choosing" to apply labels to people.

You didn't "speak" of them, you specifically counted the number.  I merely asked you to expound on your already admitted labeling.

Quote:What are you doing when you protect the forum from "leftists"?

I don't recall ever making such a statement.  maybe you're exaggerating, either intentionally or otherwise.  maybe you're outright lying, a not unheard of occurence.  Feel free to produce proof of your claim though, I'll be here to respond.

Quote:Something in my posts makes you feel condescended to.

Yes, your blatant condescension.

Quote:You are unable to specify it, but you have to talk about the feeling and charge me with "arrogance."

Chortle, I just quoted a prime example in the post you just responded to.  Is your memory that poor?

Quote:Just for the record: On thread after thread I have responded civilly to baiting posts from you (like the one cited above). When asked to define "liberal democracy" or explain scholarly standards, or whatever, I have done so with care and exactness. And I have answered follow up questions.

Yes, you are quite the scholarly saint.

Quote:In response to my posts, you have called me "duplicitous," a "condescending ass," a plagiarizer and an "ideologue" who cannot be reasoned with, and expressed your "disgust" at my "ilk." I have never responded in kind. When I have politely asked you to leave off the personal abuse, you have taken that as more "condescension" and ramped it up.

I apologized for the plagiarism comment.  Once offered either accept the apology or don't, but stfu about it henceforth.  As to the rest, I'll point out that much of it is true and that which is half true is deliberately misstated by you.  I'll leave the reader to discern which is which.

Quote:I tend to view name calling as talking at people, not to/with them. Not a very effective way of communicating. Most of the model posters you list above probably agree because they never resort to personal abuse.

Probably, but they have more patience with inanity than I do outside of work.  That aside this point by you rather looks like "I know you are but what am I?"

Quote:I have never refused to answer a question or explain a point to you or anyone in this forum or the previous one. But I am going to make an exception in your case. If you want to focus on the topic/substance on the thread I will gladly continue with you. But I am not going back and forth with you about my "condescension" or whatever triggers your anger.

Cool.  I'll just wait around to point out your further condescension.  Remember, your sources are scholars, everyone else's are not.  Your polls are accurate and to be trusted, everyone else's are garbage.  Stay consistent my friends.

[Dill]

(10-30-2017, 10:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Curriculum and Instruction (which my masters is in). Makes sense considering her chapter was challenging curricula, equity in education, and the importance of mathematics versus other content areas. Basically the discipline looks at historical and current trends in teaching, assessment, and curricula development and seek to improvement teaching practices to meet the needs of our current learners.

I'd have to read her entire chapter in the book (and likely look at other chapters for context) before giving a professional opinion on her views. 

Your assessment is on the money. I have read a couple of things by Guiterrez. She has an article on "The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education" in The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2013, vol 44. no 1.  (That whole issue is devoted to equity in math instruction.)  The goal of that essay is more or less to lay out the need for a sociopolitical turn and the obstacles it faces and the positives for students.

I am not a "critical race theorist" (yet), but I am becoming more and more interested in the history of legal definitions of race and the ways in which racial identity informs daily life, both wittingly and unwittingly. Guiterrez essay, and others in the equity issue of JRME, expanded my horizon a bit, as I began to see how framing instruction in terms of the identities students bring to the classroom might lead to more success there.  (I once read a piece by a teacher complaining of students in certain Philadelphia districts who viewed doing well in math (sometimes in school generally) as "acting white"--a very disempowering attitude to bring to school.)

The juxtaposition of math and sociopolitics is interesting since people often learn or tend to think of math as "above it all" and totally separate from the social environments in which it is learned and applied.