Florida releases 4 examples from math textbooks it rejected for public schools

[MrNiceGuy]

Poverty and crime go hand in hand? Who knew?

There is no consistent relationship between economics and crime. At both the macro and micro levels, crime is influenced by a variety of factors often independent of economic circumstance. Most violent crime is not motivated by economic issues at all. It is not motivated by money. It is motivated by anger, by disputes, by conflicts between individuals.

Example: The Great Depression - with the Depression on and people widely impoverished by it, crime began to go down, and kept going down for the ’30s decade. In the 1960s, we had the biggest crime boom in our history, and the economy was great. Unemployment was under four percent (4%), there was no inflation, the economy was doing great, and violent crime soared. Also, crime rates fell dramatically from 1990 onward and then there was the 2007–2008 Great Recession. - crime rates did not go up, they continued to fall. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol07x03TheCauseofCrime.pdf

 

[roguenuke]

I don't want them banned either and I'm still fine with not using math textbooks with political questions, discussions, etc. intertwined into the problems.

How dare we show kids that math actually does have a use in the real world. /s

 

[MrNiceGuy]

How dare we show kids that math actually does have a use in the real world. /s

Yes, and in the real world, math's applications are often used for accounting, bookkeeping, engineering and science, finance, stock trading, business administration and the like. Proving that people are racist with suspect pseudoscience like the bogus Implicit Bias Test isn't a "real world" use.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, and in the real world, math's applications are often used for accounting, bookkeeping, engineering and science, finance, stock trading, business administration and the like. Proving that people are racist with suspect pseudoscience like the bogus Implicit Bias Test isn't a "real world" use.

I use math all the time, in both my jobs that I've had (pretty much all of them) as well as on here, in discussions. There is no issue proving statistically that some groups of people hold racial biases more than others. Most teenagers likely already know this from their own lives, when their parents or grandparents have made highly inappropriate comments about others or when neighbors have tried to commit violence against others based on race.

Hell, some of us as teenagers even had to get our siblings on the floor, out of the potential line of gunfire when a relative and his friend started a gun fight with a couple on the other side of a set of apartment buildings because the couple was black and had the nerve to say something to the relative/friend.

 

[HangLow]

You just don't understand that this isn't just a slogan or a bumper sticker, it's a large program with details, and the details matter. You stop at the feel-good name, and you don't know what the content is. That's on you, not me.

get the f**** outta here... with your overstuffed word salads...
be happy that I am not a weak-ass mealie mouth rePuke...
or I would report your lazy ass for plagiarism...
-peace and stop wasting my time...

Bailey lists the problems she sees with the new fad of Social and Emotional Learning in the classroom.
I will list some of them here:

*SEL is ill-defined, unproven and still connected to Common Core.

*SEL standards involve too much introspection for children.

*If SEL seems like character education it’s because it is.

*SEL and psychological profiling.

*Tracking children’s behavior with SEL

*SEL is about raising test scores.

*SEL and Social Impact Bonds and Pay for Success

The Dark Side of Social and Emotional Learning: What Parents Need to Know - Granite Grok

Nancy Bailey wrote an article about the dark side of Social and Emotional Learning. I would suggest that everyone carefully read this article to understand that SEL is much more than just emotional support provided to your child in class. Bailey says, “Good teachers have always built social...

granitegrok.com

YOUR BULL-SHIT...
Any other forum member may and should report your ass...

Florida releases 4 examples from math textbooks it rejected for public schools

That's what I suspected.. One of the things I have been working on is in communities like these is getting rid of the notion that the parent-teacher organization is only of the parents of current students. Far too many people think they have to have kids in the school to get involved...

debatepolitics.com

"It's not the label that's bad, it's the implementation - SEL is ill-defined, unproven and still connected to Common Core. · SEL standards involve too much introspection for children. SEL sets up "standards" about what children should think and feel. SEL also involves the endorsement of Social Impact Bonds and Pay for Success, with many for-profit partners and enablers. So, it's deceptive. The programs include nice activities for children, but SEL is ill-defined and vague - There’s a mish-mash of psycho-social, neuroscience talk, and programs are not always well-explained to parents, or well-understood. SEL involves "character education" which is controversial, because often the concepts are objectionable to both religious parents AND non-religious parents, and SEL involves psychological profiling, behavioral tracking, and narcissistic levels of introspection.

I think it's a bridge too far for the schools to take this kind of thing on. They don't know how to handle these complex emotional issues for entire schools of kids, and it becomes invasive of the parent-child relationship and begins to sound strongly like indoctrination."

 

[HangLow]

To prove the bias you just have to flip it.
Saquesha thinks cops kill 1000 unarmed Black people every year.
About 23 black people were killed by cops in 2018.
How many more unarmed black people does Saquesha think cops killed than actually happened?

was 23 too many or not enough???
how many black men?
how many black women?
how many black boys?
how many black girls?
-peace

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 241 civilians having been shot, 14 of whom were Black, as of April 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,021 fatal shootings.

Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 38 fatal shootings per million of the population as of April 2022.

Number of people shot to death by the police​

in the United States from 2017 to 2022, by race​

People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2024 | Statista

The trend of fatal police shootings in the U.S. seems to only be increasing each year, with 1,097 civilians, 225 of whom were Black, killed by police in 2022.

www.statista.com

 

[Mithrae]

View attachment 67386867

So for public school math students, S= (0.01x +.4x - .2x) AND conservatives are racist!

Maybe they should have had this sort of information in your schooling. The graph suggests implicit biases, which ≠ racism, and it suggests those biases are significant in all of those groups, not just conservatives.

As we've seen, there seems to be a tendency for conservatives to deny that implicit racial biases exist, or if they do then they can't be quantified, or if they can they're pretty rare/insignificant and certainly they don't have any (they're just using 'common sense' or 'general knowledge' or the like). So it's not especially surprising if liberal-leaning folk in general have made more efforts to confront those biases. But, according to that graph, liberal-leaning folk still on average have significant biases.

More reliable data on recruitment biases seems to bear out that such biases do remain quite prevalent.

New research shows racial discrimination in hiring is still happening at the earliest stages - Marketplace

Evan Rose, co-author and Saieh Family Research Fellow at the University of Chicago, discusses how discrimination based on job applicant name is still pervasive

www.marketplace.org

 

[j brown's body]

Yes, and in the real world, math's applications are often used for accounting, bookkeeping, engineering and science, finance, stock trading, business administration and the like. Proving that people are racist with suspect pseudoscience like the bogus Implicit Bias Test isn't a "real world" use.

There is nothing about proving that people ared racism in the graph. It is how they identify themselves based on a survey.

 

[Fishking]

Poverty and crime go hand in hand? Who knew?

Obviously you didn't read the exchange that was happening, or you wouldn't have written something so utterly stupid.

 

[Court Jester]

OK, but if they decided to use crime rates by race or political lean as their example, would that be just peachy?

Yeah, why would they do that? Other than pander to the liberal school board officers who decide to buy these books with OUR tax dollars.

 

[ClaraD]

Here we go!

View attachment 67386861

In a sample set of data using a polynomial model of degree 3, they just happen to use different age groups and how racist they are.

View attachment 67386867

So for public school math students, S= (0.01x +.4x - .2x) AND conservatives are racist!

The bill says schools can teach about slavery and the history of racial segregation and discrimination in an "age-appropriate manner," but the instruction cannot "indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view."

So schools are prohibited from saying that slavery or discrimination is bad? Good grief.

 

[Rickeroo]

The bill says schools can teach about slavery and the history of racial segregation and discrimination in an "age-appropriate manner," but the instruction cannot "indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view."

So schools are prohibited from saying that slavery or discrimination is bad? Good grief.

Most anti-CRT legislation leans on the Civil Rights Act, with prohibitions against teaching that a person, based on their race, is inherently privileged, disadvantaged, or in possession of other traits. Assignment of traits by race is forbidden.

For example, a teacher can teach that Blacks have several times the homicide rate of whites, but can't say it's because criminality is baked in to the Black race.

A teacher can teach slavery, but can't say that the white race is inherently oppressive.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The bill says schools can teach about slavery and the history of racial segregation and discrimination in an "age-appropriate manner," but the instruction cannot "indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view."

So schools are prohibited from saying that slavery or discrimination is bad? Good grief.

Yes, correct. Just like schools are prohibited from saying homosexuality is bad, or that it's bad to run internal combustion engines, or that it is "bad" to smoke and drink, or that it is "bad" to believe in God, or that it is "bad" to not believe in god, or that it is "bad" to masturbate, or that it is "bad" for the Romans to have "decimated" their legions for the offenses of single soldiers, or that hanging criminals for offenses was "bad" - etc. Teachers are not our moral guides.

There was slavery in ancient Rome and Greece, and in studying western civilization in school we learned about slavery in those days, and we also learned about the north Africans enslaving white Europeans. I never needed a teacher to sit and lecture about morality, and why enslavement is morally bad. Moreover, moral judgments are what is gleaned from history, and there are many different moral judgments. One concept in determining morality of actions is called "presentism," and it is the interpretation of past events by present day standards. Should we do so? That, itself, is an interesting moral discussion - and so should we think of the Romans as "bad" because 99% of them viewed slavery as the norm and usual, and certainly not "bad." Should history teachers, when teaching about slavery in ancient Rome, spend class time moralizing about the practice? Good grief, indeed.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

A teacher can teach slavery, but can't say that the white race is inherently oppressive.

An educated teacher would say, if the issue of the morality of slavery came up, that in today's world, slavery is universally condemned and is outlawed in most of the world. However, there are still about 30 million slaves held across north Africa and in the Muslim world, which while ostensibly prohibiting it, allows it in practice. In the past, however, through most of human history, slavery was a legal and accepted concept and practice.

If a high school teacher was going to get into the morality of slavery, a great way to do so would be to have the kids study the reasons why slavery was accepted in past societies, and why a practice so universally condemned today was once believed to be normal and moral - some societies thought slavery to be god-commanded.

Morality depends on one's culture, one's religion, one's philosophy, etc. And, there were full expositions attempting to defend the institution of slavery in the past. These are quite interesting to read. A major writer in this area was George Fitzhugh. See - https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html and https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35481/35481-h/35481-h.htm Many other writers are out there - Thomas Drew, for example. Aristotle wrote about the rightness of slavery - https://www.jstor.org/stable/640902

Remember, it is the mark of an educated mind that a person would be able to entertain an idea without accepting it, and a history teacher is not there to tell us what to think in a moral sense, but to arm us with the historical facts on which to conduct analyses and define morality and/or make value judgments.

Is it a history teacher's job to tell us that an assassination is "bad" (when studying, say, the start of World War One)? Or is it the teacher's job to teach history, and if value judgments are discussed, to study the value judgments, not simply declare one side to be the moral one? Was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand justified? Serbia put up a statue of Gavrilo Princip to honor him, because he was fighting the oppressive Austro-Hungarian Empire in favor of the freedom of the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovna and to allow for the formation of a southern slavic state free of Austro-Hungarian domination. "The shots fired 100 years ago by Gavrilo Princip were not fired at Europe, they were shots for freedom, marking the start of the Serbs' fight for liberation from foreign occupiers." — Milorad Dodik, a Bosnian Serb politician and president of Republika Sprska. - interesting, eh? A man put a bullet in a prince and princess in 1914, and we don't have uniformity of opinion as to what moral judgment to make of it. Some folks have a statue honoring the killer. Others view him as a terrorist.

 

[Rickeroo]

An educated teacher would say, if the issue of the morality of slavery came up, that in today's world, slavery is universally condemned and is outlawed in most of the world. However, there are still about 30 million slaves held across north Africa and in the Muslim world, which while ostensibly prohibiting it, allows it in practice. In the past, however, through most of human history, slavery was a legal and accepted concept and practice.

If a high school teacher was going to get into the morality of slavery, a great way to do so would be to have the kids study the reasons why slavery was accepted in past societies, and why a practice so universally condemned today was once believed to be normal and moral - some societies thought slavery to be god-commanded.

Morality depends on one's culture, one's religion, one's philosophy, etc. And, there were full expositions attempting to defend the institution of slavery in the past. These are quite interesting to read. A major writer in this area was George Fitzhugh. See - https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html and https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35481/35481-h/35481-h.htm Many other writers are out there - Thomas Drew, for example. Aristotle wrote about the rightness of slavery - https://www.jstor.org/stable/640902

Remember, it is the mark of an educated mind that a person would be able to entertain an idea without accepting it, and a history teacher is not there to tell us what to think in a moral sense, but to arm us with the historical facts on which to conduct analyses and define morality and/or make value judgments.

Is it a history teacher's job to tell us that an assassination is "bad" (when studying, say, the start of World War One)? Or is it the teacher's job to teach history, and if value judgments are discussed, to study the value judgments, not simply declare one side to be the moral one? Was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand justified? Serbia put up a statue of Gavrilo Princip to honor him, because he was fighting the oppressive Austro-Hungarian Empire in favor of the freedom of the peoples of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovna and to allow for the formation of a southern slavic state free of Austro-Hungarian domination. "The shots fired 100 years ago by Gavrilo Princip were not fired at Europe, they were shots for freedom, marking the start of the Serbs' fight for liberation from foreign occupiers." — Milorad Dodik, a Bosnian Serb politician and president of Republika Sprska. - interesting, eh? A man put a bullet in a prince and princess in 1914, and we don't have uniformity of opinion as to what moral judgment to make of it. Some folks have a statue honoring the killer. Others view him as a terrorist.

Agreed. Though perfectly valid, your approach deals with moral relativism in general - morals depend on the culture and the times, which would be a part of any well-rounded educational discussion. However, the banned books and anti-CRT laws are a response to what's currently in schools - a decidedly anti-white moral judgement.

 

[ClaraD]

Yes, correct. Just like schools are prohibited from saying homosexuality is bad, or that it's bad to run internal combustion engines, or that it is "bad" to smoke and drink, or that it is "bad" to believe in God, or that it is "bad" to not believe in god, or that it is "bad" to masturbate, or that it is "bad" for the Romans to have "decimated" their legions for the offenses of single soldiers, or that hanging criminals for offenses was "bad" - etc. Teachers are not our moral guides.

There was slavery in ancient Rome and Greece, and in studying western civilization in school we learned about slavery in those days, and we also learned about the north Africans enslaving white Europeans. I never needed a teacher to sit and lecture about morality, and why enslavement is morally bad. Moreover, moral judgments are what is gleaned from history, and there are many different moral judgments. One concept in determining morality of actions is called "presentism," and it is the interpretation of past events by present day standards. Should we do so? That, itself, is an interesting moral discussion - and so should we think of the Romans as "bad" because 99% of them viewed slavery as the norm and usual, and certainly not "bad." Should history teachers, when teaching about slavery in ancient Rome, spend class time moralizing about the practice? Good grief, indeed.

slavery is bad...I don't care who practices it or practiced it....there is no good option to it...it is bad period, it is not just bad, it is evil and putrid and a stain on our history and should 100% be treated that way.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Agreed. Though perfectly valid, your approach deals with moral relativism in general - morals depend on the culture and the times, which would be a part of any well-rounded educational discussion. However, the banned books and anti-CRT laws are a response to what's currently in schools - a decidedly anti-white moral judgement.

Well, right - and elementary school is not the age bracket for a deep dives into the minutia of historical events and nuanced debate on intertemporal morality, theories of morality (different schools such as utilitarian, positivist, consequentialism, etc). A lot of this debate seems to get people thinking that a third grader is ready to learn deep details on the origins of different historical events and how to judge them morally, etc. What the Left wants to do is get to them early and simply tell them what the moral truths are. That used to be the sin of the religious right, when they wanted to inculcate religious ideas in the schools. Now the Left is doing the same thing with their politics, gender theories, race theories and the like - it's to instill a new moral narrative. They don't want to "discuss" slavery in school - they want to tell kids what they're supposed to think and say about it. Any "discussion" that deviates from "agreement" is labeled hate speech. That's how it's done.

 

[j brown's body]

The race issue gets a lot of attention, but why do they ban SEL practices?

 

[Rickeroo]

Well, right - and elementary school is not the age bracket for a deep dives into the minutia of historical events and nuanced debate on intertemporal morality, theories of morality (different schools such as utilitarian, positivist, consequentialism, etc). A lot of this debate seems to get people thinking that a third grader is ready to learn deep details on the origins of different historical events and how to judge them morally, etc. What the Left wants to do is get to them early and simply tell them what the moral truths are. That used to be the sin of the religious right, when they wanted to inculcate religious ideas in the schools. Now the Left is doing the same thing with their politics, gender theories, race theories and the like - it's to instill a new moral narrative. They don't want to "discuss" slavery in school - they want to tell kids what they're supposed to think and say about it. Any "discussion" that deviates from "agreement" is labeled hate speech. That's how it's done.

Absolutey!

 

[Rickeroo]

The race issue gets a lot of attention, but why do they ban SEL practices?

SEL can have race-based affinity groups or other race-based consultation/emotional support. Things like getting all the white kids in a room to talk about their privilege, or have safe spaces for Blacks.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

slavery is bad...I don't care who practices it or practiced it....there is no good option to it...it is bad period, it is not just bad, it is evil and putrid and a stain on our history and should 100% be treated that way.

Not necessarily. In several ancient cultures, slavery was actually a vocational choice. One could choose to be a slave when they had no other prospects for feeding themselves. In exchange for food and shelter, one would agree to become a lifelong servant (slave) to their benefactor. Now, that is not to say that it was acceptable to torture or otherwise abuse one's slave. In fact, abusing one's slave was looked down upon. Other options with slight variations of degree was the indentured servant, where one would agree to serve the master for a given period of time in exchange for some payoff at the end, such as passage to a foreign land.

Unlike American slavery, where involuntary slavery was was based on race, and slave owners assumed their captive slaves were mere property to be done with whatever the owner desired.

 

[ClaraD]

Not necessarily. In several ancient cultures, slavery was actually a vocational choice. One could choose to be a slave when they had no other prospects for feeding themselves. In exchange for food and shelter, one would agree to become a lifelong servant (slave) to their benefactor. Now, that is not to say that it was acceptable to torture or otherwise abuse one's slave. In fact, abusing one's slave was looked down upon. Other options with slight variations of degree was the indentured servant, where one would agree to serve the master for a given period of time in exchange for some payoff at the end, such as passage to a foreign land.

Unlike American slavery, where involuntary slavery was was based on race, and slave owners assumed their captive slaves were mere property to be done with whatever the owner desired.

indentured servitude in exchange for things is not the slavery we are discussing and it was still evil.