UPDATED: Walt Disney Company facing internal pressure over Florida's "don't say gay" bill

Andy,

I think you are spot on. It also has to do with lack of experience with the "others". I grew up in a very homogenous environment, or so I thought, and struggled in my younger years to accept people that were different than me. I had self-esteem issues as well, but that's a story for another time. College changed all that as I met people from different backgrounds who were quite unlike me. Had I never had those relationships and stayed in my bubble I don't think I would be nearly as accepting as I am as now. I thank God that I did.

Math does rule as long as it isn't taught in isolation as a set of procedures to be memorized. I rarely lecture these days but spend more time having discussions with small groups as they put the pieces together. So much fun!

LostKause:

Because of me, they started a monthly secret GLBTQ meetup for teens and a GLBTQ teen hotline when teens needed someone to listen.

Who knows how many lives this has changed and/or (literally) saved. Awesome share, Travis.

Sadly, in the home I grew up in (rural NW Ohio) the "Church Lady" GoBucks linked to was like watching a documentary when I watched SNL, even though I had the self-awareness and intelligence to realize the adults around me were idiots. I think that had a lot to do with my fondness for Carvey and the show, as I had to sneak out of bed to watch it due to not being allowed (it was taboo).

Alluding to what Mulfinator said above, the best thing about being at Ohio State in the 90's was that it was my first chance in life at being surrounded by diversity, and the experiences and relationships formed in those days were life-affirming in countless ways.

ApolloAndy:

...“I’m not good at math.” That’s not even a thing...

I discovered that sometimes when people say, "I'm not good at math," they really mean "I don't like math."

It's an excuse. Saying you're not good at something lowers expectations.

It's a socially acceptable cop out. Without fail when people find out I'm a high school math teacher they feel the need to tell me they were never good at math. I've started replying with "Well, you never had me as your teacher." I don't know how else to respond that doesn't end the conversation. Nobody ever claims to be bad at reading.

As my stalkers might know, I'm currently on a cruise. If you get to know the crew on any cruise, you know that they're from all over the world, with staggeringly different life experiences. They're not people to fear or loathe, they're real folks who hopefully make you appreciate what you have, and where you've been. Tonight I talked to a guy from India (Catholic, no less, an Indian minority), who worked his way up to officer after 20 years. And he wouldn't have it any other way, working these ridiculous daily shifts 12 hours a day, six months at a time. Why? Because the diverse people that he's met have greatly enriched his life.

It's not an exaggeration to say that I've grown to love the people I've met in this context. Especially over food and drink, we have so much in common. The LGBTQ people that you encounter, which admittedly compose a complex cross-section of people, are not people that different from you. They're certainly not people to fear.

Mulfinator:

I've started replying with "Well, you never had me as your teacher."

I've thought the same and believe the same, but would probably not say it out loud. There are almost certainly people out there who, for whatever reason, would still not like math or feel confident about math when I was done with them. ;)

As others have said: having a good instructor makes a big difference between "Math is okay I guess" and "I hate it with a white hot passion."

Math (or, rather, "mathematical maturity") is a skill, like any other skill, and anyone can develop it. Like any other skill, this development takes practice and reflection. Like any other skill, this development is a lot more efficient when you have strong and informed guidance about how to practice and on what to reflect.

Granted, some people find it an easier skill to develop than others do, but that's just a matter of degree, not something that is or is not. It's also easier for some people to find the motivation to practice and reflect. My son is a good example of this. He was really geeked about the fact that he did not have to take any math to get his AB degree, and so he did not. But, as he got deeper into research and realized he had to learn how to interpret data, he invested a lot more in a solid grounding in statistics.

There seem to be two general failure modes in K-12 math instruction, plus what might be a local structural problem. The first failure mode is the instructor who doesn't particularly understand or like math themselves, but is required to teach it as part of their overall classroom duties. This seems to be at least somewhat common in elementary grades. The second failure mode is the instructor who loves math, and ends up teaching it at too high a level of abstraction without more grounded motivation. This can be a problem at any level.

The structural problem is that students are not always graded for correctness, but rather effort. This seemed to crop up for us at the middle school level, and it was fairly consistent across several different instructors in two different buildings (the K-8 school and the high school both my kids attended.) Both kids had a couple of different classes where they were getting good scores on homeworks, but not doing well on the exams, and that was because they were not learning the correct method but didn't realize it until later. We had to help them get in the habit of checking the answers themselves against the key and ask for help when they weren't getting things quite right. I am not sure if this is an "Open School" thing, an Ann Arbor thing, or something that is more broadly done in math instruction. These are generally considered "good" schools, and the math instructors were competent mathematicians at the level of instruction.

kpjb:

Let's just say for a second that your statement is based in reality, and that's what this law is about. You're okay with an adult going up to rando children 6-8 years old on a playground and talking about the joys of vaginal sex?

Because, see, that's creepy no matter what your orientation. But saying "hi, I'm Jake. This is my boyfriend Pete" is not.

I never advocated for anyone talking to children on a playground about the joys of vaginal sex. Talk about not being based in reality. Pedophiles don't approach children with speaking of any kind of penetration as an opening line. The fact of the matter is, if I was to talk to children about anything sexual in nature, you would be reporting me to the authorities.

Also, the bill had zero to do with pictures of significant others on a desk. What it had to do with is wanting to discuss a child's sexual orientation or their sexual identity at an age that is highly inappropriate. Kids that age are not thinking about that.

You're wrong, because that picture on the desk would in fact violate the law. You have to be a special kind of stupid if you really believe this is about protecting children, because the "problem" it tries to solve doesn't exist. The legislators and governor have said out loud that this is about fear of LGBTQ people. They don't even try to disguise it. You're throwing up strawman arguments. I'd respect you more if you just said "gay people frighten me." At least it would be intellectually honest.

Brian Noble:

The structural problem is that students are not always graded for correctness, but rather effort.

I'm going to disagree with this. I think the problem is that students are graded too much on their ability to correctly perform algorithms by rote with no (often literally zero) understanding of why they work, how they apply, and how they might be modified or expanded. I think that's why word problems are so intimidating to so many students. "I know how to divide a three digit number by a two digit number, but I have no idea when, why, or how that pertains to a real life situation."

I was/am a gigantic fan of Common Core because it attempted to integrate those questions into the early introductions of those algorithms. The two digit multiplication method was exactly the same that will be used to FOIL binomials of any type in algebra, calculus, and in any base. I'm sad that Common Core got so much resistance because "that's not how I learned it 30 years ago, even though that method ultimately failed me."

That is an interesting perspective, Andy. Both of my kids have done well in math...largely without me. My son passed my skill level in 7th grade and he was basically on his own from then on. Common Core seemed to have worked out fine for them...much to my surprise.

My math education story that nobody asked for…

I was a good math student and enjoyed it. I win the Freshman Mathematics award at the college I attended while pursuing an Actuarial Science degree. I was asked to give a presentation I had prepared for a statistics class to the math faculties of my college and high school when they had a joint meeting to discuss what high schools could do better to prepare students for college. I sat in on their round table, too.

Then I got to my junior year and the first of three courses that were specific actuarial courses. No matter how hard I tried I could not adapt to the professor’s teaching style. He was very much a class participation guy and I was very much a sit in the back, take notes, and figure it out guy. It was pure stress and I lost both my enjoyment of math and my desire to ever become an actuary. I don’t blame the professor but eventually I stopped attending class and just went to the library during that time and taught myself. I did get the degree but never seriously pursued a career in that field.

I’m not sure what the point is other than I can sort of sympathize with students who hate math or any subject and agree that teaching styles matter.

I love math debating.

And I’m very disappointed that it took our community 20+ replies before some idiot made that joke.

ApolloAndy:

I'm going to disagree with this.

It’s possible that this was a local-to-my-kids-schools phenomenon.

ApolloAndy:

I've thought the same and believe the same, but would probably not say it out loud. There are almost certainly people out there who, for whatever reason, would still not like math or feel confident about math when I was done with them. ;)

I've only said it to old friends I haven't seen in years. I don't think I would ever say that to a complete stranger. I might imply that they may have not had the best math teachers.

Brian Noble:
There seem to be two general failure modes in K-12 math instruction, plus what might be a local structural problem. The first failure mode is the instructor who doesn't particularly understand or like math themselves, but is required to teach it as part of their overall classroom duties. This seems to be at least somewhat common in elementary grades. The second failure mode is the instructor who loves math, and ends up teaching it at too high a level of abstraction without more grounded motivation. This can be a problem at any level.

I think you are correct on this. Elementary teachers have to be skilled in teaching many different subjects. Rightfully elementary districts put a high emphasis on reading instruction but math is a completely different beast. I can't speak for other states but the compensation structure for elementary school teachers versus high school teachers is out of whack in Illinois. If I were to leave my high school teaching position for a middle school position in one of the local districts I would take a $30k pay cut.

ApolloAndy:
The two digit multiplication method was exactly the same that will be used to FOIL binomials of any type in algebra, calculus, and in any base. I'm sad that Common Core got so much resistance because "that's not how I learned it 30 years ago, even though that method ultimately failed me."

Yes! And you can use it to factor trinomials and divide polynomials too! Common core has emphasize structure and patterns over rote procedure.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Analyses/h1557b.JDC.PDF

Nothing in the actual bill confirms anything you just stated.

Mulfinator:

Common core has emphasize structure and patterns over rote procedure.

I learned math the old school way. My only experience with common core was when our oldest son was using a matrix to do multiplication. That way seemed more difficult to me.

I am guessing that there is more to common core than what I saw of it for doing multiplication. I always thought that the old school way of multiplying was very structured. You line everything up and multiply the 1's column, then the 10's, 100's etc. Put the correct number of 0's in as the placeholder and all was well.

It is definitely marginally more complicated, but the reason is because the way you (and most of America) were taught is a shortcut that doesn't connect the algorithm to what's actually going on. I'm curious if you know why the "old school" way works and, for instance, what the placeholders are there for.

More specifically, when you go to multiply two binomials (x+1) * (2x+3) the matrix method works exactly the same and the "old school" way doesn't work at all.

Multiplying 123 x 24 the old school way works because it breaks it down to (123 x 4) + (123 x 20). And no I don't remember which property covers that:)