This is worth the close read to get people from being more than a statistical category, and past “improvements were made.” It challenges me, because I could slip into agreeing with the people they mention who think lower achievers should be the higher priority…but there’s that “extreme racial homogeneity” problem. This article includes that students with the same grades and performance are less likely to be recommended for high level courses if they’re not White or Asian… as in *lots* less likely. The other painfully quotable quote:
But teaching advanced concepts to students who had not all had the chance to learn certain basic math skills, like the laws of exponents, proved more difficult than some had anticipated.
“I find they’re not very good at self-advocating when they’re lost or bored,” said another teacher, Marcelle Good. “I guess they’re used to being lost or bored.”
I’m fighting this every day. Many of my students do not really know what it’s like for math to “click” — and/or, if they do, it’s with that external locus of control. It’s not something *they* can work towards.
That’s why I’d have to do some serious adapting of course materials.
(I just looked at the other text option in “Arithmetic for College Students” and … I saw a cool chart for students to check off that they’d done the different elements of the course… but it is compressed and pretty much all about procedures. The Lippman text has a much friendlier presentation and shows rounding on the number line – the visual for why and how.)