Rhetoric and Civic Life

First and foremost, welcome to any of my new readers. For those of you who are new to the blogs, throughout these civic blogs, we will be exploring the nuances and controversies surrounding the United States’ educational system.

One of the most common controversies within the educational system is the implementation of Common Core Math standards. Due to the frequent discussion about Common Core, most Americans are familiar with the term. However, not everyone truly understands the meaning and purpose of Common Core math standards.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was developed by a council comprised of governors, teachers, and heads of education. Their goal was to develop a rigorous set of standards for students’ learning. The USA is consistently ranked as one of the worst modern nations in terms of math education. In 2015, the USA was below average in their math scores and were ranked 35th out of the 72 countries tested. These new guidelines for student learning were developed to meet the math skills of countries such as South Korea and Singapore.

The implementation of Common Core math standards also aimed to change the way publishers and test-makers developed curriculum. The ultimate goal was to aim for excellence, not basic proficiency. However, despite the good intentions, Common Core math has been met with resistance and derision from parents across the U.S. As such, this blog will investiagte the pros and cons of Common Core Math (CCM) and the various complexities associated with the topic.

Proponents of CCM usually argue that these standards aid students in their understanding of mathematics. They argue that learning math is like knowing how a car works.
For example, let’s suppose that you turn 16 and are being taught how to drive a car — you are taught how to start the engine, put it in drive, and follow basic traffic laws. Sure, this information is sufficient to drive the car from A to B, but you might stuggle later on in your driving career if you don’t know how to jump start your engine or change a flat.

Analogously, proponents of CCM argue that the old curriculum gave you a basic idea of mathetmatics. The old curriculum made you memorize times tables and learn how to solve basic math problems. However, you might struggle in the future when you are given more complex problems to solve. By learning CCM, students are given a greater understanding of the flexibility of numbers — the fact that there are many ways to solve the same problem.

Conversely, opponents of CCM argue that the new curriculum does more to confuse students than it does to give them greater insights into math. This sentiment seems to resonante with many older Americans. For example, comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Louis C.K. made their dissent public in 2014. Similarly, clips such as this have gone viral of parents expressing their frustration over the complexity of CCM.

Furthermore, opponents of CCM argue that their inexperience with this curriculum of math makes it difficult for them to help their children learn the content. It should also be considered that teachers did not learn math this way. The new CCM standards requires teachers to relearn math so they can properly teach the material.

Jason Zimba, one of the major authors of CCM standards has noted that his daughters’ math education has been “subpar“, even with CCM. Zimba elaborates by saying that the teachers are having a difficult time transitioning to this new method of teaching. Also, that many of the assigned homeworks were developed decades ago — long before CCM was ever created. This is evidence the publishers are lagging behind in the implentation of CCM.

 

On a societal level, I think CCM is a fundamentally good idea. It creates a common set of standards for math education across the United States, and works to ensure that students understand math at a more fundamental level. Back when I was in elementary school, I was held back for extra help in math. I believe this was because I didn’t understand the fundamentals of math. I would memorize how to add or subtract or multiply, but I never understood how those concepts related to one another or how they might be applied in different contexts.

Furthermore, when I eventually moved onto higher-level trigonometry and calculus courses, it was vitally important to understand how numbers worked on a fundamental level. As such, I think that the CCM curriculum, despite its apparent complexity, does an excellent job of expaining the flexibility of numbers and how concepts such as subtraction and multiplication work.

That being said, I do think that there needs to be improvements made to the implementation of CCM. There should be seminars and workshops to teach teachers and parents how to solve using these methods. Any method of learning is bound to fail if the teachers and parents are not comfortable with it. In fact, having parents that are actively anti-CCM may be a major detriment to a student’s learning experience. Learning how to solve math problems with CCM, but being retaught with the old curriculum is both confusing and counterproductive.

Thank you for reading. If you have any contentions or comments I’d be happy to hear them! There are many complexities to the Common Core math curriculum than I cannot reasonably fit into this blog, so if you are confused about any aspect, please comment below and I will respond promptly.

The issue that will be addressed in my issue brief is the problem of bias in stops and searches from the police. I will go into further detail about the exigence of the issue later on, but this issue is an intervention of policy discussion because there have been many policy discussions lately about addressing systemic racism within the criminal justice system. Specifically, the issue brief will investigate different methods of reducing bias in stops and searches, which vary from the standardization of stops to increased funding for mandatory racial bias training.

To establish the existence of this issue, I will use a variety of scholarly resources to establish the ongoing biases in stops and searchers.

For example, a 5-month review of DC police stops and searches was conducted by the ACLU. Among other findings, the ACLU found that there were major disparities that exist between the rates of stops and searches between DC’s white population and DC’s black population. For example, black people are 90% more likely to be stopped than white people. Furthermore, black people are 1575% more likely to receive a warning, ticket, or be arrested after a stop.

It will also be important to establish that this major disparity is a byproduct of racial bias (so we know exactly what the cause needs to be addressed). To establish this fact, I will cite a study published in the journal Nature Human Behavior. This study assessed almost 100,000,000 traffic stops from across the United States. This study reinforces the previous claim that there are disproportionate rates of stopping black Americans.

Furthermore, this study demonstrates that this disproportionate rate is a byproduct of racial bias. The study assesses the rate of stops based on the time of day. The rationale is that it is more difficult to identify a driver’s race if they are driving at night, so if the disproportionate rate of stops disappears after nightfall, then the disproportionate rate of stops during the day is a byproduct of racial bias. And this is exactly what the study found. Specifically, “The results [of the ‘veil of darkness’ statistical analysis] were statistically significant and quantitatively similar in all cases”.

This issue is undoubtedly kairotic. With the reemergence of black lives matter protests and the calls for addressing racial biases in the U.S. (especially as it pertains to racial bias in the justice system), addressing the disparities in traffic stops will serve the goal of addressing ongoing systemic racism in the United States.

Depending on who you ask, the cause of these disparities can be labeled as “intentional” or “inadvertent”. Some people may argue that there are police who are deliberately racist and intentionally target black Americans for traffic stops. Others may argue the disproportionate rate is due to latent or unconscious biases. I would say it is likely a combination of the two categories. Regardless, the important element to focus on is that the disproportionate rates are a byproduct of racial bias. Systemically, it isn’t terribly important whether the bias is conscious or latent; it is more important to create systems that can withstand the existence of racial bias. More accurately, the systems should seek to reduce racial bias in addition to not allowing racial bias to have any effect on policing practices.

The issue brief will explore several possible solutions to addressing this issue. However, these solutions may change according to the research I do.

The first approach will fall under the category of “capacity builders”. A capacity builder is a solution that focuses on educating the members of a group to change their perspectives and norms on a specific issue. This first solution will be to invest in racial bias training. This type of training would require all police stations to have educators teach police about the existence of racial bias and how to address their own racial biases.

The second approach will fall under the category of “system changes”. A system change is a solution that alters the way an institution (the police) functions. Specifically, this solution will seek to standardized the protocol for stops and searches conducted by the police. If processes are standardized, then individual racial biases are less likely to impact policing since the police will have less discretion to enforce the law.

The third and final approach will fall under the category of “inducements”. Inducements are solutions that incentivize individuals to behave a certain way. Specifically, the solution will incentivize police to not stop or search people, and to only do so when absolutely necessary. The incentive could be anything from pay to vacation time.

Of course, this is an oversimplified version of my overbrief, so if you have any questions or concerns regarding any component of the issue brief I would be happy to hear them!

“The hallmark of an oppressive society is the absence of a rich and varied public sphere where citizens can convene to debate vital questions of the day”

One of the most important elements of any democratic society is for its constituents to have the freedom to exchange ideas in an open and free setting. Since the beginning of this democratic ideal, there have been numerous mediums of exchange. One such medium is deliberation. In the past few weeks, my peers and I have moderated and attended several deliberations. Reductively, deliberations are structured discussions in which participants discuss the pros and cons of different solutions to an agreed problem.

And while discussions that occur during deliberations are important, it can be just as important to reflect and introspect on what was learned during the deliberation. Thus, this blog will reflect on our deliberations through the lens of Dr. John Gastil’s criteria of deliberative discussion.

Creating A Solid Information Base

One of the most important elements of any discussion is to ensure that everyone is working off of the same set of facts or ideas.

These facts and ideas can be both empirically verifiable and emotional experiences that inform one’s perspective. I think that all groups did a great job integrating empirical data and statistics into their deliberations and deliberation guides. Even a cursory reading of a deliberation guide would give the reader a good idea of what to expect during the deliberation.

Our group’s deliberation discussed drug abuse and the solution to drug abuse and misuse on college campuses. Our group ended up encouraging participants to share any personal experiences they might have with the issue during the deliberation. However, given the emotional nature of our topic, I wish our group had dedicated a couple of minutes for participants to share any stories or personal experiences they had with the topic.

Our group also included an extensive deliberation guide to help participants get an idea of the research concerning drug abuse and misuse.

Identifying A Broad Range of Solutions

Another important element of deliberation is to a brainstorm variety of solutions to a given problem. If you fail to create a list of solutions to a problem, then you may miss out on a potentially superior solution to a problem.

Every group did an excellent job of creating a list of solutions that were meaningfully different. For example, one of the approaches our group proposed was increasing punishments for misusing drugs, while another approach was decriminalizing drug misuse. Clearly, these solutions are radically different in their approach.

This diversity of solutions was also present in other groups’ deliberations. For example, one of the deliberations I participated in addressed the ethical implications of genetic engineering. One of their approaches was to allow anyone to use genetic engineering, while another approach was to disallow everyone from using genetic editing.

Overall, the diversity of solutions encouraged people to weigh the pros and cons of each approach and ultimately advocate for the solution they believed is the best.

Weighing The Pros And Cons Of Solutions

A necessary component of any deliberation is the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. This process is important in determining the best solution to pursue.

I saw this process utilized effectively in the approach that I moderated. During the discussion of the drug decriminalization approach, most of my peers supported this approach. However, it was apparent that people recognized that this approach may have its limitations. For example, people noted that even if people weren’t punished for drug use, they may avoid drug rehab because of the social stigma that exists surrounding it.

Equally Distributed Speaking Opportunities

In addition to the “logical” or “analytical” components of a deliberation, there are social elements that contribute to the success or failure of a deliberation. One such social element is an equally distributed ability to speak. We’ve all been in debates or discussions in which the content of the debate is overshone by the assertiveness of a participant.

However, I thought that all participants were cognizant of this dynamic. In our deliberation, I did not detect any other participants speaking too frequently or too aggressively. The moderators also made sure to ask different people to speak throughout the deliberation.

I also had this same feeling as a participant in other groups’ deliberations. This feeling was most evident during the deliberation regarding mental health in high schools. It was evidently a topic that impacts many people, and a topic that many students felt very strongly about, but no one’s voice was too strong or too aggressive. This contributed to an atmosphere in which everyone’s voice could be heard.

Considering Other Ideas And Experiences

The ultimate goal of a deliberation is to assess your own beliefs and change them if given a better argument than your own. As such, it is crucially important that you listen to the ideas of others.

In our own deliberation, my peers frequently built upon the arguments made by others which is evidence that people were carefully considering the others’ arguments and integrating them into their own thought processes.

Similarly, during the deliberation on genetic editing, I listened to people who argued that there are certain abnormal conditions that shouldn’t be treated with genetic editing because those conditions don’t actually make peoples’ lives worse. By listening to the argument and considering its validity, I was able to change my mind.

Respecting Other Participants

The basis of any good conversation is the presumption of good faith. Assuming otherwise would prevent oneself from changing their mind on the topic.

It was evident to me that others were acting in good faith during our deliberation. No one deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented arguments, and people were always respectful of the opinions of others.

As a participant, the inclusion of the ground rules and personal stake section reminded me of the uniqueness of everyone’s experiences and encouraged me to engage in the discussion with good faith.

General Reflection

Deliberations and discussions are important elements of any democratic society. By collaborating together on an issue, some semblance of a consensus can usually be reached. This mode of discussion may become increasingly important in a nation that is enduring increasing levels of polarization and extremism. Overall, the deliberations were effective in exchanging ideas and allowed for democratic conversation to thrive.