Last week, I received an email from Tyler, a long forgotten university student* from, coincidentally, 1990. Tyler wrote,
Marty,
I had you as a sophomore differential equations student in the fall of ‘90 at Rice University. I almost certainly deserved to fail that class, but you recognized my effort (and panic) and helped me turn towards being a better learner. I wanted you to know the impact you had on me and how I appreciate the confidence you instilled in me through your positive and nurturing help. I’m sure I speak for many other young engineering students coming from American public high schools and trying to keep up with such a rapid acceleration in the pace of learning required to survive at Rice when I say a big THANK YOU for being empathetic and human in some of my toughest days. Your teaching made a difference to a generation of Rice students now in our 50s. Blessings to you!
It was a lovely email to receive, of course, but why post it here? It is not in order to talk myself up.
Well, yes, it is in order to talk myself up. It is exhausting being the target, to always be the Bad Guy, and I would like readers to know that at least in the past I had a Jekyll side, that I have not always been an asshole. But it is not the main reason to post it.
To begin, and to clarify, I am also not an asshole now. It is understandable, however, why Stephen and David and Peter and David and Kaye, and sundry others, might find that difficult to believe. Whatever Good Guy help I offer, both visible and not, the blog is often enough aggressive and, well, pretty nasty.
A few years back, a member of VCAA’s inner sanctum, let’s call them Joanne, sent me an email. Joanne’s email was very friendly, was inspired by her own only semi-successful efforts to have VCAA admit to a screw-up, and ended with “Keep up the good fight”. Joanne also noted, however, that, as an occasional (unnamed) semi-target of the blog, she found the “strident criticism” on the blog “bracing”. Fair enough. But I was not always so “bracing”.
I started my popularisation thing with the MAV in 2001, with Burkard joining in the following year. Then, in 2005, I quietly and accidentally began my education crusade, with an MAV Conference session: Signs on the Road to Mediocrity: A History of Exams in Victoria. The talk was silly and clumsy but, luckily, was also very poorly attended. There was an important point to be made but the point was not well thought out or clearly delivered. In the next few years, I wrote a few critical articles and gave a few critical talks on mathematics education, but not many and they were relatively restrained, well within the boundaries of accepted discourse. Most of my public work still involved being a friendly and funny populariser, and even when not I was still typically trying to avoid attacking, at least directly, educational big shots. Mostly, I was still trying to get along.
That began to change around 2010, with the (first) Australian Curriculum looming. From the early framing and early draft, it was clear that the curriculum was going to be a debacle: suffused with the language of deeper meaning but shallow and confused in substance, and obsessed with “technology” and “numeracy”. It was also clear that there was essentially no visible or organised opposition to the proposed curriculum. So, I decided, with Burkard happily roped in, to be the opposition. With zero effect, of course, but I considered it my job.
Still, I mostly continued to play nice. Burkard and I continued to write our popularisation newspaper articles, with only the occasional polemics, and we continued to work happily with the MAV, being their on-call friendly and funny popularisers. I was also still trying to come to terms with the maths ed world, figuring out how a thoughtful and community conscious mathematician might do good, beyond being a friendly and funny populariser.
In 2011, I was the warm-up act for a little workshop on “quantitive numeracy”. I was there simply to entertain and I gave a version of my Numerology talk, but I stuck around for the other talks; I was still looking to learn about this world. A young education academic gave a talk on “maths anxiety”, which didn’t make a lot of sense to me; I had not yet learned what a large and silly industry was being built around this nonsense. Some of the talk had to do with the learning of arithmetic, although of course it wasn’t called that, and at the end of the talk I asked, gently, a question: whether the speaker was of the opinion that kids must learn their multiplication tables by heart. She hesitated, both unsure of what she thought and how safe it was to say it; she offered a halting no, and haltingly enquired of my opinion. I politely declined to answer. Of course, and although I would still never seek to embarrass a young academic in such a public forum, I would not now be so silent.
Things then began to gather steam. The idiotic Australian Curriculum went live in 2014, and I was steadily learning about the madness of King VCAA. MAV still kept inviting me to give keynotes and I made them more and more polemical. This resulted in the inevitable explosion, in 2016, when the MAV proved itself the loyal servant and lapdog of VCAA and sought to censor me. After that, and to say the least, the MAV had no further interest in me, and I had even less interest in them. I no longer cared about having a seat at any edu-table, and none were going to be offered. I started the blog soon after.
Not long after the blog began, I ran into a teacher, let’s call them Richard. Richard had long been a supporter of me while also being a member of VCAA’s inner sanctum. Richard was a very polite and very kind person, or at last presented as such, and thus was very taken aback by the blog. They asked, very directly,
“Why Does Your Blog Have to Be so Nasty?”
What to say. Richard was trying to be a voice of reason within VCAA, and I was now looking to burn down the building. Could Richard be collegial with both me and DLL?
So, no, Richard could not “legally” work with both me and DLL. In the end, and soon, Richard made his choice. He turned out to be remarkably traitorous. Similarly, and although trying to do good within the inner sanctum, Joanne apparently had a role in the 2022 debacle.
A week or so ago, a good friend, let’s call him Albert, texted me about his current battle with some idiocy:
“I hate that you were right that the only way to deal with this shit is to throw grenades”.
Ignoring the rather gross mixing of metaphors, is it true? Is the only way to deal with maths ed idiocy by throwing grenades? No.
Albert, who is almost universally liked and respected, is a quiet but powerful force in Australian maths ed. He does a hell of a lot of good without throwing grenades, and he could not do the good he does if he were also to throw grenades. But someone has to throw grenades. Someone has to be willing to declare purely and simply and loudly and often, “This is bullshit”.
The maths ed authorities have not listened to reason, for decades.** Someone has to throw the grenades. So, who’s it gonna be? I would love it if someone else were willing to take on the role of Bad Guy. I would love to retire, to get back to Jane Austen and watching the Saints get beaten week after week. But no on else is gonna do it, are they? If they even could.
Why does my blog have to be so nasty? Because, at least for now and the foreseeable future, someone has to be that nasty, and no one else is willing to do it.
*) I remembered Tyler after he sent me a photo.
**) There was a rare window of sanity at VCAA when Kylie White was in charge. It is unclear how much that window is still open.
There is an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In this case, however, the honey has not been very effective, but it is not clear how effective the vinegar is either. Who attends your blog? It would be interesting to find out how far. it extends beyond a core of co-believers. I cannot recall how I got onto it in the first place; I think it is because I saw a reference to something you said, started to follow the blog and found most of your criticism well-founded and bang on. It is also highly entertaining at time.
However, the profanities, however mild, might be a bar. I was brought up in a family that believed that the public expression of profane swear words (except in extreme circumstances when you hit your thumb with a hammer) is a sign of ignorance and that is a quirk of mind that i have to consciously suppress. One can be biting while being clever at the same time; some parliamentarians did it very well when decorum was more the thing. (Of Margaret Thatcher: “she has the certainty of the second rate”).
As for the mathematics thing, I think that many people were turned off church and maybe religion in general by the kind of approach to children espoused by many mathematics educators; a few years of religious classes with a priest where they were drilled in the likes of the seven graces and sins certainly did that with my grandsons. Maybe we should be looking at what keeps people in the church and practising their faith genuinely. I suspect it is good modelling by their elders, honesty and respectful community.
A few words from a pompous friend. Keep plugging away.
I’ve generally toned down the language of the blog. The “bullshit” in this post came from quoting. But I don’t think it’s the “profanities” per se, as much as the general adjectiveness: the “tone” is not properly collegial. The web address probably discourages: half the time I regret the decision, but only half the time.
In sum, I don’t think the tone and language of the blog makes much difference. It is read widely enough, and I think whatever greater reach I might gain from a more proper style would be at least outweighed by being less grenade-ish. It would also be less fun to write.
Are Jodie and Joanne the same person?
Also, how is this blog nasty when you’re just stating the truth?
Dammit. Thanks, Confused, and I’ve corrected it now. That’s the trouble with pseudonyms: can’t keep ’em straight.
I don’t think this blog is nasty. There are debates here and there, but it isn’t nasty.
It’s a word: I’m pretty contemptuous. The targets are high stature, and I think it is a question of whether, by their actions/inactions, they have earned such contempt. I try to argue in the blog that they have.
You did say this in your post, but I think it’s worth repeating. The reason your high stature targets take such offence is because you treat them with contempt, which is unforgivable. If, instead of dismissing them, you debated the finer points of their nonsense, you’d be welcomed as a platform-able contrarian.
For my part, your writing has been transformative. I’m a better and a happier teacher for it. And I flatter myself that my students and some of my colleagues are similarly better off.
Thank you, Aaron. Assuming it were possible, do you think I could have more effect as a platform-able contrarian.
Uncertain, but I doubt it. If someone is talking bullshit, you have to call it. Otherwise you’re indulging the both-sides fallacy. Entertaining both sides equally, when one side is demonstrably false or dishonest, lends undue legitimacy to misinformation, and might leave people believing something is “there”. We don’t carefully discuss the arguments of high profile climate denying scientists with them. We dismiss them as liars or ignorant.
It can be easy to ignore someone who is polite. Especially if you have no regard for others and only care about your self.
Sometimes being very blunt, and I guess nasty, gets the attention of such people.
The blog only shows its ability to be nasty (really, it is more like strong and blunt in criticism) to organisations or the few big shots that arguably deserve it.
If you look into the comments or the stories Marty has posted they are very human and understanding (even with Terry – somewhat).
The truth is often a difficult pill to swallow.
Your style of stating the truth improves the chance that the pill will be swallowed.
Getting people to critically review the logic of their reasoning is very hard to do.
Too often only a “sharp correction” will achieve it.
I wish these two statements were not true.
I would bet many more than are willing to say, are thankful for what you do.
Like Aaron, I am a better me because of ALL you do; the “nasty” and the many things that are not.
Definitely your blog in the past few years provided me brand-new, different angles to look at the crux of secondary (and possibly primary) maths education, and at least, I feel that I am able to critically examine it from a more comprehensive picture, by following your blog.
Content-wise, there are tonnes of terrific, in-depth discussions around mathematics and how people would teach it better, despite that I still don’t fully agree with your vision and mission to hammer and crush the CAS calculators 😉
My personal verdict is:
1. your blog is NOT nasty at all (and I must say, generally, lots of people do often judge the book by its cover);
2. many thanks to your service – being a strong advocate to reform the VIC (and AUS) maths education, plus providing such a fantastic platform for many other brain-trusts to rendezvous. Really appreciated.
Hi Marty. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that your blog has generated so much useful and important discussion about Maths education. Some of the posts could and should form part of any Maths teacher training program. You introduced me to Tony Gardiner, numericalacumen.com and I’m nearly at the end of my career! You are a great writer showing sensitivity when required. THANK YOU!
Absolutely Rob, Marty has done an outstanding job fighting the good fight. I’ve found this blog validating. It has helped me resist much of the nonsense so I can focus on the important stuff.
Thank you all for the kind comments. It is appreciated, but I really wasn’t fishing for compliments: Tyler had that covered.
I know that, in its own eccentric way, a number people have found the blog helpful and/or reassuring. I was really asking, and providing my answer to, the question of whether the blog benefits from being so aggressive or ridiculing or whatever. I think it does, and people (at least the ones who comment) seem to agree, except perhaps for Ed, who is an old-fashioned gentleman.
Because you have nasty viewers/fans/followers, etc.?
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
There is definitely truth to that. If there were less of an audience for my stuff, I’d be working less hard to produce it.