A few weeks ago, I had a drive-by post on the MAV. This was in response to the MAV’s idiotic contribution to the Age‘s article on CAS and VCAA’s non-clearing of calculators for VCE exams. Of course the main culprit was VCAA, who demonstrated that they are speedily returning to their natural state of arrogance and incompetence. But no one should be letting the MAV off the hook. I indicated that I would return to them and, somewhat delayed by busyness and illness, I am now.
The MAV’s stance on CAS programming for VCE exams
The MAV’s contribution to the Age article began as follows:
But Mathematics Association of Victoria [CEO] Jennifer Bowden said the organisation was confident that [VCAA] designed tests that did not advantage any CAS platform or programmed approach.
Bowden said her organisation never saw evidence that pre-programmed CAS calculators were more efficient.
This is, of course, utter madness.* Does there exist anyone, in the MAV or VCAA or The Leigh-Lancaster Home for the Mathematically Insane, anyone anywhere who believes that kids and teachers are wasting their time programming CAS for the exams? We’ll get to Bowden’s other contributions, as part of a general consideration of the MAV’s mental state, but the above was more than enough to give the MAV a really solid whack.
Just a reminder, for those too immersed in Victoria’s mad technocult to be aware of reality, Victoria is the very far outlier here. In particular,
• NSW does not permit programmable calculators for exams;
• QLD do not permit CAS calculators on exams, and calculators must be cleared prior to exams.
*) Bowden was also quoted to the effect that “in an ideal world” students’ calculators would be “vetted” but that this “would not be a cost-effective approach”. God knows exactly what Bowden meant, or why she seemingly contradicted her initial comment, before deciding the contradiction didn’t much matter.
******************************************************
The MAV’s stupidity
This post is motivated by other concerns but the MAV’s stupidity is a very big issue. The Age article went on to quote Bowden:
“MAV recognises the powerful role of CAS calculators that – and the programming they enable – in improving mathematical learning and efficiency, including the development of computational thinking.”
Bowden is on more solid ground here. It is still utterly insane but it is an insanity that plenty of maths ed nitwits, and way too many indoctrinated teachers, have bought into.
How did Bowden come to make these stupid statements? I have known Bowden for many years and I like her and respect her. Bowden is not stupid, but she is also not a senior maths type. I have little doubt that Bowden made these stupid statements because, naively, she trusted very stupid and very ignorant people.
The MAV was not always this way. Once upon a time, decades a go, the MAV was powered by strong mathematicians, who brought mathematical sense to what the MAV did, and in particular brought that sense to MAV’s role in honest, robust public debate. None of that is now the case.
The MAV is now a sick monoculture. It has negligible mathematical expertise and it has negligible interest in or appreciation of the proper mathematical thought that such expertise would encourage and nurture. This is very standard, of course. It is simply the utterly predictable non-mathematical wasteland now evident in almost every maths ed institution, and which inevitably encourages either beside-the-point fadding or actively destructive culting. That is a problem for the MAV itself, for the sense and the quality and the stuff they do. It is also a problem for us because, as a very large teacher association, the MAV gets seats at the tables and a prominent voice.
A few years ago, when ACARA’s insane draft mathematics curriculum was being pummelled (largely due to the open letter instigated by country bumpkin physics teacher, Greg Ashman), The Age had a (pretty bad) article on the related inquiry-explicit battle. The article quoted then MAV CEO, Peter Saffin:
The reality inside classrooms is that students will encounter both methods, often within the same lesson, said Mathematical Association of Victoria chief Peter Saffin. The association was comfortable with the draft curriculum presented last year and is eager for it to be approved so that schools can begin to adopt it next year. [emphasis added]
“There’s a lot of dichotomies in discussion being created that it should be one or the other,” Mr Saffin says. “In fact, we would advocate for a mixed approach that suits the kids at their point of need in learning.”
Anyone who was “comfortable” with ACARA’s draft curriculum has no business advocating on anything more contentious or challenging than which colour crayon to use.
Nonetheless, the MAV has a right to be stupid; it is not the MAV’s fault if anyone else treats them as other than stupid. The MAV even has a right to encourage their own stupidity by being censorious assholes. The MAV is allowed to censor me; the MAV is allowed to censor a young student starting out; the MAV is allowed to censor a distinguished gentleman who has devoted many years to the MAV. Of course, when the MAV are being censorious assholes, people are then allowed to point out that the MAV are being censorious assholes. Nonetheless, the MAV have the right to be censorious assholes.**
There are, however, things that the MAV is not properly allowed to do. The MAV has a responsibility to act with integrity.
**) To be clear, I do not believe that Bowden would engage in or condone any such censoring. But, a failure to censor is a long, long way short of the promotion of genuine and sane debate, in which the MAV still exhibits zero interest.
******************************************************
The MAV’s minor conflict of interest
When I posted my drive-by, occasional commenter Craig posted a screenshot, an ad for Texas Instruments from a recent MAV email. The MAV email also notes that TI is an “annual partner”, whatever that is, as is Casio (and Cambridge). Is this an issue? Plenty of people who have approached me appear to think so and I think they are undoubtedly correct. The MAV has been accepting calculator loot for decades and they have every right right to do so. But, in doing so, the MAV also bumps up against issues of intellectual and professional integrity.
First, the intellectual issue: does sucking on TI’s and Casio’s teats make the MAV, and its members, stupider? The MAV may disagree. The MAV may well argue that calculators are an integral part of the current maths ed environment and that the MAV’s own work is not affected by such partnerships. The MAV can argue that and they may be correct. No one, however, is obliged to believe them.
It is extraordinarily naive to imagine that calculator loot has no effect on the MAV’s practices. It is certainly extraordinarily naive to imagine that Casio and TI are not hoping that their loot affects the MAV’s practices. These are not benevolent institutions: they are weapons dealers, with all the ethics and contempt for the public good that comes with such weapons dealing. Once again, the MAV is its own association and the MAV can choose to be as stupid as it wishes. It is absurd optimism, however, to imagine that the MAV is uniquely immune to such corrupting influence, that calculator partnerships are not making the MAV stupider.
Whether or not the calculator companies are making the MAV stupider, everyone has good reason to suspect that it is making the MAV stupider. Anyone aware of the MAV’s relationships has good reason to question anything the MAV says about calculator use. This is the public issue, the matter of conflict of interest that the MAV needs to address.
To use the lingo, the MAV’s partnerships gives rise to a material interest, which in turn can give rise to a conflict of interest. In brief, when the MAV makes public statements, there may be a conflict, actual or potential, between the MAV’s interest in contributing honestly to public discourse, and the MAV’s interest in not offending its partners and thereby risking the partners’ loot.
Does that prove that the MAV is lying when it waxes lyrical on “the powerful role of CAS calculators”? Absolutely not. I, for one, believe that the MAV is telling the truth, that they really are that stupid and that they got that stupid all by themselves. But the point is that the MAV may be lying, or are otherwise intellectually perverted by their ties to Casio and TI, and a member of the public has every right to know the MAV’s financial relationship with the calculator companies and thereby judge the validity and worth of the MAV’s public remarks.
To be clear, the MAV is not ethically required to introduce every statement in every forum with a “We take calculator loot” disclaimer. Most mathematics teachers, for example, are already well aware that the MAV takes calculator loot. The regular Age reader, however, is not. If the MAV wishes to make such public comments on the purported benefits of calculators, they have a consequent professional obligation to inform the reporter of the conflict of interest and the newspaper has a consequent obligation to inform their readers.
******************************************************
The MAV’s major conflict of interest
In 2022, when The Age broke the story of the mathematics exams screw-ups, they quoted, amongst others, Peter Saffin:
Mathematical Association of Victoria chief executive Peter Saffin said that teachers and students were right to raise any potential errors in the exam, but that the VCAA had processes to adjust students’ results if their complaints were found correct.
“In the end they have to be as fair to everybody as they can during the marking,” Saffin said.
“All students are disadvantaged by an error, so maybe that helps level the playing field.”
Yes, these were monumentally stupid remarks, and once again that is not the point. The point is that Saffin’s obligation was to just shut the hell up. As was Bowden’s obligation a few weeks ago.***
The MAV has never publicly criticised VCAA and there is a snowflake’s chance that they ever will. They pretty much such it out loud, that the MAV will not be critical of “formal organisations with which the MAV has relations”; on a sunny day, they will not permit others to be critical either.
To say that the MAV has “relations” with VCAA is a massive understatement. Very often, it is the exact same people, shuffling back and forth between the two organisations without a moment’s pause or reflection. It is less the MAV and VCAA being involved in an incestuous relationship than of a hermaphrodite fucking itself.
This is a massive conflict of interest for the MAV, way beyond that with the calculator companies. With such an overwhelming conflict of interest, not even a disclaimer suffices. When it comes to VCAA, and unless and until the MAV demonstrates some genuine willingness to be honestly critical, to exhibit some proper independence from VCAA, their simple obligation is to shut the hell up.
*** Bowden was quoted making similarly idiotic non sequitur remarks last year, as part of the Herald Sun‘s coverage of the screwed-up Hungarian algorithm question (M, P).
******************************************************
A couple words on bad language and respect
Finally, a couple words on bad language and respectful disagreement.
I have a mouth. I naturally use bad language. I honestly try to tone it down on this blog but I find it difficult, particularly when writing on asshole behaviour. So, when noting the MAV’s (pre-Bowden) censorious assholeness, it was simply natural for me to refer to the MAV as sucking VCAA’s cock. I imagine that some MAV-ers may have been offended by this, and of course I can see why. But I have a few things to say about it.
To begin, I refuse to treat business as usual as business as usual. The MAV has worked hand in hand with VCAA to thoroughly pervert mathematics education for a generation of Victorians, and counting. I am not going to pretend that this normalcy is normal, that some calmly presented academic paper presented at some wanky conference is the way to deal with it, that it would make a shred of difference. Perhaps my shouting my arguments with my shocking language is not going to do it either but it is pretty clear that nothing else will.
Secondly, the MAV has no shortage of nasty people in its inner clique. In 2016, the night after I gave my final keynote to MAV, I received an email from a prominent MAV-VCAA person, a person that I did not mention or allude to in my keynote, or at any other time in any manner. The email began,
I feel sorry for your daughters
The only really surprising aspect of that email is that the author wrote the nasty bit out loud. The MAV has plenty of people who have been plenty nasty, to people much less fair game than I. That the MAV avoids using bad language does not imply that they are remotely respectful of others.
But, finally, this is really all beside the point. Would the MAV like me to stop referring to them as sucking VCAA’s cock? The very simple solution would be for the MAV to stop sucking VCAA’s cock.
The VCAA (& MAV) should not be setting the curriculum. The parties responsible for teaching & using math, post-secondary should have this responsibility. Professional university degrees, like engineering, have their curriculum dictated by professional groups that represent the professions that require such qualifications (& so knowledge of math). At the moment we have the tail wagging the dog. As the education system dumbs down junior years in schools, in Victoria, primary teachers can’t even do simple arithmetic problems without a calculator, the need for year 11 & 12 to take very big steps to reach a level of understanding needed post year 12 occurs. Once they complete year 12 & go onto post-secondary studies, the first thing students need to do is to get rid of their CAS calculator as it’s not used or permitted in post-secondary education. There are too many students starting Math1 subjects at university that can’t do basic arithmetic computations. There are too many teaching mathematics & arithmetic in schools that can’t workout 15% of 550 without a calculator! We need people competent at all levels of math & arithmetic education.
Absolutely. As I wrote in my previous post, teachers, whether as MAV reps or VCAA reps or whatever, cannot be fundamentally responsible for the curriculum. They are simply not qualified to do so.
I once forgot a calculator for an engineering class test in my first year of uni. I had to do all the computation on paper as no one had a spare calculator (or didn’t offer me one). I quickly learnt that I was very rusty with my arithmetic algorithms. The numbers used in the engineering exam also didn’t help the situation. I still got an okay result but the experience made it clear what I had disregarded as I progressed in my mathematics learning.
Sure. But your still-required algebraic skills would have sucked if you hadn’t first had the solid arithmetic background.
True, I agree. I suppose I should have said what I was getting at more clearly. That is, that calculators used for arithmetic diminished my arithmetic fluency and I also forgot some of the meaning of what I was doing. So to relate it back to this post, having more powerful calculators that did the algebra for you in school would have the same impact for learning. It would have a worse impact, as algebra skills are still being learnt.
MAV is not unique in this (which, of course, is no excuse). TI, Casio and HP (who do have a calculator authorized for use in VCE, I’m just yet to find a student who does) are regular sponsors of Mathematics “education” conferences around the world and have even admitted at times that they “consult” with academics about research methods.
This is not new and perhaps it has just become the accepted reality over time.
None of this is an excuse.
Of course the MAV is not unique. AAMT, for example, is worse. But the MAV is our idiot shop, running idiotic interference for our idiotic VCAA. So, the MAV is the one for us to hammer.
By contrast, there is surprisingly little emphasis on spreadsheets in the Mathematics curriculum. The spreadsheet is ubiquitous in this day and age.
Jesus, Terry. don’t give these clowns more ideas.
Terry does raise a valid point. Spreadsheets should be taught in schools as they are indeed ubiquitous. They would better be taught in computer science as they are an elementary form of programming. And definitely at the lower years – NOT Year 11 or 12.
You want to train kids on that? Fine. Just keep it away from mathematics classes.
I did show my Year 8 students last week how algebra plays a role in spreadsheets in an attempt to answer the question “What’s the use of algebra?” As far as I could tell, they had never heard of a spreadsheet.
I’m more surprised they’d heard of algebra.
I had been teaching the students about algebra for a couple of weeks.
Um, yes.
Thank you for exposing these incompetent bastards who continue to pervert mathematics education for our children which consequently negatively impacts on our communities and society. We could have far more students enrolled, truly enjoying and excelling in mathematics subjects if it wasn’t for the pathetic excuse of a curriculum we have been dealt.
Stay bold in the struggle for change. Your tireless effort does not go unnoticed Marty.
Thanks, Joe. It’d be nice to have a little help on occasion.
I’ve recently gone back to uni to study engineering as an exit strategy from teaching, and we aren’t allowed to use CAS, obviously. We will do a few things with computers but all working was required, always. But now so many engineering degrees don’t even require methods as a prerequisite anymore.
I really wish we didn’t use CAS in Vic but here we are. But I believe our issues start way before VCE and the use of CAS, where many schools rely on computer programs to teach maths due to staff shortages etc.
it’s bloody difficult trying to teach methods to a kid who doesn’t know basic algebra, has never seen a parabola or know anything about fractions etc. It’s freaking terrifying how little maths skills students are coming in with.
Of course you are correct, B. The real disaster is in primary schools. But I don’t get to choose which moles to whack. Whichever one pokes up its idiotic little head, that’s the one that’s gonna get whacked.
I’d love to know which was the first of the CAS brands that lined someone’s pockets in the Vic curriculum to get it written into VCE. I find it odd we are pretty much the only state who uses them and they aren’t really used in many other high schools anywhere in the world.
280 a pop per device….
Someone struck an excellent deal. And
Plenty of people have asked that question, but I think differently. I think the people who imposed this garbage are genuine zealots. They really believe kids learn by pushing buttons. They really are that dumb.