Avsnitt
-
Today’s disagreement is about college campus detentions, due process, and free speech.
We focus on the two most high-profile cases: Mahmoud Khalil: a green card holder, legal resident, and graduate student at Columbia University who had a leadership role within CUAD, which stands for Columbia University Apartheid Divest; and Rümeysa Öztürk: a graduate student at Tufts University who is a student visa holder. She co-authored an op-ed in the campus newspaper supporting a resolution to divest from Israel. We also briefly touch on the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case and President Bukele’s recent visit to the oval office.
Is there a legal basis for these deportations and what are the implications for free speech and due process? What does it mean to be an American? What kind of country do we want to live in? Are these deportations “good for the Jews”?
Graeme Wood is a staff writer for The Atlantic and a lecturer in political science at Yale University, where he has taught since 2014. Graeme has been a Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and a fellow at the United States Naval Academy.
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He writes a Substack called Shapiro's Gavel and his new book is called Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites.
One note: We had a few issues with audio quality - it’s not up to our normal standards - but it should not significantly impact your listening experience. Alright, take a deep breath, open your mind as far as it’s willing to go, and prepare for a different kind of conversation on campus deportations.
Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/ -
In March, we recorded an episode live on stage at SXSW EDU in Austin, Texas. This disagreement is all about ESAs, or Education Savings Accounts. You may have heard of ESAs under a different name, like vouchers or school choice programs. Right now, 18 states have some sort of ESA program in place.
The programs are becoming more popular across the country, but should they be? What accounts for the increasing support for ESAs? What risks and benefits do they pose for students and families? Does the rise of ESAs inherently harm our public schools?
When we say ESAs, we are NOT talking about 529 plans or other college savings programs. We’re talking about K-12 education. These programs create a government-authorized savings account for families, allowing them to take some quantity of the funding that would have supported their child in public school, and use those dollars in the way they see fit: whether that’s to supplement private school tuition, parochial school tuition, tutoring, special needs services or for other educational purposes.
Shaka Mitchell is a Senior Fellow at the American Federation for Children, an advocacy organization in the school choice movement. He has served in leadership roles at high-performing charter school networks, including Rocketship Education and LEAD Public schools in Nashville.
Jaime Puente is the Director of Economic Opportunity at Every Texan, an advocacy and public policy organization striving to expand opportunities for all Texans. He currently oversees their work on education. Previously, Jaime served as Legislative Director for members of the Texas House of Representatives.
This episode is moderated by The Disagreement’s co-host and co-founder Catherine Cushenberry.Sign up for our newsletter at thedisagreement.substack.com
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Today’s disagreement is about transgender health care for young people and the future of the trans rights movement.
Gender Affirming Care is a method of treating gender dysphoria by affirming a child’s gender identity and tailoring medical and social interventions around this identity. This might begin with a social transition and often leads to a medical protocol that involves puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones.
Almost a year ago, we had a conversation with leading national clinicians, Dr. Jack Drescher and Dr. Erica Anderson about the state of gender affirming care for young people in the United States. If you haven’t listened to that episode, I highly recommend it as a helpful primer for this conversation. Since then, a lot has changed in the conversation about trans care for young people.
In April 2024, the Cass report came out in the UK. It is one of the most thorough reviews of the evidence base for gender-affirming care. It also called into question the limits of what we know and don’t know about care for minors. Right now, 27 states have enacted laws to ban or restrict the practice and the supreme court will be ruling on it later this year. And the United States has a new presidential administration who recently issued the executive order: “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," which attempts to put forth a national ban on gender affirming care.
We ask some important questions around gender affirming care and the trans rights movement. Have trans advocates and medical practitioners overstated the quality of the evidence base for gender-affirming interventions for minors?
Brianna Wu is a political commentator and trans rights activist. She is executive director of the progressive Rebellion PAC.
Dr. Marci Bowers is a pelvic and gynecological surgeon with more than three decades of experience in healthcare. Dr. Bowers was most recently the president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). She was the organization's first transgender president.
Thank you to Brianna and Marci for coming together to have this critical conversation. It's a difficult topic and as you’ll hear, a difficult conversation. But we need more of this. We need more people willing to come together and have hard conversations out in the open, and we really appreciate you both.
This conversation is pretty “in the weeds” when it comes to youth gender medicine and the state of the research. If you have the context, that’s great – you can skip ahead. If you don’t, here is a highly efficient glossary:
WPATH is the leading trans health organization in the world. Its “Standards of Care” or SOC - have served as the national guidelines for youth gender medicine in most gender clinics.The Standards of Care have evolved a great deal over time: SOC 6, published in 2001, required multiple psychological assessments and a period of Real Life Experience (RLE), living as the preferred gender, before any medical interventions. The most recent SOC, SOC 8, was published in 2022. It removed many of these requirements which activists have described as “gatekeeping.”The Dutch Protocol, also known as “watchful waiting”, is a more conservative alternative to gender-affirming care. It focuses on providing large amounts of psychological support and monitoring during childhood. If the dysphoria continues to persist, then putting young people on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones in late adolescence.Language around gender identity is constantly evolving. Brianna uses the term FTM (or Female to Male) to describe females who transition. For the same demographic, Marci uses “transmasculine.”We also talk about Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS).Okay, that will hopefully create a solid foundation. Take a deep breath. Open your mind as far as it’s willing to go. And prepare for a different kind of conversation on gender affirming care and the future of the trans rights movement.Recommended Reading and Listening
WPATH Standards of Care Version 8Last year’s episode of The Disagreement about gender-affirming care: https://podcasts.apple.com/si/podcast/12-gender-affirming-care-for-children-and-adolescents/id1735027795?i=1000658885782 -
Today’s disagreement is on The Telepathy Tapes, Autism, and the Paranormal. If you’re not familiar, The Telepathy Tapes is a cultural phenomenon and podcast that launched in Fall 2024. By early January, it was the number one podcast in the country. Today, it’s still in the top ten. Its core thesis is quite provocative: that there are non-verbal autistic young people who possess telepathic powers and are able to read the minds of their parents and teachers.
In this episode, we use The Telepathy Tapes as a springboard to ask some big questions about science, skepticism, and the nature of truth.
Is telepathy real? How should we evaluate the claims in the podcast? Do these claims adversely affect–even harm–the autistic young people being celebrated?
To have this conversation, we’ve brought together a journalist and a religious scholar with very different approaches to understanding the truth.
Zaid Jilani is a journalist whose work has appeared in The Intercept, News Nation and Alternet. He writes about politics and culture on his Substack The American Saga.
Jeffrey Kripal is the J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice University and the Associate Director of the Center for Theory and Research at the Esalen Institute. Jeffrey is also the author of thirteen books, including most recently: How to Think Impossibly.
Before we get started, a note. In The Telepathy Tapes, the nonverbal autistic young people use a controversial method to communicate with the outside world. It’s called “facilitated communication.” There is an adult that helps to facilitate the young person’s communication—usually through some form of touch and holding a letterboard that the young person point to. We get into this in-depth on the podcast.
Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/
-
This episode was recorded live on stage at EDTECH WEEK in New York City. Like most edtech conferences, there were many conversations about the potential power that AI could play in student learning. Ours was a different kind of conversation. We brought together two experts who both expressed skepticism about the role AI should be playing in education today. While they agreed on many things, there is a highly productive disagreement around whether or not we should be actively teaching AI literacy (or “readiness”) to students in grades K-12.
Alex Kotran is the CEO of The AI Education Project (AI Edu), a non-profit devoted to making sure that all students are ready to live, work, and thrive in a world where AI is everywhere. Previously, he was the Director of AI Ethics at H5, a pioneering AI company in the legal services sector.
Benjamin Riley is the founder of Cognitive Resonance, a new venture dedicated to improving understanding of human cognition and generative AI. Previously, he founded and served as CEO of Deans for Impact, a nonprofit education organization working to improve teacher training through the use of cognitive science.
This episode is moderated by The Disagreement’s cohost and cofounder Catherine Cushenberry.
Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/Want to listen to more live conversations from EDTECH WEEK 2024? Watch more here.
-
President Trump campaigned on a pledge to dismantle the DOE and has already made sweeping cuts to its research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). What role should the federal government play in U.S. education? Where should the Department of Education’s functions live bureaucratically? Should they stay in the DOE or be distributed to other federal agencies? Michelle Dimino is the Education Program Director at Third Way, a national, center-left think tank. Michelle’s research and advocacy focus on improving student outcomes, promoting quality and transparency, and strengthening accountability through pragmatic policy reforms. Neal McCluskey is the director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. He is the author of the book The Fractured Schoolhouse: Reexamining Education for a Free, Equal, and Harmonious Society. Got questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq
-
Gender diversity in sports has become a focal point in the culture war and point of disagreement for sports governing bodies. We recorded this episode before the recent executive orders affecting transgender people. But those recent developments have put the political in a new light. Hopefully what you hear feels like a totally different kind of conversation.
What is the nature of biological male advantage? What constitutes fairness? How do we reconcile gender identity and underlying biology?
Host Alex Grodd moderates a disagreement between sports legal expert Doriane Coleman and sports physicist Joanna Harper. They explore the nuances of sex/gender category definitions, the implications of hormone therapy for gender diverse athletes, and the broader societal impacts of inclusion in female sports categories. Through deep dives into the science, historical context, and ethical considerations, this is a different kind of conversation about fairness, biology, and gender identity in competitive sports.
Got questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our Substack at thedisagreement.substack.com.
-
Destini Ann Davis is a peaceful parenting advocate and influencer with 1.5 million followers on TikTok. She's the author of Very Intentional Parenting, Awakening the Empowered Parent Within.
In our Gentle Parenting, episode with Lori Gottlieb and Ryan Allen, we covered a lot of ground, but didn’t dive deeply into the role of discipline and punishment in raising kids. So we're circling back with one of the internet's most influential, gentle parenting thinkers, Destini Ann Davis.
This episode is partly Alex being coached by Destini and partly a disagreement about the role that punishment should play in cultivating and exercising authority as a parent. While they agree on a lot, you'll hear some substantive differences in styles, tactics, and core philosophies.
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
In the last couple of years, sports betting has exploded across the United States. The rise of mobile, app-based sports betting is having profound impacts on the nature of sports viewership, fandom, and gambling addiction, particularly amongst young men.
Is the rapid ascent of online sports betting creating a public health crisis? Is the online sports betting industry predatory? How should it be regulated?
Dr. Harry Levant is the Director of Gambling Policy with the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University. Harry is also an Internationally Certified Gambling Counselor and a gambling addict in recovery for more than ten years.
Ben Fawkes is a sports betting expert and industry insider. As a consultant and writer, Ben has produced work for CBS Sports, Gannett, and ESPN. Previously, was the Vice President, Digital Content at VSiN, The Sports Betting Network.
Show Notes
3:16 - Legalization: Benefits and Risks6:44 - Public Health Concerns11:30 - Infrastructure, Addiction and Revenue22:00 - Same Game Parlays32:00 - Advertising and The Impact on Young People36:21 - Sports Gambling and Fandom45:00 - VIP Hosts and Reload Bonuses48:08 - The Need for Regulation55:51 - SteelmanExtra Credit
Surge in problem gambling in NJDraftKings CEO rebuffs argument that AI could make sports betting more addictive: ‘There is some onus on the individual’A Psychiatrist Tried to Quit Gambling. Betting Apps Kept Her Hooked.Fanduel network shows an industry bought and paid for by gamblingWhat did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
This disagreement is on The Ethics of Having Kids.
In the age of climate change, is it more ethical to have kids or not have kids? What are the costs and benefits of either choice when the reality of our shared future is unknown? What does the pro-natalist movement and its policies get right and wrong?
Heather Houser is a professor of English Literature at the University of Texas at Austin. A cultural critic and author of the book Infowhelm, Heather is an expert on climate change and feminism.
Liz Bruenig is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she writes about theology, politics and policy. Previously, Liz was an opinion writer for The New York Times and The Washington Post, where she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing.
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
Today’s disagreement is on AI tutoring and K-12 Education. How will AI tutoring benefit struggling and high achieving students? Will it enable personalized learning pathways for students?
Two education experts come together for a longform, productive disagreement about whether AI is going to usher in a new era of personalized learning – and whether that is a good thing.
Niels Hoven is the Founder and CEO of Mentava, a software company committed to accelerating learning for top-performing students. Mentava’s first product is a software-based tutor, designed to teach preschool students how to read.
Benjamin Riley is the founder of Cognitive Resonance, a new venture dedicated to improving understanding of human cognition and generative AI. Previously, he founded and served as CEO of Deans for Impact, a nonprofit education organization working to improve teacher training through the use of cognitive science.
Show Notes
Reflections on personalized learning 15 years in [03:00]AI and the new path to personalized learning [05:02]The risk of moving away from collective learning [06:47]Theory of mind considerations [10:10]Bill gates and the dream of AI in Ed [15:17]The future of ungated learning [17:15]The danger of magnifying differences [20:12]The 5% problem [22:15]Engagement and learning [23:40]Balancing AI risks and benefits [30:09]Is our current system working or failing [33:05]What should we be improving [36:32]The joy of effortful thinking [38:01]Steelmanning [40:20]What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
Gentle parenting can be seen as a movement and generational push-back against the parenting styles that Gen-Xers and Millennials grew up with. We use “Gentle Parenting” as a stand-in for the entire constellation of modern parenting brands: Peaceful, Respectful, Mindful, Intentional, Conscious, Compassionate, Sturdy…While there are some small differences between each method, they all generally follow the core “gentle” tenets.
Ryan Allen is a licensed child therapist and gentle parenting expert and influencer. He specializes in helping “little kids with big emotions.” He’s a bit of a social media phenom, with 1M followers on TikTok.
Lori Gotlieb is a psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author. Her book, Maybe You Should Talk to Someone, has sold more than a million copies. She also co-hosts the podcast “Dear Therapists” and writes The Atlantic’s “Dear Therapist” advice column.
The QuestionsHow should parents help kids regulate their emotions? What is the right role for punishments and consequences?And…what is the happy medium between “Because I said so!” and Lord of the Flies?MentionsLori Gottlieb’s 2011 Article in the Atlantic: “How to Land Your Kid in Therapy”
Dr. Becky, Founder of Good Inside and ‘Millennial Parenting Whisperer’
Janet Lansbury’s ‘No Bad Kids’ Method
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
In this bonus conversation, we feature a short (and new) excerpt from the full disagreement between last week's guests, Roman Yampolskiy and Alan Cowen. Here we apply the question of whether an AI can become conscious to Alan’s company, Hume AI, and their chatbot EVI. For a different disagreement between Roman and Alan, check out the feature episode.
-
Today’s disagreement is on Artificial Intelligence and Existential Risk. In this episode, we ask the most consequential question we’ve asked so far on this show: Do rapidly advancing AI systems pose an existential threat to humanity?
To have this conversation, we’ve brought together two experts: a world class computer scientist and a Silicon Valley AI entrepreneur.
Roman Yampolskiy is an associate professor of Computer Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Louisville. His most recent book is: AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable.
Alan Cowen is the Chief Executive Officer of Hume AI, a startup developing “emotionally intelligent AI.” His company recently raised $50M from top-tier venture capitalists to pursue the first fully empathic AI – an AI that can both understand our emotional states and replicate them. Alan has a PhD in computational psychology from Berkeley and previously worked at Google in the DeepMind AI lab.
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
Today we have a disagreement on whether there’s a retirement crisis in the United States. To have this conversation, we’ve brought together two thought leaders on the topic.
Andrew Biggs is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He studies social security reform, pensions and public sector benefits. Before joining AEI, Biggs was the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Monique Morrissey is a Senior Economist at the Economic Policy Institute. Her areas of expertise span social security, pensions, older workers and household savings. A member of the National Academy of Social Insurance, Monique is active in efforts to reform the private retirement system.
Will millions of us never be able to stop working?Is social security actually on the verge of collapse?How much should we be panicking?Before we get started, economists think about retirement as a three-legged stool: social security, employer retirement accounts, and personal savings or other assets. We’ll talk about all three legs, how shaky they are, and whether or not the U.S. government needs to fold up a napkin and jam it under one or two of them. ;)
Since the 1970s, there has been a national shift away from defined-benefit plans or “DB Plans,” such as pensions, in which employers funded and guaranteed a retirement benefit for their workers. We started seeing a lot more defined-contribution (“DC Plans”) such as 401(k)s, where workers primarily fund their own accounts, and employers can match contributions - or choose not to.
This episode is moderated by Catherine Cushenberry.
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
The disagreement over the concept of white privilege is at the center of many of our political and cultural struggles at the moment.
On the Left, white privilege is a bedrock principle, a foundational assumption that motivates much of the discourse around race in America. On the Right, the concept is primarily an object of derision. It’s dismissed, mocked and held up as the sign of the Left’s moral confusion and obsession with identity politics.
To work through this problem, we’ve brought together a Black conservative philosopher and a white anti-racist activist.
Jason D. Hill is a professor of philosophy and the author of five books, including most recently What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and has been a professional writer and author for more than thirty years.
Garrett Bucks is the founder of The Barnraisers Project, which is committed to organizing majority-white communities for racial and social justice. He is also the author of the popular Substack newsletter The White Pages, and recently released a memoir called The Right Kind of White.
The QuestionsDoes white privilege exist?How does it interact with other forms of privilege, like class class and gender?Is it a useful concept politically and culturally?Show Notes3:09 - Defining white privilege6:22 - White working class critique12:44 - Black excellence15:04 - American individualism vs. communitarianism16:41 - Black immigrant experiences19:15 - On Robin DiAngelo22:58 - Left and Right class critiques of racial privilege25:11 - Intersectionality28:19 - White saviors33:02 - White guilt36:34 - SteelmanningFurther Reading
Jason Hill’s letter to Ta-Nehisi Coates
Critique of Robin DiAngelo
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh
What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us @thedisagreementhq
-
Today’s disagreement is on whether or not extraterrestrial life exists. We’ve brought on two guests who are out of this world. ;)
Dr. Avi Loeb is an astrophysicist and professor of Science at Harvard University. As head of The Galileo Project at Harvard, Dr. Loeb directs the search for evidence of extraterrestrials. Avi is also the author of more than eight hundred scientific papers and the books Interstellar and Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth.
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine. He is the bestselling author of many books, including Why People Believe Weird Things and The Believing Brain. Michael is the host of the podcast The Michael Shermer Show and a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University.
Today we ask a wide range of important questions about extraterrestrial life:
Do we already have evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?What would it take for us to all agree there are technological civilizations beyond earth?How does the media complicate our understanding of the subject?And why is there so much tension in the scientific community about this work? Show NotesFermi’s question: where is everybody? [3:45]Addressing anomalies [6:45]Radio communication versus finding objects [10:00]Why media coverage loves “aliens” [12:00]Skepticism and anomalies [14:00]Disagreements in the scientific community [16:00]Real material evidence and the US government [21:00]Machine learning for observing anomalous objects [27:00]Steelmanning [31:30]What did you think about this episode? Email us at [email protected]. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
Today’s disagreement is about criminal justice reform, specifically the state of policing and incarceration in the United States. To explore its contours, we’ve brought on two experts in criminal justice.
Rafael A. Mangual works on the Policing & Public Safety Initiative at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. He is a contributing editor of City Journal AND is the author of Criminal (In)Justice: What The Push For Decarceration And Depolicing Gets Wrong And Who It Hurts Most.
Chesa Boudin is the founding executive director of Berkeley's Criminal Law and Justice Center. Previously, Chesa served as elected district attorney for the city of San Francisco from 2020 - 2022 as part of a wave of “progressive prosecutors.” In 2022, there was a successful recall campaign that resulted in him leaving the office. Chesa’s biological parents, David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, were members of the weather underground, who went to prison and served a combined 62 years. As you’ll hear him reference, he grew up visiting his parents in prison.
Today we ask a wide range of important questions about criminal justice reform.
What is the rationale behind incarceration? Is it an effective means of deterring and preventing crime?What is the right role for the police to play in communities?Should police spend less time and energy responding to smaller, non-violent offenses and be more focused on preventing and responding to violent crime?This is an incredibly consequential topic that has a massive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. As you are likely aware, the entire life cycle of the criminal justice system impacts marginalized communities and communities of color in highly disproportionate ways. We discuss this explicitly at times but it also hovers over the entire conversation.
There’s a lot of data in this episode so strap in – take breaks whenever you need it.
Show NotesFour theories of incarceration - [10:00]Deterrence and Sentence Length [15:00]Incapacitation [18:00]Recidivism, Cost and Age [19:30]Measuring Arrests versus Convictions [26:00]Geographic concentration of violence [29:00]Arrest patterns and offenders [31:00]Role of policing [39:00]Policing versus prosecutionWhat did you think about this episode? Reply to this message, comment below, or email us at
. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq or subscribe for more special content on our YouTube channel.
-
What you’re about to hear is a powerful and sustained disagreement with the current discourse on youth gender medicine and the more extreme voices who tend to dominate the public conversation.
Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with their gender assigned at birth.
How long should physicians and clinicians observe a child before they decide to treat them for gender dysphoria?
When (if ever) should a child socially transition, begin hormones, and/or undergo surgery for their gender?
Dr. Erica Anderson is an internationally recognized clinical psychologist and academic, specializing in Gender, Sexuality, and Identity. She served on the medical staff of the Youth Gender Clinic at the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital and on the board of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).
Dr. Jack Drescher is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 2022, Dr. Drescher was a member of the APA’s DSM-5 Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders – responsible for revising the definition of what is now referred to as “gender dysphoria.” An openly gay psychiatrist, Dr. Drescher has also served on the World Health Organization’s workgroup revising sexual and gender diagnoses.
Show NotesDefining gender [04:16]Shift in patients at pediatric gender clinics [11:20]The Canadian approach [16:33]Treatment options [20:11]Determining if a child will benefit from transition [27:04]Increase in cases [29:19]Risks and benefits of treatment [35:01]Level of caution for when to use medicines [42:46]Canadian vs Dutch approach [46:58]Question of rapid medicalization [49:14]Difficulty of the conversation [54:44]Comparison with gay marriage [57:24]Do you have questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq.
-
Today's disagreement is about the "math wars."
The "math wars” is a debate happening in K-12 education about the best way to teach math. Broadly speaking, there are two camps that have conflicting pedagogical approaches:
Explicit instruction focuses on procedural fluency, guided practice, and repetition.
Inquiry-based instruction focuses on conceptual understanding, open-ended problems, and productive struggle.
This is an incredibly high-stakes debate — especially if you have children or loved ones that are currently receiving K-12 math instruction. To explore its contours, we’ve brought on two math education experts
The Guests
Kevin Dykema is President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), an international organization with more than 30,000 members. Kevin has been a passionate advocate for inquiry-based instruction and NCTM is one of the method’s leading proponents. Kevin is also a teacher — currently in southwest Michigan — and he has taught 8th grade mathematics for over 25 years.
Holly Korbey is an independent education journalist, whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and many more. Holly also writes and produces The Bell Ringer, a Substack newsletter about the science of learning.
Today we ask a wide range of important questions about the Math Wars:
How do children actually learn math, and what’s the best way to teach them?
Which approach has a more compelling body of evidence on its side?
What is the best way to teach students from low-income and marginalized communities?
Show NotesWhy the math wars are consequential [03:20]Inquiry-based instruction overview [05:19]Cognitive science [06:52]Relationship between conceptual understanding and fluency [11:26]Productive struggle [13:15]Research overview [20:05]What does explicit instruction look like? [23:50]Income and race [25:13]Arithmetic automaticity [29:19]What would change your mind? [32:01]Steelmanning [34:24]This is a special episode of The Disagreement. What you’re about to hear is a live recording from the New Schools Summit, one of the most important education events of the year.
This our first ever live taping and we had a blast. Huge shout out to the NewSchools team for making it happen.
And we should add that we’re taking our podcast on the road! Would you like The Disagreement to come to your conference, event, off-site, college, synagogue, or mosque? We want to hear from you. Email [email protected].
- Visa fler
