Math Poverty vs. Poverty students

As I created MMU1 to uplift the math poorest half to the math richer half, the actual poverty criteria of the USA seems very relevant.

In the USA, the free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) is considered a proxy to the low income.

High-poverty schools are defined as public schools where more than 75% of the students are eligible for FRPL
Mid-high poverty schools are those schools where 50.1 to 75% of the students are eligible for FRPL.
Mid-low poverty schools are those schools where 25.1 to 50% of the students are eligible for FRPL.
Low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25% or less of the students are eligible for FRPL.
In school year 2012–13, some 21 percent of public school students attended low-poverty schools, and 24 percent of public school students attended high-poverty schools.”
As of 2017, about 50% of all the public school students are eligible for RFPL, equivalent to be in Mid-high or High-poverty in the USA.

Source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp

Over 50% of public school students across the country are considered “low-income”. The concentrations of the students from the low-income families are highest in the South and in the West. You can see the distributions by state here or here.

Percentage of public school students in low-poverty and high-poverty schools, by race/ethnicity: School year 2012–13

Source: NCES https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp

Percentage of public school students in low-poverty and high-poverty schools, by race/ethnicity: School year 2012–13

Source: NCES https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

MMU1: just to uplift the math poorest half average to the math top half average, which normally would take at least 50-100 years in the average OECD nations with almost no exceptions at least according to the PISA and TIMSS math rsults 1995-2015 (and you should know that this is a revolution, not some sort of useless reforms that have been going on in the entire developed OECD nations). To reduce the hyper-skepticism, my initial target may be reducing the math poverty by 20-30% and raising the proficiency in similar manner, which still would normally take at least 30-50+ years in at least 90% of the developed countries, their states or big cities. Current focus is on the MMU1 series as the warm-up exercises as forms of pilot studies to demonstrate the math EDU revolution is not only possible in spite of the hyper-bureaucracy of the EDU establishments that simply would not any of the most breakthrough innovations in EDU and will instead keep on playing with the furitless, fancy toys of the math EDU apps and technology.

USL will use the colossal cognitive capital potentials of STEM education (especially Math at the moment), because USL can make the learning 10-50 times faster and more effective than the Business As Usual typically, to trigger the equally colossal gains in the socio-economy in exchange of their willingness of the participating governments - under a new UN-led treaty hopefully - to collectively contribute the reasonable ratios of the expected surplus gains in their economies to resolve the top global crises. Each of the governments will mostly focus on resolving their crises of course, but they have to contribute to the world communities to prosper with the sustainable growths together not at the exclusion of half of the world that is poverty-stricken. USL 1 will be the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to collectively contribute the effectively gained, USL1.0-induced surplus economy (in a sustainable manner) to resolve the most serious global crises (for all governments and the UN) based on the 5UE principles: to transition towards the resource-based, renewable energy-based, sustainable global environment and the circular economy, to help end the poverty much faster than without, while making the average people learn math and science faster and easier than prodigies. As the original USL is too fast and too disruptive (as it can literally make average people learn math and science 1,000%-50,000% times faster) to transform and people are too skeptical, we are currently focusing on only 2-5% and up to 10% at most of its capacity called USL 0.25-0.5-1.0 for the state and national governments as well as the UN.

STEP 1) Math Education Reform USL 0.25 at the city and USL 0.5 at the state government levels (advancing their regional average math skill levels by half a year, which normally takes 10-30 years to most of the OECD countries, in just 2-3 years). STEP 2) Math Education Reform USL 0.5 at the state government levels (advancing their regional average math skill levels by 1 year or more, which normally takes 2-5 decades to most of the OECD countries, in just 2-4 years). STEP 3) Math Education Reform USL 1 at the national government & the UN treaty levels (advancing their regional average math skill levels by 2 years or more, which (almost) never happened to virtuallly all of the OECD member countries, in just 2-5 years). For each of the following step, we will try to create local, regional, or national Social Enterprise for each government - if they are willing as the gains are tremendous potentially - to share the profits together. So the governments will have the 3-layered benefits: ... 1) USL 0.x will enrich not only the math education that helps each USL x participating regions, 2) but also to prosper together as Social Enterprise board members of the corresponding regions. 3) once the UN gets involved, then the certain portions of the massive surpluses to their local or regional economies will be properly redistributed for the global social, energy, environmental, equality and poverty causes.

This is a relatively new endeavour of Lee’s for the foreign languages. The origins of this series stem from the following two: 1) Based on his crazy personal experiment to learn to speak 9 new languages in the mere 10 days (roughly equivalent to speak 25-30 western european languages in just 10 days). 2) Lee’s early experiment with 10 people to make the average people speak English super fast although not nearly as fast as Lee himself during his experiment.

The current focus to open a new chapter to make people speak languages very fast:

SKF (Speak Korean Fast): to make all people speak the survival levels of Korean language in just 1-2-3 semesters.
The appetizer version of the trimester (3 months) of SKF: to make people speak the basic introduction level Korean with the minimum studies.
SFF (Speak French Fast): waiting for enough people to sign up.

%d bloggers like this: