Kids don’t like ping-pong because it’s inherently beautiful, they like it because it’s a competitive game. If you make math competitive, kids will enjoy it more. Except the ones who are bad at it, like the ones who are bad at ping-pong, won’t want to play. Like I don’t want to play ping-pong. And therein, probably, lies the problem…

The Nixon reference actually makes a good segway. Look at the heroes and role models we put forward back then. Educated men like Kissinger. Back then our leaders were on the cutting edge, even if that edge was ping pong, it was also putting men on the moon.

Today we have politicians lamenting that we have a constitutional scholar in the white house, and gutting the education system in Texas with such gems as “The intellectuals have had their turn now it’s our time to set the agenda”.

I think the real question regarding this letter’s complaint (that kids are being enticed into math with crazy schemes) is if they work or not?

Aeternatis has the right of it, so long as these programs supplement a standard curriculum and not replace it it is just casting a larger net. And if it makes a few elderly teachers feel even more out of touch with the world, to the point that they would complain about new forms of engaging children in education without addressing the new methods efficacy, then I’m willing to make that sacrifice.

Seriously, this guy sounds like the quote from a 1915 teacher’s convention. Some teacher was upset that the schools would be installing pencil sharpeners because the kids might forget how to whittle a point on their pencils.

Scheme is an excellent teaching language and SICP probably is the finest computer science textbook ever written. But, based on personal experience, I fear that they will excite almost exactly the same set of students who already love classical math instruction. You might as well offer them Haskell instruction.

So by all means, do it. But don’t expect this to move many students even from the intelligent-but-unexcited-by-math category to the excited-by-real-mathematics category.

Base it on the scheme programming language and use the textbook How to Design Programs.

Here’s the preface.
http://www.htdp.org/2003-09-26/Book/curriculum-Z-H-2.html

It’s like the SICP book but for a younger less experienced audience.

It also beats the heck out of the AP Computer Science course in terms of fun and concepts taught.

If maths wasn’t required up until a certain point we might have fewer engineers for example which would probably be a problem (Yes, I’m assuming we don’t have too many engineers at the moment). If we had fewer people involved in table tennis, well then we’d have fewer people involved in table tennis.

Yes the sculpture project is a pretty useless application of mathematics especially as applications of mathematics go but the real question is weather or not it stimulates interest (that was the intent). I’d guess it doesn’t but then again I’d also guess that everyone was interested in mathematics if I didn’t have evidence to the contrary. In any case I feel like giving the teach at least a little credit for trying.

So I’m prepared to argue that discarding the traditional approach to teaching mathematics would likely greatly reduce the already small percentage of students who ever become genuinely adept at mathematics.

But what about the rest? Not all of them are congenitally stupid. Do they just lack the math gene (or, more likely, that constellation of genetic and environmental factors that permits learning of real mathematics)? Perhaps and, if so, we should just stop torturing them with more than elementary mathematics. But perhaps there is a way to provide genuine understanding of something more to a larger group of students? While I would not bet on it, the uncertainty is enough to prevent me from condemning all of these experiments (as long as they are alternatives, rather than substitutes, for the proven way to teach mathematics to those who can learn it).

I personally don’t understand how anyone can not find science exciting, just as it is. What could be more exciting than getting to understand things? For some, math seems to press these buttons.

Having said that, I think the teaching profession should continue to try to get and keep kids, and adults, engaged. The problem is that education tries to do 2 jobs: train future mayh / science professionals, and teach utility to the rest. Everyone in todays world should understand some basic arithmetic, just to get by. Nearly everyone will benefit from some more, to enable some undersanding of statistics, risks etc. Many will probably not get much benefit from calculus, geometry etc. I think most would gain more from a basic logic course.

How about ending compulsory math after primary level, and “devolving” the rest into other subjects? Math would still be available as an option. This would require math teachers to liaise closely with subject teachers, and turn much of their teaching into a “service” for other subjects. I can’t see it being popular with math teachers.