
How Do You Spark a Love of Math in Children? - tokenadult
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/05/how-do-you-spark-a-love-of-math-in-kids/
======
fleitz
One of my kids is in Kindergarten, he can add and subtract almost any number.
(eg. 201 + 31) and is getting pretty good at division and multiplication (eg.
he knows 2 for $3.00 is $1.50 each, but doesn't do so well on 2 for $3.25).

He brought home his report card the other day and got a failing grade in math,
apparently, he won't draw lines between numbers (eg. connect two apples to the
number two.) His mom went to talk to the teacher with my son, the teacher
explained all the tasks, in front of the teacher she asks my son what's 32+21,
53 he says, the teacher gets wide eyed in amazement and then informs his mom
that they can't put him into a more advanced math class because the first
years are concentrated on getting the english kids conversational in french.
According to the school French > Math, C'est la vie!

Oddly enough he just got an award for embracing the french culture, I
personally think it's very french of him to avoid doing pointless work.

I had the same problem in school, I wouldn't do the homework, would ace the
tests and get questions about cheating because I never did the homework. I
avoided higher education for much the same reasons, I'd rather just open a
book, teach myself and move on rather than engage in random excersizes. You
only need to do the a^2+b^2=c^2 a few times to understand the concept.

The school system has no interest in mathematics but has an intense interest
in making kids perform strange rote tasks that have something to do with
numbers.

~~~
agumonkey
As programmers I think we have a special relationship with meaning, pedagogy.
Also we read about people like Alan Kay that brings math to children and see
how they play with it, often to our great surprise.

I see here and there (khan academy, psychology publication in Europe) a
tendency to kick painful myth out of learning, but I'd like to see a cohesive
effort to rethink the learning systems we call schools. Especially the early
years. If any of you here knows people working on this I'd be happy to read
about their thoughts.

~~~
mkempe
Check out Maria Montessori's works, methods, and materials.

My 3-year old daughter has been at a Montessori school since August last year
and the progress she's made --in manual work, counting, drawing, and reading,
is incredible. Her vocabulary is now equivalent to a 5-year old.

See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcgN0lEh5IA> for a fun, decent exposition
of what a Montessori education does by contrast with traditional schooling.

------
unimpressive
The real problem is the disconnect between math and "math".

"math" is the game of rote memorization that kids play in school where they
try to memorize arcane rules that seemed to have been pulled from some greek
dudes ass with no explanation.

Math is a legendary construct whispered about as a hypothetical possibility in
high school classrooms. A problem solving exercise that has you _think_ , with
a logical progression from base rules and assumptions.

"Math" and Math both use the same language and the same symbols, with a lot of
the same concepts. I've never seen Math, and only know of it's existence
through hear say from mathematicians, but been through a lot of "Math".
Imagine if we tried to teach English this way. It would look a lot like
memorizing words out of the dictionary. And then playing ad-libs with out of
context sentences.

~~~
excuse-me
Not just kids in school - you can get to grad school in science with lectures
that consist of:

What's an eigenvector?

It's the solution to an eigenfuction!

What's an eigenfunction?

It's an equation that has an eigenvector as the solution - now goto the next
chapter...

~~~
unimpressive
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/iq/guessing_the_teachers_password/>

Now kids, what did you learn?[0]

Don't guess the teachers password?! Excellent! Next chapter...

[0] As I was writing that I thought that there could be a paradox somewhere in
there if you phrased it right.

------
calinet6
Paul Lockhart said it better in his Lament -
<http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf>

This article and research is a non-starter. It doesn't address the core
problem. Mathematics is a beautiful way of thinking about the abstract, yet
it's taught as nothing more than a procedural tool.

Teach it like music. Instill a love of mathematics as the art that it is.
Reconstruct how we present mathematics to children and they will have a chance
to love it, like they might love music or art or science.

These micro-problems are just hairline cracks in the broken pieces of a
shattered cup. Why patch the cracks if the cup will never hold water? We need
to forge a new one.

"I don’t see how it’s doing society any good to have its members walking
around with vague memories of algebraic formulas and geometric diagrams, and
clear memories of hating them. It might do some good, though, to show them
something beautiful and give them an opportunity to enjoy being creative,
flexible, open-minded thinkers—the kind of thing a real mathematical education
might provide." -- Paul Lockhart

~~~
Daniel_Newby
> Mathematics is a beautiful way of thinking about the abstract, ...

Most people do not have the intelligence for much abstract thought. Look at
how much trouble CS students have with recursion, and they are in the top few
percent of intelligence.

> Teach it like music.

The majority of people _do_ have enough tone perception, coordination, and
muscle memory to make music. It does not compare to math.

~~~
simonbrown

      they are in the top few percent of intelligence
    

Citation needed

------
redslazer
I used to hate maths. I am a relatively intelligent 18 year old and things
like science, business and history come easily to me. About a year ago halfway
through my IB diploma with me failing the maths part of it a number of things
happened which have completely changed my perspective of maths. I started
loving maths, reading about it outside of school and doing extremely well in
the subject. The things that happened which caused this 180 degree turn:

a) My teacher sat down with me and explained the WHY. It wasn't just formulas
and rules but actual explanations that allowed me to approach problem
questions with logic rather than a formula book.

b) Khan Academy. The ability for me to go back to the very start and become
proficient in the very basics of maths without looking like and idiot and at
my own pace was amazing. Some people laughed when I started at the very bottom
in khan academy and worked through most of the program but the things that I
have learnt and were never taught to me (or I ignored them when they were
taught) was just astounding.

c) Choosing physics as my main science where I had to use maths to solve real
world problems. When I discovered that maths could actually be used in real
life to solve real problems I extremely motivated to read more about the
formulas and their deeper roots.

Now I have graduated high school and when ever younger kids ask me what they
should do and focus on I tell them that they should focus on maths and make
sure they understand everything when its taught because learning it later when
you are on more advanced topics is extremely painful.

I think the biggest problem school's today in relation to maths is that we are
allowing people to move on in the curriculum with a maths score of 50%. In
other subjects it doesn't matter because the content next year isnt based
completely on the content of this year but in maths it does. If only I had
been told in year 6,7,8,9,10 "You are going to have to repeat this year unless
you improve you maths score".

All it takes with maths is practice and giving kids a reason to learn it other
than "you have to". Maths is one of the most amazing things I have ever come
across in my (short) life and once I truly understood its power, my view of
the world was never the same. Maybe my experience is unique but it truly think
that many kids are suffering the problems as i had.

~~~
unimpressive
The number of people who say something along the lines of "You shouldn't be
able to move up without an understanding above ~60% of the grade level math."
is seriously scaring me. The ability to move up past the broken system is
important. Needing more assumes Math is being taught and not "math".

~~~
alexqgb
How can you "move past" not understanding mathematical concepts when they're
essential to everything that follows?

I mean that's the whole point of math - to provide an explanation in which
every step is necessary, and understood to be necessary.

If there's one class that should be Pass / Fail, this is it, and the bar for
passing should be set VERY high. I agree that this would create problems, but
those would fall squarely on the schools, who - as many others have mentioned
- teach "math", not math.

------
omegant
I have two sons and this is pretty interesting. There is one thing that could
also be hugely useful in my opinion. It is the historic context of
mathematics. Lots of very intelligent people (and geniuses) and tens of years
(some times hundreds) are needed to develop mathematics. But in a class of
"math" you are only given a procedure to follow and it is explained as if it
were self evident. Something that took years to be developed is written in a
blackboard in 2 min. And that it is, now do this exercises and next friday
you´ll have a test. (of course passionate teachers do better than this)

One of the best books I´ve read in scientific divulgation is Fermat´s last
theorem by Simon Singh . It tells the story of the assault to the theorem
beautifully. You follow different mathematicians through history and see how
they advance and how they fail, how it affects their lives, their careers and
also human history.

Although the mathematic concepts involved at the end of the book are pretty
advanced (the book is not heavy in mathematic formulas) you feel able to
understand them and I feel that one of the reasons is due to the beautiful
context every thing is set on.(the other of course is the great writing job
Simon Singh does). I still remember some of the developments involved, and
more than 7 years have passed since I read the book.

It sparked in me a deeper interest in mathematics, I used to like them, but it
was not the kind of curiosity I have now.

Of course you can not "learn" with this book, but it is a great tool to put
everything in a context, and learn how it advances. I really think that
teaching some kind of history of mathematics (greeks, Egyptians, arabs,
etc..what they discovered, how, where they got stuck and why) + mathematic
concepts (no exercises needed in this class) could be a great way to spark the
interest of students, and see mathematics in a human and achievable way.

edit: some typos, and some excess of "mathematics" to be cleared.

------
SkyMarshal
TLDR: How do kids get turned off to math? ... Students who feel little self-
efficacy in math, who fail to see the usefulness of the subject, whose parents
evince a lack of interest, who are not learning math in environments conducive
to flow, and who feel math anxiety [1] are the ones who will turn off and shut
down.

Article suggests a few strategies for addressing those problems, and
references the source research paper [2].

1\. [http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/03/how-to-deal-with-
kid...](http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/03/how-to-deal-with-kids-math-
anxiety/)

2\.
[http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&...](http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2011-24239-001)

------
gosub
Many of the puzzles in the Prof. Layton series on the Nintendo DS can be
solved with basic math: simple logic, combinatorics, linear equations,
trigonometry and a little analytic geometry.

------
foxhop
My wife claims that the switch from elementary school witgh one classroom
teacher to the middle school with departmentalized classrooms could also be a
major cause.

A singular teacher will be able to integrate all subjects together during the
school day.

When you switch to department teaching there is less emphasis on the
importance of a particular subject. For example a students English teacher
will not show the importance of Math.

Also teachers seem to hesitate to tell a student that they are incorrect.
Teacher cushion their responses by saying this like "hmmm, ok... lets see if
Johnny agrees" or "I'm not sure about that, lets try it this way". This works
alright for most subjects, but Math is pretty black and white. You either get
the answer or you don't.

Students also don't get grades in elementary school. Getting a poor grade in a
difficult subject like math could turn them off.

------
narrator
Make them play the Khan Academy math exercise set from the beginning. That
way, any gaps in their knowledge get filled in and they will be much less
frustrated by encountering problems they don't have the tools for. If they get
stuck, there's always a link to a helpful Khan video on the topic that the
particular exercise is testing mastery in.

It's like playing a reasonably enjoyable, if a little tedious, puzzle game. As
a side-effect of playing it they will just happen to learn all K through 12
math. I went through the whole thing when they had 280 exercises over the
course of a month. It was a great review.

Here's a link: <http://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard>

------
soitgoes
NRICH is a joint project between the Faculties of Mathematics and Education at
The University of Cambridge. It has lots of interesting problems to encourage
mathematical thinking.

<http://nrich.maths.org/>

------
SkyMarshal
I would also add that different students learn in different ways. For example,
mainstream math education in the US is very outcome/test-based. Does anyone
know if there are more exploratory-oriented methods of teaching math? Project-
based rather than test based?

I'm not an educator, but an observer with a particular interest in teaching
hard science/math/cs subjects to people who are not naturally talented at
them.

Based on what I've read of neuroscience and our deepening understanding of the
way the brain works, I suspect it's possible, but requires an entirely
different way of going about it than currently. Anyone know of any research in
this area?

------
Rishi321
For me learning math wasn't too difficult, I always had an affinity for it.
However, I realized that a good story of how many apples and oranges can be
bought with any collection of coins was always a lot more fun than some random
numbers strewn across the page. The current scenario is, however, not so. Most
systems are still held bent on using the old hammer and nail system to pound
all the theories into those little heads. Kids don't care about theorems,
that's why all the greek dudes were old. An example: <http://hpmor.com/> Look
at the latest authors notes (ch 85)

~~~
xyzzyz
Funny, the stories about apples and oranges made me actually _hate_ numbers --
they seemed stupid, boring, and I never saw the point (I still don't).
Recently I had a reconciliation with numbers, but I still try not to deal with
them in my math research as long as it is possible.

------
ReidZB
Fundamentally, a few things are wrong with math education.

First, you can advance grades without a full understanding of what you were
taught. I'm not saying students need 100% comprehension, but letting someone
go up in math with only ~50-60% comprehension is a terrible idea. Math builds,
and like Jenga, you can't build without a firm foundation.

Math is taught as a set of rote "exercises" with loosely- (and vaguely-)
connected theorems. Students are never really given an explanation of why
something is useful or why they should even care. You're just expected to
memorize it, recite it for the test, and forget it until the final rolls
around. This is the mindset school has got us in: so many students don't
realize the building nature of math before it is far too late.

Perhaps the most damning thing about math education is its focus on the what,
not the why. For example, the quadratic formula: it is introduced and students
are told that if you have an equation "of the form" ax^2+bx+c=0, you can "find
x" by plugging in the numbers. Never are you given an explanation of where the
quadratic formula comes from, never are you given an explanation of why you
would want to solve a quadratic.

In my math classes, I was always trying to figure out the "why" behind
something. Why were sine, cosine, and tangent all positive in the first
quadrant, while only sine was in the second quadrant? We were never told, and
most students never even bothered to question why this was so. In fact, when
they were told "all students take calculus" and shown the pattern, they just
happily nodded and thought "I'll remember that for the test." But if you
understand the real reason behind "ASTC," you don't need a silly phrase to
remember it.

And, finally, you have the "exercises." You're given a generic 'class' of
problem, told how to solve it, and move on. Really good teachers will make
some cursory attempt to explain why you can solve a problem how you can, but
if a student already has been pushed up through a few math classes he should
not have passed, it is likely to be well over that student's head. That
feeling of mathematical incompetency just makes them tune the teacher out. And
all the while, since grades are the de facto measure of your "worth" in
school, the students are thinking "this explanation is too difficult: it won't
be on the test." That's a dangerous mindset to cultivate... but the way the
system is designed, it doesn't matter one whit.

The student can memorize some facts, never understand why they are as they
are, and then study the generic classes of problems that will be present on
the test. Then the student can ace the test, feel good about his or her self,
and move on, all without any real comprehension. But that's the way the system
is designed: you can't apply a teaching process that would really give a full
education of math to everyone. For one thing, we don't have teachers skilled
enough in math to do so. (A chicken-and-egg problem.) So we are stuck with
these half-baked attempts at a curriculum, with kids gaming the system to get
their A (or whatever standard they set for themselves) and nothing more.

It's sad. Math is such a beautiful field, full of mysteries and interesting
connections. But thanks to the terrible math education system, the vast
majority of high school graduates think math is a worthless field full of
arcane formulae jumbled about in a seemingly random way all with no real
logical structure.

~~~
Dove
_Perhaps the most damning thing about math education is its focus on the what,
not the why. For example, the quadratic formula: it is introduced and students
are told that if you have an equation "of the form" ax^2+bx+c=0, you can "find
x" by plugging in the numbers. Never are you given an explanation of where the
quadratic formula comes from, never are you given an explanation of why you
would want to solve a quadratic._

This is not entirely the education's fault.

When I was taking algebra in 7th grade, the teacher _did_ derive the quadratic
formula for us. We studied completing the square first, and then he did it
with generic symbols for A, B, and C. I thought it was WAY cool. I never
memorized it; instead, for the next two years, any time I needed it, I simply
re-derived it. You could find the derivation on the back of just about every
math test I took in high school.

None of my classmates took that route, though. Every last one of them
memorized the thing.

I was the sort of person who automatically thought the _why_ of something was
much cooler than the _what_ , but I don't think most people are that way. I
don't doubt math education could inspire an interest in the _why_ , but I'm
not optimistic that it will inspire _everyone_. At the very least, I think
that would take more than merely presenting it.

I don't know. Maybe tests have pounded the natural curiosity out of kids,
maybe it's just cynicism. But it's certainly my perception that the vast
majority of them care more about the _what_.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Never are you given an explanation of where the quadratic formula comes
> from_ //

That's not [exclusively] how I was taught the quadratic equation and it's
solutions, in high school in the UK, either.

I wish people would remember to provide geographical context on HN. The
article is about Australian middle school so should I assume that's what
everyone is referring to with their generalised statements of "this is what
'math' is like"?

> _I simply re-derived it_ //

This is why I did well at maths. Practically no memorisation required; you can
start with something you know and derive what you need to answer the question.

~~~
Someone
No memorization? To do those derivations, you must have memorized derivation
steps and be able to recognize when it makes sense to apply them.

That, IMO, is the big thing: students that are relatively poor at abstraction
cannot see commonalities between problems that those with more talent find
trivial.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _you must have memorized derivation steps_ //

Certainly later on, like with QFT, I was left to grope in the dark recesses of
memory for the next step in a proof of some corollary or other but I found
that understanding how a proof works means that the steps make sense in the
same way as having to pull down your trousers before pulling down your
underwear. Yes there is memorisation involved but nothing like that required
to establish who was the King of France in 1492.

I did say "practically", perhaps "comparatively" would have been more to the
point.

------
tokenadult
The comments already posted here are quite interesting. It takes well prepared
teachers to serve up engaging problems that will excite young learners about
mathematics. I just learned about the 2010 Teacher Education Study in
Mathematics (TEDS-M)

[http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/sites/usteds/documents/USTED...](http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/sites/usteds/documents/USTEDS-
FAQ.pdf)

a few days ago, as I discovered the book Teacher Education Matters: A Study of
Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation in Six Countries

[http://www.amazon.com/Teacher-Education-Matters-
Mathematics-...](http://www.amazon.com/Teacher-Education-Matters-Mathematics-
Preparation/dp/0807751626/)

at my alma mater university library as I searched for books about mathematics
education, my occupation. (The book, in turn, appears to be based on a
publication from the study

[http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/sites/usteds/documents/MT21R...](http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/sites/usteds/documents/MT21Report.pdf)

that I was able to view in one Web browser but not another. Perhaps most of
you HN participants can read the study publication directly online.)

The study found and the book reports that "Putting more resources into U.S.
middle school mathematics teachers' education could significantly raise future
teachers' mathematics skills but may not be sufficient to equal those in
countries where mathematics skills are substantially higher or produce
sufficient numbers of more highly skilled middle school mathematics teachers,
for two reasons. Average mathematics knowledge among U.S. college students is
much lower than in Taiwan, South Korea, or Germany, and because of the
relatively low salaries and prestige of teaching in the United States, the
college students enrolled in teacher education are likely to average much
lower mathematics skills than the large number of students in science,
engineering, and economics/business." (Pages 278-279) The book also reports,
especially relevant as a commment on the submitted article here, "South Korean
and Taiwanese future teachers included both simple and complex examples in
their lessons, usually including these in the beginning and middle of the
lesson. By contrast, sampled U.S. future teachers tended mostly to use simple
examples and to include them at the very end of the lesson." (Page 289)

Teachers in the early grades having adequate mathematics preparation to help
young learners advance in their understanding is a very severe problem in the
United States, where it has been reported that most elementary school teachers
in a sample of teachers in New Jersey did not know a general rule for finding
the area of a rectangle if the side lengths of the rectangle are known.

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

The dramatic differences in teacher preparation result in dramatic differences
in mathematics achivement between countries.

<http://pirls.bc.edu/timss2007/PDF/T07_M_IR_Chapter1.pdf>

(See Exhibit 1.1 on pages 34 and 35 of the .PDF document for an example of an
excellent use of parallel boxplots to compare the centers of various groups.)
In general, United States "average" students are at the bottom level of top-
performing countries, while even "average" students in those countries are at
a "gifted" level for the United States.

The FAQ page for Epsilon Camp collects some other writings about producing
challenging (and thus engaging) lessons for mathematics learners, preparing
them to go far in mathematics with a love for the subject.

<http://www.epsiloncamp.org/FAQ.php>

------
j45
Gamifying worked for me: MathBlasters

~~~
vog
There's also the great Free Software project "TuxMath":

<http://tux4kids.alioth.debian.org/tuxmath/>

TuxMath is part of the "Tix4Kids" project which provides similar software for
other topics:

<http://tux4kids.alioth.debian.org/>

------
creamyhorror
I've been reading about the use of Singaporean math curricula in the US, there
are a few articles out there about the differences between the US and
Singaporean style of math education. The US has been embroiled in the "math
wars" since the '90s, over constructivist textbooks that have proven woefully
ineffective in raising objective test scores.

Have a read:

<http://educationnext.org/miracle-math/>

\----- It was another body blow to education. In December of 2004, media
outlets across the country were abuzz with news of the just-released results
of the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
tests. Once again despite highly publicized efforts to reform American math
education (some might say because of the reform efforts) over the past two
decades, the United States did little better than average (see Figure 1). ...
And in three consecutive TIMSS test rounds (in 1995, 1999, and 2003), 4th- and
8th-grade students in the former British trading colony of Singapore beat all
contenders, including math powerhouses Japan and Taiwan. United States 8th
graders did not even make the top ten in the 2003 round; they ranked 16th.
Worse, scores for American students were, as one Department of Education study
put it, “among the lowest of all industrialized countries.” \-----

Further reading:
[http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/jason.frand/math_enrichmen...](http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/jason.frand/math_enrichment/SingaporeMath.html)

It sounds like the way math is taught in many public US classrooms is killing
students' confidence and interest in math. There were a few news articles
talking about how many students became interested in math again after the
Singapore program was introduced in their school (see here:
[http://singaporemathsource.com/curriculum/schools-in-the-
new...](http://singaporemathsource.com/curriculum/schools-in-the-news/) ). A
common refrain was that the kids simply weren't understanding what was going
on in math - as if they were stumbling around in the dark with no idea what
the computations they were doing _meant_.

I've also read good things about other foreign curricula (e.g. "Russian math")
being used in American schools and by homeschoolers, but none are as common as
Singapore Math. Here's some praise about SM from American mothers, including
sample word problems: <http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/singapore.htm> \- where
you'll see simple algebra problems that are not solved by traditional algebra
at all.

I can tell you as a Singaporean that I think the curriculum gave me a solid
base and understanding of school math, and really stretched me at its harder
portions. I hope more people will give it a try, especially if you have kids
who aren't "getting" math or are bored of their current math curricula. Get
the additional 'tougher' practice books (IP and CWP) for your bright kids to
experience the full brain training of the Singaporean system.

~~~
Permit
I can't help but wonder if some of the difference in performance can be
attributed to the culture of each country, especially regarding its attitude
toward education. In particular, the attitude towards test taking in Korea
just blows me away:
[http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/21/zakaria-w...](http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/21/zakaria-
why-all-of-south-korea-went-silent/)

Apparently planes are grounded, late children are driven to school by police
officers and people actually gather at the schools to cheer on their
relatives/peers on their way into school. What these events convey to me is a
deep, cultural understanding of the importance of education.

In my high school, it seemed as though respect was garnered among students for
(Excuse my language) "Not giving a fuck". The ability not to care seemed to be
something to aspire to. Of course, this is entirely anecdotal, but a point of
interest for me after seeing the incredible dedication students in other
countries have.

Can you tell me a little about the culture surrounding education in Singapore?
Is it at all similar to that of South Korea?

~~~
creamyhorror
Glad you asked. To us in Singapore, the South Koreans and Japanese actually
look a tad excessive (what with their headbands and everything in that
article). But it's more likely just a function of how they display their
emphasis on school testing. We probably care as much about test results, but
don't display it in the same way.

Test results matter when a majority of successful people got where they were
because of their results. They did well in school and got good jobs (often in
foreign MNCs); not many started their own businesses. Add to this the cultural
motivation of wanting to keep up with the Joneses (being 'kiasu', in our
lingo) and you have a strong incentive for parents to be all "responsible" for
their kid by making sure she gets tutoring in whatever subjects she's weak in
and she does additional practice outside of homework, often at a harder level
than in school.

And of course, in the good schools, the ones that take in a higher-scoring
crop of students, the teachers create harder test papers for their students to
keep them motivated (we can't have everyone getting As now, can we?), and so
parents go to tutoring companies with "challenging" or "enriching" programmes
to make sure their kids keep up. The problems at this end of the pool get a
bit ridiculous, and people end up complaining:
[http://everythingalsocomplain.com/2011/09/10/primary-6-maths...](http://everythingalsocomplain.com/2011/09/10/primary-6-maths-
exam-question-too-tough/)

The tide is turning slightly as new parents, freshly emerged from the
competitive sea of schooling, take a less intense view of the importance of
academic performance, and recognise that there are other paths that their kids
can take in life that don't rely on test scores. We've opened specialist
schools in arts, music, sports and design in recent years. But there's still a
heavy economic pressure to do well and get good jobs in finance, medicine, law
and so on, so I don't expect the culture of focus on education will weaken
significantly in the near future.

I think the fundamentally different culture of American schools means that
many Asian approaches will never transfer well; but there are still
improvements that can be made, e.g. in the area of curriculum, in teacher
training and ongoing development, etc. American schools are incredibly diverse
in populations and practices; they have big weaknesses and big strengths. I
think it would be good to have a unified tough-but-capable program for the
struggling schools in poorer neighbourhoods, while letting strong/specialised
schools do their thing. That would be something like the best of both worlds.

------
mjwalshe
"Math" really as a dyslexic I find the ungrammatical title of this depressing
its Mathematics Physicists learn Physics and not Physic and Chemists don't
learn Chem.

