I agree that mathematics in general leads to what you say (instructional techniques aside), but I'm rather arguing that it's not necessarily the mathematical techniques that are the primary thing at fault (however I do agree that it is massively lacking and misguided, as he is saying), but rather that more generalized instructional techniques and learning environments and structures are equally at fault. Students don't test poorly solely because the math instruction was that much poorer than elsewhere, but rather that the student, to due a good number of factors, wasn't inclined to learn, and rather "get by through whatever means" (or whatever other reason), as is so common in our society. That doesn't lead to exceptional skills in analysis, problem solving, or general logic.
Lastly, judging by his HN about page I wouldn't say his field of expertise is specifically mathematics, but rather that he has much broader educational expertise.
IMO, the biggest problem with education is how crackpot the teacher teaching system is. They seem to have no more scientific basis than Postmodernism, despite the fact that they actually research something that can be research.
There's a book called "Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom". The author explains (more or less) why Direct Instruction is so much more successful than other, newer, faddish techniques. Actually, Direct Instruction is also a bit faddish, and could certainly be improved by a more scientific approach.
Unfortunately, teacher trainers think that drill work is boring, and anything that recommends drill work must be wrong, because it is (to them) unpleasant. Maybe not as unpleasant as studying stuff you don't understand (which is what happens if you don't drill), but they don't have to accept reality.
The problem with school education is that it isn't aware of the moral context in which it operates. Herding children into classrooms and telling them what to learn is a horrible thing to do.
And, under threat of punishment, once can't learn efficiently, anyhow.
Yes, and not only the moral context. A school's job is to help turn little animals into citizens by introducing them to the broader world. How does shoving them in a box for 8 hours a day where they have to sit in one place make any sense if that's your goal.
Interesting. Just purchased that book. I imagine I will be able to answer some of the below questions after I read it, but as of now I am wondering the following:
Recently I have heard that "Direct Instruction" is very effective, but I'm very skeptical as to what it is effective for. What exactly can you teach through that method, and what can you not? What does that method absolutely skip over? For example, through it, can you learn critical thinking, rhetoric/debate skills, rationality & logic, philosophy? Does it help students learn about themselves (self-discovery) -- how they think, learn, what their interests/passions are, what drives them? Does it help them find truth for themselves? Or, does it ignore all these and even more than our system today try to fit every personality into the standard box?
Does it at all care for each individual student or is it comprehensively uni-directional, from instructor to student?
DI is not a perfect method. It's a little crackpot itself. But it's both empirically better than all the other fads and as sexy as Bush in a bikini, so it more or less killed empirical study of education. Now there's a bit of a revival of quantitative education studies, but it's too short term in it's scope (a good teacher doesn't just help the students pass the next test).
IIRC, studies showed that DI did actually help the good students, the bad students, the mediocre students, the rich students and the poor students.
It also helped "higher order" skills.
I think that from a cognitive psychology perspective (though I'm not an expert), this is because the brain needs to learn fundamentals before it can work through more advanced things.
As for "self discovery", I think students are pretty good at that themselves. Current fads just pile on the homework though (because "testing doesn't teach anything"), which in my view is a big development killer.
I'm not a DI fan. I'm not a fan of capitalism either. But if you don't know why something works, you shouldn't just dismiss it for being unattractive.
Lastly, judging by his HN about page I wouldn't say his field of expertise is specifically mathematics, but rather that he has much broader educational expertise.