Brian Harvey wrote: > > Guess who <email@example.com> writes: > > If you learn to play the guitar or any > >other musical instrument, you are first taught how to place your hands > >and how to move them. You will practice scales on the piano, not > >knowing why at the time, but that practice lays a firm foundation even > >though the understanding is missing initially. > > It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that they wanted me to understand > key signatures and circle-of-fifths from the beginning, before I had much > "firm foundation" of playing skill. (Not to mention that music teaching also > has its radical critics, for some of the same reasons as math teaching -- it > turns off more people than it turns on.) > > I think, too, that the original context of this thread has been lost among > the big ideas. We are talking about a population of kids who have already > failed at learning arithmetic. So we *know for sure* that more of the same > is *not* going to do *these* kids any good. Maybe giving them some actual > mathematics won't work either, for many of them, but maybe it will, and it > certainly can't do any worse than yet another year of remedial arithmetic. >
I guess that it also partly depends on what the class is---is it the "cutups" or is it a real "mentally-challenged" group or something else or all of the above?
I was thinking of apparently educatable kids who were either behind for language or other reasons. While I don't have a problem w/ the idea of trying some more advanced concepts, I've seen too many pushed through that still can't do remedial arithmetic to think it's a good thing to simply "let it slide" as unimportant.