On Aug 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, that I would say is a fairly concise summary of your theory of math education.
Actually, that wasn't my theory of math education, that was my observation of the data. But yes, my theory accepts this as fact. What else I am supposed to do? Wish it away?
> > > You seem, to me, to be saying their are kids who *can* and *do* think and they are good in math, and the others don't or can't. (Do you suppose their are some who can but don't think?) > > I think their are lots of kids who could, but don't, and at least part of that is because of milieu they find themselves in. As far as talent goes, I believe in that too, but for things like the basic ideas of exp and log, nearly everyone has the potential to understand the basic concepts, and a least partially grasp the math.
Yes, there are those that can but don't, and yes, some of those, maybe a lot of those, are due to milieu, or crappy school districts.
According to the test results I have seen, I disagree with you regarding exp and log. These are not basic topics for students (at least the data says they are not). I recall them being treated rather well in algebra 2 but I think Renfro (in a similar time) said that he didn't cover them. Today they seem more often to be in pre-calculus, except in real honors algebra classes. I am bugged by this probably as much as you because I can't think of a better function and its inverse to put in the second half of the year of algebra 2. But it does seem that working with expressions involving exp and log is to much like *solving* for a typical algebra student.