To me it appears that Clyde Greeno is entirely correct in his assessment that the claim in the article appears to be just "Poppycock!" - as implied in Domenico Rosa's comment as well ("It seems that the solution to U.S. pseudo-education in arithmetic may lie with three-year-olds" - dt. Dec 23, 2013 10:23 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2612288).
I believe that children at the age of three have plenty of things to learn about themselves (about their own bodies and intellects) AND about the world around them rather than studying multi-digit numbers and their formal representation, etc.
The article leads to the fear that - if its conclusions are accepted by the powers-that-be in education - primary schools will now force children at age three to study place-valued digits and stuff like that whether or not they are interested in these things that some adults have decreed they are ready to learn!
May I suggest that these 'experts' should seriously look at the way mothers teach their infant children from birth onwards, before they come out with these poppycock suggestions about how they should be exposed to math ideas. If they do not have the imagination to do that, they might do well to absorb the wisdom that Maria Montessori brought to 'child learning'.