
Re: Keith Devlin's Online Course
Posted:
Jan 1, 2014 5:41 PM


On Jan 1, 2014, at 5:14 AM, GS Chandy <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This also brings us to the following: > > The 'mathy kids' of interest to Robert Hansen (RH) constitute, what?, 1%, 2% (certainly no more than 5%) of all the children in the educational system?
You are confusing mathy with gifted.
By mathy I mean just good at math, at any level. Naturally, as you go further down the path, the percentages reduce, for a variety of reasons. A practical target for algebra 2 would be 10 to 15%. A theory of education has to assume success, unless you see value in a theory of unsuccessful education. Central to that success is a student good at math. What does good at math mean? It means that as you teach mathematics they get it. Note, I don?t care how you teach it, just that you teach it, and that they get it. Talent (good at math) appears to be a key factor in that process. I have to work with the data we have, not the data I wish we had.
On Jan 1, 2014, at 5:14 AM, GS Chandy <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In which case no one who is interested in developing an effective educational system (as I am*) really needs to pay the least attention at this point to RH's ideas on the matter. Just continue work on developing an *effective* educational system (confident in the system understanding that an effective educational system for math will surely contain a 'subsystem' for the 'mathy kids?).
Is there some point where you actually get around to developing an effective educational system. Or is this the whole of your contribution to education? That in order to have an effective educational system one must develop an effective educational system. Yes, please ignore my postings. I fear that they are distracting you from your mission. To design an effective educational system.
Bob Hansen

