Hacker News Reader

Comment by ef4 | Hacker News Reader

I'm getting really tired of the complaints from teachers and parents about these education reforms. Not because the reforms are any good, but because they're so tiny and insignificant.

"School math" is already an absurd parody of the real thing (rather than repeat the argument, see Paul Lockhart "A Mathematician's Lament").

And I'm supposed to get up in arms about switching to a slightly different long-division algorithm? Seriously? These parents and teachers are so ignorant of mathematics that they can't even form coherent arguments about what they don't like beyond "it's different from the steps I learned to mindlessly repeat as a child".

View on HN

A Mathematician's Lament is a good document to read when thinking about this. Link for the lazy

http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...

I finally created an account on HN, just to thank you for telling me about Paul Lockart's essay. Only now do I realize why I don't like, nor properly understand mathematics - at least not mathematics as it's presented in schools.

Things like Conway's Game of Life, fractals, etc are all so insanely interesting and their results so beautiful. But in school they have you calculating boring functions that no one really knows what they're about.

I would agree with you, but I've actually seen the homework assignments and only acceptable correct answers to common core work, and it's disgusting.

Trying to solve 72/9? Better show your work by drawing 72 circles, or you get no credit.

Depends on what the outcome of learning is supposed to be. If it is to simply recite 8, then what have you learned other than a factoid? 72 circles in 9 columns is 8 rows of circles and now you see the relationship clearly. If you rotate your grid, you have 8 columns of 9 circles. If the next question is 72/12 or 72/3 those relationships become even more apparent as the shape of the grid changes.

I see no problem taking math out of abstraction in this way, especially as one moves onto visualizing more complex math. Seeing how the symbols interact with their meaning is a good thing.

I recently introduced my 5 year old to Dragonbox. She picked up algebra quickly, without the formalities, of course. I was pretty amazed by how quickly she understood it, too.

Playing with numbers is a really a great way to learn the meaning of formulas. There are entire schools of thought, such as Montessori, that believe numbers should be taught in this tactile way. Seeing it first hand, and comparing it to my own struggles as a child, I'm inclined to see great value in drawing 72 little circles out.

Sure, but that kind of absurdity is nothing new. Most people just take the older absurdities for granted because it's all they know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com