This TED talk by John Bennett raises an important question; why do we teach middle school and high school math?

I don’t know if using "puzzles" is a scalable solution for the problems in mathematics instruction in middle schools and high schools. It would probably work for many math teachers, but wouldn’t necessarily work for all math teachers. Puzzles and games * are* good for teaching analytical skills, provided you have someone around who models the use of analytical skills during the game. I’ve noticed, over many, many years of playing games, that many of my friends do not use much deductive reasoning during games. What I would support is much more use of puzzles and games during mathematics class than what is currently considered acceptable practice.

John’s argument that middle school and high school mathematics is unnecessary should actually be restated: our ** current** middle school and high school mathematics

**is unnecessary. John is essentially arguing for a different curriculum, rather than discarding the practice of developing mathematical reasoning in students.**

*curriculum*I think we need a variety of approaches. What we are doing right now works when students have a strong mathematics instructor, but isn’t working for every student. Instead of assuming that there is one solution to the mathematics education "problem", we should recognize that **there are a variety of solutions**. What works for John Bennett may not work for every mathematics teacher. I’d like to see these different solutions compete more with each other, and be able to do more research on the effectiveness of each of these approaches. We definitely need more flexibility in mathematics instruction, especially with regard to the curriculum outcomes.

I think we should be focusing less on curriculum outcomes, and more on the holistic goals of a mathematics education. I don’t think it matters if every student learns about the quadratic formula (for example), but all students would benefit from learning deductive and inductive reasoning, pattern finding, modelling of data, and problem formulation. Curriculum should be a vehicle for these goals, rather than the goal itself.

## Anonymous says:

I refuse to add the plug-in to my computer, but I want to make the point that learning math isn’t about it’s use in everyday computations. Rather, math instruction is essential to critical and creative thinking. If we remove the more difficult math from the curricula, we create a generation of individuals who depend on electronics for their everyday math and cannot think critically or creatively. Who, then, will solve our problems and create new technology? I will tell you who will. The hardworking students in China and every other country who puts emphasis on learning and thinking. That’s where our entire country is being “left behind”. The answer is staring us in the face….TEACH TRADITIONAL MATH!!!

October 14, 2012 — 12:28 pm

## David Wees says:

So first, before you jump all over me for saying we shouldn’t be teaching high school math, don’t mistake my point – we should be, just differently. I posted this video because he brings up some good points, and because it’s interesting, not because I necessarily agree with everything he says.

As for you refusing to install the plugin so you can watch the video, I’m going to quote Seymour Papert: "

People who have never used a computer to learn anything deeply should not comment on whether a computer can be used for powerful learning."October 15, 2012 — 2:38 am