Wow - thanks for posting the link to that paper. This paper has triggered a rant.
Trying to come up with a good way to teach math or science can be extremely frustrating, because in some ways we have both hands tied behind our backs. We are given a curriculum and told to teach it. Never mind that the curriculum misses the point and kills curiosity and creativity in favor of teaching certain procedures because they can be tested easily on exams, and because that’s what will lead students to the next procedures in high school or college or whatever. It’s frustrating to exist within a system of standards/curriculum/exams that constrain what we’re able to do. I’m very interested in trying completely new ways of doing things, but I have a list of topics that have been deemed important, and I’m required to teach those things*. They’re on the tests that I’m required to give. Some of them fall under the category of teaching notation without actually letting the students tackle a problem (see the linked article), and it’s tough to salvage that type of curricular material with clever tweaks in the way you teach it. A new approach is required, and it is necessary to let go of some of the things that we deem essential. I think that’s what the author of article in the OP’s post is getting at. If you’re not actually teaching people algebra, then you’re not actually gaining anything by forcing them to take it. (Trust me, I personally enjoy and value algebra.)
*That said, I prioritize trying to teach well over following rules or doing exactly as I am told.
What I find really tiring is that teachers are constantly presented with requirements and standards and demands to measure student progress in new ways, but the experts always stop short of writing (or funding the writing of) a good curriculum for us to use as a resource. No, I don’t want or need a step by step guide, but a list of great problems and investigations to use would be a nice start. You’d think this would be out there somewhere, but I certainly haven’t found it. The idea seems to be that teachers are supposed to read the standards (which are full of concepts I completely agree with), and then concoct our own curricula to satisfy all of the standards. I think I could go on a pretty long rant about why this is impossible, but here’s a medium length one: creating a curriculum is a very large and intricate puzzle; to do it right, you’d have to interweave all of the subjects in ways that reinforce each other and provide context for the others; you’d have to make sure each year builds on previous years; you’d have to make sure it’s challenging for fast learners and accessible enough for your struggling learners to still make progress; you need to interweave a lot of “soft” (and more crucial) concepts with the so-called “content” learning, including inquiry/argument/critque (including doing them in social studies AND science AND language, etc). So… what’s the master list of interesting and challenging problems that I should include in a chemistry class that will not only pique student’s curiosity and creativity, not only get them the procedural skills that will allow them to survive a test from an outside entity, but also make up for the various deficiencies and bad attitudes they’ve collected from their previous education? I’m not saying it can’t be done, but what I AM saying is that this isn’t the type of problem that an enterprising teacher is going to successfully tackle over the summer as a summer project that I decided to try for shiggles. It’s a large puzzle with a lot of constraints and moving parts, and I don’t even have a great list of really interesting problems and investigations to start with as raw material.
If I have a point, it’s this: the curriculum in math (and science) is way wrong, and we need to start over and write something that does a better job. The emphasis on specific content (such as stating electron configurations, or writing arcane geometry proofs) should be scaled back, and the emphasis on general thinking skills (like critiquing an argument or suggesting possible explanations for a surprising result) should be scaled up. Teachers shouldn’t be expected to wave a magic wand and create this curriculum in our spare time… smart people, like the people who wrote the National Science Education Standards, should help in this effort instead of copping out and saying that districts are supposed to do it. If a brilliant curriculum is created, it should be a freely available resource, not a set of rigid requirements - let teachers use better stuff if they are clever enough to come up with it. And… more effort should be placed on this type of thing than is currently placed on creating and administering ever more standardized exams that will, predictably and inevitably, prove that our current system is still, in spite of doing the same thing repeatedly over many decades, not working as well as we would like.