I read this article with a lot of interest a while ago, since I have a kid in middle school in SFUSD. Having been through the system, I think the whole thing i

I read this article with a lot of interest a while ago, since I have a kid in middle school in SFUSD. Having been through the system, I think the whole thing is pretty stupid. People, seriously, the problem with math achievement in SFUSD is not a function of whether we favor concept development or technical approaches. The problems are far deeper. We can only dream of being at the the point where this sort of debate is actually what matters. I think what happened is that US educators looked at Finland (among other places that have high math scores) and saw that there is more development of concept and less emphasis on technical drill. So they went back and made a curriculum that does, like, the concept thing. Interestingly, they just don't seem to want to copy that part where math teachers (well, all teachers) are a highly talented and respected group of professionals, drawn from the upper tier of graduates. I think that the US failed to understand that Finland does things this way because it's how talented teachers who are good at math teach math. You can't put this in a curriculum, hand it off, and get the same results without that talent base. And if you have that talent base with autonomy to do the job properly, well, they'll probably do it regardless of the curriculum. Until we address this (it's not the only thing we need to address), this whole debate is worthless.