> At first students would convert their assigned math problems into Kaktovik numerals to do calculations, but middle school math classes in Kaktovik began teach

> At first students would convert their assigned math problems into Kaktovik numerals to do calculations, but middle school math classes in Kaktovik began teaching the numerals in equal measure with their Hindu-Arabic counterparts in 1997. Bartley reports that after a year of the students working fluently in both systems, scores on standardized math exams jumped from below the 20th percentile to “significantly above” the national average. It's not clear to me what that paragraph is saying. One interpretation is: - They were using standardized textbooks with problems that used standard arabic numerals. - Students converted to kaktovik numbers (in words, since they didn't have the symbols until 1994?) before working the problem, and back to arabic after solving it. - The change in 1997 was to teach students to solve problems directly using arabic numerals in addition to being able to solve problems directly using newly-arrived kaktovik numerals I realize that interpretation goes against the tone of the article, but I wouldn't put it past journalists to gloss over an inconvenient fact in an article that's intended to champion an alternative number representation system. It would make a lot of sense that students would do better on (timed) standardized tests after they're fluent in arabic numerals, which was the entire point and concern in my earlier post. I don't care what else is taught to supplement basic arithmetic, or to reinforce concepts, but students have to be fluent in using arabic numerals for arithmetic, without conversion to some other system, or they will suffer. By the article's own admission there, students were using kaktovik numerals before 1997, and their scores were lower, so whatever change was made in 1997 did not involve students learning kaktovik numerals when they didn't know about them before. Were they taught them better, so they understood abstract concepts in basic arithmetic better... or were they taught arabic numerals better, allowing them to use those numerals natively to solve problems? My speculation, as above, is the latter. There's nothing inherent about learning kaktovik numerals that would help on standardized tests.