I'm interested in insightful descriptions of the physical world for young kids.
For illustration, what might it mean to teach friction well? Is it memorize-and-regurgitate of bogus definitions in late primary? Or plug-and-chug of Arrhenius's law of large objects sliding on pig fat in high-school? Or instead, could we talk about sock nubbies in K-3? Their similarity to cleats and crampons and klister. How to avoid slipping and falling. Sliding and slipping and sticking - pervasively surrounding us. Nanoscale origins connecting nicely with macroscale behavior. And for the numerate, a feel for reasonable order-of-magnitude values. So physics, but coming from sort of an engineering perspective - hands-on, pragmatic, rough quantitative.
Could we approach math similarly? What might it mean to teach category theory to young kids? Perhaps math as a vocabulary for describing similarities among everyday things? "Oh, you missed the square, but you can get it the next time you go around the board":"It's almost one o'clock now, so we'll wait for lunch-time tomorrow":"Missed the parking space, so we'll drive around the block". Movement around short loops is a theme of everyday experience. Could it be taught? Now, or with future AR/VR tech?
In preK-1, learning to describe physical properties is a thing. Rough, smooth, etc. But instead of drawing on well designed vocabularies from industrial design or material science, it's left to dysfunctional ad hoceries. Similarly, K-12 physics education leaves students having seen almost no physics. What about math?
Could math be taught not as a random fun thing to do, like crossword puzzles and fashion magazines, but as a deeply insightful and broadly illuminating vocabulary for describing everyday experiences?