> Evidence of what? ... Isn't that obvious?
I'm loving how everyone is proving such good examples of the things I'm talking about in my root post. First, to be clear I'm not engaging with your proposal.
But the point is that you seem to have a very strong opinion. Strong enough at least to muster yourself to type a fairly substantial reply (now two) to me using very strong language like "instanity" and "propagainda". Yet where does this opinion come from. I can respect if it comes from experience. Unlike a lot of posters on HN, I put value on expertise and experience. Yet you are not claiming to have expertise or experience, so why is your opinion so strong?
I expected on your second reply that if you had evidence to link to, you would supply that, but you have neglected to. Instead you claim that what you argue is obvious to you, and I guess by extension should be obvious to us all.
To address your overall point directly, your premise is flawed from the start.
There's been plenty of mathematical modeling added to the curriculum over the years, and the existence of students doing arithmetic on pen and paper doesn't really negate that. Read the book "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert, it goes over a lot of the reasons why arithmetic is done the way it is in the school system. But actually it's principally about how to change it with mathematical modeling, and makes a compelling case for the usage of computers in the classroom beyond mere calculating engines. I'm sure you would enjoy it.
But I mean, why couldn't you cite that body of work to me. And no, the dynamics at play here are not in fact obvious in reality. You think these things are obvious because you haven't actually thought about this issue at any depth beyond consulting your feelings. I'm not saying that to be rude, but you've literally told me exactly this in your last reply.
Honestly I was expecting you would cite Papert given what your were arguing. But the reply you gave me is a perfect instance of the problem I was complaining about in my root comment. Even if you're right, the fact that you can't back up your position beyond "isn't it obvious" is very troubling for the sake of discourse.
Because if you look into this body of work, you'll see vibrant efforts to bring mathematical modeling to young learners, that have been going on for decades, spearheaded by educators and teachers around the world. So no, teachers don't need to be told. They're actually doing these things you are complaining they are not doing. So are they "insane", or is it just that you are ignorant as to the status quo?
> Isn't it trivial to come up with numerous examples?
And yet you didn't offer even a single one.
> Also, status quo does not get free pass.
The status quo has the benefit of being an existence proof tho. If you're going to call someone administering the system insane, given how wildly successful the system has been at driving innovation, then you better have a very strong argument.
But what have you brought to the table? You don't claim to have any relevant experience, you don't claim to have spoken to anyone who does, you provided any research to support your claim, you don't even claim to have done research, and you don't even feel the need to offer even a single example or hypothetical to support your argument. All you've said is that you've consulted your feelings, and you find your argument to be obvious. I mean... would someone else presenting an argument this way convince you? This is not an argument, it's a shell of an argument.
P.S. I actually very much agree that mathematical modeling should be taught to children instead of arithmetic and long division.