Holy Shit and Oh My God

Problem: how to maximise the intelligence of the growing brain?

Question: is constant and repetitive drill of basic math computation making children smarter?

A Loop: these two thoughts entwined in my brain forming a mobius strip of agony.

Yesterday, my friend and I had a polite chat. She was talking about this new school year for her son and questioning me about our schooling. We arrived quickly at the twain between us. She believes that the institutional study of math makes kids smarter over time. I believe that unschooling makes kids smarter over time. (Both of these stances implied in the conversation. Both unsaid.) And I woke up rehashing elementary education theory once again. As I am want to do, again and again and again. The conversation wasn't a big deal. But this question is huge for me. Is unschooling elementary math a disservice to my children? Am I a fool bent on raising fools? Can I seriously stay this unschooling course, when my nephew spent part of his summer practicing handwriting and math in continuation of his school year last year and in preparation for this current year? I was aghast that he be made to study between forth and fifth grade. I mean, Come On! And here is my friend's son, studying so well in fifth grade. My children, meanwhile, are in the barn.

Here's the thing. Children practice and drill these facts so they can prove themselves competent within their school system. If you remove them from the system, can anyone prove the drill is important or even helpful?

I understand that math is innate in the universe. Math is not invented, but rather, discovered. And the word "math" is actually the name of a language we ascribe to this phenomenon. So the study of math is really the study of a language. I know the accumulation of language is good for our developing brains.

I think the way this language is taught, institutionally, in the United States, is actually damaging. I want my kids to apprehend the phenomenon under the language, in the same way we communicate on a human level over and above words. Such that I can understand and communicate with a Chinese baby, a Mexican baby, and a Russian baby, even though I don't speak their native words. We can grasp and manipulate mathematical concepts without formal drill of computational language. And I think, humans arrive at a richer and deeper understanding of the language when children are given the time, space, and exposure to interact with these concepts in the real world. The finer specifics of math language can be acquired as easily and quickly as any other language. Which is to say, in about a year if immersed. And much faster for many people.

What does that say for all the children with their heads bent to Formica desks right this minute?

I discussed all of this over coffee with my husband this morning. And I went to my computer to write about it. But first I went to the New York Times to reread an article about Sarah Palin which was going to be deftly and craftily worked into this topic. Instead I found my HolyShitOMG moment. I swear, academia is going to catch up to my breathtaking cutting edge theories and prove me right one day. Just you all wait. The money and the honorary degrees are going to just flood in here... right? Well, I'll be happy if my children function well in which ever society and life they choose.

Gut Instinct’s Surprising Role in Math Function ~Natalie Angier

"One research team has found that how readily people rally their approximate number sense is linked over time to success in even the most advanced and abstruse mathematics courses. Other scientists have shown that preschool children are remarkably good at approximating the impact of adding to or subtracting from large groups of items but are poor at translating the approximate into the specific. Taken together, the new research suggests that math teachers might do well to emphasize the power of the ballpark figure, to focus less on arithmetic precision and more on general reckoning..."

"Dr. Halberda, who happens to be Dr. Feigenson’s spouse, relishes the work’s philosophical implications. “What’s interesting and surprising in our results is that the same system we spend years trying to acquire in school, and that we use to send a man to the moon, and that has inspired the likes of Plato, Einstein and Stephen Hawking, has something in common with what a rat is doing when it’s out hunting for food,” he said. “I find that deeply moving.”