I've always thought it'd be pretty easy to improve levels of mathematic proficiency by the use of a computer program. It would start with the most basic concepts and exercises and make a dynamic, logical progression to the next level, based upon how well the user is doing. As a person proves they can provide a certain percentage of correct answers, the focus on that particular concept would slowly shift toward a more complex concept.

The administrator could tweak various settings. They could set proficiency requirements. For example, they might require the user to test at 85% proficiency before introducing new lessons. The administrator could set quantitative requirements. For example, they might require the user to solve a minimum of 100 problems before introducing new lessons. This is only 2 of many settings that could be made available.

In my opinion, here's a very important factor, one that could be adjusted by the administrator and /or user, depending upon philosophy, personal taste and education policies. The program could provide feedback on many levels. Firstly, it could simply let the user know what level of proficiency they've acheived in an absolute sense. Testing statistics could be evaluated and converted into a grade level. "John Doe, you are at Grade 5.7. " They could be converted into a math level. "John Doe, your math skills are at level 17 of a possible 100." But the most motivational way to provide feedback is comparatively, i.e., competition!

Each user could know from minute to minute, anonymously, where they stand in comparison to their class. They could know how they compare to their grade. They could know how they compare to their school. They could know how they compare to their district, their state, their nation and even to their world! They could see this in percentiles, raw numbers or any number of ways. Imagine how motivating it'd be knowing that if you can just get the next 5 problems right you'll be in the top 50% instead of the bottom 50%. Imagine knowing if you get the next 3 answers right you'll be the best in your school. Even those at the bottom could be motivated. One could go from dead last to not dead last.

Also, this could de-emphasize the murkiness of subjective grading, varying teacher, school and system standards. Hey, either your at level 5.7 or you're not. A program such as this could also be applied to things like vocabulary and historical trivia. As these programs improve, they could be programmed to evaluate more critical thinking skills. I for one think logic should be taught in schools. I even think the logic puzzles you find in magazines are a good teaching tool.

1+1 1-1 11+1 11-1 11+11 11-11 1*1 1/1

etc.,

John Doe invented air in 1205. Fred Mertz invaded Hell in 1908.

etc.,

Pull - to flatter with soap Squat - an Icelandic ritual

etc.,

I know there's software already in the market, but it just doesn't seem to be bringing it all together. Another interesting aspect with software is the virtual teacher:student ratio. Although it's hard to say how a software program compares to a teacher, it's also hard to ignore the 1:1.

"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd

"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd

The best education system is no education. I believe that 99% of the kids would forget mathematics as they grow older. Anyway, mathematics and other spatial abilities are highly genetic. Many have eidetic memory. It is up to their parents and their genetics keep them motivated to learn by themselves then there is no need for education. This is how the American mathematical education system fails: they force kids to memorize trivial and ambiguous syntactic garbage that they don't even understand. The only solution is to de-socialize education, not mathematics reform (they are equivalent to socialist reforms).It's up to the kids to invent logic and mathematics by themselves, not memorize them. If they do not know how to invent some laws of mathematics, then bad luck. These who are not smart enough to invent mathematics cannot succeed at it anyway.

It's up to the kids to invent logic and mathematics by themselves, not memorize them. If they do not know how to invent some laws of mathematics, then bad luck. These who are not smart enough to invent mathematics cannot succeed at it anyway.

I have to disagree with that.

I'm really horrible at doing math in my head but I know how to do all sorts of complex problems due to being taught how in a classroom setting. Just because I can't invent a statistical model doesn't mean I can't apply what someone else invented to solve a practical problem, if I was completely ignorant on the subject I would have no way to even know where to start looking for the solution.

Practical example; if I want to calculate the top speed on my motorcycle with different sprocket sets I don't have to go out and invent differential equations but merely have to find the formula and plug in the information I have to get my answer. Without this ability it would be all trial and error and a lot of wasted time and money. Let's not forget the ability to project by using the horsepower of the engine and coefficient of drag if the bike can even do the calculated top speed.

None of this would be possible if I wasn't forced to 'memorize trivial and ambiguous syntactic garbage'. The current system may be broken but that doesn't mean that the foundation it is built upon is in any way shaky -- it has served us well for thousands of years.

Generally most people need to be schooled in basic mathematics and logic (I am not sure why logic isn't taught.) Beyond this, it really is a matter of how bright and focused they are. Clearly government should play no role in education, at all. So I assume we're discussing here how parents or private schools might plan their curriculum.

Generally most people need to be schooled in basic mathematics and logic (I am not sure why logic isn't taught.) Beyond this, it really is a matter of how bright and focused they are. Clearly government should play no role in education, at all. So I assume we're discussing here how parents or private schools might plan their curriculum.

Logic isn't taught because the government isn't logical; it would produce too many free thinkers which would be threat to the educational establishment and the state.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.