Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed response – just wonderful. Clear, too (at least, I followed it as I read it – I could not recreate it).
I’m interested in this whole discussion for many reasons. For one, it takes me back to college and grad school, when my boyfriend and many of my friends were in Physics and Astronomy (as that field was happy to call itself once – “Astrophysics” was just coming into use). As a Classics prof, I have had a number of mathematician and scientist friends. (A close one is a “physical chemist” – his degree in Physics but he teaches in the Chem Dept.) Anyway, I’m familiar with how mathematicians look askance, or with wry humor, at the way scientists use math. I’ll stop here on this line of discussion except to note that Chemistry must “use” math in its own ways. In my last 20 years of so of teaching, a lot of us in language and literature areas began to notice how we enjoyed having Chem majors in our classes – they were so smart, good readers, and wrote so well. (The scientists always insisted, in discussions about writing requirements, that lab reports provide an excellent opportunity for honing writing skills.) And I’ll add another note: analytic philosophy and linguistics, where mathematical reasoning is essential.
Second source of my interest: mathematical education in primary and secondary schools. My own children in the '80’s and '90’s, and now my grandchildren. My children’s elementary teachers were ahead of the curve, I think. Middle and high school math teachers weren’t. The elementary school was committed to an approach to math which meant that students scored in a mediocre way on national tests in 3rd or 4th grade but went off the charts on the 6th grade tests. Coordination with the middle school math teachers wasn’t great, unfortunately (though it was in other areas), but at least my children did well in their math courses, and my son went on to use his math skills in Philosophy, Linguistics, and medicine.
As for my grandchildren, we shall see. I don’t know the overall shape of the math curriculum in their school. But so far I’ve been impressed by what I think is what you are referring to when you say, " If a teacher teaches arithmetic as a set of pattern recognition practices, that’s one thing and it would be helpful to kids when they move onto symbolic manipulation in ‘real’ math. But if the pattern recognition isn’t emphasized as pattern recognition, it’s not so helpful. Maybe the kids come back later and put all that stuff together, but more likely not." We shall see.
Mathematics embraces so much (everything?) that devising curricula for it, from K-12 to college, is, well, shall we say, challenging?
Thank you again!