Anne Johnson responding to Arthur Benjamin's formula for changing math education

Arthur Benjamin argues that all math education is designed to build toward calculus.  He argues that statistics and probability would be a better goal.  I didn't linger long in this argument, but found myself thinking about the nature of mathematics as a field and how it has evolved over time - and then  . . . 

I found myself thinking about bodies of knowledge.  If education is an endeavor designed to conserve bodies of knowledge, how does one evaluate what  knowledge should be conserved over time. Do you continue building layer upon layer as more sophisticated information is created?   When and what does one discard?  Who evaluates what has greater meaning and should be conserved?   Some individuals argue that math is inherent in the design of the natural world.  They believe mathematicians have simply uncovered what already exists and given it a language or form in which it can be discussed.  Even if that is the case and mathematics is discovered not created, there is no doubt that it is a continually evolving body of knowledge.  So who owns it?  Who decides what we discard, when we discard, and how we move forward over time.  What is essential and shared knowledge?  What is specialized and when is access given to all?

Traditionally, students receive common bodies of knowledge throughout high school, with some variation through advanced, honors, or gifted programming.  True specialization generally occurs in the college or university setting.  Schools of choice in Lafayette Parish have shifted this process into the high school setting and to some degree middle school (Arts Academy).  What will the outcome of this be for future generations?  I'll have to incubate a bit further on this one . . . .