SK> While it has been observed here many times that in the US, math &
 SK> science scores fall below those of other nations, I find it odd that
 SK> in the article quoted, the US curriculum is described as too broad and
 SK> hurried, and yet curriculum covered only in 
 SK> advanced US math classes is
 SK> considered standard for the general student population.
 SK> In high school it seems that the majority of our 
 SK> students are able to do
 SK> algebra in grade 9 and geometry in grade 10, and over half the student
 SK> population are able to do a 2nd year of algebra also. This seems a
 SK> fairly comfortable pace.
IMO, there is not enough push for early training in basic facts. 
#2, We are trying to cover 230 days of instruction in 180 days, this leads to 
the shallowness of instruction, there is not time to digest, work examples, 
etc. in the course of the year.  I could never cover the topics in the 4th, 
5th, or 6th grade math books in a regular school year.
#3, I think we need look no farther than the country neighboring us to the 
south to discover different approaches to basic math instruction.
A child educated in Mexico, before the current packed class levels occurred, 
would always be 1 to 1 1/2 years ahead of us when they transferred in a U.S. 
school. 
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------