If a math curriculum were designed solely around math that the average person were likely to encounter in their life, what would be included?

A few comments first, if I may?

• The History curriculum is not designed solely around history that the average person is likely to encounter in their life.
• The Physical Education curriculum is not designed solely around physical activity that the average person is likely to encounter in their life.
• The Language Arts/English/your Native Language/Literature curriculum is not designed solely around Language the average person is likely to encounter in their life.
• The Science curriculum is not designed solely around science the average person is likely to encounter in their life.
• And so on.

Next, let’s talk about the “average person.” Imagine a country where 10% of the people are performing artists, 10% are financial advisors, 10% are teachers, 10% are journalists, and then sales people, civil engineers, politicians, truck drivers, athletes and writers.

Under those assumptions, or any other similar ones you wish to make, something like 80% of the people never need science, 70% never need math, 80% need no public speaking skills, 70% need no language skills beyond the basics, and so and so forth. The “average person” needs nothing whatsoever.

Everything most anyone does is unique to a small fraction of the population. If something can be done by 70% of the people then, by definition, it’s not a likely career path, since nobody will pay you much for doing it. Nor is it likely to be rewarding, creative or otherwise fulfilling.

The purpose of school isn’t to prepare you for the average life, first because there’s no such thing, and second because if there were, that’d be a very lame goal. If you ever open a school with that purpose (“we promise to teach you just the minimum stuff the Average Person is likely to need!”), which parents do you expect will send their kids to be educated by you?

The purpose of school is to prepare you for the best life you could possibly have, not the minimum you will likely need if you are “average”. It strives to give you a chance to fall in love with things you never knew existed or never imagined you could enjoy. Some people discover their passion at age 5, some at 12 and some at 20. Not challenging yourself by learning difficult things is an excellent way to miss every opportunity to find anything interesting to do with your life.

So now, tell me: what life is your “average person” living? How much rational thinking, deduction, reasoning, or methodical problem solving do they need, or want, or enjoy? Is she or he… oh, wait, they’re “average”, so genderless. Is it in software, finance, insurance, education, management consulting, engineering, architecture, design, physics, data science, economics, biology, medicine, or any of the many other vocations or hobbies that benefit from having trained their mind with pattern matching, modeling, abstraction, quantitative reasoning, deductive reasoning, problem solving?

Perhaps you’re wondering if any of those people ever solve quadratic equations, or prove trigonometric identities. They don’t. That’s not the point. Math education is training, like going to the gym. Gym exercises are abstract, most of them are nothing like anything you ever need to actually do. It’s the same thing.

The “average person” is a meaningless concept. There’s a reasonable conversation to be had around how to structure the math curriculum[1] and how to adapt it to the needs of different kids, because they do have different needs. But aiming to restructure the math curriculum around the “math the average person is likely to encounter” is devoid of meaning.

Footnotes

[1] ‎Alon Amit (אלון עמית)‎'s answer to If you could design the ideal K-12 mathematics curriculum, what would it be?