Perhaps the problem is I have just finished Paul Lockhart’s wonderful "Measurement", and this book does not quite measure up. My favourite chapter about my current obsession, symmetry and tiling, starts with the exact same pattern that Lockhart’s book begins with. Well, it is a wonderful pattern that combines triangles, squares to form hexagons. The discussion would have benefited from using Lockhart’s choice to measure angles using fractions of a rotation rather than degrees. Which makes more intuitive sense, measuring the interior angle of a regular pentagon as 108 degrees (looks like a random number to me) or three tenths of a rotation?
There is some nice work here to visually link normally abstract algebra with geometric shapes. There are also some dead ends. Group theory is introduced and then goes nowhere. She can’t resist trying to teach Cantor’s diagonal proof that the real numbers cannot be counted with rational numbers.
I recommend this as a useful resource if you want to teach high school mathematics, but it was not an amazing book.