To the Editor:
The Jan. 22 Education Week article, “Debates Over Math Teaching Are Heating Up. They Could Affect Classrooms”, frames current disagreements in mathematics education as a conflict between explicit instruction and inquiry-based teaching. The deeper dispute, however, concerns how research is interpreted and translated into policy.
In its position paper, the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics calls on educators and policymakers to be critical consumers of research, warning against selective citations and overgeneralizations to justify instructional mandates. However, NCSM does not consistently apply this warning to its own claims.
While criticizing the “science of math” movement for generalizing findings from narrow intervention studies into broad prescriptions, NCSM advances an inquiry-oriented framework without clearly specifying the strengths and limitations of the supporting evidence—committing the very error it identifies.
This is evident in a 2015 field study by Morgan, et. al., on instructional practices to help 1st grade students with and without difficulties in math. Findings of the study show that student-centered instruction can be effective for students without difficulties, which the paper generalizes to all students. At the same time, the foundational role of explicit instruction—providing conceptual clarity and access to mathematical language that supports reasoning and problem-solving—is largely ignored in the paper.
Selectivity appears elsewhere. The paper cites a 2001 report on helping children learn mathematics to support inquiry while omitting equally strong emphasis on explicit teaching. NCSM frames explicit instruction as a “pedagogy of poverty,” obscuring the central equity question: whether students receive access to grade-level mathematics with adequate instructional support.
If education policy is to improve student outcomes, standards of evidence must be applied consistently. As the late philosopher Karl Popper argued, progress depends on actively testing our preferred solutions rather than defending them—a principle essential for creating responsible, meaningful policy.
Drew Braun
Retired Director of Instruction
Eugene, Ore.
