Re: “Checking our math” (Oct. 19, Opinion):
Barbara Oakley’s article “Checking our math” makes many generalizations, oversimplifies mathematics instruction and raises questions. What evidence is there of wrong answers being rewarded? Saying that “explicit teaching, structured practice and coherent curricula are the most reliable ways to help children learn” is very broad and oversimplifies the complexity of teaching of roomfuls of students. What is “knowledge-rich math curriculum”? Who is to say what is “actual science of how the brain learns, not recycled theories dressed up as ‘science’ ”?
Memorizing multiplication facts is important but being able to think (independent from generative AI like she implies) and applying the facts appropriately in various situations is also vital. Understanding when and how to use mathematical operations takes more than memorizing times tables. A healthy balance of skill and conceptual understanding works best for most students.
One important aspect of public education, rarely addressed openly, is that we live in an anti-intellectual society that easily dismisses scientific facts. It is very common to hear adults say and even brag about not being good at math. That doesn’t provide quality modeling or motivation for children, especially reluctant learners, of which there are many.
Deeper discussion is warranted.
Mitchell Reese Green, Seattle (retired teacher)
