TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The74 published an opinion essay arguing that math teaching should give students more explicit instruction and practice in basic skills, drawing a comparison with the push for evidence-based reading instruction. The supplied source excerpt cites a 2019 eighth-grade math result but cuts off before giving the full statistic or its context, and does not provide evidence of a new policy or research announcement.
The74 published an opinion essay arguing that schools should teach math basics more explicitly, including through practice and memorization, rather than relying heavily on students to discover procedures on their own. The piece compares the proposed shift with state and local efforts to adopt science-of-reading instruction, but it is an argument about teaching, not a report of a new policy or an agreed finding about the best math curriculum.
The essay says early literacy policy has increasingly focused on putting reading practices associated with the science of reading into classrooms. Its author argues that the reading debate points to a broader issue: education theory’s resistance to explicit instruction. In the author’s view, beginners often benefit from being shown how to do a task, then practicing it—a method familiar in activities such as learning knife skills.
Applied to math, that argument favors teaching procedures and core facts, including times tables, before expecting students to tackle more complex work. The essay contends that fluency with basic calculations can free students to focus on higher-level mathematical questions. It does not argue that inquiry or conceptual understanding has no place; it says those approaches can complement direct teaching, particularly for deeper learning.
The piece takes issue with positions it attributes to Stanford education professor Jo Boaler, including criticism of procedural teaching and repeated practice. It also refers to a 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress result for eighth graders, but the supplied excerpt stops after saying that “just 50%” met an unspecified condition. The missing remainder means the exact achievement category and surrounding context cannot be reported from this material.
The Case for Building Math Fluency
The argument matters because it concerns what students are asked to learn first and how schools balance conceptual understanding with procedural fluency. If students are not taught and given practice with foundational skills, the essay argues, they may have to spend attention on basic calculations while working through more advanced problems. That is the author’s rationale, not evidence in this excerpt that a particular teaching policy would improve outcomes.
The comparison with reading could also shape how parents, educators and policymakers discuss math instruction. Reading reforms have included efforts to move classroom practice toward specific instructional methods; the essay asks whether math deserves a similar reassessment. It does not supply a policy proposal, an implementation plan, or results from a direct comparison of teaching approaches.
Popular right now
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven and Air Fryer, 8-in-1, Stainless Steel, SP151
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Reading Reform as a Math Model
The essay was published by The74 and, according to its introduction, also appeared on Matthew Yglesias’ Slow Boring. It invokes the “Sold a Story” podcast and the public discussion of reading instruction as a familiar example of debate over how children learn foundational skills.
For math, the author distinguishes direct teaching and practice from discovery-oriented approaches often described as constructivist or inquiry-based. The essay accepts that exploration may have a role, especially for students developing deeper understanding, while arguing that it should not replace clear teaching for beginners. The source excerpt presents this as the author’s judgment and does not include a full review of research or competing evidence.
““the best way to get from zero to vaguely competent is to be taught the proper way to do it and then given the opportunity to practice.””
— The essay’s author
Evidence and Assessment Details Missing
The supplied text is incomplete: it ends during a sentence about 2019 eighth-grade NAEP results. It does not specify what the 50% figure measures, provide the full assessment context, or show what evidence the essay uses after that point. Those details cannot be reconstructed from the excerpt.
The source also does not establish that explicit instruction alone produces better math outcomes, or that inquiry-oriented teaching is uniformly ineffective. The essay is labeled opinion, and its claims about pedagogy and political alignment should be read as the author’s analysis rather than as settled findings. No school-system decision, new study, or official response is reported in the material provided.
What the Argument Leaves Open
The next step for readers seeking to evaluate the argument is to consult the complete essay and the underlying assessment data, then compare its claims with research on direct instruction, practice, and inquiry-based teaching. The source material does not identify a scheduled policy decision or research release tied to the piece.
For schools and policymakers, the unresolved question is practical: how to combine clear explanations and structured practice with opportunities for students to reason about mathematical ideas. The essay makes the case for putting foundational instruction back at the center of that discussion, but it does not set out a tested curriculum or specify how schools should measure the effects.
Key Questions
What is the essay arguing?
It argues that math students should receive explicit teaching and practice in foundational skills, alongside opportunities to explore concepts.
Is this a new school policy?
No. The supplied material is an opinion essay; it reports no newly adopted policy or official decision.
What does the essay say about inquiry-based math?
The author allows that inquiry can support deeper understanding, especially for advanced learning, but argues that minimal guidance is a poor substitute for teaching beginners how to do the math.
What does the cited 50% figure mean?
The provided excerpt does not say. It cuts off after referring to “just 50%” of eighth graders taking the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress, without identifying the performance category or giving further context.
Source: rss
