To the Editor:
The Jan. 22 article “Debates Over Math Teaching Are Heating Up. They Could Affect Classrooms” captures an important and timely conversation in math education. As states and districts look for clearer guidance for teaching math, it’s understandable that discussions are often framed around explicit instruction and inquiry-based learning. Still, presenting the issue primarily as a contrast between instructional approaches can unintentionally narrow a much broader and more constructive conversation about how students actually learn mathematics and lead us into interminable “math wars.”
Explicit instruction is a method. It is not, by itself, a theory of learning. The deeper question is how instructional design supports the brain’s process of building meaning—how learners move from perception and experience to symbols, language, and formal procedures. When research conversations focus narrowly on isolated practices rather than on learning architecture and sequencing, we risk mistaking short-term performance gains for lasting understanding.
There is also a broader concern among education researchers, classroom practitioners, and policymakers alike about how “evidence” is defined. Experimental studies tied to test outcomes are valuable, but they represent only one slice of what it means to learn mathematics. When instruction consistently leads with explanation before students have had opportunities to engage with or make sense of the underlying ideas through visual models or problem-solving experiences, we may unintentionally privilege students who are already adept at processing verbal or symbolic information, while limiting opportunities for others to construct meaning conceptually.
The real opportunity for the field is not to choose sides but to build stronger bridges between cognitive science, classroom practice, and policy interpretation. Math education deserves a conversation grounded in how understanding develops over time, not in false dichotomies that obscure that complexity.
Brandon Smith
Director of Outreach, Mathematics
MIND Education
Mark Bodner
Founder and Scientific Director
MIND Research Institute
Irvine, Calif.
