A broad gap exists between how general educators and special educators understand what good math teaching looks like, according to an Education Week article.
A new paper argues that teachers need proven strategies to serve students with disabilities and those who struggle in math. The divide between general education and special education makes it less likely they’ll get access to proven strategies, according to the report. The root of the problem lies in differences in how these groups of teachers are trained, say the paper’s authors.
“To us, it was really clear that this starts within colleges and universities, but has widespread implications,” said Nathan Jones, an associate professor in special education at Boston University and one of the authors of the paper.
The similarities and differences between how researchers in general education and special education conceptualize the goals of math education and the roles teachers should play are detailed in the study by researchers at the University of Virginia, Boston University, and the University of Delaware. Jones and his colleagues Julie Cohen and Lynsey Gibbons drew on a series of structured interviews with 22 prominent academics, 11 each in special ed. and general math education.
Both groups agreed that students needed to develop deep conceptual understanding of math topics, and that teachers needed to differentiate instruction to serve all learners. But they differed on how educators could best achieve these goals, and about the purpose of the subject itself.
Special educators tended to focus on what the authors called “school-based” goals. Success in math could be measured by data-based outcomes like mastering standards or being prepared for more advanced courses in high school and college. General math educators focused on broader goals, like finding “joy” in math, or using it to engage in civic life.
The groups also disagreed about the role teachers should take in student learning.
Math general education researchers prioritized inquiry — classrooms should be weighted toward student discourse over teacher-directed instruction. And students should try tackling problems first before teachers modeled how to solve them.
Special education researchers said the opposite: Teachers should use explicit instruction to break down complicated processes first, guide students through examples, and then present the opportunity to try challenging problems.
Explicit instruction versus an inquiry-based approach is at the heart of the ongoing “math wars,” a decades-long debate about the best way to teach the subject.
How does this debate show up in the classroom?
“The high-quality instructional materials that are being rolled out across the country, a lot of those programs really (prioritize) inquiry approaches and discourse-heavy pedagogy,” says Julie Cohen, an associate professor of education at the University of Virginia who studies teacher quality and evaluation, and was the lead author on the study.
These programs can still be effective for students who struggle in math, but the instructional techniques researched in special education could help “scaffold kids and support them,” she says. Some feature more explicit, step-by-step teaching to guide students’ mathematical reasoning—a technique that’s proven to help students who need more support in the subject.
But prominent math education researchers are pushing back against this idea, Cohen says.
Most general education researchers do not show familiarity with mathematics-related disabilities,” the study’s authors wrote.
Special education researchers likewise weren’t fluent in some issues that math general education researchers studied—like the effect of bias on students’ math achievement and self-perception.
Defining best practice is especially relevant now. Several states have passed legislation requiring that schools screen students for math difficulties and intervene early. Some, including Alabama and Indiana, specify that these tools and approaches should be “evidence based.”
But with two competing research literatures, the field is still fighting over the definition of “evidence based.”
In 2024, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Council for Exceptional Children put out a joint statement to try to reach common ground.
The document said students with disabilities “have a right to high-quality instruction” and should be “provided with appropriate supports.” It included a list of high-level recommendations, including that teachers “position students with disabilities as valuable owners of and contributors to the mathematics being learned,” and “build meaningful connections between concepts and procedures.”
But more than 30 special education researchers argued that many of the recommendations were “merely beliefs and philosophies without significant and rigorous research to support them.”
The joint statement didn’t emphasize systematic, explicit instruction, a decision that critics called “educational malpractice” given its strong research base in supporting students with disabilities.
One group of special education researchers launched the “science of math” in 2021—a movement modeled after the “science of reading.” It claims a similar focus on systematic, explicit instruction and guided practice is necessary in both subjects for students to develop foundational knowledge.
But a “science of reading” framework might not map as easily onto math, in part because there isn’t quite as large of a body of research, says Jones.
One takeaway from the science of reading movement is planning with the marginalized student in mind, says Nathan Jones, an associate professor in special education at Boston University and one of the authors of the paper.
Education Week
