The science of math should evolve, writes Rene Grimes, Ph.D., a special education teacher-preparation instructor in an Education Week essay, if evolution means bringing greater attention to mathematics while demanding stronger evidence for instructional recommendations.
As the “science of …” any topic continues to evolve, we should proceed with precision, humility, and curiosity—not by treating inquiry as settled but by continually asking what the evidence supports, what it does not, and what we still need to learn.
Five questions to ask:
- What question did the original research actually investigate?
- Which students, settings, and outcomes were studied?
- Does the evidence directly support this recommendation, or is the recommendation partly an interpretation?
- What limitations or unanswered questions should shape its use?
- What evidence will show whether this approach is working for our students?
By the time research reaches the classroom, much of its uncertainty around exact instructional decisions has disappeared—not because any uncertainty was resolved, but because uncertainty was translated into definitive recommendations. Teachers ultimately inherit the burden of applying the science while working within adopted curricula, district policies, and the needs of students sitting in their classrooms. We have a large body of research about how humans learn, but science cannot by itself prescribe every instructional decision. The responsibility of translating science is not to eliminate uncertainty but to communicate it honestly.
I urge everyone who translates research to responsibly distinguish evidence from interpretation. Invoking science extends beyond conducting rigorous research. It includes communicating the limits of what that research can—and cannot—support.
Acknowledging uncertainty does not mean classrooms should become a free-for-all. That is chaos. Rather, it calls for humility from everyone involved and requires recognizing both what the evidence supports and its limits. This can feel uncomfortable in professions driven by the urgency and desire to improve students’ lives. Yet, failing to acknowledge uncertainty may itself become the barrier to improvement. When science is treated primarily as a body of settled knowledge rather than as an ongoing process of inquiry, we risk communicating a certainty that science itself does not claim.
Honoring science requires examining how evidence changes as it moves through the system. Every implementation and interpretation raises new questions. The question is not whether we should use the phrase “the science of …” The question is whether we are willing to accept the responsibilities that accompany invoking it.
If we invoke science to justify instructional decisions, then we must also adopt the habits that make science trustworthy: asking careful questions, distinguishing evidence from interpretation, and remaining open to revision. The authority we borrow from science should never exceed the authority the evidence provides. It requires that each of us commits to ensuring that science remains what it has always been: a continuous process of learning. Science is never settled because its greatest strength is its willingness to continue asking questions.
Education Week
