The Math and Literacy Crisis: What Schools Should Actually Teach

 Test scores are declining, governors are calling for reform, and policy leaders are debating how to fix math and reading instruction—but the deepest problem in K-12 education isn't what we're teaching. It's that we've built a system optimized for narrow test performance instead of genuine intellectual development. In this episode, executive director and educator M.A. Aponte draws on lived experience running a charter school to examine what the research actually says works—and makes a principled case for why critical thinking must be the foundation of everything we teach. Includes a 3-Question Curriculum Audit any teacher, leader, or parent can apply right now. 

Transcript

The Math and Literacy Crisis: What Schools Should Actually Teach

00:00:00 M Aponte: Today we're going to a topic that is both deeply personal and deeply consequential for our society. The crisis in K through twelve math and literacy. And more importantly, what we should actually be doing about it. Welcome to thinking. To think. I'm m a Aponte, also known as Michael a Aponte or Mike Aponte. And I want to be transparent with you from the top. I am not an outsider looking in. I'm an executive director of a charter school in Florida. I live this every single day. The data, the curriculum decisions, the pressure to move numbers on a state accountability system, and the profound responsibility to actually prepare young people to think. I look at this information daily and I look at other schools daily, not because I'm trying to compare, but rather, um, just over a year assuming I'm over observing. I'm. Because I am observing the consequential stakes that are in our society, and I can't help but thinking what I can do to improve those numbers right now. Governors and education policy leaders across the country are pushing for fundamental rethinking of how we teach math and how we develop adolescent literacy. They're correct that the crisis exists, but I want to offer a lens today that goes beyond the policy debate. And that's the thinking lens, because I believe the deepest problem in our education system isn't what we're teaching. It's that we've built a system optimized for performance on narrow measures rather than a development of genuine intellectual capability. We can raise test scores and still produce graduates who cannot think. We must aim higher.

00:02:18 M Aponte: Before I get too into it, don't forget to like, share and subscribe. That really helps out the podcast. Now let's establish the scope. Honestly, the data is sovereign. The National Assessment of Educational Progress scores the n a e p, which is the only national comparable benchmark we have, show that math and reading proficiency has declined significantly over the past five years, with Covid accelerating trends that were already moving in the wrong direction for math. A majority of fourth and eighth graders are not performing at proficiency levels. The gaps between high income and low income students, between white and Black and Hispanic students are not narrowing. In many places, they are widening. The same pattern holds for reading. Now. State legislatures and governors are responding. There's meaningful momentum around evidence based reading instruction. The science of reading movement, which centers phonics and structured literacy, is reshaping how many states train teachers and adopt curriculum on math side. There's growing recognition that procedural fluency. The. That's the ability to actually compute, to manipulate numbers with. Confidence has been underemphasized in favor of conceptual approaches that work better for students who already have a strong foundation. These are real improvements. They matter. But here's the gap in in the policy conversation. We are still fundamentally measuring the wrong thing. And when you measure the wrong thing, you optimize for the wrong thing. And what I am referring to is standardized tests. Standardized tests measure recall. That's memory procedure and pattern recognition under constraint time conditions. Those are real skills, but they are the small subset of what constitutes genuine intellectual capability. We are not measuring students ability to reason through ambiguity, evaluate competing claims, construct original arguments, transfer learning to new domains, or persist through genuine cognitive challenge. And because we don't measure those things, we don't teach them. A student who can score well on a standardized math test and still not be able to think quantitatively about a about the world around them has been shortchanged, regardless of what the score says. Why critical thinking must be the core curriculum. And this is the thinking to think argument. And I want to make it careful, make it carefully, because it is often misunderstood. Saying that critical thinking should be central to education. It's not saying that content knowledge doesn't matter because it does deeply. You cannot think critically about a subject you don't know. Knowledge is the substrate of thought. The argument is about purpose and sequence. The purpose of education is not to transfer a fixed body of knowledge into a student's head. It's the develop the cognitive architecture that allows students to acquire, evaluate and apply knowledge throughout their lives. And the consequence? Excuse me, the sequence question is are we teaching content in a way that builds that architecture, or are we teaching content in a way that builds test performance? And let me give you a concrete contrast. Root learning versus reasoning learning. In a rote learning model, a math student learns the quadratic formula practices, applying it to a set of problems that looks like the ones on the test and demonstrates mastery by getting those problems right. They may have no idea why the formula works. What real world phenomena it models, or how to apply it when the problem doesn't look like the ones they practice. In other words, their thought process and I've seen this, especially in middle schoolers, is why do I need to learn this? I'm just going to learn this for the test and I'll probably never use it again. And I have heard personally from teachers that would say that to students. I never liked it, but that's where we're at in society. In a reasoning learning model, the same student explores the problem of finding the roots of a quadratic equation they discover with guidance why completing the square works. What discriminates tells you about the solutions and how this connects to a projectile motion or optimization problems and economics. The formula is still learned, but it's learned as a tool, not a ritual. Now, granted, I'm not saying that teachers don't know or they're not trying hard enough or or what have you. I'm not saying that. So please don't misconstrue that. What I am saying is that context in every lesson matters, regardless of race, creed, background. If they don't believe that they're going to use it long term, the brain is going to bookmark this as a short term memory and not a long term memory, and will probably forget about it within days after whatever exam they have to take. The outcome difference isn't just academic. The student who learned through reasoning is developing a cognitive habit. The habit of asking why? Of connecting new knowledge to existing frameworks. Of being comfortable with a problem that doesn't immediately resolve that habit is the foundation of intellectual capability. Now, before I even continue, a lot of people will say that it is also cultural and they're not wrong. Culture is also a huge factor in the priority of education. So I want to make that abundantly clear that that is also a problem, but not something we're tackling in this episode. So I just wanted to say the elephant in the room and get ahead of it before the comments or messages blow up about it's a cultural thing. I, I, I, I'm not saying it is not part of the problem, but this is not the focus for this episode. So what does the research says about that works? Um, evidence base for the effective instruction is actually clearer than the policy debate suggests. The research consistently supports several specific practices. And I will address the elephant in the room in some of these practices, but I must state them. One explicit instruction paired with metacognitive reflection. Students learn more Durably when they are taught not just the content, but how to monitor their own understanding and identity. Excuse me. Identify gaps. This is the thinking about thinking component and it produces massive transfer effects. So for a teacher it would be the teaching, the standard and having questions that they have to answer. And they can explain to their friend, their cousin, their little sibling on the standard in their own words. Two space retrieval practice testing done right as a learning tool rather than just an evaluation tool, is one of the most powerful instructional strategies known. If forces active retrieval, which strengthens memory and reveals genuine gaps rather than fluency. Illusions. When a. When a child gets something wrong, congratulate them on getting it wrong because now they have. They just created an opportunity to learn what they got wrong. If you're just measuring for evaluation and not actually using it for learning, you're missing a wonderful giant piece of the puzzle. And it is imperative we give that to kids. Three. Productive struggle. Students who are allowed to persist through difficulty with appropriate scaffolding but without premature rescue, develop problem solving resilience that students in more assisted environments do not. This is perhaps the most culturally challenging finding for schools in accountability pressure environments, because productive struggle looks like struggle and adults get nervous or if you're like a natural, a natural, Papa bear or mama bear. You want to rescue the child immediately. But no, it is imperative that they work themselves out and you just guide them along the way. And for argument and discourse, students who regularly practice constructing, evaluating, and defending arguments verbally and in writing develop critical thinking skills that transfer across domains. Socratic seminars, structured debate. Written argument. These aren't extras. They are the core practice of intellectual development. I had the pleasure of teaching social science in K through twelve, and let me tell you, when students, when the when the ground is laid out on the rules of how to engage and you create opportunities for them to have discourse. And it could be something as small as minute and small for the younger kids as, pizza or hamburgers, is a better lunch versus the more higher end high school conversations on government policies, political, platforms and social and natural, worldly conversations where in the end, they can walk out of the classroom and still hug, shake hands and have smiles on their faces despite the passionate debates that occur in the classroom. I had the privilege, a privilege of doing that. And I hope that in other schools they do. Um, but that is according to the data. That is not the case. And that's unfortunate. So what schools should actually prioritize. And here's my view, um, and how I think about this and form a perspective of actually running a school. Because the gap between research and practice is where most of the work lives. The pressure on school leaders are real accountability systems create powerful incentives to optimize for test performance. And I'm guilty of that. Parents want visible metrics. As a parent, I'm guilty of that. Teachers are stretched. I've observed that and experienced that in. The populations most schools serve are often carrying the weight of economic stress, housing instability, trauma histories, and insufficient funding foundational skills. I've had students that unfortunately had to experience when they were in the first or second grade. Their father, getting locked up by law enforcement because of a crime they committed or a cousin getting shot. This is real. This happens. And we must recognize the traumas that many children and their children are that are in the classrooms or observing and communicating with your children. Trauma is there, and it can start very young, and we must recognize that. So what does a commitment to critical thinking actually looks like inside those constraints? Here's how I frame it. Frame one. Foundation first. Strategy second. Critical thinking is not a substitute for foundational skill development. It builds on it. Students who cannot decode text fluently cannot engage in literacy analysis. Students who cannot compute accurately, cannot reason quantitatively. The science of reading and explicit math instruction are not at odds with critical thinking education. They are its prerequisites. Get the foundation right, then build the intellectual, architectural on top of it. Frame two teach the thinking, not just the content in every content area. There is an underlying thinking discipline. Math is the discipline of precise, logical reasoning with quantitative relationships. English language arts. Ela is the discipline of argumentation, evidence evaluation, and narrative analysis. Science is the discipline of empirical inquiry, hypothesis testing and probe, and probabilistic reasoning. When we teach these. As disciplines with their characteristics, modes of thought rather than as bodies of content to memorize. Students develop cognitive tools that last a lifetime. Frame three assessment must evolve. Here's the hard truth if we only assess recall and procedure, we only teach, recall and procedure. The development of an authentic assessment performance task. Extended written arguments. Project based demonstration of learning must be a curriculum priority, not an afterthought. This is the harder to score. It requires trained teachers and a, collaborated rubrics. It takes time. It is also the only way to know whether students are actually developing the capabilities we claim to value. Assessment is not just measurement, it is a statement of values. What we assess tells students what we believe matters. If we want critical thinking, we must assess critical thinking. So whether you're a teacher, a school leader, a parent or a policy maker, or you're just someone that is listening, that is very concerned about the future of just children and society as a whole. Here's three questions. three question audit. You can apply to any instructional approach, curriculum unit or school program. One does this help students understand why? And I tell this to you. Two in previous, episodes, not just what or how. If students are executing procedures without understanding the logic behind them, they are memorizing, not thinking. Every lesson should have a layer of explanation that builds genuine understanding. Two. Does this require students to do something with the knowledge, not just receive it? Passive learning produces thin retention. Students should analyse, evaluate, compare, argue, apply and create. If the lesson is primarily transmission, redesign it for engagement. Three. Does this transfer. The ultimate test of genuine learning is whether students can apply what they've learned to a new context, one that wasn't explicitly taught. If students can only perform in the exact format they practice, learning is shallow building. Transfer tasks and watch where the gaps are. And I implore you if you need assistance. If you're an educator and need assistance on this, AI is a great tool. I have used AI. I have had my teachers use AI. I have coached teachers of mine that I serve, that I supervise, and have taught them how to use AI to get their students on where they need to be. And the growth has been amazing because of it. it can help you if you are, if you are a parent or know a parent that is homeschooling their child, you can teach them anything if you prompt it correctly. If you need assistance with that, I do offer consulting. Description is down below. The math and literacy crisis is real. The policy response is urgent, but the decent. Excuse me, the deepest reform needed isn't curricular. It's philosophical. We need a system that is genuinely oriented toward developing thinkers, not just test takers. That's a harder conversation to have. It requires courage from leaders, patience from policymakers, and trust in the teaching profession. But it is the conversation that will actually move the needle, not just on scores, but on outcomes that matter. If you're in education, share this with your colleagues. If you're a parent, bring these questions to your school board meetings. And if you want to dig deeper into thinking frameworks that apply directly to classroom instruction, head to M a aponte dot substack dot com. The link is in the description as well as my consulting services. Again, as always, think clearly, lead boldly, stay logical and don't forget to like, share and subscribe. Thanks guys. Have a wonderful day.