In a recent academic paper, a University of Oklahoma professor situates the “science of math” approach to instruction, which emphasizes memorization and practice, within a broader trend of “increasingly authoritarian rule of the United States government in relation to education.”

Kate Raymond is an associate professor of mathematics education in the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education at the University of Oklahoma. An OU web page states that her research interests include “democratizing” the mathematics classroom and “social justice mathematics.”

One prominent critic says Professor Raymond’s argument reveals less about the validity of instructional strategies for math learning than it does about the sad state of higher education and state colleges’ teacher-preparation programs.

“This is one more piece in a mounting pile of evidence that our schools of education are not interested in the nuts and bolts of instruction or academic excellence but an ongoing ideological project,” said Daniel Buck, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

In “The Science of Math Reconsidered: A Critical Examination of Foundational Claims,” Raymond and Melissa Gunter, a professor at Central Connecticut State University, critique an analysis paper produced by The Centre for Independent Studies, which laid out foundational beliefs for the “science of math” (SOM) approach to instruction.

Much of the paper quibbles with the definitions used and conclusions reached by the Centre for Independent Studies. For example, Raymond and Gunter argue that officials at the Center “fail to address any potential purposes of mathematics other than procedural skill development.”

But Raymond and Gunter also begin their analysis by declaring, “The rise in authoritarianism across the globe is not only concerning, but potentially places public education systems in increasingly vulnerable positions.”

They return to that line of thought in their conclusion regarding the Centre for Independent Studies’ outline of the science-of-math approach.

“What is new is that the originators of the SOM, while researchers themselves, have sought to promote their vision for mathematics education not through disseminating empirical research, but instead through popular media sites and local legislative bodies,” Raymond and Gunter declared. “This shift in approach is reflective of the increasingly authoritarian rule of the United States government in relation to education. Additionally, authoritarian governmental actors may be inclined to support SOM because of its focus on procedural fluency rather than sense-making, reasoning, or problem-solving. While we do not imply any relationship between creators of SOM and those seeking authoritarian rule, the emergence of SOM at a time when authoritarian rule is increasing is both a significant concern and an explanation for the rapid dissemination of the ideas of the SOM among policymakers.”

Buck said the arguments put forward by Raymond and Gunter are almost laughable.

“The authors position themselves as doing some sort of academic ‘document analysis,’ when in reality they’re just writing a counter opinion piece,” Buck said. “It’s a glorified op-ed passed off as academic literature. I find it particularly rich that they critique science of math proponents for leveraging, at times, imperfect studies to defend their claims but broadly accuse SOM as redolent of incipient authoritarianism—a huge accusation—with not a piece of evidence.”

Buck said critics can question the research cited by advocates of the science of math, but said Raymond and Gunter fail to provide similar research to back up their claims and instead resort only to “platitudes” without “a modicum of evidence.”

He said Raymond and Gunter “fundamentally misunderstand learning” when they criticize the science of math for “focusing only on ‘procedural skill development’ instead of ‘higher order critical thinking or problem-solving skills.’”

“In reality, those higher-order skills require the basics,” Buck said. “You cannot do calculus without algebra. You cannot really do algebra without having automated basic arithmetic.”

He also said that “explicit instruction is more effective in teaching both the basics and advanced content.”

A biography on the OU website states that Raymond “recognizes mathematics as a critical lens with which people can analyze social issues,” and that her research “focuses on how mathematics and mathematics education has and can be used to both marginalize and empower students and teachers.”

She has been an instructor at OU since 2017.

Raymond’s publications include “What it takes to be an advocate: Teachers’ perceptions of their strengths and challenges,” submitted to Action in Teacher Education, currently in revision, and “Social justice education in an international and interdisciplinary service-learning experience” in the Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education in 2022.

In a post on X, Buck said Raymond and Gunter’s paper on the science of math is an argument to abolish schools of education, a view he reiterated in a separate interview.

“It’s an embarrassingly bad paper that asserts its thesis with the zeal of a religious zealot,” Buck said, “all belief, much passion, no evidence.”