Regular screenings and penalty-free evaluations are necessary to identify issues before they become hard to address. As Anna Stokke, Canadian Mathematician and host of Chalk and Talk podcast always says, "Math is relentlessly hierarchical".
While I share your concern about the troubling results on provincial assessments, I believe the analysis you propose oversimplifies a far more complex reality and leads to pedagogical conclusions that deserve closer scrutiny. The challenges we are facing cannot be attributed to a single instructional approach, nor to the broad claim that Ontario classrooms have widely shifted toward discovery-based learning.
As a mathematics instructional coach, my experience in schools suggests quite the opposite; the majority of teachers still rely heavily on traditional, teacher-centered instruction, offering too few opportunities for students to engage in meaningful problem solving, mathematical discourse, and deep conceptual understanding. Yes, explicit instruction is essential, as research clearly supports this, but its greatest impact lies in initial/surface learning. In our world today, however, our responsibility goes further: we want students to develop transferable skills, make connections, reason flexibly, and build true conceptual understanding, not merely succeed at procedural tasks. To be able to understand mathematics conceptually, you need to be able to navigate with ease between different mathematical representations (pictoral, verbal, symbolic, contextual and concrete), which cannot be simply done with explicit instruction.
While explicit instruction can support initial learning, research also shows that it is not universally superior for struggling students, and that well-scaffolded problem-based and inquiry approaches can be equally, and sometimes even more effective for developing deep understanding, transfer, and long-term learning.
Interpreting recent assessment results without considering the broader context is also problematic. Since 2020, Ontario has implemented a new mathematics curriculum that places greater emphasis on reasoning, modeling, and communication. At the same time, the provincial assessment has shifted to an online multiple-choice format, fundamentally changing what is being measured. Drawing alarmist conclusions without accounting for these shifts (or for the well-documented effects of chronic underfunding in education!) risks presenting a misleading narrative about both students and teachers. And let’s not forget about COVID…
I strongly believe we move the conversation forward not by setting up false dichotomies between “explicit instruction” and “problem-based learning”, but by seeking the right balance between them. The real issue is not choosing between explaining or exploring; it is ensuring that students are given the conditions to do both so they can not only perform on tests, but become confident, competent mathematical thinkers. It is to this more nuanced reflection that I hope your work will continue to contribute.
Faculties of education in Ontario need to do better. I work with many new or early career teachers who say their math courses in teachers college did not prepare them to teach math well. It seems like many faculties privilege inquiry-based or problem-based instruction, and never teach teacher candidates about explicit instruction. I think the syllabuses of these math courses need to change.
Regular screenings and penalty-free evaluations are necessary to identify issues before they become hard to address. As Anna Stokke, Canadian Mathematician and host of Chalk and Talk podcast always says, "Math is relentlessly hierarchical".
Curious about what would happen to the grade six results if students got their math results right away like in grade 9?
While I share your concern about the troubling results on provincial assessments, I believe the analysis you propose oversimplifies a far more complex reality and leads to pedagogical conclusions that deserve closer scrutiny. The challenges we are facing cannot be attributed to a single instructional approach, nor to the broad claim that Ontario classrooms have widely shifted toward discovery-based learning.
As a mathematics instructional coach, my experience in schools suggests quite the opposite; the majority of teachers still rely heavily on traditional, teacher-centered instruction, offering too few opportunities for students to engage in meaningful problem solving, mathematical discourse, and deep conceptual understanding. Yes, explicit instruction is essential, as research clearly supports this, but its greatest impact lies in initial/surface learning. In our world today, however, our responsibility goes further: we want students to develop transferable skills, make connections, reason flexibly, and build true conceptual understanding, not merely succeed at procedural tasks. To be able to understand mathematics conceptually, you need to be able to navigate with ease between different mathematical representations (pictoral, verbal, symbolic, contextual and concrete), which cannot be simply done with explicit instruction.
While explicit instruction can support initial learning, research also shows that it is not universally superior for struggling students, and that well-scaffolded problem-based and inquiry approaches can be equally, and sometimes even more effective for developing deep understanding, transfer, and long-term learning.
Interpreting recent assessment results without considering the broader context is also problematic. Since 2020, Ontario has implemented a new mathematics curriculum that places greater emphasis on reasoning, modeling, and communication. At the same time, the provincial assessment has shifted to an online multiple-choice format, fundamentally changing what is being measured. Drawing alarmist conclusions without accounting for these shifts (or for the well-documented effects of chronic underfunding in education!) risks presenting a misleading narrative about both students and teachers. And let’s not forget about COVID…
I strongly believe we move the conversation forward not by setting up false dichotomies between “explicit instruction” and “problem-based learning”, but by seeking the right balance between them. The real issue is not choosing between explaining or exploring; it is ensuring that students are given the conditions to do both so they can not only perform on tests, but become confident, competent mathematical thinkers. It is to this more nuanced reflection that I hope your work will continue to contribute.
Faculties of education in Ontario need to do better. I work with many new or early career teachers who say their math courses in teachers college did not prepare them to teach math well. It seems like many faculties privilege inquiry-based or problem-based instruction, and never teach teacher candidates about explicit instruction. I think the syllabuses of these math courses need to change.
Excellent position paper from NCSM https://www.mathedleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Position-Paper-2025-Strengthening-Research-informed-Decision-REV12-25.pdf