When I talk to people about what I dowhen I tell them that I teach

math teachersit's fairly common for people to avert their eyes,

maybe even hunch their shoulders in a kind of sheepishness. Im
not good at math, they confess. Its just not my thing.
To this I always smile, for I have never found that to be actually true
of anyone. What if I told you, I respond, that what you think is
math is actually much more about rote memorization than true
mathematical thinking? That youve most likely never been taught
real math?
Just last week I had a conversation with a mechanical engineer. We
got talking about what we do and his eyes lit up when he realized
hed found someone else who thought about math as he did. We
shared a common experience that mathematics is about solving
problems using relationships, drawing upon connections, and
reasoning about patterns. We believe that math is figure-out-able!

What he found was that he could learn math rather

than memorize it

His tale is common. He failed 7th grade math because the subject
didnt make sense to him. It seemed like a random assortment of
made up facts that simply had to be memorized, facts that had no
connection to the real world. He wasnt good at it. Years later, at a
university, that changed. Driven to pursue his dreams, he reattacked math, determined that this one subject wouldnt stop him.

What he found was that he could learn it rather than memorize it. He
found out that math is something to be understood, something that
empowers creativity and innovation, something that is the antithesis
of random and disconnected.
In contrast, traditional math, the practice of rote memorization of
formulas and facts, is shallow and dead-ended. Its application is so
profoundly limited that it is no wonder most Americans feel algebra
and geometry are useless. By its nature, such an approach can only
be used to solve problems in an artificially limited set. It shuts doors
rather than opens them.
I recently spoke with a well-meaning colleague who disagrees with
me on this point:
But ---, she said, Isnt efficiency and minimal effort important? If
Im in a meeting, and need to do calculations, I can use an algorithm
on a napkin and still pay attention to what is being spoken. Her
point was that there is an important place for rote procedures that
take little thought.
My counter is another question, What is the goal of teaching
math? If it is efficiency and mindlessness that you are valuing, then
just use a calculator. Youre much more likely in this day and age to
have one in your pocket than not. Conversely, if your goal is to
enable students to pursue dreams in any field, then we must teach
them to think and reason using relationships and connections to
solve problems.
Carol Lloyd, executive editor of GreatSchools, said it another way:

In the end, the skills required to solve a complex problemto break the
problem down into smaller parts, to approach it from different angles using
different methods, to not getting intimidated or frustrated when the path isnt
obviousare practical in any field of endeavorfrom astrophysics to
parenting. Ideally, math prepares kids to be better thinkers no matter where
they land.

It doesnt matter if a student can recall a fact instantly with no effort

if their mechanism of solving doesnt build understanding towards
the future. It is true that there are some students for whom
mathematical thinking comes more naturally, for whom traditional
teaching provides immediate results. I was one such student.
However, even those students are clinging to a ship that can only
take them so far.
Eventually, whether it's trigonometry or calculus, memorization wont
be enough anymore. The ship will sink when it is built on rote
memorization rather than depth of understandingan
understanding that can be broadly applied. Even before the digital
revolution took hold, the ability to perform raw computation was of
limited use. Now, with computers able to do anything you can
reduce to an algorithm, it is even truer. The future frontier-blazers in
STEM fields require comprehension, not computation. If we deny
students this foundation in reason, we are limiting their future.
Yes, certain students will find some success with traditional
methodsbut any student can be successful and well-prepared for
the future if the teaching is centered on relationships, connections,
thinking, and reasoning. And isnt that what teaching is all about?