When Math Class Is the Problem: A Parent’s Guide to Supporting Real Learning
On the landing page of Girlmath’s website, it says:
“Girls are problem solvers, not problems to solve. It’s time we treated them like it.”
If there is one thing Girlmath stands for, it’s that. But what does it mean? Are girls really treated like the problem in math class? Unfortunately, all too often, yes. Here’s how it happens:
When speed is rewarded more than thoughtfulness, girls who prefer to process carefully are labeled “slow.”
When mistakes are penalized instead of explored, kids learn that being wrong is shameful rather than essential to growth.
When teachers insist on only one method, students who naturally approach problems differently are told they’re “doing it wrong.”
When tests reduce math to narrow computations, students feel like they’re the ones who don’t measure up — instead of realizing it’s the assessment that’s broken.
Signs the Design of Math Class Might Be the Problem
Ask yourself:
Is she being asked to memorize steps before she understands why they work?
Does speed seem to matter more than thoughtfulness?
Are wrong answers treated like failures instead of opportunities to learn?
Does she leave class feeling anxious, behind, or like she’s “not a math person”?
Are the problems so rigid that the only way through is to apply a standard algorithm?
These last two points are especially important. Sometimes, the very design of the problem sets kids up to fail. Compare these two:
Unrealistic: Subtract 873.45 – 62.78. (Who actually subtracts long decimals like this outside of school — without a calculator or spreadsheet?)
Authentic: You have $873.45 in your account. You spend $62.78. How much is left? (Now the numbers mean something, and students can estimate first to check their final answer.)
When math is reduced to tricks and quick answers, kids learn that math is about performance, not problem-solving. And for many girls, this is especially harmful: it reinforces the idea that they are the problem.
What Happens When Kids Are Only Shown One Way
When students are pushed to learn any algorithm before they understand the concept:
They can “do” the math without truly understanding it.
They become dependent on memorized steps and freeze when they forget one.
They believe their own strategies are wrong — even when they’re mathematically sound.
They often lose confidence, thinking: I’m not a math person.
Example: Find 30% of 240.
Algorithm-only: Turn 30% into 0.3, multiply: 0.3 × 240 = 72.
Authentic approaches:
Ratio table: 10% = 24, so 30% = 72.
Double number line: 100% = 240, 50% = 120, 25% = 60, so 5% = 12. Add 25% + 5% to get 30%, and 60 + 12 = 72.
The answer is the same — 72 — but the learning is completely different. When kids only ever see the algorithm, they miss the chance to reason, estimate, and connect ideas. They learn that their thinking doesn’t matter, only memorized steps do.
Curricula like Illustrative Mathematics, Open Up Resources, and CPM build in these multiple pathways, especially in middle school. But when classrooms shortcut straight to algorithms, the depth is lost — and students begin to lose trust in their own ability to solve problems.
When the Test Is Designed Against Real Thinking
Sometimes the problem isn’t just how math is taught — it’s the problems themselves.
Rigid problem (algorithm only): 38.7 ÷ 4.5 = ?
This practically forces long division with decimals. There’s no context and no room for reasoning.
Fake “real-world” version (still unrealistic): A recipe calls for 38.7 cups of flour to make 4.5 batches. How much flour is in one batch? (Let’s be honest: no recipe calls for that. It trains kids to calculate with nonsense numbers instead of making sense of real life.)
Authentic progression (still assesses division with decimals):
Start with friendlier numbers to build understanding:
A recipe calls for 9 cups of flour to make 1.5 batches. How much flour is in one batch? (Answer: 6 cups.)
Then move to a more complex but realistic version:
A family-size recipe calls for 7.5 cups of flour for 2.5 loaves of bread. How much flour is in one loaf? (Answer: 3 cups.)
Now extend to decimals in context:
A bakery uses 45.6 kg of dough to make 12.8 trays of rolls. How many kg of dough are in one tray?
👀 Notice the difference: students still get to practice decimal division, but the numbers make sense. They can estimate, use ratio tables, or reason about fractions before dropping into the algorithm.
💡 Authentic problems don’t lower the bar — they raise it. They assess both the math skill and the ability to apply it meaningfully.
What About Grades?
Parents and tutors often wonder: If my student understands the concept but not the algorithm, won’t her grade suffer?
If the math class only rewards algorithms, then most likely, yes. Grades are tricky — and honestly, they’re not as objective as they look. Teachers make choices about what to test, how to test it, and what “counts” as correct. Two students with the same mathematical understanding could end up with very different grades depending on whether their teacher rewards flexible thinking or only one memorized method.
That’s part of why grades can feel unfair, especially in math: they often measure speed, neatness, or rule-following just as much as real understanding.
It’s worth noting that standardized assessments — while imperfect in other ways — often test for bigger-picture reasoning: interpreting graphs, making estimates, or explaining relationships. Ironically, a student who looks “weak” in class because she resists algorithms may perform better on these larger-scale measures of mathematical reasoning.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Rigid classroom test item: “Show the standard long division algorithm for 528 ÷ 16.”
A student who understands division deeply but doesn’t remember the exact steps might get this wrong.
Better assessment prompt: “Divide 528 by 16. Show or explain your reasoning.”
Now, a student can use partial quotients, doubling, or even estimation to demonstrate understanding — and still earn credit.
Same math, very different grading outcome. That’s the problem: too often, grades measure whether a child can remember a procedure, not whether she actually understands the math.
So yes, a child’s grade may dip if she hasn’t memorized a specific algorithm. But that dip is about the grading system — not about her intelligence or potential. Grades are feedback about one narrow context, not a definition of who she is as a learner.
What Parents Can Do at Home
If your child’s math class leans heavily on algorithms and drills, here’s how to support deeper understanding:
1. Ask for “Why?” When she finishes a problem, wonder aloud: “Why does that work?” or “Can we show it in a picture?”
2. Encourage Multiple Representations: Invite her to use a ratio table, number line, array, or mental math.
3. Normalize Struggle and Slow Thinking: Remind her: “Our brains grow when we figure things out, not when we do things the fastest.”
4. Call Out Problem Design: If the homework only allows one method, name it: “These problems don’t give you much room to think in your own way. But in real life, math looks different.”
5. Gently Advocate
There are two levels of advocacy that matter: helping your child in her own classroom, and helping shift the system so all kids get better math experiences.
At the classroom level, you might ask your child’s teacher:
“Can my child show her work in different ways, as long as the answer is correct?”
“Are there opportunities for her to explain her reasoning?”
“What curriculum are you using, and how does it help students build understanding?”
These questions open dialogue and signal that you value deep learning, not just memorization.
At the school level, you might ask administrators or parent groups:
“What math curriculum has our school adopted, and why?”
“How are teachers supported with professional development in teaching math for understanding, not just for speed?”
“What opportunities exist for teachers to collaborate and learn new strategies together?”
This higher-level advocacy matters because even the best teachers need support and training to teach math in ways that value reasoning, multiple pathways, and student confidence. When schools invest in that, every child benefits.
The Bigger Picture
When math is designed around memorization, speed, and only one “right way,” kids stop taking risks. They start believing that if they can’t keep up, they must be the problem.
But the problem isn’t the kids. The problem is the design: worksheets that only accept one method, tests that reward memorized steps over reasoning, and classrooms that value speed more than persistence.
When students are given the chance to explore multiple strategies, wrestle with real problems, and explain their ideas, everything changes. They don’t just learn math — they learn that their ideas matter, that struggle is part of growth, and that they are capable problem solvers.
That’s the whole point: girls are not the problem. They are problem solvers — and it’s time we treated them like it.