Four ways of seeing education, and why “best practice” is a myth

“What’s the best way to teach this?” It’s a question educators often ask, only to encounter seemingly confident yet often contradictory answers. Some advocate for explicit instruction, others for inquiry-based approaches. Some emphasise subject knowledge, others prioritise real-world applications. Each claims to be ‘best practice’ supported by evidence and experience. Yet these disagreements—amplified in social media, traditional forums, professional development, and policy mandates—highlight a deeper, more fundamental challenge.

The very idea of a single ‘best practice’ is flawed. Teaching is too complex, and educational contexts too varied, to be reduced to one-size-fits-all solutions. As I’ve written elsewhere on this blog, there’s no universal formula for effective teaching. In this post, I want to take this critique further. Understanding where these differing perspectives originate helps explain why the search for universal answers will always fall short, and why disagreements persist in public settings.

At the heart of these tensions lie divergent beliefs and assumptions about education’s purpose, what should be taught, how learning happens, how students should be assessed, and what counts as success. These debates go beyond teaching techniques; they reflect fundamentally different visions of what education is for. Recognising this complexity moves us from asking “What works?” to grappling with deeper questions like “What matters? And why?”. The answers often depend on how individuals view education—not just as a practice, but as a means of achieving broader goals.

Four curriculum ideologies

One way to understand these differing visions is through the lens of curriculum ideologies. Schiro (2013) identified four distinct ways of thinking about education that serve as archetypes, each highlighting different priorities and values:

• The Scholar Academic Ideology emphasises transmitting established knowledge from academic disciplines, focusing on intellectual development.
• The Social Efficiency Ideology values preparing students for specific societal roles, emphasising productivity and practical outcomes.
• The Learner-centred Ideology prioritises individual student growth, tailoring education to learners’ needs and interests.
• The Social Reconstruction Ideology views education as a tool for social change, encouraging students to address injustices and reform society.

While few educators align perfectly with one ideology, most cluster around those that resonate with their own values and beliefs. These ideologies influence everything from curriculum design to classroom practices, shaping how teachers, policymakers, and institutions approach education.

What happens when these ideologies interact? Schiro’s analysis highlights how they differ in key areas: professional aims, conceptions of knowledge, views of learning, perspectives on childhood, teaching approaches, and beliefs about evaluation. These differences don’t just lead to debates over teaching techniques; they reflect competing visions of education itself. In the Australian context, these tensions are especially visible in curriculum and policy debates. For example, debates over explicit teaching versus inquiry learning often mirror ideological divides. Recognising these perspectives helps explain why ‘best practice’ often depends on who is asking—and answering—the question.

These ideological perspectives strongly influence how teaching is structured. Joyce and Calhoun (2024) identified nearly 30 different teaching models, which tend to align with different ideological priorities. Information-Processing Models align with Scholar Academic approaches through their focus on knowledge acquisition. Social Interaction Models reflect Social Reconstruction ideals of collaborative learning and social change. Personal Models embody Learner-centered principles of individual growth. Behavioural Models often serve Social Efficiency goals through structured practice and clear objectives.

The choice of model thus depends not just on what is to be learned, but on our underlying beliefs about education’s purpose. As Joyce and Calhoun emphasise “no one way of teaching builds the skills of learning that embrace the whole of what needs to be learned”.

Mathematical proficiency through an ideological lens

Debates about mathematical proficiency reveal how different ideological perspectives shape what we value in mathematics education. In a recent critique of AERO’s guidance paper, I challenged their single, hierarchical view of mathematical proficiency: understanding → fluency → problem solving → reasoning. This reflects a particular ideological orientation (Social Efficiency) and an associated teaching model (Behavioural), toward how mathematical proficiency develops.

Returning to the origins of the phrase ‘mathematical proficiency’, we see a more well-rounded picture. Kilpatrick et al. (2001) emphasise three interconnected domains that develop simultaneously:

• Knowledge encompasses factual, conceptual, and procedural understanding
• Skills include mathematical reasoning, problem-solving, metacognition, creative thinking, collaboration, and communication
• Attitudes involve productive dispositions including perseverance, curiosity, confidence, and openness to learning.

Different ideological perspectives lead to different emphases within this framework. Scholar Academic approaches often prioritise systematic knowledge building, while Social Efficiency views focus on developing applicable skills. Learner-centered approaches might start with fostering positive attitudes and engagement, while Social Reconstruction perspectives emphasise using mathematical skills to analyse social issues.

As I explored in another blog post, all three domains are essential. And, the evidence suggests these domains are deeply intertwined. Understanding can develop through problem-solving rather than before it. Skills might emerge through creative exploration as much as structured practice. Positive attitudes often come from experiencing mathematics in multiple ways rather than following a single path. What matters is recognising and supporting these interconnected domains in our teaching. When we privilege one domain or mandate a single developmental sequence, we risk missing opportunities for rich mathematical learning that develops across all three domains simultaneously.

This richness challenges any single ideological view. Instead of asking “Which approach is right?” we might better ask “Which combination of approaches best serves our students’ mathematical development?” Different contexts, concepts, and learners might call for different emphases—drawing insights from multiple ideological perspectives rather than adhering to just one.

The AC:M through an ideological lens

When was the last time you truly examined the aims of your national curriculum or standards? The Australian Curriculum: Mathematics (AC:M) aims are listed below, numbered for easy reference.

Mathematics aims to ensure that students: 

• Aim 1: become confident, proficient and effective users and communicators of mathematics, who can investigate, represent and interpret situations in their personal and work lives, think critically, and make choices as active, engaged, numerate citizens
• Aim 2: develop proficiency with mathematical concepts, skills, procedures and processes, and use them to demonstrate mastery in mathematics as they pose and solve problems, and reason with number, algebra, measurement, space, statistics and probability
• Aim 3: make connections between areas of mathematics and apply mathematics to model situations in various fields and disciplines
• Aim 4: foster a positive disposition towards mathematics, recognising it as an accessible and useful discipline to study
• Aim 5: acquire specialist mathematical knowledge and skills that underpin numeracy development and lead to further study in mathematics and other disciplines.

From my reading, two ideologies dominate the framework. The Scholar Academic ideology is prominent in Aims 2 and 5, emphasising mastery of mathematical concepts and specialist knowledge. The Social Efficiency ideology is equally strong, visible across Aims 1, 3, and 5 in preparing students to apply mathematics in their personal and work lives and various fields. This dual emphasis reflects the vision of Peter Sullivan, a key architect of the AC:M, who emphasised the importance of “practical mathematics that can prepare students for work and living in a technological society” (Social Efficiency) while ensuring “all students should experience some aspects of specialised mathematics” (Scholar Academic). The curriculum clearly reflects these twin priorities.

Other perspectives play notably minor roles. The Learner-centered ideology appears mainly in Aim 4’s focus on fostering “a positive disposition towards mathematics,” while Social Reconstruction elements are limited to a brief reference in Aim 1 about developing “active, engaged, numerate citizens.”

This distribution raises important questions about the curriculum’s underlying purpose: Is mathematics primarily seen as a tool for work and academic progression? What role should personal development and social engagement play in mathematics education? How do these emphases align with your own beliefs about the purpose of mathematics education? Reflecting on these emphases and potential misalignments might help explain some of the tensions we experience.

Beyond the myth of best practice

Understanding these ideological influences helps us move beyond simplistic debates about ‘best practice’ and toward more nuanced conversations about how different approaches serve different purposes. Curriculum decisions—whether at the national level or in individual classrooms—are never neutral; they always involve balancing multiple valid perspectives about what matters in education. Most importantly, recognising these perspectives reminds us that they need not conflict. When combined thoughtfully (for example, moving from OR to AND), they can complement each other to serve the richer goal of meaningful learning.

Some advocates of ‘best practice’ might argue that certain teaching methods—such as explicit instruction—are inherently superior. In specific contexts, these methods can indeed prove highly effective. However, what works in one context may falter in another, precisely because of the differing purposes, values, and beliefs that shape educational goals. For instance, explicit instruction often aligns with Scholar Academic or Social Efficiency ideologies, prioritising knowledge transmission and measurable outcomes. Yet, it may feel at odds with the priorities of Learner-centred or Social Reconstruction ideologies, which emphasise individual growth or societal transformation.

In mathematics education, this means recognising that different teaching approaches serve different aspects of learning mathematics. Explicit instruction might effectively build procedural fluency, while inquiry-based approaches could better develop problem-solving capabilities. Social learning might foster mathematical communication skills, while individual exploration could build confidence and persistence. Recognising these tensions is not about rejecting any single method or ideology outright. Instead, it is about understanding why no single approach can claim universal success.

Effective teaching requires us to move beyond universal solutions to thoughtful decision-making. The question becomes not “What works?” but “What works in this context, with these learners, and for this purpose?” These four ways of seeing education—Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner-centered, and Social Reconstruction—reveal why the very idea of “best practice” is a myth. What we need instead is a more flexible, reflective, and intentional approach to teaching mathematics—one that honours both the complexity of learning and the diversity of educational visions.

References

Joyce, B. & Calhoun, E. (2024). Models of Teaching. Taylor & Francis.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., Findell, B., & National Research Council (U.S.) (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.

Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. SAGE Publications.

---

Photo by Firdouss Ross on Unsplash