What’s Up With the Math Department?

By Aimee Li ’28 and Mira Lu ’27

Apparently, not all academic departments are created equal. Overwhelmingly, students tend to graduate from Milton significantly more competent in every subject they pursue here. Yet, among students, the sentiment that the math department is somehow relatively lacking has become almost a truism. Indeed, in an all-school “Academic Information Survey” we conducted on September 29, when asked to rank their “perception of each department’s strength (curriculum design, teaching style, student engagement and outcomes) on a scale of 1-5 (5 being the strongest),” Milton students in Classes I-III rated their experience with the Math Department an average of 2.67 out of 5, far below the English Department’s 4.27 and the History and Social Science Department’s 4.12. The gap is striking, especially for a subject that has long been considered foundational to education. These numbers beg the obvious question: in what way is Milton’s math department perceived as less effective than its peers? Is it indeed comparatively weaker? If not, why do students overwhelmingly think it is? This article investigates why this gap exists, examining student feedback, teaching philosophies, and broader cultural influences on learning. We find that this divergence—one marked by students’ frustration with their math education—stems from several factors, some of which apply to all college-prep schools, others of which are Milton-specific phenomena.

To understand how students perceive the math department, we began by gathering their experiences directly. Our survey posed a series of questions regarding the math department to all Milton students. We received a total of 134 non-freshman responses and drew generalizations from the responses with a statistical margin of error of 7.26%. While this data reflects student perceptions and does not necessarily prove that the department is ineffective in practice, it is useful in identifying the factors that shape how students experience and evaluate their learning. In this survey, we invited students to anonymously share their thoughts on the math department. A few of the students we interviewed voiced the general stances that the responses expressed. Jaydon Sun ’29, a Class IV student in Honors Advanced Functions, had noticed that “the classes seem to vary greatly by material and the pace in which the class teaches.”

First, some comments stated that teachers don’t teach well and class topics are not aligned with the curriculum, causing inconsistency between classes of the same level.A lengthy email written by a former Milton student in the Class of 2025 corroborated this complaint, describing a mid-term exam that included material “[they] should’ve learned but have not,” making it difficult to demonstrate their understanding. They also noted that the review packet “did not align with the exam.” Second, Emmarose Zilla ’26 conveyed her own experience of grasping abstract content on her own. Zilla shared that the structure of the curriculum results in the teacher “[giving] you this very prescriptive, precursory introduction to a topic, and you’re expected to sort of go home with it and then sit and wrestle with it yourself.” Her words echo several of the short responses submitted to the form that reflect a divide between the respective expectations of students and teachers.

Due to the assumption of students’ critical thinking abilities, teachers don’t explicitly give guidance on the intuition behind classroom concepts, causing many to end up feeling bad for themselves and questioning their learning ability. In addition, some survey respondents pointed out how teachers often fail to understand students and put themselves in their shoes, approaching teaching without knowing what’s best for students. Finally, while few respondents questioned the mathematical ability of their teachers, some believe they have many teaching shortcomings, including a lack of passion for teaching, in addition to a teaching style that misaligns with student needs. These consistent concerns raise a deeper question: where do these frustrations originate? While students often point to classroom experience as the source of frustration, teachers describe a more complex reality, shaped by structural constraints. Although students complete quarterly feedback forms, the implementation of their suggestions is not always straightforward. When asked about how she responds to feedback, Ms. Stacy Christensen noted that she sometimes finds it “a little hard to implement.” Still, she makes an effort to address suggestions that are more “actionable,” such as adjusting homework timing or incorporating more in-class examples.

Upperclassmen like Vennie Xiao ’26 and Rohan Shah ’26 recall from prior years curricular features like unit goals, which grade students against learning goals as opposed to by individual questions on tests or quizzes, w to a broader teaching philosophy within the department: an emphasis on larger, conceptual understandings of topics. Rather than focusing on step-by-step meth ods, many teachers aim to push students toward independent thinking, an approach that perhaps explains why some students find math at Milton unreasonably difficult. Still, Mr. Phil Robson shared that though he believes “feedback is a huge part of the teaching and learning process,” he perceives “a gap between my goal and students’ goals” as the hardest aspect of applying student feedback. Zilla praised Robson’s pedagogy, stating, “when he’s introducing something and a student is clearly sort of confounded or doesn’t understand how it fits into a larger unit or concept, he would really work to make us understand.”

Despite these efforts, student responses reflect a general dissatisfaction with the overall teaching approach that most teachers implement. Zilla further shared that the transition from Algebraic Concepts to Advanced Functions was especially hard for her. “I had a particularly difficult experience my sophomore year…having to go home and do it myself without any structure or instruction, I think, was really hard for me.” Beyond these teacher-side logistical concerns, however, there perhaps exist deeper structural barriers preventing students from fully investing themselves in the intended classroom experience. One possible explanation lies outside the classroom. In the years following the pandemic, the prevalence of advanced technology and AI has undoubtedly changed how students engage with math. In recent years, there has been a drastic spike in digital tools available to students, developing a tendency for students to take shortcuts and plug their schoolwork into AI platforms. Modern-day societal culture almost encourages taking the shorter route, valuing quick doses of comfort over painful yet rewarding effort. Furthermore, the social and academic perception of math has shifted, as the increase in accessibility to math education has led to a devaluation of the field in comparison to politics and the arts.longer a worthwhile skill to invest intellectual effort into. Yet, the arduous struggle of math is precisely the point, per Christensen. According to her, all the effort put into figuring out a problem, instead of letting AI do it, “makes the work of it and learning of it more rich.” She also noted that “AI isn’t perfect”: students would oftentimes have to double-check the answer by doing it themselves in order to be 100% confident in the AI, undermining the perceived convenience of using it. Ms. Christensen believes that students should redirect their attention to increasing their “ability to solve new problems,” which must be achieved through hard work and struggle. Mr. Robson further described the shift in education that accompanies these cultural perceptions. Referencing Goodhart’s law, he shared, “In schools, learning is the goal, and the measure of learning is tests, but it’s turned so, now, the goal isn’t learning, the goal is good test scores.” In an increasingly competitive learning environment, students can easily lose sight of academic growth under the urge to reach tangible goals.

The perceived value of technical thinking and mathematical problem-solving has significantly decreased, more so now that artificial intelligence seemingly replaces the practicality of mathematical proficiency. Math has now become replaceable by AI, giving students the impression that it is no longer worth their effort. These shifts have had the dual effects of incentivizing students to digest quick AI explanations of math concepts rather than investing the time to deeply understand them in the classroom, and justifying that mathematical thinking is noThe structure of the math curriculum itself also plays an important role in shaping student experiences. One major vision for the Math Department, as stated by Academic Dean and former Math Department Chair Ms. Heather Sugrue, is achieving “horizontal and vertical alignment” across courses. Horizontal alignment refers to maintaining consistent content across the different sections of the same course, while vertical alignment ensures that each course builds directly on the skills and content from the previous one. This structured approach is somewhat unique to the math department. In other core subjects, students often have much more flexibility in the sequence of courses they take and can tailor their courses to their interests. In contrast, math follows a more linear progression. Geometry and Algebra II lay the foundation for more abstract courses, and therefore are graduation requirements. This linear progression reflects the nature of math itself: as concepts become less procedural and more conceptual, they require students to have a stronger base in fundamental problem-solving skills. This inherent rigidity may help explain why students struggle to engage with math, especially in areas they are required to learn but are not excited to.

Recent changes to the course catalog reflect a willingness to reform within the department. Starting from the 2026-27 school year, “Advanced Functions” will be renamed to “Precalculus,” in part because the term“advanced” was seen as “slightly off-putting,” according to Ms. Sugrue. Similarly, “Algebraic Concepts” will be retitled “Algebra 2.” These shifts aim to clarify course expectations and make the curriculum more accessible to students. Beyond course titles, the math department has undergone several department-wide shifts in recent years, ranging from a change of location to a new department head. Another notable and relatively frequent manifestation of change is the replacement of math teachers. While teacher turnover in the department might appear to be significant, Ms. Sugrue noted that the numbers are relatively stable for the math department, the department’s annual turnover rate being around 10%, a rate consistent with both other departments and with past years. Still, even routine turnover can contribute to variations in teaching styles and classroom experiences, factors that are disproportionately important in a department that emphasizes alignment.

Meanwhile, the department’s insistence on vertical structure exists in tension with Milton’s college-preparatory culture, further contributing to student frustration. One major conversation in the Math Department is supporting students while living in a world where students coming to Milton have a strong desire to accelerate. At Milton, many students arrive with a strong inclination to move quickly through the curriculum, viewing advancement, whether through skipping levels or enrolling in honors courses, as a mark of academic success. Survey data reflects this trend: approximately one-third of students reported skipping at least one course level, with another third of those students skipping Geometry. Math Department Head Ms. McCormick emphasized that students are only allowed to skip courses, especially graduation-required courses, if they have completed an equivalent full-year course at another in-person institution. Even then, the decision carries risks. As Sugrue explained, “you are hurting yourself by going faster through foundational material that is needed as you advance.” Honors Advanced Functions Isabella Vander Elst ’28 described her own experience of trying to move levels when she first arrived at Milton. “I felt very frustrated,” she said, “because I consider myself a very driven and motivated student.” “In the future, I hope to see a more supportive math department that pushes students to challenge themselves in the classroom,” Vander Elst added. She proposed a curriculum that would “emphasize learning and content mastery” and allow students to progress at their own pace.

This pressure to accelerate shapes how students engage with math, particularly in honors courses. For required courses, the department aims to ensure that the curricula for Honors and regular courses are aligned in terms of content. Still, students are offered problems of higher difficulty and cover units at a faster pace. According to McCormick, students in an honors class are expected to “be able to extend some of the foundational knowledge” and extend the skill beyond questions done in class. Indeed, the course description for the Honors Precalculus course, for example, indicates that students must extend their thinking by finding “deep mathematical connections between topic areas that may not be obviously related,” and put more emphasis on “abstraction and theory than on application.” However, this expectation can create a disconnect when students enter honors courses anticipating more practice with difficult problems rather than a shift towards independent, conceptual thinking. In response, the department has begun exploring ways to better prepare students for these expectations. Ms. Sugrue mentioned the possibility of implementing a Spring assessment designed to give students a clearer sense of the types of thinking required in honors courses, as well as standardized testing to help both students and teachers better understand readiness.

Ultimately, the disconnect between the math department and its students cannot be reduced to a single issue. It reflects a broader tension between the abstract and uncomfortable nature of math itself and a student culture that increasingly values pragmatic efficiency. Students are asking for more structured and consistent learning, while teachers are asking students to embrace challenges and think independently. To ameliorate these contradictions, teachers could set up a stronger support system for developing abstract thinking. And, students could re-imagine math as being more than just mastering procedures and open themselves to deep engagement with challenging ideas.

Moving forward, the nature of math raises larger questions about what mathematical education should look like in a college-preparatory environment: How can teachers maintain rigor while making learning more accessible for students? How can students adapt to the demands of abstract thinking without feeling lost? How should math instruction evolve in response to changes in technological advancements? What should math feel like to learn, and what kind of struggle is necessary for that learning to truly matter?