[remarkEon]

>it does not control for pedagogical variance

This it total gibberish. No one cares about this sort of academic correction for observed outcomes. "Hmm some kids are continuously scoring better on math exams. Our pedagogy must be wrong! We must teach better." In reality math teachers who are good are extremely rare because people who are good at math tend to not be teachers.

[badosu]

I mean, we have good evidence that "New Math" pedagogical approach in the 70s was very ineffective compared to traditional learning by example, memorizing multiplication tables at younger ages. Would you say that is "gibberish" as well?

> In reality math teachers who are good are extremely rare because people who are good at math tend to not be teachers.

It's hard to take your argument seriously when your own sentence corroborates what I'm trying to convey.