IXL Is a Scourge on Math Education

Not just the tool but the assumptions baked into it

I don't like IXL. However, this post isn't meant to attack teachers who use IXL, or convince anyone that using IXL is always evil. I know teachers who use IXL thoughtfully, as one of several tools to help students practice in math class. Any good tool can be used poorly, any bad tool can be used well. I'm also aware that IXL saves teachers time and is often required by administrators.

My thesis is that IXL is designed to be used badly. The tools we use in math class shape our thinking about math learning. IXL is designed around some ideas that reasonable at first glance, but I think are both untrue and unhelpful for teachers. Anecdotally, I've seen more of the "IXL mindset" in schools and teachers and I'm concerned it's taken root in schools in a way that's hard to undo.

Here are the assumptions that I find incorrect and unhelpful for teachers:

Math is a set of discrete skills to master and then move on
Sure, it's helpful and practical to divide math into distinct skills to organize practice. But IXL is designed so that you begin practicing a skill, add to your "score" as you get questions right and decrease your "score" as you get questions wrong. You progress through increasingly difficult problems until you "master" the skill, then you move on — all in three to 15 minutes. That's often a good start to get students practicing a skill. But lots of students finish an IXL skill feeling confident, then completely forget the skill because they never see it again.

Math is a linear path along which students progress
IXL gives students a "diagnostic" that tells you a student’s "grade level." I guess you could argue there's value in getting a rough idea of where students are at, though lots of schools are finding a student’s "grade level" through four different tools each year. But IXL recommends students take their diagnostic once a week and provides lots of tools to look at how students rank and watch their "progress." Math isn't just a linear path from pre-K to college readiness. It's a whole lot of different strands, with some topics that are essential for future learning, some topics that stand on their own, and lots of little dependencies in between. Stamping a number on a student oversimplifies all that complexity.

Intervention is "practicing skills on your level"
Once students have taken the diagnostic IXL recommends skills for them to work on. This one is the worst. Language arts teachers have figured out over the last two decades that "leveled reading," where students learn their reading level and practice reading books at that level, doesn't really work. Students end up spinning their wheels and making slow progress. They would be better off reading grade-level texts with scaffolding and support. I hope we can learn that same lesson in math. Giving students skills on their level — which are often random skills disconnected from anything they will learn in class for the next few months — won't do much to help them. It's not easy, but the most effective intervention involves teaching foundational skills in connection with class content. Before a unit on multi-step equations is a great time for review and reteaching of one-step equations. During a unit on proportions is a great time for review of fraction multiplication. There are definitely some students who would benefit from working on their level, but even then it should be targeted work on the highest-priority skills, not an endless march of random practice.

Quantity over quality
IXL is designed so that it's easy to see how many minutes a student practiced in a week. This leads teachers and schools to require a certain number of minutes each week as homework. The message this sends is that quantity is more important than quality. Practice is important, but practice should be focused and efficient. Asking students to spend 60 minutes a week practicing math turns practice into drudgery, teaches students to game the system, and wastes their time.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is IXL, math starts to look like a list of skills to master by plucking students down in front of a screen, taking a diagnostic, then "practicing on their level" 60 minutes a week.

If you've made it this far, I have a sincere question. I'm singling out IXL for my ire in this post but there are lots of other terrible tools out there built on the same assumptions. IXL is the tool I've seen used the most and I used it for a few months two years ago when I moved to my current school, so I decided to write about it. I've since switched to DeltaMath and while it's not a perfect tool it's much better. But DeltaMath only supports middle and high school grades. Are there practice platforms for younger grades that any of my readers would recommend? I'm on my district's curriculum committee this year, and I'd love to offer some helpful recommendations.