A man gives his son six yuan to buy bread. The boy spends four yuan. How much change does the seller return?

The official correct answer was two yuan, but many students said one.

The children explained that the boy were given a five-yuan bill and a one-yuan bill. To buy the bread, he would simply hand over the five-yuan bill and receive a one-yuan change. China does not have a two-yuan note in circulation.

This math problem tried to force reality into mathematics instead of bringing mathematics into reality.

Vietnam now faces a problem similar to the one that stirred controversy in China: So-called practical math.

In an effort to follow new teaching reforms, many teachers try to insert real-life elements into math exercises even when the situations make little practical sense. Students end up unable to apply the lessons in real life. They also waste time stripping away the "real-world" wrapping before they can solve the actual problem.

A common example is the electricity bill exercise. Teachers often provide the price per kilowatt-hour and the amount of electricity used in a month. Students then multiply the numbers. In reality, household electricity prices in Vietnam follow a tiered pricing system that is far more complicated. These exercises train students to do basic multiplication, but they do not teach them how to calculate an actual electricity bill.

Practical mathematics is a branch of mathematics that uses basic concepts and calculations such as arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and trigonometry to solve real-world problems.

At the high school level, practical math usually focuses on three main areas: commerce, consumption, and manufacturing. Those three themes alone can cover nearly the entire math curriculum across 12 years of schooling.

Designing a practical math problem requires three steps.

First, the writer must identify a real-world problem using real numbers, real conditions, and real timeframes.

Second, the writer should solve the problem in multiple ways. Only then should the final exercise be written and checked for logical consistency, which is the final step.

A math problem is solved on a blackboard. Illustration photo by Pexels

Practical math problems must allow for different approaches and sometimes more than one correct answer. If simplifications are necessary, the writer should clearly state the assumptions being made. In fact, identifying assumptions is itself part of learning how to analyze real-world situations.

Why do teachers often struggle with practical math problems? I believe there are two main reasons.

The first is backward thinking based on predetermined answers. Many teachers were trained under older methods. When asked to apply practical math, they try to invent something that appears connected to real life, such as calculating electricity costs. Yet some may never have calculated their own household electricity bill, so they overlook the fact that electricity pricing changes according to usage levels.

The second reason is that teachers may understand the issue but still simplify the problem because they focus mainly on teaching techniques. They accept exercises that merely appear "reasonable."

A problem written with everyday language does not automatically qualify as practical mathematics.

Connecting math education with real life is the right direction. It is a meaningful reform and an irreversible trend. Practical math requires a skill that traditional education often ignored: The ability to understand and break down problems. In real work, people receive tasks, not neatly simplified formulas with ready-made numbers.

Students also learn best when they understand why they are studying something and how it can be used. That leads to better educational outcomes. Exposure to practical math can also help students develop number sense and reduce math anxiety or even fear of math itself. Over time, students become more likely to turn to mathematics when facing problems in everyday life. That is the true goal of education.

The uneven state of practical math instruction today indicates poor preparation within the teaching workforce, not a flawed direction in education reform.

Standardizing teacher training, improving professional qualifications, and building better learning materials are all achievable goals.

And, every education system must pursue them.