Redundant, and Ignored Anyway

Tout (1997) made an argument I think about often: the phrase “critical numeracy” shouldn’t need to exist. Real numeracy, properly defined, already includes critical thinking. Adding the word “critical” in front of it is redundant, because you can’t actually be numerate without being able to interrogate what the numbers mean.

And yet the field keeps needing to add the word anyway, because in practice, most financial literacy curricula strip the critical piece out entirely. What gets taught is arithmetic: percentages, interest formulas, budget templates. What gets left out is the harder skill: does this number make sense, is this institution telling me the truth, what assumption is hiding inside this proposal.

I find this a useful diagnostic. If a program needs the word “critical” bolted onto “numeracy” to describe what it teaches, that’s actually an admission that its default version of numeracy was incomplete.

We don’t use the phrase “critical numeracy” in our curriculum. We just teach numeracy the way Tout argued it should have meant all along, which happens to be exactly what residents facing eviction notices, predatory loan terms, and confusing benefit paperwork actually need.

Where else have you noticed a field needing to add a qualifier to a word because the plain version of that word had quietly been hollowed out?

Author: Sandra Roussel
Copyright © 2009-2026 Sandra Roussel. Reproduction and distribution of all materials without written permission is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved.