Eight years ago, a conversation about Charlotte Mason, Gattegno, and mathematics landed in my Facebook group, Learning Math with Base Ten Blocks. My friend and my sidekick, Lacy, was engaging the Charlotte Mason community and introduced many families to Cuisenaire rods. The conversation quickly turned to whether Cuisenaire rods fit within a Charlotte Mason education. I thought we were discussing beans and rods. I wrote my response to that conversation. Looking back, we were asking a much larger question. Denise Gaskins participated in those discussions and wrote several essays exploring the relationship between Charlotte Mason’s philosophy and mathematics. Eight years later, she has written Charlotte Mason’s Living Math. I’ve been waiting for this book for eight years. I just didn’t know it until she wrote it.

Denise Gaskins is the founder of Tabletop Academy Press and the author of Let’s Play Math, the Math You Can Play series, and now Charlotte Mason’s Living Math. Through her website, Let’s Play Math, she has spent years writing about mathematical play, games, puzzles, investigations, and
learning. She also runs the Math Teachers at Play (later Playful Math) Blog Carnival, a monthly collection of articles from classroom teachers, homeschool educators, mathematicians, and recreational math enthusiasts. I hosted several editions of the carnival over the years, and its archives remain one of my favorite collections of mathematics resources.
Denise and I have known each other for nearly a decade. She has always been generous with her time and careful with her words. Because she remains my fairy math mother, I’m not pretending to be neutral.
Underlying Assumptions About Math and Charlotte Mason
Before I can review Denise’s book, I need to answer an underlying question.
Denise is asking what it means to teach mathematics in a way that is faithful to Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy. Charlotte Mason described education as the science of relations.
Calling something “Charlotte Mason friendly” isn’t enough. Many educational methods are compatible with Charlotte Mason. That doesn’t mean they arise naturally from her philosophy. I want to answer this question: If we truly taught mathematics as a science of relations, what would it look like? That is the measure by which I read Denise’s book. Not can you use it if you are a careful reader of Charlotte Mason, but if you are a careful reader of Charlotte Mason, how does her philosophy intersect with math.
I come to that question with my own assumptions. You should know what they are. I know many of my readers are highly inclined toward Charlotte Mason. It helps to know where my potential biases are.
One of them is that numbers are not objects. You can’t point to something and say, “This is a ten.” The orange Cuisenaire rod isn’t ten. It is a colored rod made of plastic or wood. In our lessons, we don’t mark the rods, and we don’t encourage children to call them by number. Only after establishing that the white rod represents one do we name the rod ten. We use “white = 1” as the unit by which other rods are measured. The same orange rod can represent one, and then white would be 1/10. One hundred and white would be ten. The relationship provides context and meaning. The rod is the object.

You cannot know ten on its own. We know it through the infinite relationships that point to ten and give it its meaning. Ten is two fives and five twos. Ten is half of twenty. Ten is one more than nine, but one less than eleven. It is the same length as two light green rods and a purple when white is the unit. None of these relationships is ten. Each one enriches the child’s understanding of what ten refers to.
If education, including math, is truly a science of relations, then I would expect children to come to know numbers through richer networks of relationships rather than through isolated facts or procedures. New ideas would grow naturally from earlier relationships. Learners would develop fluency because each new relationship gives the child another way of knowing the same referent. Most of all, I would expect mathematics to become more coherent as children learn, not more fragmented.
That is the lens I bring to Denise’s book. It isn’t the only possible lens, but it is the one I find most faithful to Charlotte Mason’s phrase, the science of relations.
Part One: The Philosophical Foundation
Before Denise tells us how to teach mathematics, she asks a more important question: What is mathematics for?
That choice sets the tone for the entire book. Rather than beginning with curriculum, manipulatives, or lesson plans, Denise begins with Charlotte Mason herself. She argues that if we want a genuinely Charlotte Mason mathematics education, we must first understand Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy. Only then can we ask how mathematics fits within it.
Denise takes Mason’s insistence on relations seriously. Instead of asking which manipulatives or textbooks Charlotte Mason might have approved of, she asks how Mason’s principles should shape the way we think about mathematics itself. Throughout these opening chapters, she returns to familiar Mason themes: children are born persons, education is an atmosphere, a discipline, and a life, the cultivation of good habits, living ideas, narration, and the training of reason. Her point is that mathematics should not stand outside this philosophy. We should teach mathematics according to the same principles that govern every other subject.
Part Two: From Philosophy to Practice
Once Denise has established the philosophical foundation, she shows readers what those principles look like in practice. Rather than presenting a prescribed curriculum, she offers a way of thinking about mathematics lessons. The emphasis remains on reasoning, conversation, investigation, and the habits of mind that Charlotte Mason believed education should cultivate. Mathematics is treated as something children actively engage with rather than passively receive. Gattegno said somewhere, “We give children things to do and stuff to talk about.” Mason was doing the same thing. Denise shows you how to do it with math.
One strength of this section is that Denise draws from a wide range of mathematicians and mathematics educators. She does not recreate a nineteenth-century classroom. Instead, she asks which modern practices embody Charlotte Mason’s philosophy. The result is a book that is both historically grounded and educationally current. Readers will encounter mathematical games, investigations, conversations, puzzles, and rich problems, all chosen because they encourage children to reason and make connections rather than simply produce correct answers.
I was pleased to see the Substitution Game included among the mathematical conversations. Substitution is one of the most important mathematical ideas children encounter. It teaches them that different expressions can refer to the same mathematical reality. That habit of recognizing equivalence reaches far beyond arithmetic and becomes foundational for algebra, functions, and higher mathematics. Its inclusion here illustrates Denise’s larger point: mathematics grows through relationships between ideas, not through the accumulation of isolated facts.
Is Denise Faithful to Charlotte Mason’s Philosophy?
I believe the answer is yes.
One of the strengths of Charlotte Mason’s Living Math is that Denise refuses to reduce Charlotte Mason to a collection of educational techniques. She does not ask whether Charlotte Mason would have approved of Cuisenaire rods, games, or a particular curriculum. Instead, she begins where Charlotte Mason herself began: with a philosophy of education.
The opening chapters establish that philosophy before discussing mathematics. Denise returns repeatedly to Charlotte Mason’s central ideas about children and education. Rather than treating mathematics as an exception, Denise shows you how to enter the arena of mathematical relationships instead of learning about them. She does this by showing you how to apply Mason’s ideas to math. That was the premise of the response I wrote eight years ago.
That argument isn’t window dressing. It changes the conversation from “Which math curriculum would Charlotte Mason have used?” to the much more interesting question, “What would mathematics look like if it were taught according to Charlotte Mason’s philosophy?” Those are not the same questions. There is no equal sign between them. The first looks for historical approval. The second asks whether a way of teaching grows naturally from Charlotte Mason’s understanding of education.
By beginning with philosophy rather than methods, Denise gives readers a coherent framework for evaluating mathematics instruction. Whether or not one agrees with every application, the argument grows naturally from Charlotte Mason’s educational principles rather than from a collection of isolated quotations. For me, that is the book’s greatest strength. It also is the approach that has shaped my own work for the past eight years.
Finally, Is the Book Helpful?
That depends.
Helpful for what? Here we encounter those referents again. Like the number 10, helpful needs to refer to something.
If you’re looking for a guide to navigating a national park, probably not.
If you’re looking for a complete mathematics curriculum, again, no.
If you’re looking for a scripted lesson to teach tomorrow morning, only in the broadest sense.
But those aren’t the questions this book is trying to answer. If you’re looking for help rethinking your relationship to mathematics, then I believe the answer is yes.
If you’re a Charlotte Mason parent trying to understand what it means to teach mathematics according to Charlotte Mason’s educational philosophy, then I believe the answer is absolutely yes.
Denise is not trying to hand parents another curriculum. She is offering a vision. Like Let’s Play Math, this book gives parents permission to believe that mathematics is something children can reason about, wonder about, discuss, investigate, and enjoy. It invites parents to treat children as people who have mathematical ideas worth listening to.
For many parents, that shift in orientation will be far more valuable than another collection of lesson plans.

















