Modern math classes tend to be very applied. I.e. the primary objective is to get the student to be able to solve real world problems with math. (A farmer sells 3 potatoes for a dollar. How much do 8 potatoes cost?). There seems to be some indication however, that abstract math is more accessible to some children, especially if they aren't supported by parents during their homework, etc. Because of this real-world to mathematical-world translation step. By exploring ways to make math more accessible, "friendly" and useful, teachers might actually make it harder for students to pick up math.
This is an interesting thought for me, because I tutored kids in math who were not doing good in school. I kind of ended up with a typical scheme to get them from "risk of failing the class" to Bs and occasionally As.
First I would introduce a a few techniques (equation solving in every case and the mathematical topic of their class - logarithms, binomial terms, etc. - also) and then give them very simple drill exercises. And a lot of them that we would solve together. I.e. simplifying exponentials $exp(3) * exp(5) = exp(8)$ etc. I always made sure that they were able to solve these drill exercises eventually, and they were all able to, because they picked up the scheme.
As a next step, I gave them the applied problems their teachers would ask them to solve, and made it into a translation problem. I.e. I explicitly told them that this was now just a translation. They could often identify with this because they self-identified often as language persons ("I like the literature class best", or "I like french class most"). I wouldn't ask them to solve the translation result right away. But they often just naturally did because it was not so different from the drill exercises.
Point is, I do not at all understand why I was needed for this. The teachers consistently failed their students in class, by not providing them with the very basic math skills and confidence that they needed to solve more complex problems.