That’s a problem with grammar and language; not math.
The agenda behind the pamphlet is obvious. I liked this gem from the page at issue:
>Schooling as we know it began during the industrial revolution, when precision and accuracy were highly valued. What are the myriad ways we can conceptualize mathematics in today’s world and beyond?
These thing WERE highly valued? They are no longer? And weren’t they valued BEFORE the industrial revolution? Indeed, was not the Industrial Revolution possible in the first place due to the high value put on precision and accuracy?
As for the 'highly valued' bit; one could argue that mathematics built for problem solving creative issues (including in computer programming) is now valued more than it was then. That could lead to different curriculum than before.
You don't land a rocket on Mars by valuing anything other than precision and accuracy.
The laws of the universe just don't care about anything else.
I don't think I can rephrase it better than the document already states:
> And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer.
It is hugely useful to be able to interrogate misleading paths to seemingly correct but ultimately incorrect answers. Half of standardized test answers seem to be written to intentionally capture such missteps.