Mathematics teachers face a myriad of instructional obstacles. Since the early 1990s, mathematics education researchers have proposed the use of constructivist practices to counteract these ever-prevalent obstacles. While we do give credit to the choices of instructional activities the constructivist paradigm promotes, there are problems with its use as the foundation of mathematics pedagogy (e.g., Phillips, "Educational Researcher" 24: 5-12 1995; Simon, "Journal for Research in Mathematics Education" 26: 114-145 1995). In this paper, we will analyze and review the literature pertaining to the conceptual tenets and operational practices of constructivism, and the viability of these practices for meeting the professional teaching standards proposed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 2000). We will then review the literature pertaining to a paradigm of teaching that may be more applicable, that of persuasive pedagogical practices, and the ways in which these practices can differentially meet the goals of the mathematics standards. The differences between constructivism and persuasive pedagogy lead us to believe that the adoption of the theory of teaching as persuasion, or persuasive pedagogy, may be more appropriate for learning mathematics and the identification and correction of misconceptions. Further, these pedagogical practices correspond with suggestions for mathematical discourse provided by NCTM (2000).