There's too much of the interesting-if-true about it. The quoted statistics say that in aggregate it's awesomely successful, but the article only gives an imaginary example of how DI is done, with strident assertions that this obviously must logically work and no claim that this method of teaching numbers has ever actually been used. There's also the claim that because this obviously must work, if it doesn't it's the teachers' fault for not doing what they're told, which is pretty much a standard rationality failure.

So there may be something awesome here but if so, it doesn't come through very well from the posting.