Just like there is a science to teaching reading, there is a science to teaching math. The difference is there has been a groundswell of support for evidence-based reading instruction while math instruction has languished. But this is changing as educational leaders, who once “begrudged the lack of attention math gets in school,” are using reading reform as a role model for effective math instruction. If states are regulating teacher preparation requirements in literacy and requiring districts to choose high-quality curricula, why aren’t we doing the same with math? After all, even in high-flying New Jersey, 55% of fourth-graders can’t meet grade-level expectations.

What needs to change? According to a new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) called “State of the States: Five Policy Levers to Improve Math Instruction,” states that are serious about serving our children well will raise standards for the multiple factors that drive effective math instruction. NCTQ calls these factors “policy levels” and rated each state on their diligence in adhering to them.

These levers are:

1. Set specific, detailed math standards for teacher preparation programs.
2. Review teacher preparation programs to ensure they are providing robust math instruction.
3. Adopt a strong elementary math licensure test and require all elementary candidates to pass it.
4. Require districts to select high-quality math curricula and support skillful implementation.
5. Provide professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction.

Across all levers, New Jersey earned the rating “Weak.” The state with the strongest rating is Alabama, which made the biggest jump in student math proficiency in the country according to 2024 NAEP scores. This success, says NCTQ, is a result of reforming the math courses teachers need to take to earn teaching licenses; an update of its state student assessments to provide granular information to teachers, schools, and parents; embedding “math expertise directly into schools to expand teacher capacity by deploying full-time, in-house math coaches”; and through passage of the Alabama Numeracy Act, which sets long-term plans and requires strong accountability and dedicated funding.

It’s not that hard! You just need political strength to look past obsessions with local control and follow best practices.

From a highly-regarded analysis:

 “To help teachers deliver strong instruction, research increasingly points to the importance of using high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials, which many states and districts are starting to emphasize. Research also has found that completion of one or more advanced math and science classes in high school predicts both college readiness and later health, job satisfaction and well-being.”

Here are New Jersey’s rankings on each of the five levers. Note that NJ gets an “Unacceptable” in the categories of requiring high-quality curricula, setting detailed standards for teacher preparation, and providing ongoing support and professional development for educators.

• Set specific, detailed math standards for teacher preparation programs: Unacceptable
• Review teacher preparation programs to ensure they are providing robust math instruction: Weak
• Adopt a strong elementary math licensure test and require all elementary candidates to pass it: Moderate
• Require districts to select high-quality math curricula and support skillful implementation: Unacceptable
• Provide professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction: Unacceptable

We’re moving in the right direction in literacy, or at least talking the talk. Isn’t it time to do the same with math?