Dim signals: When licensure tests can’t tell us if teachers are ready to teach math

More students are struggling in math than ever before. In fact, nearly 25% of fourth graders—that’s over 850,000 children across the U.S.—lack basic math skills, like how to solve simple subtraction problems involving multi-digit numbers like:

24 – 14 = X

While helping students get to “grade level” in math seems like an intractable issue that perplexes everyone from parents and classroom teachers to education policymakers and curriculum providers, I can’t help but wonder: How do we expect to solve this national math problem if we don’t take basic steps to ensure elementary teachers have the knowledge and skills to help their students learn fundamental math concepts?

We know that completing a teacher prep program does not guarantee a teacher’s knowledge. NCTQ’s 2025 analysis of more than a thousand elementary teacher prep programs found that only 16% of undergraduate and 2% of graduate programs devote enough course time to teaching essential math content. Worse yet, teachers themselves often report feeling underprepared for the job.¹

Recognizing that strong math skills open doors to higher earnings, college opportunities, and to the fastest-growing careers, we have an obligation to ensure elementary teachers have the knowledge and skills to be ready to help their students succeed. A straightforward stopgap? Strong elementary math licensure tests.

Done well, math licensure tests serve as an important signal as to whether—or not—teacher candidates know the math to be successful with students before they get into the classroom. The tests are an important guardrail for teacher quality and for protecting students from teachers with little or no knowledge of math content. Without these basic skills, how do we expect students to get future jobs? Whether they will go on to create a budget for a complex work project, calculate the length of electrical wire needed to install lighting, or develop code for a new AI tool, every student needs a well-prepared teacher who can help them learn fundamental math skills.

To that end, NCTQ reviewed the 30 elementary math teacher licensure tests currently in use across the country to assess their quality.

The findings surprised us:

• Only a third of elementary math tests used by states adequately assess relevant math content. Of the 30 tests states now use to measure elementary teachers’ knowledge of math, we identified just 10 acceptable tests—only six of which are strong tests. The most common reason that the other 20 math tests fall short is that they combine math with other subjects, making it hard to tell whether a passing score means that a future elementary teacher is strong in math, or if their knowledge of fitness or art (commonly combined subjects) are masking a math shortcoming.
• Nine states use unacceptable licensure tests—and two use none at all. The states with an unacceptable test in use include: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Maine and Iowa do not have a math licensure test at all.
• Only 13 states across the country exclusively use at least an acceptable test and require all elementary teachers to pass it. These 13 rare states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.²

(See more about the methodology of this analysis.)

To provide strong signals of future teachers’ math content knowledge, we need to use strong tests (or at least tests that are acceptable)—meaning that they cover all core content topics and they don’t combine the math test with other subjects. If the instrument is weak or unacceptable, then why bother? It doesn’t tell us what we need to know. Worse still, unacceptable tests waste time and money for aspiring teachers who take them.

When states use weak or unacceptable licensure tests, it’s like building a house without checking the foundation. It might look fine from the outside, but as soon as stress is applied—like when students struggle with place value or fractions—the cracks begin to show. A strong licensure test is the structural inspection every teacher needs before they step into the classroom.

Despite the importance of licensure exams, we’re often facing an uphill battle with policymakers. Low pass rates understandably fuel concerns about test bias (especially for candidates of color who often pass at lower rates), the relevance of the tests to classroom effectiveness, and teacher shortages. While test publishers and states must aggressively address issues of test bias, assertions about the irrelevance of the tests are largely unfounded. Licensure tests provide essential data exposing gaps in knowledge and also highlighting strengths.

We must also continue to reject the assertion–explicit or implicit–that the goals of diversifying the profession and ensuring quality are at odds. We must support a diverse and qualified profession. Licensure test results help aspiring teachers and their preparation programs focus on shoring up gaps in knowledge—before they impact students.

States need to make the switch to strong tests to ensure future elementary teachers have the knowledge they need to fluently teach math. If we really care about improving student outcomes in math and setting them up well for the future, we should care about the quality of math licensure tests.