National Overview

Set specific, detailed math content standards for elementary teacher preparation programs for all four core math content topics (numbers and operations, algebraic thinking, geometry and measurement, and data analysis and probability). 

Clear, comprehensive standards provide a roadmap for teacher preparation programs, helping them ensure that aspiring teachers develop the necessary content knowledge for teaching elementary mathematics before entering the classroom. Without clear, detailed guidance on what teachers are expected to know, aspiring teachers may not learn essential math concepts during their training, ultimately weakening the quality of instruction they provide to students. Additionally, without clear expectations, it is difficult to hold programs accountable for implementation. Arkansas sets a good example of clear, detailed math competencies for teacher preparation programs, outlining specific concepts and examples that educators must master.

Include math-specific pedagogy coursework in teacher preparation standards to ensure that aspiring teachers learn how to translate their content expertise into effective instruction.

While a strong foundation in math content is critical, it is not enough on its own—teachers must also know how to effectively translate that knowledge into meaningful instruction. High-quality math pedagogy training helps teachers move beyond rote instructional procedures and equips them with knowledge and strategies to foster engagement, develop deep conceptual understanding, and build mathematical confidence in their students. 

Encourage elementary teacher preparation programs to prioritize math courses designed for educators over traditional non-teacher math courses.

Many colleges and universities require aspiring educators to take advanced college-level math courses—such as calculus—even though these topics are not directly relevant to their future career: teaching elementary students. Instead, states should encourage programs to require math courses designed specifically for teachers, ensuring that aspiring educators build a deep understanding of the math content most relevant to their future students. This strategy allows programs to include content that teachers need without adding credits.

Conduct robust, state-led program reviews to hold programs accountable for implementing effective math content and pedagogy.

While strong math standards are essential, states must also maintain oversight to ensure teacher preparation programs are effectively implementing them. Without robust program reviews, states have little insight into whether programs are equipping future teachers with the content knowledge and instructional strategies needed for effective math instruction. States should have the final say in determining the outcomes of program reviews and should not delegate that responsibility to outside entities.

Include a review of syllabi and coursework as part of the review process to assess whether programs properly address math standards in aspiring teachers’ preparation.

Reviewing coursework and syllabi offers insight into how well teacher preparation programs are aligning instruction to state math standards. Without a review of these materials, states cannot determine whether programs are covering essential math topics in sufficient depth and providing teachers with adequate opportunities to apply their knowledge.

Include math experts as program reviewers, including for on-site reviews.

The review process should include knowledgeable reviewers with expertise in both mathematics content and pedagogy—including K–12 teachers and math specialists. These experts can assess whether coursework truly prepares teachers to explain mathematical concepts and engage students in problem solving.

Review and use math licensure test pass rate data to assess whether preparation programs sufficiently prepare aspiring teachers in mathematics content.

Licensure test pass rates provide a data-driven measure of whether prep programs are effectively equipping candidates with the necessary mathematical content knowledge to be successful in the classroom. By analyzing pass rates, states can identify which programs are excelling and which programs may need targeted support or further intervention. States can also use pass rates to pinpoint specific content areas where aspiring teachers are struggling, allowing for refinements to standards and preparation requirements to address these weaknesses.

Implement an at least acceptable math licensure test.

A well-designed math licensure test signals that aspiring teachers have the content knowledge to effectively teach math. When rigorous, these tests serve as standardized measures of a candidate’s proficiency while also providing states with insight into the quality of teacher preparation programs. By adopting a strong test that is aligned to teacher standards for mathematics, states can ensure that new teachers enter the classroom with the math knowledge they need to support student learning. Learn more about test quality.

Require all elementary candidates to pass a math licensure test.

While adopting a strong licensure test is essential, it is only effective if candidates are required to pass it. Ensuring that all candidates are required to meet a clear, measurable standard in math content knowledge is a crucial step toward strengthening math instruction.

Publish math licensure pass rate data, particularly first-time pass rate data, for all institutions.

Making math licensure test pass rates—especially first-time pass rates—publicly available provides valuable transparency into how well teacher preparation programs equip candidates with essential math knowledge. When states publish this data, it not only holds teacher preparation programs accountable, but it helps prospective teachers make informed decisions about where to enroll. Access to pass rate information allows aspiring educators to identify programs with strong math preparation, increasing the likelihood that they will enter the classroom well equipped to teach.

Require districts to adopt and implement high-quality math instructional materials.

High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) based on research provide teachers with the tools to ensure students build conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and real-world application skills. Without clear guidance or requirements, districts may use materials that fail to engage students, lack coherence, or require teachers to piece together their own lessons—leading to inconsistent instruction. In Rhode Island, state leaders are required to identify at least five examples of high-quality curricula in each core subject and support districts in adopting those materials. 

Provide guidance on how to select high-quality instructional materials.

HQIM are critical for students as they provide structured, research-based strategies to build foundational skills and close learning gaps. High-quality curricula should include scaffolding strategies, engaging real-world applications, and targeted interventions to help students develop confidence and mastery in math. States can provide resources to help districts select high-quality materials that meet the needs of their schools and communities.

Collect and publish data on the curricula districts are using.

Without transparency, states, parents, and advocates have little insight into whether students are learning from effective, research-based instructional materials. By requiring districts to report and publicly share their curricula in use, states can provide greater accountability, equip families with critical information, and encourage districts to prioritize HQIM that drive better student outcomes. 

Allocate funds to help districts transition to and implement new curricula.

Even when districts want to adopt stronger instructional materials, financial and logistical barriers often stand in the way. The costs of transitioning to HQIM go beyond purchasing textbooks—schools must also invest in ongoing professional learning, licensing fees, and technology upgrades to ensure teachers can effectively use the materials. States play a crucial role in supporting this transition by allocating funds to help districts adopt and implement HQIM. 

Ensure all elementary teachers have access to high-quality professional learning in math instruction, aligned with the skillful use of high-quality instructional materials.

Many elementary teachers enter the classroom feeling unprepared or anxious about teaching math, often due to inadequate preparation in effective math instruction. This makes high-quality professional learning essential. States should ensure that professional learning opportunities are not only widely available, but also aligned with HQIM, providing teachers with practical, curriculum-connected support to enhance their ability to deliver effective math instruction. Arkansas, for example, bridges the gap between HQIM and high-quality professional learning by curating a vetted list of professional learning providers explicitly aligned to the state’s approved curricula.

Provide districts with funds to support hiring math coaches and specialists.

Effective professional learning requires investment, yet many districts lack the necessary resources to provide teachers with sustained, high-quality support. States should allocate funding to help districts hire math coaches or specialists—roles that research has shown significantly improve both instruction and student outcomes. By ensuring districts have the resources to offer ongoing, job-embedded support, states can help strengthen math instruction across classrooms.

Conduct robust, ongoing evaluation of professional learning.

Ensuring teachers have access to high-quality professional learning and support is only the first step—states must also assess effectiveness to ensure these supports lead to real improvements in math instruction. States can lead by either conducting ongoing evaluation of professional learning initiatives or requiring districts to do so through grant opportunities. By collecting and analyzing data on teacher content knowledge, instructional practices, and student performance, states can identify which professional learning initiatives have the greatest impact. Ongoing evaluation allows states to refine their approach, directing resources to the most effective strategies and ensuring that investments in professional learning lead to meaningful results.