Sheehy, M., Putman, H., Holston, S., & Peske, H. (2025). State of the States: Five Policy Levers to Improve Math Instruction. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
Conduct robust, state-led program reviews to hold programs accountable for implementing effective math content and pedagogy.
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.
Include math experts as program reviewers, including for on-site reviews.
Review and use math licensure test pass rate data to assess whether preparation programs sufficiently prepare aspiring teachers in mathematics content.
Sixteen states do not oversee their own program review process. Instead, they may fully or partially rely on external accrediting bodies to assess whether programs adequately prepare aspiring teachers. These external entities most often evaluate entire institutions, rather than specific programs (e.g., undergraduate elementary education). This is problematic because programs may vary widely in their attention to math content, even within the same institution. For example, NCTQ’s recent Teacher Prep Review: Solving for Math Success found several institutions where the undergraduate math teacher prep program got an A, B, or C grade while the graduate program got an F because of how little time it dedicated to math content. External reviews may also lack specificity or depth—potentially failing to assess whether teacher preparation programs are truly equipping future elementary teachers with the math skills they need.
Figure 1.
Teacher Prep Review: Solving for Math Success
Explore NCTQ’s latest assessment of teacher preparation programs and whether they are preparing teachers to provide effective math instruction.
States can strengthen math instruction by taking on a stronger role in evaluating and approving teacher preparation programs. To do this, states can update program review processes to include a more detailed analysis of how teacher preparation programs implement effective math instruction, such as ensuring programs comprehensively address all math standards and provide aspiring teachers with explicit opportunities to practice and apply what they have learned. For states with limited capacity, an alternative approach could involve continuing to rely on external accreditors while layering on targeted, state-led reviews that focus specifically on math—similar to how states like Indiana and Ohio have assessed the implementation of the science of reading.
Figure 2.
States committed to reviewing teacher preparation programs themselves should examine syllabi and coursework for elementary and secondary math courses to ensure state math standards are properly integrated into instruction. This review is essential not only to understanding the math content programs are teaching but also to assessing how thoroughly content is covered and the opportunities aspiring teachers have to practice applying their knowledge. Using the results of these reviews, states can better target their limited resources toward programs that need the most support. Yet just over half of states (26) currently fail to analyze syllabi and coursework, leaving state leaders with little insight into what is happening in teacher preparation classrooms statewide.
Figure 3.
States can also strengthen program reviews by ensuring that trained experts with deep knowledge of math content and pedagogy are involved in evaluating teacher preparation programs. These experts may assess course materials, conduct faculty or candidate interviews, observe instruction, and perform other evaluative activities. Currently only 11 states require such experts in the program review process, meaning many states may be reviewing programs without the right experts to determine whether the programs are truly effective and high-quality.
Figure 4.
State spotlight: Kentucky
As part of the Kentucky Numeracy Counts Act, the state’s Education Professional Standards Board is required to report data on factors like teacher assessment scores to improve aspiring teachers’ success in demonstrating math instruction, content knowledge, and skills. The Board is also responsible for developing evaluation rubrics for observing teacher candidates focused on both content and pedagogy, as well as identifying effective assessments for teacher candidates that measure mathematics instruction, including content and practice standards. No later than November 1 of each year, the Council on Postsecondary Education must submit a report, based on an external evaluation, to the Legislative Research Commission, the Interim Joint Committee on Education and the Interim Joint Committee on Appropriations and Revenue, summarizing the compliance of each teacher preparation program for alignment to the elementary standards to the instructional requirements of the Kentucky Numeracy Act.
Read about how Kentucky is building a statewide foundation for math success through smart policy, strong leadership, and sustained investments in teacher knowledge and materials.
Finally, states can analyze licensure test pass rate data to determine whether candidates have a strong grasp of math content by the end of their program. By leveraging data from a standardized, statewide assessment, state leaders can better identify which programs are effectively implementing math standards, pinpoint the standards aspiring teachers may be struggling with, and ultimately assess how well prepared teachers are to teach math across the state. This data is most useful when analyzed at the program level, rather than institution level, and can also provide insight into how programs are supporting different groups of candidates.
Figure 5.
Only three states take a comprehensive approach to teacher preparation program review by incorporating all four of the actions in this policy lever into their review process: Delaware, Kansas, and Ohio. While these actions are a step in the right direction, states should continue to evaluate and refine their implementation to ensure they are achieving their intended impact.
