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.
Ensure all elementary teachers have access to high-quality professional learning in math instruction, aligned with the skillful use of high-quality instructional materials.
Provide districts with funds to support hiring math coaches and specialists.
Conduct robust, ongoing evaluation of professional learning.
There is a common misperception that some people are simply “math people” while others are not. This belief is so deeply ingrained that research has shown “math anxiety” to be a widespread phenomenon affecting learners of all ages across the world. But this anxiety doesn’t just impact students—it also affects teachers. In fact, a national survey found that few elementary teachers feel prepared to teach specific elementary topics,1 and a separate 2020 survey found one in four teachers feel anxious about doing math.2 Coupled with the reality that many teachers received inadequate preparation in effective math instruction, the need for high-quality professional learning becomes clear.
Research confirms that professional learning strengthens both teacher performance and student achievement. A 2024 meta-analysis of 46 studies found that teachers who received professional development focused on math and science showed improved performance on tests measuring their content knowledge and instructional practices in those subjects. More importantly, when professional learning leads to better teaching practices, student achievement increases.3
For the greatest impact, states should focus professional learning not just on content but also on the skillful implementation of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). Research shows that nearly 60% of the potential impact of adopting HQIM depends on teachers effectively adapting their instructional practices to align with those materials.4 Without this alignment, states risk underutilizing or entirely missing a critical lever for improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Ensuring all teachers have access to ongoing high-quality professional learning that supports the effective implementation of HQIM is essential to building both their confidence and their ability to support student success in math.
While just over half of states (28) providing funding for professional learning in math is a positive step, only six states align these opportunities with HQIM implementation.
Figure 1.
State Spotlight: Arkansas
Arkansas connects HQIM and high-quality professional learning by curating a vetted list of professional learning providers explicitly aligned to the state’s approved curricula. To encourage districts to work with these approved providers, the state strategically allocates discretionary grant funds, guiding districts toward high-quality, curriculum-aligned professional learning.
Math coaches and specialists have proven to be an effective strategy for improving instruction and student outcomes. These experts provide targeted support helping teachers refine their instructional practices and offering direct intervention for struggling students. One-on-one coaching, which includes observation and feedback cycles, has been shown to drive greater improvements in student performance than traditional professional development methods like workshops.5 In fact, a 2018 meta-analysis of 60 causal studies revealed that instructional coaching improves teacher effectiveness to a degree comparable to the difference between a novice teacher and one with 5 to 10 years of experience.6 Further reinforcing these findings, a three-year randomized control trial found that elementary math coaches improved student achievement in grades 3 to 5—but only after the first year. Coaches in the study completed extensive coursework in math content, pedagogy, and coaching before and during their first year, underscoring the importance of well-designed, sustained programs to deliver meaningful results.7
Yet despite the evidence, only six states financially support math coaches and specialists in K–12 schools, and only four states provide funds for both professional learning and coaching—Alabama, California, Georgia, and Michigan.
Figure 2.
State Spotlight: Alabama
Alabama’s Numeracy Act mandates that every public K–5 school with fewer than 800 students receive one math coach, while schools with 800+ students receive two coaches. The act explicitly tasks coaches with improving Tier 1 instruction, collaborating with school administrators to build and implement a strategic plan to improve student achievement, facilitating schoolwide professional learning, supporting implementation of HQIM in math, and more.
Discover how Alabama is leveraging bold policy moves-like math coaching and aligned professional learning-to turn around math achievement statewide.
State Spotlight: Mississippi
States could benefit from adopting Mississippi’s structured coaching approach. While it began with a focus on reading, Mississippi has since expanded the strategy to mathematics. By training a cadre of coaches and deploying them to schools, the state ensured consistency in both training and support, creating a cohesive system across all schools. This structured coaching model ensures statewide alignment, making it a stronger alternative to less coordinated coaching models other states may currently use. It’s a model worth considering for any state choosing to invest in coaching, as a coordinated statewide approach offers far more consistency and impact than leaving districts to design their own models independently.
But What About...
While this analysis focuses on strategies to increase teacher effectiveness, there are additional strategies that may result in improved math outcomes for students.
Lynch, K., Gonzalez, K. E., Hill, H. C., & Merritt, R. (2024). A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence linking mathematics and science professional development interventions to teacher knowledge, classroom instruction, and student achievement [Working paper]. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/r79z-tf23
Taylor, J. A., Getty, S. R., Kowalski, S. M., Wilson, C. D., Carlson, J., & Van Scotter, P. (2015). An efficacy trial of research-based curriculum materials with curriculum-based professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 984–1017.
Fryer, R. G. (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments. In A. V. Banerjee & E. Duflo (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Field Experiments (Vol. 2, pp. 95-322). North-Holland; Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers (REL 2007-No. 033). Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1); Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547– 588.
Kraft, M. A., & Blazar, D. (2018). Taking teacher coaching to scale: Can personalized training become standard practice? Education Next, 18(4).
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430-454.
