Students Are Struggling With Math. What Are States Doing Wrong?

Five years ago, Alabama’s math was literally the worst.

On national assessments from 2019, the state was ranked last in the country for math performance. Across the state, only 22 percent of students were proficient in math — a percentage that was lower for Black and low-income students. And 28 elementary schools in the state did not have a single proficient student.

But a half-decade is a long time. In the intervening years, the state passed a number of changes — including the Alabama Numeracy Act — in an effort to boost K-5 elementary math performance.

The turnaround worked.

While overall math performance has improved in the last couple of years around the country, it still remains muted. But bucking this trend, Alabama saw fourth grade math scores increase. The latest NAEP report — relying on 2024 data — spotlighted Alabama as one of the only states to see a bump in math and literacy scores coming back from the pandemic. In fourth grade math, the state moved from 52nd in 2019, scoring at the very bottom of states, to 32nd in 2024.

In a sense, the success paralleled Louisiana’s rally in literacy, another Southern state that performed a surprise turnabout.

Early math performance is considered critical for influencing life outcomes, as well as economic opportunity. Now, with key sources of education data uncertain due to federal funding cuts, there may be an additional sense of urgency to make good on the lessons of the previous national assessments.

So what is it Alabama is doing right, and why aren’t more states following its lead?

Never Be Prepared?

States are not doing enough to prepare and support teachers to teach math effectively, says Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality. Improving students’ math outcomes requires getting serious about preparing and supporting teachers to be effective, she says.

These challenges are severe.

States are struggling to find and keep teachers, and many relaxed credentialing requirements following the pandemic. Plus, previous reports have also argued that elementary school teachers are not being adequately prepared for math instruction by teacher preparation programs.

So it’s perhaps unsurprising that a new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality highlights that seven states scored “unacceptable” in their efforts to improve math instruction. According to the report, that means these states are taking few of the necessary steps.

Indeed, the NCTQ report singles out Alabama as the only “strong” state in the country setting its students up for success in the subject. The state has impeccable licensure tests, professional learning and coaching for teachers and teacher preparation standards, the report says. (In licensure, in particular, the report found that very few states require teachers to pass a strong test, which surprised some observers.)

Crucial to the state’s success was investments into programs such as professional coaching — particularly important when the state suffered a dearth of certified teachers — as well as investments into curricula, according to detailed analysis from the NCTQ.

“[Alabama] got the pieces in place, and so far they’re sticking to it,” says Latrenda Knighten, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In particular, she praises the state’s commitment to making funds available for math coaches and specialists in schools. Professional learning support for teachers is vital, Knighten says. Her organization is pushing for federal funds designated for that purpose, which leaders believe will help states boost student performance around the country.

Overall, the NCQT report recommends five policies for states looking to boost math performance. Those include setting detailed standards for teacher preparation programs, ensuring that those programs give teachers robust instruction in math, requiring elementary school teachers to pass a math licensure test, making sure that district curricula is high quality, and giving teachers ongoing support.

But all that’s not a silver bullet.

While recommendations are useful, putting them into practice requires finesse. It’s necessary to keep the full context impacting instruction in mind, says Knighten, of NCTM. For instance, districts ought to be cautious that vendors aren’t the only ones influencing how materials are taught in classrooms. Instead, districts need to approach these with a deep understanding of what’s happening in teacher preparation programs, in a way that provides ongoing support for teachers in actually using these materials.

It’s not easy to comprehensively and coherently implement all five of these policy actions, Peske admits.

The stakes are high.

Strong math skills open doors to higher earnings, to college opportunities and to the fastest-growing careers in our nation, she says. So it’s crucial to devote resources to lifting teachers’ capacity to be effective, Peske adds.

Will this help states? Knighten is optimistic. When national performance metrics come out, they often cause a flash of energy that quickly dies out, she says, pointing back toward the recent NAEP scores that showed concerning trends in student performance. But this time, the sense of urgency seems to have remained.

“I feel as if more people are paying attention and deciding, ‘I can do something actionable,’” Knighten says.