Over the past several years, states across the country have taken decisive action to improve literacy outcomes. Backed by legislation, funding, and a growing consensus around the science of reading, systems have begun to align instruction with research.
Teachers have been trained. Curriculum has been upgraded. Accountability has increased.
That work is beginning to pay off. But as literacy efforts gain traction, another reality is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: Math achievement is not just lagging—it is becoming the next major barrier to student success.
In the wake of the pandemic, math scores dropped sharply. In many states, they have yet to meaningfully recover.
In some schools, more than half of students remain below grade level. Even where gains are appearing, progress is often slow and uneven. This is not simply a temporary setback. It is a warning sign.
And for state and district leaders, it raises a critical question: Are we approaching math improvement with the same clarity, urgency, and commitment that we brought to literacy?
Math challenge hiding in plain sight
For years, literacy instruction suffered from a gap between research and classroom practice. Teachers were expected to deliver results without always having access to the training or tools needed to do so effectively.
Math is now facing a similar challenge—one that is often less visible, but just as consequential. In many classrooms, instruction continues to emphasize procedures: steps to follow, formulas to apply, answers to produce.
Students may complete assignments, but too often lack the conceptual understanding required to apply their knowledge in new situations. The consequences build over time.
Students who appear proficient in earlier grades struggle as math becomes more complex. Others disengage, internalizing the belief that they are “not math people.”
Teachers—many of whom learned math the same way—continue to rely on familiar approaches, not out of resistance, but because they have not been given a clear alternative. This is not a failure of effort. It is a gap in preparation and support.
What it will take to move forward
In response to declining outcomes, many systems have turned to new instructional materials. High-quality, standards-aligned curriculum is important—but it is not enough.
Across states, a familiar pattern is emerging: districts invest in stronger materials, yet implementation remains inconsistent. Teachers are asked to shift their practice without the sustained support needed to make those changes stick.
The lesson from literacy reform is clear: materials do not change outcomes. Instruction does. And instruction improves when teacher expertise improves.
If the goal is to move beyond procedural teaching toward conceptual understanding, professional learning must be sustained, embedded, and connected to classroom practice.
Some states are beginning to design more comprehensive strategies as a result.
In South Carolina, leaders have organized their math improvement efforts around four reinforcing priorities: instructional coaching, high-quality instructional materials, targeted tutoring, and sustained professional learning for educators through the Ongoing Assessment Project. This is not a collection of disconnected initiatives—it is a coordinated system designed to support both teachers and students.
Within that system, a clear priority has emerged: strengthening how teachers understand and respond to student thinking. In its initial phase, the state prioritized its highest-need schools and deployed dedicated math specialists to work directly inside those buildings.
These specialists provide ongoing, in-class coaching which includes modeling instruction, co-teaching, and helping teachers translate professional learning into daily practice.
At the same time, teachers and instructional leaders are learning together—analyzing student work, identifying patterns in understanding, and making instructional decisions based on evidence rather than assumption. This represents a fundamental shift.
Instead of focusing primarily on whether students arrive at the correct answer, teachers are examining how students approach problems such as grouping work by strategy, identifying misconceptions earlier, and adjusting instruction accordingly.
Classrooms, in turn, are becoming more interactive and responsive. Students are asked to explain their thinking, compare approaches, and engage more deeply in the learning process.
South Carolina’s approach is not just a state initiative, it is an early signal of what it looks like to take math improvement seriously at scale.
Defining moment for state leadership
The progress made in literacy did not happen by chance. It required clear priorities, sustained investment, and a willingness to address root causes not just symptoms. Math now demands that same level of attention.
The risk is not that math improvement is too difficult. The risk is that systems continue to underestimate what it will take.
Without a clear, coordinated strategy, gaps will continue to widen, particularly for students who are already underserved. Instruction will remain inconsistent, and efforts to improve outcomes will fall short. But there is also a significant opportunity.
When states invest in teacher expertise, align supports around instruction, and commit to sustained implementation, meaningful change is possible. Literacy reform demonstrated that large-scale improvement can happen when systems act with clarity and purpose.
Math is now at a similar inflection point. The question is no longer whether we know how to improve outcomes. The question is whether we are willing to act with the same urgency—and the same resolve.
