The future of the U.S. economy and workforce relies on effective STEM education, and that education begins with the basics. Mathematics is a cumulative subject, and if elementary students don’t learn foundational skills like addition and division, they’ll face major challenges when it comes time for algebra and physics. It’s no surprise that well-trained and properly-certified teachers are key to effective math instruction.
In a new report titled “Assessing the Quality of Math Licensure Tests,” the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) assesses the extent to which each state ensures the quality of its new elementary school teachers by using math tests as part of their licensure. NCTQ seeks to answer three key questions: What is the quality of those math licensure tests? Which states use acceptable tests? And which also require that aspiring elementary teachers pass that test?
The analysts organize licensure tests into four categories based on quality: strong, acceptable, weak, and unacceptable. The tests—mostly purchased from national vendors—were analyzed based on their attention to four key domains: numbers and operations, algebraic thinking, geometry and measurement, and data analysis and probability. Strong tests adequately address at least 75 percent of these topics, acceptable tests address at least half, weak tests address less than half, and unacceptable tests do not address any.
Here’s the key finding: only thirteen states require all elementary teachers to pass a math test that’s at least acceptable. The majority of states (twenty-nine) offer weak or unacceptable tests, and two states (Iowa and Maine) do not offer any math licensure test.
Additionally, seven states with acceptable or strong tests make testing optional, allowing substitutions for licensure exams such as completing a master’s degree in the certificate area, having a certain GPA, or submitting a portfolio of coursework. It’s obviously not too constructive for a state to have an acceptable licensure test if teaching candidates aren’t required to take and pass it. That’s like creating speed limits on the highway without ever putting up signs or enforcing them.
And at least thirty-one states need to revise their math licensure tests so they actually address the skills and knowledge in this realm that competent elementary teachers need, such as operations, fractions, and geometry. It’s not possible to successfully teach something that one doesn’t even know. All states must ensure their licensure exams reflect the demands of high-quality math instruction, not just check a box.
Of course, licensure exams typically come near the end of teacher preparation, while good pre-service education begins with equipping candidates with deep knowledge of math content and pedagogy. A previous analysis by NCTQ found that only 16 percent of undergraduate teacher prep programs—and an even more shameful 2 percent of graduate programs—devote enough time to teaching essential math content. Experienced teachers also need relevant in-service training on the material they’re teaching. The answer to our dearth of effective math teachers is not a $600 million dollar cut to teacher training.
If we want students to thrive in STEM fields and secure our economic future, we need to get a lot more serious about preparing—and certifying—their early math teachers. NCTQ’s findings highlight strong licensure tests in Massachusetts, New York, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Colorado, and Texas. Among these states, only Alabama, Kansas, New York, and Texas require all elementary teachers to actually pass the test. It may be time for states with unacceptable—or worse—tests to follow their lead and adopt higher-quality exams so that all elementary students can receive the strong math instruction they deserve.
SOURCE: National Council on Teacher Quality, “Assessing the Quality of Math Licensure Tests,” June 3, 2025.
