Walk into an elementary math classroom and you might see a teacher asking students to explain how they know an answer is right. Down the hall, students might be practicing multiplication facts until they can recall them without hesitation. Somewhere else, a teacher is modeling a new strategy step by step, then gradually handing more of the work to students.

Which of those classrooms has it right?

It’s the kind of question that can quickly turn into a debate about how math should be taught. But it’s also the wrong question. Over the past year, as EdReports has begun a major update  of our math review tools, we’ve been asking something harder: What does the strongest available evidence tell us students need to become capable mathematicians, and what should instructional materials provide to help teachers get them there?

The answers will shape the next generation of our math reviews. Consistent with our commitment to make changes to our reviews more public and predictable, we want educators and the field to see our thinking develop, understand what we’re learning, and have opportunities to inform where we go next.

How EdReports Helped Raise Expectations for Math Materials

When EdReports launched in 2015, our first 87 reports focused on K-8 mathematics. Of the 20 series we reviewed, just three met expectations for standards alignment and quality.

The response wasn't universally enthusiastic. Publishers and others in the field challenged our criteria, our findings, and sometimes the premise of the work itself. But our theory of action was straightforward; to make quality visible, give educators trustworthy information to identify it, and increase demand to improve  the market.

Over the next decade, that's what happened.

EdReports has now published more than 1,300 free reviews of PK-12 math, ELA, and science instructional materials. Our math reviews helped establish clearer expectations for focus, coherence, rigor, and mathematical practice, and educators use that information in local decisions. States now incorporate stronger expectations into curriculum adoption processes, and publishers have responded to what educators are demanding and improved their materials.

The market looks very different today. Approximately 96% of K-6 and 97% of high school math programs reviewed by EdReports now meet expectations. That’s remarkable progress in a relatively short amount of time. The expectations established through our reviews have helped create a market where focus, coherence, rigor, and mathematical practice are increasingly part of the foundation of a high-quality program.

Over time, our understanding of quality has continued to grow. Strong content remains essential, but we know more today about the other features of instructional materials that can support strong mathematics teaching and learning. We’re learning more about early numeracy, how students develop fluency and mathematical understanding, what teachers need from materials to respond to student thinking, and how well materials support the full range of learners in a classroom.

That broader understanding of quality is helping shape Math 3.0, the next version of our math review tools, with work underway now and continuing into 2027.

Why Math Is Getting Long-Overdue Attention

The country’s focus on literacy over the past several years has been necessary and consequential. Reading is foundational to learning, and states have responded with major changes to policy and practice. EdReports has evolved alongside the field. Our 2.0 ELA review tools raised expectations substantially, incorporating additional research as well as what educators told us they needed from instructional materials. That evolution reflects a principle that our definition of quality should keep pace with how the field is defining high-quality teaching and learning.

Mathematics is foundational to how students make sense of the world and access future learning. Across the country, persistent challenges in math achievement are bringing new urgency to questions about how students learn mathematics and what schools need to do to support that learning. States are confronting these challenges as well as a growing demand for the quantitative and technical skills students will need in a changing economy. Policymakers are increasingly applying lessons from literacy reform to mathematics, treating math improvement as a system-wide challenge rather than something that can be addressed through a curriculum purchase alone. 

We're already seeing that shift. New Mexico strengthened math licensure requirements and required K-3 screening. Mississippi created a statewide initiative that includes screening, intervention, and coaching. Early numeracy is becoming a more distinct area of policy and research, with growing attention to building strong mathematical foundations before students fall significantly behind. 

At the other end of the continuum, states are reconsidering what high school math preparation looks like as students pursue different college and career pathways, including greater attention to data literacy, statistics, applied problem solving, computer science, and mathematics used in technical and career settings. 

Changes in the academic and policy landscape require EdReports to answer: What should a trusted signal of math curriculum quality tell educators today?

What Should High-Quality Math Materials Provide?

We aren't beginning our math tool updates with predetermined answers. We’re beginning with a clear vision that every learner should experience coherent, rigorous, usable, and inclusive mathematics from pre-K through high school. Then, we bring that vision to life by drawing on research, engaging with experts and educators across the field, and grappling with genuinely difficult questions about mathematics teaching and learning. Some of those initial questions include:

• What does research tell us about how students learn math, especially the relationship between conceptual understanding and procedural fluency? 
• When do students benefit from explicit guidance, and when should materials create space for student exploration? 
• What do we know now about early numeracy and how mathematical ideas develop across grades? What should materials provide so multilingual learners and students with disabilities can fully participate in rigorous grade-level mathematics? 
• What information helps teachers understand student thinking and decide what to do next? 

We're also taking a much closer look at coherence. Teachers today may be working with a core curriculum alongside intervention resources, supplemental programs, assessments, and digital tools. Those materials don't always fit together to support student learning , especially as AI-enabled resources further complicate the landscape. Our strategic plan calls on EdReports to help reduce that fragmentation, and Math 3.0 gives us an opportunity to examine coherence across the different materials students may encounter throughout their day. 

As part of our learning and like past review tool development, we will bring together researchers, practitioners, curriculum developers, and system leaders to inform what we pilot and refine. We expect the work to change as evidence and feedback sharpen our understanding. Our aim is to develop a tool that reflects current research on learning and cognition along with what decision makers say they need to know about math instructional materials so they can make informed choices that best serve their students.

How EdReports Is Evolving Its Math Reviews

EdReports stands behind the work our current math tools and the reports our educators have done. They helped establish a foundation for quality that has influenced instructional materials across the country. Our responsibility now is to keep raising the bar to show the features of high quality instructional materials that can help solve the persistent gaps we see in student achievement in mathematics. 

We are also committed to making the evolution of our tools more visible and predictable. We'll share what we're studying, explain what we're learning, and create opportunities for educators, researchers, and other partners to inform our thinking before decisions are final.

The bar for quality shouldn't move simply because the conversation around math gets louder. It should move when evidence, experience, and the needs of educators and students tell us there is more to learn and a higher standard worth reaching. Our job is to do the work required to know the difference, and to bring the field along with us as we do.