A recent study, “,” reinforces this, showing that the physical act of forming letters strengthens memory and accelerates learning. Far from being a relic of the past, handwriting is a powerful tool that prepares young students for reading, improves their cognitive abilities and builds the groundwork for becoming confident, capable writers.

The power of handwriting comes from the way it engages multiple senses at once. Unlike typing, which relies on a single, repetitive motion, handwriting activates multiple areas of the brain by combining visual, auditory and kinesthetic input. When children form a letter, they’re engaging in a dynamic process that solidifies its identity in their mind. This graphomotor movement — the coordination of hand and eye to produce letters — is key to remembering them.Explicitly teaching children to form letters by hand, even through simple methods like having them copy words from a correctly written letter, word or sentence, and better retain letter and word structures.

This practice has a powerful ripple effect. Once letter formation becomes automatic, a child’s brain is freed to focus on higher-level thinking. Instead of struggling to recall how to write a letter, a child can concentrate on building sentences, expressing thoughts and ideas, and crafting coherent narratives. This is how fluent writing develops. And the benefits extend well beyond childhood: found college students who took notes by hand remembered more than those who typed, likely because writing by hand forces the brain to process and summarize information, not just copy it.

The key to effective handwriting instruction is structured, straightforward direct teaching, explicit modeling, guided practice and immediate feedback. Just as important, handwriting should be woven into the natural rhythm of the day and made part of all subjects. Students can practice numbers in math, label diagrams in science or write vocabulary words in social studies. Treating handwriting as a universal skill reinforces its importance and makes it feel natural in students’ academic lives. This approach builds stronger readers and more confident writers across every subject.

One common challenge in handwriting instruction is pushing students into writing before they’re developmentally ready. For younger learners, a developmentally appropriate approach means starting with gross motor activities that strengthen the shoulder and core, followed by fine motor practice using multisensory tools like clay, sand or chalk. These activities prepare the hand and brain for writing long before a pencil ever touches paper. By allowing students to master these foundational movements, teachers can prevent bad habits from forming and build the confidence necessary to successfully transition to paper-and-pencil tasks, setting students up for fluent, legible writing.

For students with learning differences such as dyslexia or dysgraphia, handwriting can be particularly helpful. Cursive, with its fluid, connected strokes, can help reduce letter reversals and provides a rhythmic pattern that helps children process words as whole units rather than a series of disconnected letters. For students with dysgraphia, the continuous motion of cursive can ease the fine-motor demands of repeatedly lifting and placing the pencil, making writing feel more manageable and less fragmented. The continuous movement can engage the brain’s reading circuits and help improve memory and fluency. The sense of accomplishment gained from mastering this skill can be transformative. 

Handwriting isn’t an old-fashioned skill; it’s central to reading, writing and cognitive development. Prioritizing evidence-based handwriting instruction in pre-K through fifth grade lays the foundation for spelling, sentence-building and clear written communication. Strong handwriting skills support literacy and can enhance learning across other academic areas by building focus, confidence and cognitive connections.

Administrators and teachers can have a lasting impact by ensuring handwriting instruction is explicit, structured and prioritized in the early grades. By providing educators with the knowledge, tools and time they need, schools can ensure that every child has the opportunity to develop this essential skill. It is a small investment that can pay off for a lifetime, helping students feel capable and successful in their learning.

One of the most striking features of the troubling results from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress is the much lower percentage of students scoring proficient on NAEP than on many states’ own 2024 standardized exams.

By now, you’ve likely seen the results: modest improvements in math, but not enough to get students back to pre-pandemic performance levels; fourth graders fell further behind in reading; a record 34% of eighth graders scored “below basic” in reading. 

In addition to the national summaries, NAEP reported student achievement in each state, where proficiency rates ranged from a high of 51% in fourth-grade math in Massachusetts to a low of 14% in eighth-grade math in New Mexico.

States, of course, are required by federal law to administer their own annual standardized tests in math and reading. FutureEd students’ performance on NAEP and on their states’ tests and found that, for the most part, students met proficiency standards at significantly higher rates on their states’ exams, especially in reading.

The gaps were at least 15 percentage points in three-quarters of the states. In some, they were even greater. Seventy-two percent of Virginia’s eighth graders were proficient in reading, more than double the percentage on NAEP. Iowa reported more than three-fourths of its eighth graders proficient in reading in 2024, compared with less than a third of the state’s students on NAEP. We also found that the gaps increased in many states between 2022 and 2024, including in 26 states in fourth-grade reading and 22 states in eighth-grade reading.  

Why is there so much misalignment between NAEP and state results?

Perhaps more than any other factor, it’s lower state standards.

To achieve proficiency on the national assessment, students must show “solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter.” That’s where Rhode Island, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia set their proficiency bar. But most states’ of that benchmark, landing within the range of NAEP’s lower “basic” standard, which requires students to demonstrate only “partial mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills.” In Virginia — which has introduced new academic standards — and Iowa, the bar for reading falls below even that.

What’s more, in  and other states, students can be performing “on grade level” without meeting the state’s “proficient” standard in the subject they’re studying. And some states have gone further, lowering the passing grades on some or all of their standardized tests in recent years.

The Oklahoma State Department of Education reported significant gains in 2024, including a 24-point jump in the percentage of students achieving proficiency in fourth-grade reading since 2022 and across-the-board improvements over pre-pandemic levels. But the gains coincided with a lowering of the state’s proficiency standards, which officials didn’t publicize when they released the improved test scores.  obtained by an Oklahoma news organization revealed that the 2024 scores would have been the same as or slightly lower than 2023 results if the standards had remained the same. On NAEP, Oklahoma’s proficiency rates declined in reading and improved slightly in math between 2022 and 2024, but they remained below pre-pandemic levels.

Similarly, New York reported across-the-board improvements in student achievement in 2024 after  in 2023. But these gains were not mirrored on all of the state’s 2024 NAEP results. Wisconsin also registered higher proficiency rates on its 2024 assessments after , only to have most of its NAEP scores decline in 2024. This points to the value of an independent national measure of student achievement, like NAEP.

One of the more troubling findings from the 2024 state assessment cycle is the wide gap in proficiency rates between fourth and eighth grades, with eighth graders, on average, performing much worse than their younger counterparts. The gaps are far more pronounced in math than in reading. In New Jersey, for example, 45% of fourth graders were proficient, compared with only 19% of eighth graders. Similarly, in Washington, D.C., 29% of fourth graders and just 12% of eighth graders achieved proficiency.

With many schools struggling to return to performance levels that were declining even before COVID’s disruptions, having an accurate measure of achievement is critical. Aligning more state proficiency standards with NAEP’s would increase transparency and make it easier for everyone — students, parents, teachers, administrators and elected officials — to be clear on where every state needs to focus to improve educational outcomes for all students. 

Few of them would think of Neshoba County in Mississippi.

But Neshoba County schools are doing something that those other places are not: They serve a high-poverty community, yet their students’ math scores are competitive with those in wealthier areas.

Back in September, I worked with Eamonn Fitzmaurice, ����Ӱ��’s art and technology director, to find districts around the country that were doing the best job of helping kids learn to read proficiently by third grade. Today, we’re taking the same approach to eighth-grade math. We calculated each district’s expected math proficiency rate, based on its local poverty level, and compared that to its actual scores. This methodology helped us identify districts that are beating the odds in math. 

Select from the menu below to find the high fliers in your state.

INTERACTIVE

Eighth Grade Math Proficiency

At the national level, eighth-grade math scores peaked in 2013, were slipping leading up to the pandemic and then fell dramatically. The declines were particularly large for students who were already among the lowest-performing.

Mississippi weathered these declines better than most states. As a result, the found that Mississippi climbed the state rankings in both math and reading over the last decade. After controlling for student demographics, Mississippi was ahead of 40 other states by 2019, and its scores quicker than other states’ after COVID.

Neshoba County helped lead that rise. According to data from the at Stanford University, Neshoba’s students went from scoring more than half of a grade level below the national average in 2016 to nearly 1.5 grade levels above the national average last year. Their students made gains even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

When we started looking for districts that were beating the odds, we aimed to find and celebrate districts like Neshoba. We ultimately identified nearly 600 districts that are getting exceptional results in math, which we defined as significantly outscoring their expected eighth-grade proficiency rate.

Some districts are showing strong performance in both third-grade reading and eighth-grade math. For example, in the reading project we highlighted Steubenville City, Ohio, at the top of our rankings. Despite its relatively high poverty, 81% of its eighth graders score as proficient in math, which puts it on par with districts that have many fewer disadvantaged students. 

States set their proficiency cut points at different levels, and Maryland has one of the highest bars. And yet, students in Worcester, a community that is neither high- nor low-poverty, stands out for having eighth-grade math proficiency rates 20 points higher than kids in any other district in the state.

In Michigan, Dearborn City is getting the same results as other districts with much lower poverty rates.

Other strong outliers include places like Genoa Central in Arkansas, Lake Washington in Washington state, the Fossil School District in Oregon and the Murray Independent district in Kentucky. 

In northern Virginia, where I live, people often say they move here for the schools. But if they were really looking for the best school system in the state, they would move to Wise County, on the Kentucky border. Wise County has much higher poverty rates than the more well-known D.C. suburbs, yet it topped our Virginia rankings in both reading and math.

Looking at the scores this way helps identify the places with great school systems, where learning gains are driven by what students learn in the classroom. This is especially true in math, because unlike reading proficiency — which is closely tied to language skills and background knowledge that children acquire at home — math scores are more directly linked to school-based instruction.

This gets at the heart of the issue at hand. Parents and policymakers should not be content with answering the simple question of, “Where do students do the best?” Wealthy communities are likely to look good by that standard, just by the nature of the students they serve.

Instead, policymakers should be trying to find schools and districts that help all students learn, regardless of their income levels. Poverty is certainly predictive of school performance, but it need not be determinative.

Note: For more details about the data sources and methodology for this project, see our earlier reading analysis. 

By , ESSER had made available $40 billion to $60 billion in new government funding to education contractors by 2023, with 40% spent on vendors and the rest on personnel and labor. The amount spent by states and districts to cover COVID contracts could be much higher. Anticipating the end of their ESSER funding, districts such as have moved contracting expenses once covered by federal relief funds onto their general budgets.

With the help of a contract database called , I have been tracking national and regional patterns in what districts paid vendors to do before, during and after the pandemic.

In my forthcoming book, Private Ends, Public Means: Contemporary Dynamics in Educational Privatization, I identify several lessons from this large-scale experiment in federally subsidized education contracts.

First, ESSER-funded vendors helped school districts meet unique conditions but sometimes overlooked equitable access. At one level, vendor contracts supported public schools under emergency conditions in their mission of equal educational opportunity. One example is food service contracts that provided free lunches for pick-up when school cafeterias were closed. Contracts also arguably helped with continuity of instruction, which is another core responsibility of states and districts. Seven out of 10 traditional school districts used ESSER funds to purchase software during the pandemic and 9 out of 10 bought hardware, according to a conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.

These purchases made sense, given the quick pivot to remote learning. However, the pressure to spend quickly and with limited oversight may have contributed to redundancies (too many devices) and issues (wifi hotspots that did not function in areas without broadband or were not strong enough to provide students with stable video and audio). When the next emergency hits schools, public money will presumably once again be up for grabs, particularly for those with the fastest hands. What mistakes were made in areas of educational equity? How can the private sector do better when the next emergency hits?

Second, with physical schools closed, large urban districts spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technology such as iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and software licenses to keep classes in session. Then, they used ESSER funds for repairs, upgrades and parts to keep the devices running. The spending spiked at the outset of the pandemic but still remained higher than pre-pandemic levels once schools reopened. Post-pandemic, vendors are looking for ways to get resource-strapped districts to buy more devices, simply to maintain profit margins. It’s up to districts to exercise good management by pressing pause and reassessing.

There are at least two ways to approach this. First, districts should reassess whether vendor contracts are based on evidence of impact. During the pandemic, companies with minimal track records increased sales at record pace. For example, one small, relatively unknown business specializing in chat-based tutoring saw its annual revenues explode from less than $100,000 before COVID to nearly $3 million by March 2022. This company signed contracts in nearly half the states and showed little sign of slowing once schools resumed in-person instruction. But the strong evidence base around specifies that services must be delivered in person, not remotely. The bar should never be lowered for public school students when it comes to equal access for quality instruction. 

Third, it’s time to commit to transparency and ensure that the public has the information about and input into vendor contracts — particularly those addressing learning loss post-pandemic. That may mean reining in the use of noncompetitive bidding that state and local procurement policies allow during emergencies. In cities such as , noncompetitive bidding may have helped questionable vendors get contracts without proper vetting.

It also means requiring potential bidders to provide evidence of impact for high-needs student populations. I have been analyzing school board meetings across disparate regions of the country and found limited opportunities for public comment even on million-dollar purchases. Materials required by state or local law to help the public and school board make informed decisions, such as descriptions of how a digital product or service works, often are missing from the public record. Contracts commit taxpayer resources and are pivotal in shaping the quality of government-funded services. All stakeholders in education have the right to adequate and accurate information in all stages of contracting, from the bid to the contract to the decision on whether to renew. These are principles of to which districts across the country have committed.  

Fourth, account for the hidden costs for families of maintaining or eliminating certain types of vendor contracts. In my conversations with purchasing officers, I keep hearing that connectivity  — which districts made significant investments in during COVID — is on the chopping block. Further, there are no plans to upgrade or replace older laptops and iPads that were loaned to students. It’s the lower-income kids whose families will bear these costs. As districts assess which contracts to renew and which to ditch, they must be guided by principles of equitable access to high-quality digital content. Low-income families may not be at the table when ed tech contracts are cut, but they shouldn’t be expected to absorb costs interpreted narrowly as district savings. 

During the pandemic, districts and states contracted with vendors to meet the unique needs of this emergency. Now that the public health crisis has passed and COVID funds are largely spent, it’s time for districts to reassess how vendor contracts support public schools in their core mission and to raise the bar for ensuring that purchased services and products directly address widening educational inequalities.

Frequently, districts use a single procurement process and request for proposal/contract documents to purchase everything from goods and supplies, like food and laptops, to instructional services. However, the latter are quite different from durable goods and supplies, which are easily quantified and measured. Determining whether a district got its money’s worth for instructional services is less straightforward; nationally, districts have in ed tech tools .

, a strategic initiative of the, has offered tailored support, technical assistance and expert guidance to nearly 20 school districts. These resources and hands-on experience empower them to achieve measurable, long-term student outcomes. Under the outcomes-based contracting model, at least 40% of a provider’s pay is contingent on meeting agreed-upon student outcomes. This approach compels mutual accountability between school districts and providers and helps shift districts from buying services to prioritizing buying outcomes, ensuring that dollars spent deliver academic impact.

Two critical features make outcomes-based contracting effective. First, tying financial incentives directly to educational achievements ensures that every dollar invested drives tangible student success. Both the district and the provider have a financial stake in producing the agreed-upon results, with financial repercussions if either side does not uphold its end of the deal.

For example, a charter school network signed a $700,000 contract for high-impact literacy and math tutoring. It was 40% contingent on performance on the NWEA MAP and state assessment results, and the agreement included a midyear assessment to measure student progress. When it was discovered that not all students had taken the midyear assessment, the district and provider had to work together to ensure those students took the test in order to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Outcomes-based contracts include financial incentives tied to measurable student outcomes, like a midyear assessment, to formalize both sides’ commitment to student achievement.  

In addition to the financial incentives, the model requires ongoing commitment and partnership. This begins with presenting the contract to the school board for approval and gaining community buy-in, rolling it out in the district and ensuring all parties are aware of their responsibilities. The contract includes specific requirements, measures and outcomes for each student that districts and providers are required to revisit and continuously check throughout and at the end of the contract period. 

Final payment depends on three critical factors: whether the student met the attendance requirement, whether the provider upheld its responsibilities (such as ensuring students have the same tutor for each session) and whether the student achieved the expected outcomes. During ongoing continuous improvement meetings, the district and provider examine data for each student. If one is not on track for any of the three critical factors, they collaborate to determine how to address this deficit. 

This approach is much more in-depth than a typical contract. Because the final payment is contingent on specific outcomes for individual students, the outcomes-based model forces districts and providers to thoroughly evaluate their performance and adherence to the contract. This thorough review process guarantees that both sides remain focused on student success and accountability.

A great example of this collaborative approach is Jackson Public Schools in Mississippi. The district spent significant time working with principals to schedule high-impact math tutoring sessions to ensure at least 70% of its approximately 800 middle schoolers attended. Throughout the program, Jackson Public Schools monitored attendance and collaborated with the provider to address any challenges. Though attendance fell early in implementation, the district and provider, working together, were ultimately able to maintain an attendance rate of 70%-81% for the duration of the program.  

Districts are not simply committing to meeting a 70% attendance threshold in isolation. Instead, they are engaging in regular, collaborative progress monitoring with their providers. The schedule for evidence-based continuous improvement meetings is established in the contract — no less than every two weeks. These meetings ensure regular check-ins on progress toward achieving the specific goals articulated in the contract. If any issues arise, the district and provider work together to find solutions.

rl=”/article/under-pilot-program-in-texas-florida-tutoring-fees-depend-on-student-progress/”]

Additionally, this collaborative accountability has demonstrated improved instructional alignment between districts and providers. In the case of Jackson Public Schools, the district noticed some differences between how the provider was teaching the standards and how they were assessed on state exams. As a result, the provider adjusted its instruction and started sharing sample lessons and items ahead of time, allowing the district to give further feedback. The provider found this so valuable that it extended this practice to other partners as well.

These are just a few examples of how outcomes-based contracting directly translates into maximizing the impact of a district’s investment in instructional support services. It promotes a culture of mutual accountability and collaboration, holds all parties responsible for measurable outcomes through a contractual obligation, encourages efficient use of resources, prevents investments in ineffective solutions and drives meaningful progress in student success. 

Through clear and quantifiable expectations within contracts, districts and providers move from trying to work together, despite other priorities, to being mutually accountable for instructional interventions that lead to student success. District leaders, accountable to the community and students they serve, can work closely with providers to meet shared goals, turning accountability from a concept into a concrete practice. This collaboration drives continuous improvement and helps districts make strategic decisions under increasingly complex resource constraints while staying focused on what matters most: student learning.

In short, America is doing a lot of math — at a time when math achievement is experiencing . 

Enter the March Mathness tournament, an NCAA-style competition hosted by the Collaborative for Student Success to spotlight state and district initiatives that are helping kids catch up and accelerating learning in math.

With the goal of bringing attention to innovative efforts transforming how math education is delivered in schools, we’ve convened a plucky panel of three expert judges, each with their own critical lens on K-12 education policy.

Chad Aldeman writes for and ����Ӱ�� and formed his March Mathness bracket by evaluating each program for strong implementation, scalability and evidence. Jocelyn Pickford, writing for , weighs the contenders with eyes focused on the use of high-quality instructional materials and meaningful teacher and family engagement. Dale Chu rounds out the judges’ table with a focus on responsible use of data and strong student outcomes.

The tournament began with a Sweet Sixteen lineup representing a diverse range of approaches to improving math achievement. From statewide comprehensive reforms in states like Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas and Colorado to the widespread use of innovative learning platforms like Zearn and the AI-powered Khanmigo, the tournament narrowed to an Elite Eight. Three state bills and the use of Zearn across four states advanced alongside novel tutoring approaches from Texas and New Jersey, a policy of automatic enrollment in advanced math courses out of North Carolina and Texas, and a statewide math fund in Kentucky focused on professional learning and coaching.

The competition heated up in the Final Four. Alabama’s Numeracy Act — a comprehensive set of reforms that provide elementary math tutors, set up a process for vetting and approving math curriculum, and transform teacher training and preparation — challenged the statewide use of Zearn in Nebraska, Louisiana, Colorado and Ohio. Zearn proved its worth throughout the bumpy road of pandemic-era schooling, when multiple states provided free, universal access to its digital learning platform to supplement instruction and enable kids to access instruction both in school and remotely.

Despite impressive evidence that shows gains on state math assessments for students who use Zearn consistently, the multi-faceted approach of Alabama’s Numeracy Act, and its standing as a nationwide exemplar of proactive math legislation, fueled its advance to the finals. 

The second matchup of the Final Four saw go toe-to-toe with a novel automatic enrollment policy out of North Carolina and Texas. ����Գٳܳ����’s Fund is one of the longest-standing initiatives in the competition, dating from 2005. It provides grants to schools and districts for math coaches, high-quality materials and extra professional development. With nearly 20 years of outcomes data, the fund has strong evidence of having moved the needle for Kentucky students in grades K-3. 

Meanwhile, North Carolina and Texas have been garnering nationwide attention for new statewide policies meant to increase enrollment in advanced math courses. Students who score at the highest levels on the state math test are automatically enrolled in advanced classes for their next school year, turning on its head the long-held practice of having them opt in. Now, high-achievers must opt out, a move many advocates describe as game-changing.

Begun in Dallas Independent School District before being taken statewide in , the policy saw a doubling in the percentage of students of color enrolled in advanced math. In , the new process has resulted in a steadily increasing number of high-achieving students enrolling in advanced courses — and sticking with them — as they work toward additional college and career opportunities. While ����Գٳܳ����’s Math Achievement has been moving the needle for two decades, automatic enrollment policies are making a big wave — enough to cinch the W in this round.

As for the championship match, the battle for the March Mathness title could not have been fiercer.

The judges fought passionately to decide between the heavyweight Alabama Numeracy Act and the newcomer automatic enrollment policies in Texas and North Carolina.

Pickford was a stalwart defender of Alabama, applauding the Numeracy Act as a national standout for state leadership in promoting instruction rooted in and wraparound supports for students, families and teachers. “Any state effort to advance learning should be rooted in access to and use of that are aligned to a state’s academic standards, have been endorsed by educators and empower teachers to reach all students. As leaders consider the March Mathness practices for their states or districts, I urge them to place evidence-based instruction and educator and family engagement at the center.”

Chu and Aldeman, while agreeing with Pickford about the merits of Alabama’s legislation, underscored the ripple effects of a move like Texas and North Carolina’s new process. “Automatic enrollment policies in advanced math courses represent a sea change in the way we think about math opportunities for students. After decades of requiring students to opt themselves into higher-level courses, widespread adoption of this kind of policy would represent a raising of expectations for students, rather than treating advanced math as a ‘nice-to-have’ for only some kids,” the pair said.

Ultimately, the judges decided, the relative simplicity of automatic enrollment — and the ease with which other states could adopt this for their K-12 systems — catapulted Texas and North Carolina to a winning slam-dunk.

Though automatic enrollment ultimately took home the championship, the full March Mathness bracket showcased a wealth of strategies that states and districts are employing to advance math education. From digital platforms and summer learning to professional development and comprehensive legislative reforms, the variety of initiatives reflects a nationwide commitment to improving math outcomes for all students.

The success of the March Mathness tournament lies not just in crowning a champion, but in highlighting the innovative and varied efforts underway to tackle the challenges in math education in the United States. 

Looking ahead, the Collaborative for Student Success will continue to shine a light on the most promising efforts to advance math learning, and will urge states and districts to learn from the past four years of academic recovery as they weather challenges posed by the expiration of federal relief dollars, record chronic absenteeism and the continuously changing needs of students and families. 

We hope you enjoyed March Mathness — but the math fun doesn’t end there. Stay connected with our math efforts and learn more about how you can help advance a renewed focus on math education on our platform. We’ll see you next year for the Big (Math) Dance!  

Let’s start with the army of statisticians and experts who apply the complicated to land on a bracket of 68 college teams. Follow that up with the extreme anticipation felt by wanna-be analysts — like myself — eager to win the coveted office pool. We watch videos, research injuries and ponder scoring differentials. And then we watch the flurry of games, diligently recording the results and projecting our probability of victory: “If team X loses this game, the most points I could possibly achieve for this region is Y.”   

In other words, March Madness involves an awful lot of math.

And yet, kids aren’t doing so well at math right now. In fact, math scores for the nation’s– and-year-olds are at multi-decade lows.

Much of this is due to the pandemic. According to the latest from researchers at Harvard and Stanford, only one state, Alabama, has returned to its pre-pandemic achievement levels in math. They found that students made rapid progress last year, but the average student in third through eighth grade is still about one-third of a grade level behind in math, compared with 2019 performance.

Which policies or practices are helping students make the biggest gains in math? Which deserve to stick around or be replicated? These are the questions policymakers should be asking this year, especially as the final round of federal relief funds expires.

To help further that conversation, the is announcing a tournament of our own — March Mathness. All month long, we’ll be pitting some of the most promising state and local math practices against one another. We’ve convened a plucky panel of three expert judges — , and — to help us narrow the list and decide which ones deserve to, in legendary coach words, “survive and advance.”

These leading math practices represent a sampling of the ways state leaders, district officials, teachers, parents and families can come together to advance math education for their students.

In the opening round of this Sweet 16, top-seeded statewide legislative efforts like Alabama’s Numeracy Act and Colorado’s Improving Mathematics Outcomes bill will challenge math proposals in the statehouses of Kentucky and West Virginia. Increasingly popular digital learning platforms will face off against innovative models for district tutoring contracts and comprehensive summer learning programs.

The matches will be hosted on , and the final results will be shared out here on ����Ӱ�� Million. Readers can follow along all month or root for their favorites on social media. So stay tuned — the Big (Math) Dance is nearly here!

Here are our top contenders:

AI-powered Khanmigo — The Khan Academy team has created a new AI-powered tool in hopes of providing personalized tutoring for students at a relatively low cost, while enabling teachers to quickly create customized lesson plans or rubrics. Early reviews suggest the tool, called Khanmigo, , but others have noted that it has a tendency to make basic . 

Alabama Numeracy Act — Comprehensive statewide legislation that ensures every elementary school has a math coach; and sets up a process to vet and approve high-quality instructional materials and curricula; creates a task force to help ensure teacher preparation programs are effective for new elementary math educators; establishes academies to help build a pipeline of principals trained in effective math intervention strategies.

Alabama’s Summer Adventures in Learning (SAIL) —Focuses on overcoming summer learning loss by bringing together youth and community groups, faith-based organizations, philanthropy, municipal agencies and schools to pool their knowledge and resources to create summer enrichment programs. In 2023, participating students gained an average of three months in math, marking the 11th straight summer the program has led to academic improvement.

Arkansas LEARNS Act — Signed into law last year, the measure requires that schools develop math intervention plans for third- through eighth-graders not performing at grade level. By the 2024-25 school year, each district must report the type of interventions they’re using and the number of students receiving them.

Automatic enrollment in advanced math courses (Texas and North Carolina) — The use of data to enroll low-income and students of color in advanced math classes  — eliminating the need for parents and caregivers to opt their students into those classes — has helped to double the number of Black and brown students in accelerated math courses in Texas alone.

, Improving Mathematics Outcomes in K-12 — Comprehensive statewide legislation that combines free training in evidence-informed practices for elementary school and secondary school mathematics educators, with a focus on the promotion and use of high-quality curricula and assessment. 

— An of leaders from public school districts, charter schools, colleges, the state Department of Education and the business sector have developed with the goal of delivering high-quality professional learning opportunities and experiences that advance effective math instruction.

Kentucky HB 162 — While not yet signed into law, this bill is noteworthy for targeting grades 4 to 8, rather than the early grades. The measure calls for increased access to “evidence-based high-quality instructional resources,” mandatory improvement plans for struggling students and universal math screening.

����Գٳܳ����’s — Created back in 2005, this effort provides grants for math coaches, the purchase of high-quality materials and extra time for teachers to engage in professional learning of the new mathematics materials purchased. The Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education finds that the program’s combination of targeted interventions, peer coaching and educator collaboration improved math achievement in grades K-3. Gains were also seen in other areas, like increased student attendance and decreased disciplinary incidents, and were evident across racial and ethnic groups.

Massachusetts Math Acceleration Academies — These are designed to offer added time on task in small-class settings, with four-plus hours of in-person math instruction for one week per student, during vacation weeks throughout the school year. The academies are required to use multiple forms of assessment to monitor student progress and enable teachers to tailor lessons to meet the needs of the students they are serving.

New Jersey Tutoring & Coaching Supports/ — The New Jersey Tutoring Corps serves students statewide in pre-K through eighth grade during school, after school and over the summer. Following seven to 15 weeks of high-impact tutoring, the program saw a 24 percentage point increase in the number of students performing at or above grade level — and 90% of students emerge from the program say they feel like they could help their friends with math. Complementing the statewide effort is a small pilot program offering math teachers one-on-one and small group coaching on core instructional strategies. 

Performance-based tutoring contracts (Ector County, Texas, et al.) — An innovative approach that uses a “pay for success” model whereby tutoring companies earn more money if students make progress on the district’s interim assessments (MAP tests). This approach encourages providers to become more engaged and to follow up with students if they missed tutoring sessions, all while shifting the burden away from already overworked teachers. 

Play-in Round: California’s Math Framework VS. Louisiana’s “Back to Basics in Math” — In perhaps the most talked-about policy change in math last year, the state of California approved a new learning framework for all public schools. The new framework, in the works for four years, is designed to connect learning to real-world uses of math and data, while helping to ensure that students see themselves in the curriculum and in math-related careers by making instruction more culturally relevant. Louisiana’s 2023 law requires math teachers in grades 4 to 8 to take additional professional development related to numeracy. School districts must report annually on the number who have successfully done so.

Statewide adoption of Zearn (Nebraska, Louisiana, Colorado, Ohio) — These states now offer this high-quality math supplemental resource free to all public school students. show that consistent use of Zearn results in larger student gains on state assessments, including significant proficiency gains for the lowest-performing math students, English learners, Black and Latino students, and those eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.

Texas Math Solution — This interactive tool gives educators real-time data insights about student performance, and its middle school math program is rated all green on . Muleshoe Independent School District saw a 333% improvement on the state’s annual math assessment after switching to this curriculum. West Virginia’s Third Grade Success Act — Establishes an approved list of screeners and math benchmark assessments for K-3 students that must be given in the first 30 days of the school year, midyear and at the end of the year. This is a strong approach to thoughtful use of data to target supports and interventions based on student need and to develop individualized improvement plans for those not meeting benchmarks.

The March 2023 paper asserted:

We found students to be astonishingly similar in estimated learning rate…. One may be tempted by everyday experience to suggest there is obvious wide variability in how fast different people learn…. Such differences may be alternatively explained not as differences in learning rate but as differences in the number of quality learning opportunities individuals experience…. Thus we can gain insight into whether student competence differences derive more from environmental opportunity differences or student-inherent learning-rate differences.

When I first read the above, I instantly thought of one of my own “everyday experiences.” When my sons were 8 and 12 years old, I won a private coding tutorial at my daughter’s preschool auction. I had intended it for my oldest son, a budding artist. I thought he might enjoy creating computer animations. At the last minute, I asked if my second grader could sit in.

The lesson lasted an hour. At the end, the instructor called me over and whispered, “Your older son understood everything I said. Your younger one really got ����!”

My impression, as a result, was that in this particular field, my younger child had greater aptitude and thus learned faster. (He went on to teach himself and began working professionally as a programmer in middle school.)

Yet, according to the study, having a “knack for math” or a “gift for language” is a myth.

To prove this, the researchers employed a methodology that included teaching a cross-section of students a new skill via “educational technologies (which) provide favorable learning conditions … including intelligent tutoring systems, educational games and online courses.”

Their conclusion was that learning is not a matter of faster cognition on the part of some students, but “differences in the number of quality learning opportunities individuals experience.”

This ran counter to my aforementioned “everyday experience.” My sons lived in the same household, suggesting few “environmental opportunity differences,” not to mention the same exposure to “quality learning opportunities.” Furthermore, if our household was indeed privileged to include an above-average number of “quality learning opportunities” that enabled my younger son to pick up coding at an accelerated rate, shouldn’t my first child — being four years older — have been exposed to a higher number of them and thus able to learn coding faster than his little brother? 

To answer such a question for any parent who has raised more than one child, the study’s authors clarify:

This debate comes down to whether learning rate per practice opportunity is relatively constant across individuals or whether it varies substantially…. Bloom suggested that “most students become very similar with regard to … rate of learning … when provided with favorable learning conditions”…. 

In other words:

Learners in more favorable conditions learn at a more rapid rate than those in less favorable conditions.

Perhaps, even though we thought we had raised our two sons in a very similar manner, our oldest — rather than benefiting from an extra four years of “quality learning opportunities” — had instead been the victim of our four years of amateur parenting. His younger brother, on the other hand, reaped the benefits not only of having more experienced parents, but also of being exposed to our interactions with the oldest, thus only appearing to be more advanced because, at age 8, he’d been adjacent to learning opportunities meant for a 12-year-old.

On the one hand, as someone who has spent decades insisting that all American children are capable of doing much more complex work than the system currently offers them, I am thrilled that this study agreed:

Our evidence suggests that given favorable learning conditions for deliberate practice and given the learner invests effort in sufficient learning opportunities, indeed, anyone can learn anything they want. This implication is good news for educational equity — as long as our educational systems can provide the needed favorable conditions and can motivate students to engage in them. 

On the other hand, as someone who has spent decades advocating to unshackle grade level from a child’s age and allow all students to learn at their own pace, I am terrified that the wrong lesson will be drawn from this study. That those who seek to shut down, or, at least, water down, gifted-and-talented classes and accelerated education will use it as proof that there is no such thing as a quick learner; ergo, there is no need for programs that meet their needs. 

When I mentioned my fears to my husband, a math and physics teacher and alum of such NYC “gifted” schools as and Stuyvesant High, he reframed my concerns.

“No,” he said. “This is actually good news. This study proves that students come into a classroom with different levels of background knowledge.”

And differences in “background knowledge,” as the study confirms, is precisely what produces the “differences in learning rate.”

“Background knowledge is something that can be measured,” my husband went on. “Which means it can be used to place students in the appropriate learning level for them.”

If this report is accurate and learning speed is determined purely by what a student already knew coming into a fresh task, then we can ditch labels like “gifted” and “slow” and focus solely on what any individual needs in order to learn. We can provide everyone with the “needed favorable conditions.” We can ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, can learn the same material. Good news, indeed!
But will that be the lesson that those who make education policy draw? Or will they simply see the headline dismissing the concept of a “quick learner” and double down on the current “one size fits all” schooling model? Will they continue teaching each student in exactly the same way, not taking into consideration “background knowledge”… or anything else? That would be bad news. For everybody.

in ensuring parents, communities and the broader public have accurate information about the academic progress of K-12 students. But getting this information into the hands of parents has been tricky, as the data has been and even harder to understand.

Four years ago, my organization launched to provide a simple and easy way to access statewide academic assessment data from across the country, as well as make it easier to stay up to date on changes across the K-12 testing landscape. Our most recent update encompasses 42 states and Washington, D.C., which have released assessment results for the 2022-23 school year.

This level of transparency is a critical first step in ensuring parents have a window into how well school systems are serving their children, as well as insight into achievement gaps, areas for needed investment and successful efforts. Too often, results from statewide tests are buried on confusing and outdated state education department websites or delivered in formats that don’t readily help parents identify gaps in their child’s learning. Collecting and displaying all available data from across states and in an easy-to-read format helps to address this challenge.

Assessment HQ also provides a snapshot of state compliance with federal reporting requirements (as measured by the Every Student Succeeds Act) to provide participation data for all students and student groups — an important element of full transparency. Of those that have released data, 26 are fully compliant with federal law. This information, while seemingly wonky, allows anyone exploring state student assessment data to understand the extent to which their state’s report is accurate, reliable and inclusive of all students. 

Along with compliance, accessibility to statewide assessment data is critical to ensuring that decisions and policies impacting young people are grounded in real evidence and results, as well as keeping families adequately informed of student progress. Equipping parents with information enables them to make the important, necessary decisions about their child’s education — such as enrolling in summer school or tutoring if their students are below grade level.

In the , Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona describes how his office plans on supporting and incentivizing states to pilot and adopt new approaches to assessment that may provide better information to parents on how their children are progressing toward grade-level standards. Cardona is right that current assessment systems could be improved upon, but he should also recognize that many complaints about standardized exams have nothing to do with the tests themselves.

For example, when looking at results across the country, it is immediately clear that the effective reporting and use of data is uneven, at best, with most states releasing results months after tests are administered. Indeed, reporting is generally — an issue of timing rather than testing. 

This has a huge effect on parents. Newly conducted by Gallup and nonprofit Learning Heroes finds that almost 9 out of 10 parents believe their child is performing at grade level — a perception that unfortunately does not meet reality, as statewide assessments show that far fewer students are on track. Having access to student assessment data earlier expands the options for parents and educators if a student is struggling. 

That’s why I’m encouraged by actions taken in states , where the state legislature now requires that the results of annual statewide assessments be released no later than June 30.

With the federal government calling for states to pursue more innovation in testing, it’s critical that elected and appointed education leaders — from the federal Education Department to state legislators to district superintendents — remain clear-eyed and transparent about which aspects of K-12 state assessment systems must be preserved to ensure schools can identify and meet students needs — and which must be improved upon.

Ensuring that parents, teachers and education leaders have accurate, timely information about learning is the first critical step in empowering data-driven decisions on behalf of students. In encouraging testing innovation, the federal government must make sure that states focus on strengthening the aspects of K-12 testing that work, like accurate measurement of student achievement, while acknowledging and tackling issues like slow reporting and the lack of guidance for educators and families.

Disclosure: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies and Walton Family Foundation provide financial support to the Collaborative for Student Success and ����Ӱ��.