Ohio is embarking on a significant effort to improve student math performance, an initiative that mirrors the state's recent focus on reading instruction. However, a fundamental question remains unanswered: how math should best be taught. That crucial decision will be made by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW) by April 2027, when it will choose between various instructional philosophies and designate textbooks and learning materials for use in schools across the state.
This move comes after Ohio's legislature and Gov. Mike DeWine passed a law this summer designed to address math scores that are still below pre-pandemic levels. The legislation requires schools to better track math skills and provide extra help to students who are struggling. It also mandates that elementary school teachers demonstrate proficiency in math skills before they can teach the subject. For schools where fewer than 51% of third graders are proficient in math, the law requires them to develop improvement plans. Overall, state test results from 2025 showed that only 55% of Ohio students across all grades scored proficient or better in math, with more than one in four scoring at the lowest possible level.
While the new law sets a framework for accountability and support, it does not define a specific teaching methodology, unlike the state's previous “science of reading” legislation. There is no broad agreement, either nationally or within Ohio, on the most effective way for students to learn math. This ongoing debate pits a “science of math” movement against more holistic teaching approaches favored by many educators, with differences often simplified to teaching procedures versus teaching concepts.
Educators across Ohio are closely watching the ODEW as it creates a list of “high quality” math textbooks and materials by April 2027, following the model of the reading law. While most schools will retain the autonomy to select their own textbooks, approximately 450 schools with low test scores will be compelled to choose from the state-approved list. The department has not specified which studies or resources will guide its evaluation of these materials. When asked about considering the “science of math,” the department stated it was still in the planning stages, adding, "It would be premature to speculate on those details."
Ohio's math teachers have expressed concerns about the state's increasing control over curriculum choices. Mike Lipnos, president of the Ohio Council of Teachers of Mathematics (OCTM), stated, "I don’t like the state telling me I have to use a certain textbook." Lipnos helped create a state math learning plan last year that emphasizes teaching math concepts and developing problem-solving and reasoning skills. He fears the state may approve “science of math” books, which he believes primarily teach math as a series of procedures to memorize. The OCTM website explicitly states its rejection of what it calls "outdated and inappropriate instructional practices" promoted as new scientific ideology.
The “science of math” movement, championed by University of Texas professor Sarah Powell, advocates for teacher-led lessons with explicit instruction on problem-solving, prioritizing these over concept lessons that Powell has suggested can "waste students’ time." The movement's website dismisses criticisms as a "misconception" and states that schools need a balance. Notably, backers of this movement did not testify or make public comments during the legislative debate over the new math law, and Powell confirmed she is not consulting with Ohio officials to promote her approach.
Nationally, the focus on improving math instruction gained momentum after low scores on the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Ohio is among ten states that have passed policies this year to modify math instruction, making it a leader in the effort, according to Lindsey Henderson, senior policy director for math at the ExcelinEd nonprofit education advocacy group. Henderson noted that math research is several years behind reading in achieving a clear consensus. The Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), a research and advocacy group, highlights the “math wars” as a conflict between "traditional" teacher-led classes and "reform-oriented" student exploration. CRPE's recent survey found that by late last year, 18 states and Washington, D.C., had adopted math policies, "many of which emphasized priorities associated with the science of math." However, CRPE also observed that both sides claim to be “evidence-based,” and that the "Science of Math has not achieved the academic and professional consensus that the Science of Reading eventually did."
Despite the broad praise for bringing attention to math and initiating steps to enhance skills, the new Ohio law falls short of the 2023 “science of reading” bill in several key areas. Crucially, the math bill provides no new funding for teaching materials or teacher training, whereas the reading bill allocated over $160 million. Additionally, while the reading bill mandated teachers learn “science of reading” basics, the math law only requires the ODEW to develop training by December. Strong teacher training in math instruction is widely regarded as essential by groups including ExcelinEd and the Ohio Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
The upcoming decision by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce on approved instructional materials for math will set the direction for thousands of students and hundreds of schools. Until then, schools will continue in a holding pattern as state officials and advocacy groups deliberate the future of math education in Ohio.
