At least 18 states and the District of Columbia enacted math-related policies between 2022 and late 2025, according to an April 2026 report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE). The report, titled 'Navigating the Math Wars: A Practical Guide to the Divides and Debates Influencing Math Instruction,' cataloged the laws and identified seven recurring priorities: K-5 foundational numeracy focus, universal screening, data-based decision making, systematic explicit instruction, high-quality instructional materials, targeted intervention including multi-tiered systems of support, and professional learning aligned to math education research.
Legislative approaches differ
CRPE found that some states adopted broad multi-component packages reflecting nearly all of those themes. Alabama, Maryland, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma enacted such comprehensive laws. Other states focused on narrower goals. Texas and New Mexico, for example, targeted access to advanced courses. Florida and Kentucky addressed identifying and supporting students with math difficulties, including dyscalculia.
Alabama's Numeracy Act, signed into law in April 2022, requires K-5 universal screening starting in the 2023-2024 school year, intensive intervention for students with math deficiencies, a math coach in every K-5 school, and a minimum of 60 minutes per day of Tier 1 math instruction. The law also created an Office of Mathematics Improvement and an Elementary Mathematics Task Force, and it prohibits the use of Common Core State Standards. Mississippi's 2026 Math Act establishes the Moving Mathematics in Mississippi program, requiring K-5 universal screening at least three times per year, K-12 math coaching, an Algebra-Readiness Indicator based on the Grade 5 state assessment, and Individualized Math Plans for students below benchmark.
Reading push as a model
The science of math movement explicitly follows the science of reading movement, which has spread more widely. More than 40 states have enacted reading policies, compared with 18 states plus DC for math, according to CRPE and Education Week. CRPE found that reading laws spread slowly from 2013 to 2018, with one to two states per year, then accelerated beginning in 2019, peaking in 2023 when 17 states passed new reading legislation. Several state math policies cite reading reforms as a rationale. Alabama's Numeracy Act explicitly references the state's earlier Literacy Act, which established screening, intervention, coaching, and summer programs. Mississippi's Math Act was designed to replicate the framework of the state's 2013 Literacy Act, which produced widely noted literacy gains sometimes called the 'Mississippi Miracle.'
Evidence base thin, researchers caution
CRPE's report concluded that the evidence base for math instruction is thin compared with reading. The report called for a new national mathematics advisory effort, noting that the last such effort, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, was conducted about 20 years ago. A review of the CRPE report by Deborah Loewenberg Ball of the University of Michigan, published by the National Education Policy Center in July 2026, found that the report provides a helpful review of current debates but falls short of offering nuanced discussions of instructional practice. The review criticized the use of broad labels like 'inquiry-based' and 'explicit' instruction, arguing that the framing reinforces the notion of enduring 'math wars.'
Early data from Alabama offer a mixed signal. The state's 2024 fourth-grade NAEP math scores rose above pre-pandemic levels. But CRPE cautioned that it is far too early to infer that the science-of-math-aligned policies caused the improvement. The report said the stronger conclusion is that early-adopting states warrant close study as more outcome data accumulate.
CRPE's analysis also found that the enacted laws are not explicitly aligned with one pedagogical approach. Instead, they mandate screening, materials, or interventions. The NEPC review corroborated this, noting the legislation addresses early screening, high-quality instructional materials, data-based decision making, numeracy at the elementary level, and systematic targeted interventions, rather than mandating a specific pedagogy.