Alabama stands out as a promising example, demonstrating significant gains in their 2024 NAEP mathematics scores. The 2022 Alabama Numeracy Act focused attention on improving mathematics instruction by providing targeted professional development for teachers, illustrating the impact of systemic, math-specific support. (NCTM, 2025, Statement from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics on the release of 2024 NAEP mathematics scores)
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2025) recently highlighted Alabama’s statewide efforts under the 2022 Alabama Numeracy Act (ANA, Alabama State Legislature, 2022), a legislative initiative aimed at improving grades K–5 mathematics instruction. The ANA represents a pivotal shift in mathematics education, seeking to strengthen foundational numeracy skills and provide all K–5 students with high-quality instruction from well-prepared educators. This initiative takes place within the broader national conversation about the urgent need for systemic change in mathematics education. Professional organizations such as NCTM and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) have underscored the importance of research-based instructional strategies and robust teacher preparation. Alabama’s efforts serve as a model for how collaborative, statewide initiatives can address these challenges through strategic reform.
Thus far, the state’s efforts have largely focused on supporting practicing elementary teachers, and the next phase of improvement focuses on K–5 educator preparation—aligning with AMTE’s 2024-2028 Long-Term Goal #2: to support and guide high-quality preparation, recruitment, retention, and diversification of mathematics teachers across educational spaces. We are six mathematics educators from teacher preparation institutions across Alabama who came together through our professional networks, including AMTE. Our group meetings and discussions quickly evolved into a broader statewide initiative, bringing together faculty, administrators, and educational leaders to navigate ANA implementation. This article was conceived at one of those gatherings, where we found ourselves at the same table, ready to tackle the complex task of aligning our programs with a new vision for mathematics teacher preparation.
Our Context: The Alabama Numeracy Act
Passed in 2022 in response to significant concerns about students’ mathematics learning and achievement, the ANA is the “state’s comprehensive plan to improve math instruction and support for all students and teachers” at the elementary level (A+ Education Partnership, 2022, p. 1). There are several components and associated initiatives, with examples including: (a) the use of a mathematics coach in every elementary school; (b) the establishment of an Elementary Math Task Force, whose work partially includes vetting and approving high-quality instructional materials, curricula, and assessments for schools; and (c) the implementation of an Alabama Summer Mathematics Achievement Program that provides additional learning supports in mathematics for 4th–5th graders. The ANA also established the Office of Mathematics Improvement (OMI) and a Postsecondary Math Task Force to “ensure our teacher preparation programs are effectively preparing our new elementary educators to teach mathematics” (A+ Education Partnership, 2022, p. 2).
The ANA requires significant changes for candidates seeking certification in areas that include the teaching of K–5 mathematics. With OMI spearheading the improvement efforts, it is now a requirement that all K–5 mathematics teacher candidates (including early childhood, elementary, and special education) complete 12 credit hours of integrated mathematics content and pedagogy courses, with nine of those credit hours being at the junior/senior level. Although OMI provided guidance on the learning outcomes for mathematics content and pedagogy and related field experiences, it has been at the discretion of individual institutions of higher education to reimagine and design their programs. Importantly, the guidance focuses on the development of courses that integrate content and pedagogy, regardless of the department in which the courses are taught. This was and continues to be a substantial pivot for most of the state’s institutions. Prior to the ANA, education departments typically offered 1–2 mathematics methods courses during the junior/senior years, with mathematics departments offering several mathematics content courses (some specifically for elementary teachers). Notably, the shift toward integrated courses aligns with recommendations from professional organizations and research (AMTE, 2017; Garner et al., 2023; Isenberg, 2000).
To address the new requirement, we have engaged in multiple collaborative efforts with one another and with others across the state and at our respective institutions. We are excited to offer course experiences that provide K–5 mathematics teacher candidates with opportunities to deeply learn relevant, important, and rigorous mathematics while simultaneously learning ambitious and equitable pedagogy for early childhood and elementary classrooms (AMTE, 2017).
Integrated Course Design
Much of our initial discussion focused on our different university contexts and the opportunities and constraints that these offered, including those related to institutional and program size, faculty capacity, organizational structure and culture, and resources. For example, variability existed related to:
- the number of programs impacted by the ANA (e.g., one at the University of South Alabama compared to three at Auburn University);
- the location of faculty resources, whether in the college of education, the mathematics department, or both; and
- the percentage of students who transfer from community colleges.
Given the contextual differences, two points became clear. First, we were not going to be able to develop a single set of courses that could be utilized at all institutions. Second, our discussions needed to focus on big ideas that could inform the unique design at each institution.
One of these big ideas was related to the proportion of learning objectives focused on mathematics content or mathematics pedagogy in each of the four courses, which varies across different institutions. It is important to note that while these proportions may differ across the four courses, learning experiences should emphasize integrated content and pedagogy. An example of varying proportions might involve conceptualizing the four courses as a progression that begins with the teacher candidate as a learner of mathematics and then gradually shifts to the teacher candidate as a teacher of mathematics, while providing integrated learning experiences throughout. As represented in Figure 1, the first course (MAED 1) includes 80% content- and 20% pedagogy-focused learning objectives, where candidates focus on what it means to be a learner and doer of mathematics (e.g., engaging in the student mathematical practices, problem solving, and reasoning) while at the same time learning new mathematics content. Then, the emphasis shifts across the courses leading to the fourth course (MAED 4) including 20% content- and 80% pedagogy-focused learning objectives, where candidates are implementing and evaluating lessons about mathematics content. When bookended with a general education mathematics course and the student teaching experience, this distribution offers one compelling vision of the development of a teacher candidate and is being taken up by some of the universities in our group.
Figure 1. An Example Distribution of Content- and Pedagogy-focused Learning Objectives
Importantly, this is just one of many possible configurations, as the ANA did not establish required proportions of content- and pedagogy-focused learning objectives within each of the four courses, just that they must demonstrate an integration of content and pedagogy. Therefore, each of us developed the design for our course sequence based on our universities’ unique contexts. For example, some institutions are balancing learning objectives through courses taking more of a 50% content, 50% pedagogy approach, while centering on integrated learning experiences. There was also variability by institution in whether courses were being offered via education and/or mathematics departments, with OMI’s requirements for strong connections and applications in field placement classrooms necessitating that most of the courses be offered in education departments that oversee field experiences. For some institutions, course development afforded opportunities for collaboration across departments, particularly when faculty with expertise in elementary mathematics education were housed in both mathematics and education departments.
Collaboration with MTEs and Vested Partners
Key to this initiative is that although there were certain non-negotiables, OMI was open to feedback, and the changes being made were collaborative in nature, which meant the collective voices of mathematics teacher educators were sought and valued. We leveraged our unique experiences and the support and resources of our professional organizations, such as the Standards for the Preparation of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE, 2017). We also discussed what the research suggests is needed for effective preparation of elementary mathematics teachers (Ball et al., 2008; Garner et al., 2023; Graham & Fennell, 2001; Hill et al., 2005).
As each of us began to consider how changes could best be implemented to support teacher candidates in our unique contexts, as well as associated challenges, we leaned on each other. The years of working alongside one another via service, meetings, and discussions in our national and state organizations, including AMTE, solidified our relationships and developed common understandings. Trust had been built, which allowed for honest exchanges around our questions, concerns, and hopes.
The relationships and shared understandings developed over years were helpful, as we were also working in collaboration with other vested partners, such as colleagues in the OMI, the Alabama Mathematics, Science, and Technology Initiative, K-12 school faculty, legislative representatives, and two-year college partners. In addition, while most of us focus on elementary education, we were also collaborating with our early childhood, special education, and mathematics colleagues, as their programs were impacted by the required changes. We held virtual meetings, in-person meetings, and a one-day planning session to discuss and collaboratively work on the new courses and programmatic changes. These critical conversations provided opportunities to hear other perspectives, revise current thinking, and develop courses that embrace the vision of the AMTE Standards (AMTE, 2017).
Final Thoughts
We share our story to provide insights into how we leveraged our networks and resources to improve K-5 mathematics teacher preparation. We close with these final thoughts. First, AMTE and its affiliates are important spaces in which to network, build a common vision for mathematics teacher education, and share problems of practice. We encourage other MTEs to connect with their AMTE state affiliate or network around a common topic through an AMTE community circle. Second, collaboration among university-based mathematics teacher educators is impactful, but real change happens when we are able to work and communicate effectively with other vested partners around a shared vision. MTEs should consider expanding their circle of collaborators, including to those who make decisions, such as state department colleagues, so that their voices are heard. Third, although our integrated courses may look different due to unique institutional contexts and strengths, MTEs should work together on coursework components (e.g., curricula, assessments, field experience assignments) designed to prepare teachers who are well-equipped to provide high-quality instruction for all K–5 students. We recommend that MTEs leverage AMTE publications and other spaces to share and discuss how they have strengthened coursework through collaboration.
Elementary MTEs have been challenged to provide integrated, meaningful experiences that effectively prepare teachers, as research suggests that teacher content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and affect impact the instruction they provide, thus ultimately influencing student learning (Tsamir & Tirosh, 2009). In addressing that challenge, we continue to meet and collaboratively work toward creating integrated coursework at our own institutions. Ongoing, honest conversations about our successes and struggles in our contexts will be crucial to our continual growth and cultivation of community as mathematics teacher educators.
*Author listing is based on alphabetical order.
References
A+ Education Partnership. (2022). What is the Alabama Numeracy Act? https://policy.aplusala.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Numeracy-Act-1-Pager-1.pdf
Alabama State Department of Education. (2024). Guidelines for the mathematical preparation of elementary teachers (Version 1.0). https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/OMI_20240805_Guidelines-for-the-Mathematical-Preparation-of-Elementary-Teachers_V1.0.pdf
Alabama State Legislature. (2022). Alabama Numeracy Act. Alabama State Department of Education. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/OMI_202338_ANA_v1.0.pdf
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2024). AMTE 2024–2028 long-term goals. https://amte.net/news/2019/02/amte-long-term-goals-2024-28
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. amte.net/standards
Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Garner, B., Munson, J., Krause, G., Bertolone-Smith, C., Saclarides, E. S., Vo, A., & Lee, H. S. (2023). The landscape of US elementary mathematics teacher education: Course requirements for mathematics content and methods. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27, 1009–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-023-09593-4
Graham, K. J., & Fennell, F. (2001). Principles and standards for school mathematics and teacher education: Preparing and empowering teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 101(6), 319–327.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
Isenberg, J. P. (2000). The state of the art in early childhood professional preparation. In D. Horm-Wingerd & M. Hyson (Eds.), New teachers for a new century: The future of early childhood professional preparation (pp. 17–58). U.S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2025, January 29). Statement from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics on the release of 2024 NAEP mathematics scores. https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/News/NCTM-News-Releases/NAEP-Releases-2024-Math-Scores/
Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2009). Affect, subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The case of a kindergarten teacher. In J. Maaß & W. Schlöglmann (Eds.), Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education (pp. 19–31). Brill.