Addressing Declining Mathematics Scores in British Columbia
British Columbia’s mathematics crisis (and yes, I think we can call it that) has been developing steadily for two decades. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), B.C. students’ math scores declined by 42 points between 2003 and 2022, a loss equivalent to approximately two full years of learning. By the early 2020s, roughly 40 percent of B.C. students were not meeting numeracy expectations. This is deterioration in one of the foundational competencies that a public education system is expected to provide.
Poor achievement in mathematics has long term consequences. Early mathematical proficiency is strongly linked to later academic and economic outcomes. When a generation of students does not possess a solid numeracy foundation, there is a ripple effect through post-secondary education, the workforce, and in civic participation. Understanding why this is happening and, most important, identifying which levers of policy can be pulled is an urgent necessity.
The mathematical preparation of elementary and middle school teachers is a well-documented vulnerability in Canadian education. Many generalist teachers in elementary schools do not possess sufficient content knowledge in mathematics to instruct confidently or accurately. A C.D. Howe Institute report by Anna Stokke recommends requiring a minimum of 6 credit hours in mathematics content courses specifically designed for teachers preparing to teach in elementary schools coupled with rigorous math certification examinations.
These requirements do not exist in British Columbia. A teacher who is unclear about fractions, algebraic reasoning, or the conceptual underpinnings of place value cannot instruct students competently. Teacher preparation programs at B.C. universities do not require candidates to demonstrate mathematical proficiency as a condition of certification.
What students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level in mathematics is murky. The 2016 version of B.C.’s curriculum shifted emphasis toward broader competencies. The intention was to develop deeper understanding, but the practical effect was to blur expectations about specific mathematics content. Critics point to the transition away from teaching skills, procedures, and algorithmic fluency toward a model in which children are encouraged to construct their own strategies and discover their own solutions.
Mathematicians solve novel problems precisely because they have internalized vast prior knowledge. Novice learners cannot replicate that process without first acquiring the requisite foundations. Clear, explicit curriculum expectations about what students must know at each grade level are mostly absent from B.C.’s current framework. To its credit the Ministry of Education recently introduced K-4 Foundation Learning Progressions in Mathematics and English Language Arts.
The introduction of the Learning Progressions seems a tacit acknowledgment that the design of the curriculum itself is a contributing factor to the decline in mathematics. B.C.’s curriculum has allowed teachers to emphasize inquiry-based and discovery-based learning at the expense of explicit instruction. A large body of research in cognitive science and educational psychology demonstrates that problem-solving ability is developed most effectively by explicit instruction that incorporates clear explanations, worked examples, purposeful practice, and feedback.
The C.D. Howe Institute has called on provincial governments to set clear evidence standards for math instructional programs prioritizing programs demonstrated through randomized controlled trials and peer-reviewed studies to produce measurable gains in student achievement. Apart from the introduction of the K-4 Learning Progressions, B.C. has not done this.
One of the most consequential policy decisions with respect to student achievement was the dismantling of the provincial examination system. B.C. students used to write course-specific provincial exams that comprised a portion of their final marks in Grades 10, 11, and 12. These exams communicated clear expectations to teachers and students, provided system-level data on trends over time, and created meaningful accountability for both learners and educators. B.C. students now write fewer standardized assessments than at any previous point. The data necessary to identify struggling cohorts early and intervene systematically has been greatly diminished. Without such accountability mechanisms, it is nearly impossible to determine whether any given instructional approach is working or to hold systems responsible for outcomes.
Mathematics instructional time in elementary schools is suggested but not mandated by provincial policy in B.C. Individual schools and teachers exercise discretion over how much time is allocated to mathematics versus other subjects. Moreover, it is likely that elementary school teachers who lack confidence in their ability to teach mathematics will devote less time to it.
Although the evidence for effective instructional approaches is compelling, the B.C. system lacks the mechanisms to mandate that teachers adopt them. Professional development in the province is largely voluntary and discretionary. The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation exercises considerable influence over the use of professional development days. Mandatory content-specific professional development in mathematics would likely face significant resistance. This creates a gap between what the research says works and what happens in classrooms. In contrast, jurisdictions that have successfully improved mathematics outcomes have invested in content-specific professional learning as a non-negotiable feature of system reform.
The distinction between identifying causes and identifying workable policy levers is crucial. In any complex public institution, not all contributing factors are equally amenable to policy intervention. Some are societal (screen time, family engagement, poverty). Others are deeply embedded in professional culture or collective agreements (the allocation of professional development days). But in the case of B.C.’s mathematics decline, the factors outlined above are, to a significant degree, within the reach of provincial policy.
The province controls teacher certification through the B.C. Teacher Certification Branch. The Ministry of Education has the authority to revise the standards that faculties of education must meet to have their programs approved, including requirements for minimum mathematics content coursework and demonstrated mathematical proficiency as a condition of certification. This is a direct, low-cost lever. Amending teacher certification regulations does not require new spending. It requires political will.
The provincial curriculum is a Ministry document. Revising it to reintroduce explicit learning outcomes for acquisition of basic math facts, to sequence foundational content with greater precision aligned to established benchmarks, and to incorporate evidence-based instructional approaches is within the government’s authority to accomplish. Curriculum revision is one of the most powerful levers available because it shapes what every teacher in every classroom in the province is expected to teach. The government abolished high-stakes provincial exams through policy. It can restore them through policy.
The province can establish standards that school districts must apply when selecting mathematics programs. This would not preclude teacher judgment or classroom flexibility, but it would ensure that the foundational instructional framework in every school meets a minimum evidence threshold. BC once had a process for reviewing instructional material review. It could reestablish one.
The situation is not hopeless. B.C. students are approximately two years behind where their counterparts were in mathematics twenty years ago. This gap widens with each successive cohort that passes through a system unwilling to address the problem. Some of the causes are known and well-documented. More important, most of the policy instruments required to address them are within provincial jurisdiction. What seems to be lacking is political will.