In the Novosibirsk region, a significant share of ninth graders fell short on the OGE in mathematics, with many receiving a double. In Yakutsk, parents urge independent verification of similar exam results, since failures in the system have left almost half of ninth graders below the passing threshold in some schools. A major bottleneck exists in the Unified State Examination in Mari El for mathematics, where 45 percent of graduates did not reach a satisfactory score to apply to universities, scoring under 39 points. In the Penza region, mathematics became the focus of the year, and it appears that scores were not released to avoid alarming the public. The overall mood is understandably somber. Even after the disappointing mathematical years of 2021 and 2022, regions still reported a sizable share of ninth and eleventh graders failing the exam. The question remains whether any lessons have been learned from those outcomes.
To grasp the scale of the issue, it helps to understand what OGE and USE actually are. Starting with the OGE, the ninth grade mathematics exam does not feature multiple difficulty levels and is relatively straightforward. A score of 3 requires seven points total, which means tackling five simple tasks, two in mathematics and two in geometry. Many tasks can be handled by even younger students. For instance, finding the area of a hallway on a plan can be done by counting cells and figuring out how many parquet boards are needed for the floor in a room, using two basic arithmetic operations. The simplest geometry tasks align with the seventh grade curriculum. Students receive extensive reference materials with formulas, graphs, and homework tables, so those who missed large portions of high school might still determine the area of a triangle or trapezoid by simply substituting the required values. Yet, for reasons not fully obvious, this logic does not always work in practice.
The USE differs in structure. It is divided into a basic level and a profile level. The base level rarely causes concern; the duos remain in the 2–3 percent range year after year. The nuance is that this exam is even easier than the ninth grade assessment and is taken by students who left school in the ninth grade or who did not attend a traditional vocational program. In grade 11, there is no mandatory requirement to demonstrate a solid grasp of basic geometry on the exam, and some tasks appear to be drawn from primary school texts. A twenty-minute basic USE session can be navigated to a passing score by a younger student, a claim verified by personal observation and simple experiments. The profile math, naturally, is more challenging, encompassing logarithms with integrals, trigonometry with functions, and other demanding topics. Yet profile math is chosen by students who intend to enter technical universities where engineering or programming skills matter. Those pursuing this path often work with private tutors for years, participate in additional courses, and still struggle to secure enough points to obtain a certificate, not merely to meet university thresholds. The difficulty often lies in reaching the minimum score for the exam itself.
There are two common explanations for this situation. Some teachers point to student disengagement, arguing that many students do little in class and arrive with devices and cheat sheets during exams. The reality, however, is more nuanced. It takes energy and discipline to stay engaged in class, to resist the lure of distractions, and to stay organized with plans and checklists. Even when students study independently, the outcomes are not always better, because the knowledge base they need may not be solid enough. In some cases, parents of the underperforming students blame the education system and teaching staff, claiming that teachers do not provide meaningful instruction. The broader truth is more complex, with schools facing a variety of challenges including uneven teacher preparation and gaps in foundational knowledge. There are students who begin ninth grade without fluency in basic arithmetic multiplication tables, a gap that becomes a barrier later on. This gap concerns more than mathematics; it signals a broader issue about early numeracy and literacy in some communities.
From a statistical standpoint, it is possible that some teachers may not be aligned with the mathematical demands of the curriculum. Yet the situation is not unique to mathematics. In subjects like Russian language, the percentage of students who struggle often remains relatively small in the upper grades, while written assignments still require formal structure and sufficient vocabulary. The task remains to produce texts that demonstrate comprehension and basic argument, even if the vocabulary is not expansive. The prevailing question is what can be done to improve outcomes in mathematics and what role early childhood experiences play in shaping later success.
One hypothesis is that children do not acquire mathematical thinking because the world of numbers is not presented to them as an intrinsic part of daily life. Language is innate; children learn by hearing adults speak and by being exposed to continuous conversation. Culture matters. Even in homes with limited resources, families often find ways to introduce numbers and counting through everyday activities. Before formal schooling, many children encounter numbers through play, which is a natural path to numeracy. The world around children is full of arithmetic and geometry, and a sense of order helps humans navigate daily life. The sooner learners are introduced to the ideas of counting, measuring, and comparing, the smoother the transition to formal math becomes. Early exposure builds a mental framework that supports later algebraic thinking and geometric reasoning.
For younger children, practical activities like adding and subtracting during everyday tasks, counting objects, and solving simple problems can lay a strong foundation. The goal is to move from concrete experiences to abstract reasoning gradually. When families engage with children through games, shopping simulations, or outdoor exploration, arithmetic becomes meaningful rather than abstract. This approach helps children connect math to real life and fosters curiosity rather than fear. The process of learning math should begin with enjoyable, tangible activities and gradually introduce the vocabulary and symbols that define the discipline. The shift from hands-on practice to formal terminology is essential for lasting understanding, and the transition should occur in a natural, age-appropriate way.
In the school setting, counting, reading, and writing remain foundational skills. The language of arithmetic—terms like sum, difference, divisors, and quotient—appears early and becomes a natural part of classroom discourse. Some educators argue that today’s children are less driven by intellectual challenge, but the goal remains to establish a solid base before moving to more abstract concepts. Those who begin with arithmetic before school often enter later grades with greater confidence and preparedness.
For parents looking to give their children an advantage, daily engagement matters. A brief 10 to 15 minutes of focused activity can make a real difference. If a child is entering third grade and still struggles with basic math concepts, a longer practice period of 20 to 30 minutes can help. The key is to revisit multiplication tables, basic geometry, and the logic behind calculations in a hands-on, friendly way. If a child reaches seventh grade without solid math fundamentals, early intervention can still turn the tide. It is not about more schooling alone, but about building a strong numerical intuition that will support future learning. Practice should be consistent, enjoyable, and integrated into daily life rather than treated as a separate task.
Summer and holidays provide opportunities for informal learning as well. Rather than assigning blame or dwelling on difficulties, the focus can shift to practical methods for improvement. The choice to pursue reform in math education is influenced by many factors, and it is unlikely that a single solution exists. Yet evidence from various educational settings suggests that early numeracy and ongoing practice are critical for long-term success. The overarching aim is to empower children with confidence and competence in mathematics, not to impose harsh judgments or fatigue on students. The belief is that with the right approach, large-scale improvement is possible.
This article reflects a personal perspective and is not a formal editorial stance. A balanced view acknowledges the complexity of the issue and urges continued attention to how mathematics is taught and learned across generations. [Citation: Educational Research Collective]