There is, I think, sufficient data to indicate that, for both learners and instructors, arithmetic is the least popular subject in primary academic institutions, and this has been true since before I joined arithmetic information over 40 years ago.
After a lifetime spent in arithmetic information I have come to the summary that, despite the upgrades in our knowing of how children learn, and new techniques of training arithmetic, learners still leave school with a low level of numeracy. To be clear, numeracy is the ability to reason with numbers and other statistical principles, and contains number feeling, function feeling, calculations, statistic, geometry, possibility and research. Numeracy also requires that learners have an user-friendly or psychological feel for arithmetic that gives them assurance in forecasting or determining solutions.
Many people would claim that there is no psychological aspect to arithmetic, just regard the guidelines, get the right answer and move on. However most adults have a strong psychological reaction to anything related to school mathematics; unfortunately these reactions are usually negative!
Intellectually learners can deal with everyday computations (after all, they are hardly ever without a calculator), but many lack the psychological knowing that gives assurance in forecasting and determining solutions.
The issue does not lie straight with the instructors but more with the way we hire and train prospective instructors. We have a self perpetuating cycle; learners don't enjoy arithmetic in school, graduate student and go to school where they tend to avoid arithmetic applications. They join instructor training applications where they may or may not take a course on how to educate arithmetic. Even if they do take a course on training techniques for arithmetic it does not have value if the members have serious holes in their information and knowing of statistical principles. It is like a course on how to trainer golf ball if you have no information of the game and the abilities involved.
The student, totally not prepared to educate arithmetic, now goes into the training career and the pattern carries on.
The situation experiencing academic management, political figures, and community in general is determining where and how to break the pattern.
One possible solution, which could address the issue quickly, would be to have a sequence of applications dealing with both statistical knowing, and training techniques for specific subjects or lengths of the program. On successful realization each course members would be given a document to say they had been qualified in that subject and were certified to educate that subject. Eventually instructors would become properly accredited to educate arithmetic.
This, like most solutions to problems in information, would require financial dedication by government government bodies, information government bodies, ability to train and learning, and an occasion dedication from instructors.
At one time the arithmetic specifications for admission to instructor training applications could be made more strict to ensure that learners coming into these applications will have greater statistical knowing thus guaranteeing that techniques applications in arithmetic will be more appropriate and useful.
Until we improve the access specifications and the credentials of prospective arithmetic instructors, arithmetic will be badly qualified, too many learners will not achieve the numeracy abilities necessary to function in modern community, and the work done by instructors will not be given the regard it should get.