Sheehy, M., Putman, H., Holston, S., & Peske, H. (2025). State of the States: Five Policy Levers to Improve Math Instruction. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
Require districts to adopt and implement high-quality math instructional materials.
Provide guidance on how to select high-quality instructional materials.
Collect and publish data on the curricula districts are using.
Allocate funds to help districts transition to and implement new curricula.
High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) or curricula, describe what and how teachers should teach, guiding both teachers and students through the learning process. In fact, the boost in student learning from using superior curricula can be greater than the advantage of having a teacher with three years of experience over a novice teacher.1
While each state may establish different parameters for what makes a curriculum high quality, in general HQIM align to academic standards and are evidence based and content rich to support teachers in planning and assessing student learning. These materials are typically reviewed by state education agencies or independent organizations like EdReports to ensure they meet state-specific standards.
State spotlight: Louisiana
For over a decade,Louisiana has rigorously vetted district curricula using a three-tiered review system that assesses materials based on their alignment to state standards. Central to this process are Teacher Leader Advisors, educators across the state with a deep understanding of content standards, who not only evaluate the curricula but also design and lead comprehensive virtual and in-person professional development programs, empowering teachers to implement HQIM effectively. The approach is paying off—fourth graders in Louisiana were top five in the nation for math growth on the 2024 NAEP.
If the materials are low quality (i.e., misaligned with standards or research), students may get lost, take unnecessary detours, or miss vital steps entirely, making the journey to math proficiency far more challenging and uncertain.
Quality math curricula build foundational conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and practical application, enabling teachers to focus on deep, interactive learning rather than scrambling for resources or piecing together lessons. HQIM also provide tools to differentiate instruction and effectively address diverse learner needs.
Discover how Louisiana has weaved together HQIM, professional learning, and high expectations to dramatically improve student learning.
Despite the clear benefits of HQIM, only four states require districts to select their core math curricula from an approved, state-vetted list. An additional 22 states publish a list of recommended curricula that districts may adopt that have been vetted either by the state or an external partner. This still leaves essentially half of states with no discernable input on what curriculum materials districts use.
Figure 1.
Only one state, Nevada, requires that districts also select supplemental or intervention materials from an approved, state-vetted list. An additional 11 states provide a recommended list of reviewed supplemental or intervention materials.
One way states can track whether districts use HQIM is by requiring them to report their curriculum choices. Yet only eight states currently collect and publish districts’ curricula choices, leaving most states in the dark about what students are being taught and the quality of materials in use. States can go further by requiring districts to publish the curricula they are using themselves. This step empowers families and advocates with information about which schools are using strong, effective materials and which are falling short. Only six states require districts to publish the curricula they are using for math instruction.
State spotlight: Rhode Island
Rhode Island law requires state leaders to identify at least five high-quality curricula for each core subject—math, English language arts, and science and technology—that align with state academic standards, curriculum frameworks, and the Rhode Island Comprehensive Assessment System (RICAS), the state’s student assessment. Districts are then required to adopt and implement one of the state-approved curricula. However, to provide flexibility, the state allows districts to apply for a waiver if at least 75% of students meet state assessment expectations and no student subgroups require targeted assistance.
Figure 2.
While HQIM are critical to student and teacher success, adopting or transitioning to stronger instructional materials may be challenging for districts due to additional costs such as ongoing professional learning for teachers, licensing fees, and new platforms or updated technology associated with implementing new curricula. Effective implementation also requires ongoing evaluation and continuous improvement to ensure the curriculum is driving positive results, all of which add to the expense. States can fill this gap by allocating funds to support districts in adopting and implementing HQIM.
State Spotlight: Mississippi
As of 2023, approximately 75% of low-income students in Mississippi—and 40% of all students—had access to HQIM in math.This progress stems from the state’s efforts to ensure K–8 students are taught using one of five high-quality math curricula, evaluated in partnership with EdReports. To encourage adoption, Mississippi simplified the purchasing process by exempting districts from bidding requirements for the identified curricula. This approach offers a strong model for states with a tradition of local control by incentivizing the selection of high-quality materials while preserving district decision-making.
Twenty-four states provide funding for math curriculum materials, either by offering funds to all districts or through grants. (Interestingly, that’s more than the 16 states that invest in reading curricula.) However, only two states—South Carolina and Tennessee—allocate funds to all districts and require districts to select math HQIM from an approved list, suggesting many states may be throwing money away on ineffective curricula that fail to improve student outcomes.
