Vetting High-Quality Instructional Math Materials

School boards' pivotal role in the review and approval process

School board members may not directly select high-quality instruction materials (HQIM), but they are often consulted throughout the process, provide input, and ultimately approve final decisions before the materials make their way into classrooms. Jinghong Cai, with NSBA's Center for Public Education, explains how adopting a clear policy framework that guides decision-making, promotes transparency, and evaluates materials against established quality standards is crucial to successfully selecting HQIM. 

September 15, 2025

School board members, as stewards of educational quality, play a pivotal role in advancing student achievement. Although they may not directly select high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), they are often consulted throughout the process, provide input, and ultimately approve final decisions. As the Oregon Department of Education emphasizes, “In all cases, the local school board must approve the materials before teachers can use them in the classroom.”

In the August issue of ASBJ, we examined how to define HQIM for math. With that foundation established, district leaders can now focus on the next step: thoroughly vetting each HQIM option before making adoption decisions.

WHY VETTING MATTERS
Research shows that some publishers misrepresent their materials as aligned with state academic or college- and career-ready standards. Many textbooks contain irrelevant content, omit up to 20% of required standards, and fail to offer students sufficient opportunities to engage in higher-order thinking (Partelow and Shapiro, 2018). Compounding the problem, many instructional materials lack comprehensive, publicly accessible evaluations, making it difficult for district leaders to identify truly effective and cost-efficient HQIM.

According to a 2023 database from the Center for Education Market Dynamics (CEMD), more than half of U.S. school districts were using math curricula that did not meet HQIM standards. Among districts that had not adopted any HQIM, 44% of elementary and 59% of middle school math programs were either unrated by EdReports—a leading nonprofit curriculum evaluator—or were only partially aligned, or not aligned at all, with its HQIM criteria.

While an “unrated” label does not automatically signal poor quality—some districts design their own curricula to address local student needs—the core challenge for school leaders is ensuring that all materials reflect the essential features of HQIM and provide equitable, rigorous learning opportunities for every student.

WHAT IS A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR VETTING HQIM?
School districts play a critical role in promoting HQIM. According to a national teacher survey by Rand on HQIM adoption, teachers were unlikely to use HQIM unless their district had formally adopted them. To successfully adopt HQIM, school boards need a clear policy framework. Such a framework provides the structure necessary to guide decision-making, promote transparency, and evaluate materials against established quality standards. 

A policy framework is a structured set of principles, guidelines, and procedures that supports consistent decision-making and implementation within a specific policy area. When applied to HQIM, a policy framework provides school boards with a clear structure to guide the adoption process and ensure alignment with district goals. Specifically, it helps school boards understand:

• Why HQIM is needed for math instruction (the rationale, supported by data and evidence).
• What the adoption aims to achieve (goals and intended outcomes).
• Who is responsible for vetting materials (roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders).
• How to assess curriculum quality (e.g., using EdReports reviews and alignment to state standards).
• How to engage educators, families, and community members in the selection process.
• What steps to follow when piloting and adopting new materials.
• How to monitor implementation, measure impact, and ensure equitable access for all students.

This framework supports transparent, evidence-based decision-making and ensures alignment with long-term student learning goals in curriculum adoption. The Peninsula School District in Washington provides an example, as it is conducting a comprehensive review of its current school board–adopted math curriculum across all grade levels. The district’s approach illustrates several key components of a policy framework.

• Why: To ensure students receive a rigorous, standards-aligned math curriculum grounded in evidence-based instructional practices.
• What: To select instructional materials that align with the Washington State Mathematics Standards and promote equitable access to high-quality learning experiences for all students.
• How: The Teaching and Learning Department is working closely with classroom teachers, school principals, special education staff, and multilingual support teams to thoroughly evaluate the existing curriculum. The process also includes opportunities for input from families and community members, ensuring that a broad range of perspectives informs the decision.
• Curriculum adoption process: (1) Conduct research; (2) Screen materials using a rubric; (3) Pilot selected curricula in classrooms; (4) Review and decide through a representative committee; (5) Present recommendations to the Instructional Materials Committee; (6) Final adoption by the school board. 

HQIM EVALUATION TOOLS
School board members are often asked to approve curriculum adoption through a formal agenda item. To make an informed decision, it is essential that board members review the proposed curriculum well in advance of the vote. Because the review process can take several weeks, board members are encouraged to request additional time if needed. One option is to table the agenda item—postponing the vote to allow for a more thorough evaluation of the materials.

School board members should play an active role in the vetting process for HQIM. This includes engaging with teachers and district curriculum selection teams, reviewing research, collecting parent feedback, contacting other districts that have adopted the vetted HQIM, and asking informed questions. In addition, board members should become familiar with commonly used HQIM evaluation tools to better understand how materials are assessed and selected.

• EdReports offers evidence-rich, comprehensive information about a program's alignment to the standards and other indicators of quality.
  
• What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) or What Works in Math provides reports that show which tools increase math achievement by grade. WWC also offers practice guides that show effective practices for topics such as fractions, and teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students. 
• Curricular Resources Annotated Reviews from the Louisiana Department of Education offer a free, publicly available rating system for instructional materials. These online reviews help determine the degree to which materials align with state content standards, supporting school systems in making informed curriculum decisions. Each local school system is encouraged to evaluate whether the use of these resources aligns with the specific educational needs of their students.

CONCLUSION
Cost is often cited as a barrier to adopting HQIM, particularly given that about 80% of per-pupil spending is allocated to instruction—including teacher salaries, materials, and tutoring. However, research shows that HQIM typically costs no more than lower-quality alternatives, and many high-quality resources are available at no cost online. That said, districts may incur additional expenses related to printing and professional development (Partelow and Shapiro, 2018).

The primary goal of vetting HQIM is to ensure a strong return on investment: that every student receives effective math instruction, advances confidently through grade levels, and develops lasting mathematical proficiency. To achieve this, school boards and district teams need a clear policy framework to guide the evaluation, selection, and implementation of HQIM.

Jinghong Cai, Ph.D. is the senior research analyst at NSBA’s Center for Public Education.