Search Results

The mass resignation of teachers and resulting nationwide teacher shortages highlight the importance of having high-quality instructional materials. Prior to the pandemic, Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Washington were among the states experiencing severe shortages of fully-prepared, credentialed teachers. During the 2020-21 school year, nearly 20 percent of California’s K-12 classrooms were taught by underprepared teachers. And, according to the National Center for Education Statistics , as of June 2022, 62 percent of public schools were concerned about filling staff vacancies and expected to have three teacher vacancies (on average) for the 2022-23 school year. Teacher shortages often lead to merged classrooms and teacher reassignments. Teachers who are newly assigned to teach a grade level and course may lack expertise in the subject area, in the standards, and sometimes even in pedagogy. For such teachers, their instructional materials become a critical safety net for themselves and for their students. However, if the materials are not high quality, if they are not aligned to state standards, or if they are not easy to use, they may be a sieve rather than a safety net, for teachers and students, alike. Are your instructional materials a sieve or a safety net? Learning List’s reviews and comparison tools make it easy to find out if the materials you are currently using or may be considering buying will teach your students what they need to know to be successful.   Our detailed alignment reports show specifically where (e.g., specific page numbers, lesson titles) the material is aligned to each standard and identify the standards to which the material is not aligned. If a material is not aligned to 100% of the state’s standards for a grade level or course, our Fill-in-the-Gap™ tool recommends additional core or supplemental materials that align to the remaining standards. Our Compare Alignment tool allows you to do a standard-by-standard alignment comparison of multiple materials, making it easy to select a new, standards-aligned instructional material or to select from your existing materials when planning instruction or engaging in curriculum writing or instructional alignment.  Beyond assessing the alignment of materials, our evidence-based editorial reviews asses each product’s instructional quality to make it easy for educators to determine which materials will meet their needs and support their students. These reviews evaluate the material’s rigor, vertical alignment, student engagement, supports for special student populations, and resources for teachers, as well as the product’s design and ease-of-use. For example, our reviews highlight which products are text heavy, requiring students to read extensively; which materials provide text features and videos to support student learning of key concepts; and which resources chunk learning in manageable segments with regular checks for understanding and consistently embedded activities.  Finally, our technology reviews test the material’s compatibility with the devices and systems campuses and districts use. Our tech reviews help district and campus leaders support teachers’ use of their materials and avoid making expensive mistakes. With so many teachers in new positions for the new school year, it is critical for district and campus leaders to ensure that their materials are standards-aligned and high-quality. Learning List’s reviews and comparison tools make it easy to assess whether a material will support or undermine your teachers’ and students’ success.  Research Report: A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand and Shortages in the U.S. , Learning Policy Institute, September 2016 “ Nearly 1 out of 5 classes in California taught by underprepared teachers ,” EdSource, June 30, 2022

Over the years, numerous subscribing districts have contacted us for help finding instructional materials to consider for a new course they were planning to offer. We would contact other districts that subscribe to our service and compile a materials list for the relevant course. One day, a grateful curriculum director explained that the list we gave her had saved her staff weeks of work. That sparked an idea! We could leverage our relationships with districts and publishers alike to create a robust materials list for the range of subjects and courses schools offer. We spent the next several weeks talking to district curriculum leaders about this idea and learned that curriculum staff and teachers spend an inordinate amount of time searching for new materials to review. So, we got to work. We created  The Learning List  to help teachers spend more time teaching and curriculum teams spend more time supporting and coaching teachers.  The Learning List  is a  free, public  directory of more than 10,000 K-12 instructional materials (and counting!) for the courses districts offer. We aggregated titles from state and district adoption lists, our database of reviewed materials, and publishers' catalogs. The titles are organized by subject, course, and grade band. Within each grade band, the materials we have reviewed are listed first; the remaining materials are listed in alphabetical order. The Learning List  is an organic, communal resource that we will update regularly. If your district is using or your company is selling materials that are not yet listed,  submit the titles  and we will add them to the list. If we have reviewed a material you are interested in, contact us to learn about how to access our reviews. If we have not yet reviewed the material you are interest in, contact us to learn more about having the material reviewed. We can complete our reviews within five weeks of receiving access to the material.

According to the 2021 Survey Results of the RAND Corporation’s American Instructional Resources Surveys , over 90% of the teachers surveyed consider standards alignment an important characteristic in their district-provided instructional materials (question 34). Yet, only between 36-41% of the surveyed teachers (depending on the content area) perceive that their district-purchased materials help their students master their state's math, English language arts, or science standards. Are materials as poorly aligned as teachers perceive? Learning List has reviewed the alignment of over 3,300 widely used PreK-12 instructional materials. Our subject matter experts review the citations (e.g., lessons, activities, assessments) listed in the publisher's correlation for alignment to the content , context and cognitive rigor of each standard. We find that core materials are generally aligned to most (though not all) of the standards; the alignment of supplemental materials is much more variable. So, why do teachers perceive that their core materials are not aligned? Here are three reasons: (1) Publishers' definition of "alignment": A publisher's definition of "alignment" may not match the district or campus definition.  Some publishers include citations in their correlation when any part of a standard is addressed. Teachers quickly see that the material is not aligned in most of the places the publishers cite. (2) Teachers' expectations: Many standards have multiple component parts. Some materials address the components of complex standards separately in different locations across the material. When citations listed in the publisher's correlation address only a portion of the standard several citations listed in the correlation must be used together (i.e., bundled) in order to achieve alignment to the standard.  Other materials may introduce the standard in one chapter, provide practice and reinforcement in another chapter, and assesses mastery of the standard in a third chapter. In this scenario, alignment to the standard is most likely found in the location that assesses mastery and unlikely in the locations where the standard is introduced.   If teachers expect citation listed in the publisher's correlation to be fully aligned to the standard, they may perceive  the material not to be aligned to the standards when they consider the citations individually. (3) Teachers' ability to evaluate alignment: Understanding the concept of alignment is relatively easy; applying the concept is much more difficult. Having interviewed and trained hundreds of educators to review the alignment of materials, we have found that determining whether a material is aligned is a technical skill that few educators have the opportunity or time to hone. Instead of relying on their district-provided instructional material as the primary resource for the course, increasingly, teachers are using resources that they develop or curate from other teachers. The main reason driving this phenomenon is that teachers do not perceive that the district-provided materials are aligned to their state standards. Learning List provides two types of resources to help educators verify the alignment of their district-provided materials. First, our independent, standard-by-standard alignment reports for thousands of widely used PreK-12 instructional materials show precisely (1) which citation(s) in the material is/are aligned to each state standard, and (2) which citations are not aligned. If a citation is not aligned, a reviewer's comment explains which part of the standard the citation fails to address. If multiple citations must be bundled to achieve alignment to a standard, our alignment reports indicate which citations must be "bundled." Second, our Alignment Matters , online professional development course, explains what it means to unpack the content, context and cognitive rigor of a standard and provides guided and independent practice to help teachers determine whether a material is aligned to the standard. These two resources give educators more confidence in the alignment of their district-provided instructional materials and hopefully save them the time of curating other resources to use instead.

If your district or campus will be adopting new materials this year, someone in your campus or district is probably starting to plan the adoption process. Over the last decade, Learning List has assisted hundreds of districts, both formally and informally, with instructional materials adoptions. Based on research regarding selecting and implementing high-quality instructional materials and our own observations of local adoption processes, we offer a four-part blog series on effective strategies for reviewing and selecting instructional resources, both commercially produced and teacher-curated materials. This first blog in this series provides eight steps for planning a successful adoption process. (1) Articulate the need for the adoption . The adoption of core materials is typically, though not always, driven by a change in the state standards. In contrast, there are many reasons that districts adopt supplemental materials. To ensure that the administration, teachers and the community understand the need for the adoption, it is important to clearly articulate the reason for and goal of the adoption before beginning the review process.   (2) Define the non-negotiables for the adoption . District or campus leaders should identify the non-negotiables for the adoption. Non-negotiables are the basic requirements, such as the budget, the minimum alignment percentage, instructional model, required supports for students and resources for teachers, and the format of the material. Recent experience with remote learning may suggest additional non-negotiables. (3) Establish a timeline . Working back from the board meeting where the materials will be adopted or from the deadline for getting materials into the classroom, create a realistic timeline for the entire process, including time for ordering any required technology and providing product-specific professional development for teachers, if appropriate. (4) Document the review process logistics. Be sure to think through the logistics of the entire review and adoption process, including: When, where and how will the selection committee review the materials? Will a rubric be used for the adoption, and if so, how will the rubric be developed? Will the selection committee review the materials simultaneously in-person or virtually and on their own time? If the product samples are online, how will login credentials be provided for all reviewers? Will publishers be permitted to present to the selection committee? What are the voting protocols for the selection committee's recommendations? How will the new material be distributed? Who will be involved in the planning and supporting the implementation? Is there an allocation in the budget for professional development and ongoing support? (5) Identify the makeup of the selection committee and define attendance requirements . State law and/or board policy may dictate the positions that must be represented on the selection committee. At a minimum, the committee should include both experienced and new teachers representing the content area and grade bands covered by the adoption, as well as teachers who provide support services for students, and a technology integration specialist if the material selected may have online components. Additionally, it is important to document attendance requirements and how selection committee members will be replaced if they are unable to meet those requirements.   (6) Distribute a needs assessment. It is critical to gather feedback from teachers, parents and the community about the features they want in the new material. The needs assessment gives all stakeholders, not just the selection committee, a voice in the adoption process. Failure to include this step creates a feeling of disenfranchisement, which may impede the successful implementation. For a core material, the needs assessment should be distributed to all teachers who will have to use the newly adopted material, as well as staff who will be supporting its implementation, such as instructional coaches, instructional technology staff and parents. In some states, districts are required by state law to survey the community during an adoption, as well. For supplemental materials, distributing the needs assessment to teachers who will be using the new material and to staff who will be supporting its implementation would suffice. Aggregate the results of the needs assessment to identify the features that the stakeholders believe the new material must have. These features should then be reflected in the district's rubric for the adoption, which we will discuss in the next blog in this series. (7) Narrow the number of materials to be reviewed by the selection committee . The list of non-negotiables should be used to eliminate materials from consideration and thus narrow the number of materials the selection committee will review. This can be done by district or campus leaders or by the selection committee. Optimally, the selection committee will conduct a rubric review of between three and five materials. (8) Develop a rubric . A decision point in any adoption is whether to use a rubric. The next blog in this series will address benefits of using a rubric and how to develop a rubric and implement it consistently.

This is the second blog in the series about effective strategies for reviewing and selecting instructional materials. Our first blog discussed planning a successful adoption, which included distributing and aggregating the results of a needs assessment. Now it is time to develop a rubric for the adoption. Developing a rubric from scratch can be daunting. More often, educators look for existing rubrics to customize. This blog provides guidance for creating or customizing a rubric to reflect a district's priorities and state standards.   Identifying criteria and sub-criteria  In an instructional materials selection rubric, criteria and sub-criteria/guidance statements should describe observable and measurable features of instructional materials. The following resources will help you identify the features you want to include in your rubric: Research on features of high-quality materials; Best practices for the content area;  The district's instructional goals; The Needs Assessment feedback;  The instructional focus of and topics addressed in the state standards. Keeping the rubric to a manageable length can be one of the biggest challenges when designing a rubric. We have observed, that in order for selection committee members to use a rubric with fidelity, rubrics for selecting core materials should include no more than ten (10) criteria and up to five (5) sub-criteria for each criterion. Thus, the rubric should include the features in instructional materials that your district values most . Drafting criteria and sub-criteria statements Each criterion and sub-criterion should be written as a statement using precise, unambiguous language. Terms like consistently , throughout , and repeatedly may be used to describe features that should be reflected throughout the material. For example: The material is structured consistently and logically. Materials support coherence and connections between and within content at the grade level and across grade levels. Materials provide opportunities for students to engage in productive struggle through sensemaking that involves reading, writing, thinking, and acting as scientists and engineers. It is not imperative to include sub-criteria/guidance statements for each criterion. If used, these statements should clarify or illustrate the criteria. For that reason, sub-criteria statements often include illustrative language, such as includes or does not include . Judgmental language such as poor , well , exceptional, or excellent should not be included in the criteria or sub-criteria statements; rather, judgments should be addressed in the rubric’s rating scale. The format of the criteria and sub-criteria/guidance statements will affect the type and format of the rating scale and vice versa. Developing the rating scale Rubrics should include at least one rating scale. The rating scale allows users to express their level of agreement with each criterion and sub-criterion statement. There are many types of rating scales , including:   Graphic Numerical Descriptive As mentioned above, the type of rating scale selected impacts how criteria and sub-criteria statements are formatted. The type and format of the rating scale also affect how the response data can be aggregated and disaggregated. Using a rating scale that assigns a numeric value for each response makes it easy to tally a score for each material from the aggregate response data. The response choices in the rating scale should be easy to understand and distinguish. The scale should include a sufficient number of response choices to allow selection committee members to communicate their level of agreement with the criteria and/or sub-criteria statements clearly. We have observed that having between three and five response choices in a rating scale works best; too many choices (e.g., 1-10) makes it difficult to discern a meaningful difference in the materials’ aggregate scores.   Testing the rubric Once a draft of the rubric is complete, it is prudent to run it by a few of the content-area teachers to make sure that it is a manageable length and easy to understand. Training for effective implementation Selection committee members must receive training to ensure that they interpret and apply the criteria and sub-criteria/guidance statements consistently. Optimally, district curriculum staff would create an evidence guide that provides text-based examples of the different performance levels for each criterion and key sub-criteria statements. If that is not possible, the selection committee should discuss performance-level examples before beginning the reviews. For example, one of the criteria in any instructional materials rubric should be standards alignment. Selection committee members should receive training on or at least discuss what alignment means and how to evaluate a material's alignment to state standards. If available, links to reliable third-party reviews of the materials being considered will facilitate committee members’ completion of the rubric for each material.   Conducting the reviews While it may be necessary to conduct the reviews virtually, we have observed that having committee members in the same room while they are independently reviewing materials has important benefits. The spontaneous conversations that occur often prompt committee members to explore the materials more deeply and ultimately facilitate consensus building around which materials meet the district’s needs best. When that happens, the selection committee members tend to become strong advocates for the materials selected.  Convene the selection committee to discuss rubric results Once completed rubrics have been submitted, the person managing the selection process should analyze the committee’s response data to determine for each grade level covered by the adoption, which material scored (1) highest overall, and (2) highest on each criterion. That data analysis should be documented in an easy-to-read format and provided to the selection committee members.  The selection committee should reconvene to discuss the rubric results with the goal of reaching a consensus about the materials to recommend for adoption. However, the district’s voting procedures should address how a material will be selected if consensus is not reached. Document rationale for making recommendations The rubric data and the selection committee’s rationale for each recommended material should be documented clearly. If the materials will be adopted by the school board, that documentation should be shared with the board.  The documentation should be maintained in the district for several years in case the district’s use of the selected material is ever challenged by parents or the community. Given the work involved in developing a rubric, a rubric-review process is generally used to select core materials. The next blog in this series will discuss a process for reviewing and selecting supplemental materials. If you need additional guidance developing or customizing rubrics, check out our 2-hour online rubric development course . This course is designed for anyone who is managing an adoption process - large or small. Additionally, our online Selection Toolkit provides standards-aligned, customizable rubrics for math English Language Arts and science.

In the first two blogs in this series, we offered guidance for planning an instructional materials adoption and customizing a rubric to reflect your district's priorities . Generally, districts would use that information when selecting core materials. Supplemental materials are most commonly selected at the campus level, and campus leaders typically rely on word of mouth (Wang et. al., 2019) when it comes to selecting new instructional materials. While core materials are more expensive than supplemental resources, most districts spend more money on supplemental resources overall, given the number of supplemental materials purchased each year.  Moreover, supplemental resources are often used to remediate struggling students. Thus, it is just as important to select standards-aligned, high-quality supplemental materials as core materials. To ensure that campuses purchase high-quality supplemental materials, implementing a structured process for reviewing and selecting supplemental resources would be prudent. Since supplemental materials are not as robust as core materials, a pared-down review process such as the one described below would suffice. (1) Articulate the need for the adoption. While a change in state standards is typically the impetus for selecting new core materials, many other factors compel districts/campuses to purchase new supplemental materials. For both financial and political reasons, district or campus leaders would be wise to document clearly why new supplemental materials are needed. (2) Establish a timeline . When developing a timeline for selecting supplemental materials, it is wise to work backward from the date the material must be in the classroom. Given that many supplemental materials these days are digital, be sure to allocate sufficient time for teacher training on how to use the new material. (3) Identify the selection committee . The makeup of the selection committee should depend on the type of material being adopted and the number of teachers who will use it. To secure buy-in for the material selected, a representative sample of the teachers who will be using the new material, as well as staff who will be supporting its implementation, should be on the selection committee. Including both experienced and inexperienced teachers will help ensure that the material selected will support teachers with a wide range of experience. (4) Document the review process logistics . To avoid delays in the process, document and communicate to the selection committee members where , when , and how they should access the product samples they will be reviewing and the date by which reviews must be completed. (5) Identify the non-negotiables . Just as for the adoption of core materials, district or campus leaders should identify the non-negotiables for the adoption of supplemental resources. Non-negotiables may include the budget, the minimum alignment percentage, the material's format, and the required supports for students. (6) Distribute a needs assessment . Before selecting a new supplemental material, it is important to gather feedback about the features teachers want and/or need. An easy way to do this would be to distribute a needs assessment survey to all teachers who will be using the new material and staff who will be supporting its implementation. The aggregated results of the needs assessment will provide the list of features teachers believe the new supplemental material must have to support their students. (7) Narrow the number of materials to be reviewed . Put together a list of supplemental materials to consider. The Learning List , a new, directory of K-12 instructional materials can save you hours of work. Then, use the list of non-negotiables and the needs assessment results to narrow the number of materials the selection committee will review. Optimally, the committee will review between three and five materials. (8) Develop a rubric/checklist of features for the selection committee to use for their reviews. In our previous blog Customizing an Instructional Materials Rubric To Reflect Your District’s Priorities , we discuss the benefits of using a rubric in an adoption process. For the selection of a supplemental resource, the same benefits could likely be achieved by developing a checklist of features rather than a full-blown rubric. The list of non-negotiables, the needs assessment results, state standards, and best practices for the content area and type of material being adopted may be useful resources when developing the checklist. Using a features checklist to select supplemental materials will ensure consistency in the review process and provide data to support a selection decision. (9) Test the features checklist.  As with a rubric, once the features checklist is complete, it would be prudent to run it by a few of the teachers who will be using the material that will be selected to make sure that the checklist (a) includes the features they believe are necessary, and (b) is a reasonable length. In the case of rubrics and checklists, more is not necessarily better. If the checklist is too long, selection committee members may not use it with fidelity to review each material, which would distort the data and could lead to the selection of the wrong material.  (10) Train the selection committee. It is important to provide training to ensure that all committee members understand the features listed in the checklist and how each is likely to be reflected in a material. For example, if one of the features on the checklist is alignment to standards, selection committee members need to understand what alignment means and how to evaluate a supplemental material for alignment to state standards . (11) Review the materials. While it may be necessary to allow committee members to review the materials on their own time, we have observed that convening reviewers in a room while they review the materials independently facilitates important, spontaneous conversations that lead to deeper reviews of the materials and consensus building around which material(s) meets the campus/district’s needs best. (12) Analyze the data and reconvene the selection committee to make a final selection. Once selection committee members have submitted their completed checklists, the person managing the selection process should analyze the responses to determine which material(s) contain(s) the greatest number of checklist features. The selection committee should then be reconvened to discuss the data with the goal of reaching a consensus about which material to select. The rationale for selecting that material should be documented clearly and communicated to the teachers who will be using the new material. Maintain The documentation should be maintained for several years in case the district’s use of the selected material is ever challenged. Research suggests that supplemental materials are most often selected at the campus level based on referrals from colleagues rather than as a result of a structured vetting process. Given how much districts spend on supplemental resources, the important role these materials play in preparing students for academic success, and the potential for a challenge by parents and/or community groups, adopting a structured process for reviewing and selecting supplemental materials would be prudent. Less time-consuming than the process for reviewing core materials, the process suggested in this blog solicits feedback from the relevant teachers, facilitates consistent reviews, and produces data to support the selection decision(s). If your district needs assistance selecting core or supplemental materials, contact us . Our reviews and comparison tools , online professional development courses , and selection toolkit or selection facilitation service , provide increasing levels of support. Wang, E., Tuma, A., Lawrence, R., Kaufman, J., Woo, A., and Henry, D. (2021) School Leaders' Role in Selecting and Supporting Teachers' Use of Instructional Materials: An Interview Study. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-9.html .

The state’s math standards recently changed, and your district purchased new instructional materials for mathematics. Teachers use the materials for a few months, but when students struggle to master the content, the teachers grow skeptical about the material’s quality. Increasingly, they turn to lesson resources they have developed themselves or borrowed from their colleagues. The district’s math materials gather dust, and district leaders are left with curriculum chaos. That scenario, which has played out in districts across the country for decades, was our impetus for founding Learning List a decade ago and remains our call to action.  This week is Learning List’s 10th anniversary, a time for celebration and reflection. We founded Learning List’s subscription-based instructional materials review service as an economical way to help educators access independent, evidence-based curriculum reviews to inform districts/campuses' purchasing decisions.  Over the years, other entities have begun reviewing instructional materials, including more state education agencies. So, what sets Learning List apart?  We expand districts’ choices and inform local control.  Like Consumer Reports®, Learning List is a private company, independent from publishers and free from political influence. States and other review entities rate and rank materials with the goal of identifying "the best" materials for districts to use. We do not. We calculate an alignment percentage, but we do not rank or rate the materials we review. We provide our subscribing districts with access to easy-to-read, evidence-based reviews of thousands of widely-used PreK-12 instructional materials and comparison tools that empower them to select the materials that meet their students’ needs best.  We provide a curriculum review service . While states' and other entities' reviews are driven by publishers' submissions, requests from subscribing districts drive our review process. Consequently, our library is filled with reviews of the materials districts are most interested in. We also assist districts in finding answers to selection-related questions and help facilitate local adoption processes. In short, Learning List provides a review service , not just a website with reviews. Our curriculum reviews are published within a timeframe that meets educators' needs. Most review entities take months to publish their reviews. While each material is reviewed by multiple subject matter experts , our efficient review methodology and strict adherence to deadlines enable us to publish an alignment report , instructional quality review , and technology compatibility review for each material within six weeks of the material's submission. We have reviewed many more and a greater variety of materials than other entities. Other entities review materials aligned to a specific state's standards or national standards. We have reviewed materials aligned to multiple states’ and national standards. We have reviewed more than 3,300 core and supplemental materials published by almost 200 publishers . Our reviews span the four core subjects and several others, including Career & Technical Education, Health Education, Technology Applications, and Advanced Placement courses. No other review entity has the equivalent breadth or depth of experience reviewing materials. Our reviews and tools are useful beyond the selection process. Most other entities produce reviews to help educators select materials. Our reviews and online tools inform instruction, as well as selection decisions. Educators use our standard-by-standard alignment reports and comparison tools to develop targeted instruction and/or intervention with the materials they have purchased. As educators know all too well, the price does not necessarily equate with value. Despite the existence of free reviews, we are celebrating our 10 th anniversary because the value districts get from our review service far exceeds the low subscription price. Over the years, we have added other curriculum support services to meet districts’ evolving needs. We look forward to partnering with many more districts to expand their capacity, relieve their workload and provide peace of mind.

When purchasing supplemental materials, how much weight should you give to the alignment percentage? In this blog, we explore the differences between comprehensive and supplemental materials when it comes to assessing alignment. Educators in every district are working hard this year to close students' Covid-19-related learning gaps. Consequently, many campuses and districts are selecting supplemental materials. This blog  discusses important differences between supplemental and comprehensive (also referred to as core) materials to help set realistic expectations of supplemental materials .  As the blog discusses, one of the characteristics that define a high-quality comprehensive material is a high alignment percentage - the percentage of standards to which the material is aligned. Is the same true of supplemental materials? The alignment of a material to the state standards is an indicator of whether the material teaches what the standards require students to learn. While it is just as important to consider the alignment of supplemental materials as it is core materials, the alignment percentage of supplemental materials may not be all-telling. Here's why. A supplemental material should be aligned to and provide sufficient practice for each of the standards you will use it to teach. But you may not be buying the supplemental material to teach all of the standards. For example, is it critical for a science test prep material to be aligned to 100 percent of the grade-level science standards, or is more important for it to be aligned to and provide multiple activities for the standards that are eligible for assessment? Similarly, if you are purchasing a material to provide students with intensive practice on fractions , do you need the material to be aligned to all grade level math standards - or is it more important for it to be aligned to and provide copious practice on just the standards that address fractions? Because comprehensive materials are used as the primary material for the course, they should be aligned to the highest percentage of state standards possible. Supplemental materials, however, are used for more specific purposes. Thus, the percentage of standards to which a supplemental material is aligned is less important than whether the material is well aligned to the standards it will be used to teach. For more guidance on selecting supplemental materials, see our whitepapers, " Navigating to Successful Student Outcomes with Standards-Aligned Instruction " and " Guidance for Selecting or Curating High-Quality Instructional Resources ."

Over the last three years, yours, like most districts, likely scrambled to meet students’ needs in lots of new ways. The district may have purchased new materials to support at-home learning. Teachers may have subscribed to online resources individually.  And, since students returned to school, intervention, and tutoring resources have likely been purchased. When you analyze the current list of materials in your district, do you have an abundance of instructional materials? If so, are all being utilized, and are they meeting the needs of your students and educators? Having too many instructional materials can be as challenging as not having enough materials. Too many resources complicate teacher planning and can lead to a lack of consistency in curriculum implementation across classrooms or campuses. The result: curriculum chaos. Auditing your instructional materials will help you determine which materials are adding value for students and educators and which are no longer meeting their needs. Below are 4 steps to help you audit your current instructional materials : Inventory your materials: Create a list of the materials being used in each grade and subject or course. Identify where you have instructional materials that appear to be duplicative. Add columns to your list to answer the following questions for grades and subjects or courses where you appear to have an abundance of materials. Material type: Is the material core, supplemental, test prep, or intervention? Alignment: Does the material have a correlation to the standards? Has the alignment to standards been verified? Student Supports: Are the materials designed to support specific student needs (e.g., closed captioning, translations, audio support, visual content) Student Supports: Are the materials designed to support specific student needs (e.g., closed captioning, translations, audio support, visual content) ? Cost: What is the unit cost of the material (one-time purchase or subscription)? Identify redundancies: Are there supplemental materials in your list that appear redundant in terms of material type, students served, and targeted standards? For each of those materials determine the following: Which of those has the higher alignment percentage? Which has the higher usage rate? After completing the audit share the results with stakeholders in your district such as curriculum staff, English learner and bilingual coordinators, principals, and your instructional materials selection committee. Let the data guide your decisions about which materials to keep and which to discontinue. As with selecting new materials , eliminating materials is an important decision. Thus, using a data-driven process with buy-in from educators will help you reduce curriculum chaos and bring organization to your instructional materials.

If you have perceived an increase in state control over the adoption of instructional materials, you are not alone. This blog explains the reason for the shift away from districts' control over the selection and use of instructional materials. In a recent EdWeek article , education leaders who shaped the standards movement argue “that states should be doing more ‘quality control’ when it comes to instructional materials—signaling which are high-quality and incentivizing and supporting districts to use them.” Citing the findings of a 2022 RAND Corporation study , the architects of the Common Core State Standards argue that states that have implemented 1) a vetting process to identify high-quality instructional materials, and 2) professional learning to support the implementation of those materials, have seen improvement in student achievement. It seems difficult to draw that conclusion based on the findings of the RAND study which, as explained below, draws no connection between specific state policies and student achievement results. It is noteworthy that the development of the Common Core state standards and the Rand Study referenced above were funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CCSSO and EdReports also receive funding from The Gates Foundation. The High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) Network The RAND study analyzed the work of the High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) Network. Formed in 2017, the IMPD Network is a group of 13 states convened by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to promote districts' adoption and teachers' use of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). The IMPD Network initially included 8 states: Delaware, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, which dropped out in 2022. Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas had joined by 2020. (Doan, et al. 2022, 7) Instructional Materials and Professional Development Network (IMPD) Strategies Pursuant to the CCSSO policy roadmap , the IMPD Network states implement a variety of "signals and incentives" to encourage the adoption, use, and support of HQIMs by districts and teachers. These include: (1) Signaling the quality of materials: All IMPD network states provide information about the quality of instructional materials to guide districts about the types of materials they should adopt. Recognizing that states have varying definitions of HQIM, the study focuses on standards alignment as a universal measure of quality. For purposes of this study, the term "standards-aligned curriculum materials" refers to any materials that EdReports has judged as fully meeting the expectations of college-and career-ready standards. (Doan, et al. 2022, xi) In other words, materials counted as HQIMs for purposes of this study are not necessarily aligned to state standards. Besides identifying state-sanctioned HQIMs, other signals these states are using to encourage districts to adopt HQIM include (a) posting a list of the instructional materials districts are using on the state department of education's website, and (b) posting guidance/rubrics to facilitate districts' selection of HQIM. A few of the Network states mandate district adoption of state-adopted instructional materials. (2) Incentivizing the adoption of HQIM: Most network states also tie funding, including Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relieve (ESSER) funds, state grants, and competitive funding, to the selection of HQIM . In other words, districts are not eligible for grants unless they agree to use certain state-sanctioned HQIMs. Some IMPD Network states also enter into state contracts with HQIM publishers to lower the price and make it easier for districts to purchase HQIMs. (3) Providing professional learning aligned to the HQIM: Most IMPD Network states also incentivize districts to purchase HQIMs by providing school/district staff with professional learning aligned to the HQIMs to ensure successful implementation. The states also incentivize districts to select certain professional learning vendors that meet state-adopted criteria. (4) Engaging with educator preparation programs : IMPD Network states are beginning to work with teacher prep programs to increase focus on using HQIM within classes and clinical experiences. (Doan, et al. 2022, 8-9) Table A.1. identifies the specific signals and incentives that have been implemented in each of the 13 IMPD states. (Doan, et al. 2022, 91-93). While cloaked in terms of fostering local control (e.g., encouraging, incentivizing), the IMPD Network states' signals and incentives actually limit districts' choice of instructional materials. RAND Report's Theory of Action and Findings So have the IMPD signals and incentives worked? The RAND study set out to investigate the extent to which being in the IMPD network predicted districts' adoption and teachers' use of standards-aligned materials. The study analyzed teacher survey responses collected through the American Instructional Resources Surveys (AIRS) since 2019. (Doan, et al. 2022, 6) Comparing the responses of teachers in the 13 IMPD Network states to teachers nationally, the authors conclude that "participation in the IMPD Network was positively linked to the usage of standards-aligned materials," (Doan, et al. 2022, 86). However, they also acknowledge that there was "a high level of variation across the 13 states in the IMPD Network regarding the adoption of standards-aligned materials" in math (Doan, et al. 2022, 20) and ELA. (Doan, et al. 2022, 23). As illustrated in Figure 3.6: (1) for ELA, 41% of teachers in the original IMPD Network states and 38% of teachers in the new IMPD Network states reported that their district had adopted at least one standards-aligned material as compared with 29% of teachers in non-IMPD network states. (2) for math, 56% of teachers in the original IMPD Network states and 30% of teachers in new IMPD Network states reported that their district adopted at least one standards-aligned material as compared to 45% of teachers in non-IMPD states. (Doan, et al. 2022, 28) The data show that after three years of implementing the IMPD's signals and incentives, the number of districts that have adopted at least one standards-aligned curriculum has increased by approximately 10 percent. Report's Suggestions for State and District Policymakers The study makes the following suggestions to state and district policymakers: (1) State networks, like the IMPD Network, have great potential for shifting teaching and learning at scale . The authors acknowledge, however, "We do not know as much about the specific mechanisms by which the IMPD Network has led to shifts across participating states and whether shifts in the usage of standards-aligned materials will be sustained and have clear effects on student achievement, which could be the focus on follow-on research." (Doan, et al. 2022, 88) (2) To increase usage of and support for standards-aligned materials in the classroom, focus first on encouraging adoption of standards-aligned materials . The authors repeatedly note that districts' adoption of standards-aligned materials is a critical precursor to teachers' use of those materials: "Very few teachers reported that they used a standards-aligned material if they did not report that their school or district had adopted one." (Doan, et al. 2022, 89) (3) State requirements likely encourage more adoption of standards-aligned materials, but other levers, such as those increasing buy-in for use of standards-aligned materials among principals and teachers, might also encourage adoption and use . The study highlights the fact that states that mandated district adoption of HQIMs saw an increase in teachers' use of those materials. However, a few other states, such as Louisiana, Delaware and Nebraska, also saw increases in teachers' use of standards-aligned materials without mandates. The authors conclude that "absent mandates, much consensus-building, long-term work is necessary to encourage a high rate of usage of standards-aligned materials." (4) Encouraging buy-in among principals and teachers regarding the importance of using standards-aligned materials—rather than simply requiring use—could be an effective strategy for encouraging more use of those materials . Suggested principal-focused strategies include (a) professional development to help school leaders promote the implementation of HQIM in their schools, and (b) state-created tools for teacher observations that include consideration of whether teachers use HQIM in their lessons. (Doan, et al. 2022, 89) (5) Efforts to improve teachers’ understanding of what is standards-aligned and what is not could encourage greater usage of standards-aligned materials . One strategy to improve teacher buy-in and perceived adequacy of their materials was the use of curriculum ambassadors or lead teachers who serve as advocates for the material and support their colleagues in implementing HQIM. (Doan, et al. 2022, 89-90) (6) School systems leaders must lean into supports for standards-aligned materials to ensure uptake in usage . The report states, "As indicated by our findings, states likely play a large role in the adoption of standards-aligned materials. . . . chool systems themselves likely play the greatest role when it comes to the provision of supports, which, in turn, are connected to higher usage of standards-aligned materials. " (Doan, et al. 2022, 90) Our Analysis In the wake of the 2008 recession, many states loosened the reigns on districts' selection of instructional materials. Several states abandoned their state adoption process completely; others made the state adoption lists advisory rather than obligatory. Over the last few years, the pendulum has started to swing back and the RAND study explains why. Thirteen states in the CCSSO-led IMPD have implemented policies to wrest control over the selection and use of instructional materials away from districts and teachers with the goal of increasing the quality of materials used in the classrooms. How many more states will join the IMPD Network? Time will tell. The EdWeek article and RAND study cited above certainly aim to encourage participation. Policymakers and educators agree that using standards-aligned, high-quality materials fuels student achievement. They disagree over who should decide which materials are high quality. The architects of the Common Core and the CCSSO believe states should make that determination. However, local control over the selection and use of instructional materials is a long-held and deeply-rooted belief. To facilitate the achievement of the communal goal while also respecting local control, Learning List provides a range of resources, including online professional development courses , state-specific instructional material alignment reviews , and online Selection Toolkit , that empower districts and educators to select materials that are aligned to their state standards and provide the instruction and supports their students need. * Doan, Sy, Julia H. Kaufman, Ashley Woo, Andrea Prado Tuma, Melissa Kay Diliberti, and Sabrina Lee. 2022, " How States Are Creating Conditions for Use of High-Quality Instructional Materials in K–12 Classrooms: Findings from the 2021 American Instructional Resources Survey ." https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.html.

Caveat Emptor … a Latin phrase meaning, “Buyer Beware.” For centuries buyers have been held to a standard of due diligence; do your homework before you buy or suffer the consequences. Purchasing instructional materials is the single largest annual purchase a school district typically makes. To put it in context: school districts spend more on instructional materials annually than you paid for your house. A purchase that large certainly merits careful due diligence. Before we purchase a house, we engage a realtor and spend weeks even months visiting multiple houses on the market. We compare the features of each house against our mental list of "must haves" and select the house that exhibits the largest number of our "must-haves." Do districts exercise the same level of diligence before purchasing instructional materials? Traditionally, reviewing instructional materials before the district makes its selection decisions is a task delegated to overworked educators. Teachers review the available materials at vendor fairs, in their “spare” time at school and at home, and during interminable selection committee meetings. The same process is relied upon despite the fact that instructional materials have become increasingly complex and difficult to review. So, when it comes to buying new materials, how does your district avoid making a (multi) million-dollar mistake? Here are a few common mistakes districts make when purchasing instructional materials and some suggested solutions. Mistake #1: Rushing to Select Instructional Materials Many districts believe sooner is better when it comes to making a selection decision. Their goal is to complete their instructional materials selection process by early February or March. Some do this to ensure that the materials reach classrooms before school starts. However, most core materials are now available digitally, eliminating the need for a long delivery timeline. Other districts believe that state law requires school boards to approve materials by March or early April. In Texas, for example, districts must submit requisitions to purchase state-adopted materials to the Texas Education Agency by June 1st of the proclamation year. While publishers may impose a deadline for orders, most states do not require districts to purchase materials by a date certain. It is not wise to rush your selection and review process. Most new-to-market materials are not completed until a few months before they are to be delivered. Publishers start selling the concept of a material long before the material is finally published. Similarly, in "adoption" states, publishers submit the content of their new materials for state and public review, while the product features and functionality are still being built. Districts that rely on the publishers' claims or rely on the publicly available digital samples are relying on publishers' promises of what the product will look like, do, and contain. While publishers may intend to develop all of the functionality promised, 11th-hour production impediments may prevent the final product from containing all of those features. Bottom line : since most core instructional materials are available digitally, districts generally do not need to order materials as early as they used to. It is prudent to wait to make selection decisions until you have reviewed the available published products. Doing so will likely result in less disappointment and fewer purchased materials that go unused. Mistake #2: Believing Publisher's Alignment Claims First, why is alignment so important? Teachers expect that the district-provided core materials are aligned to 100% of the state's standards. If those materials are not 100% aligned, teachers may not teach all the knowledge/skills required by the standards. If students are not taught what the standards require them to know and be able to do, they are less likely to succeed academically. Teachers, as well as campuses and districts, are evaluated based on their students’ performance. In sales presentations, publishers generally claim that their materials are "aligned to the ." After all, if they did not make such claims, districts would not purchase their materials. Having reviewed thousands of PreK-12 instructional materials, Learning List can state with certainty, that most materials are not as well aligned to the state standards as publishers claim. Bottom line : the alignment of your district's instructional materials will inevitably impact students' scores, which in turn will impact teacher evaluations and campus and district ratings. Therefore, it is crucial to know the alignment percentage of materials your district is considering purchasing. If your district decides to have teachers review the alignment of the materials being considered for adoption, it is important to have more than one teacher check the alignment of each material for each grade level. Why? Determining alignment is an inherently subjective endeavor. Having a few teachers working together to check the material's alignment reduces the subjectivity of alignment determinations. This whitepaper discusses common alignment challenges and strategies for overcoming them. If the district lacks the time or capacity to perform alignment reviews internally, Learning List's low-cost subscription instructional materials review service provides access to independent alignment reviews of thousands of the most widely used PreK-12 instructional materials conducted by highly experienced, trained educators . Mistake #3: Assuming Alignment is Consistent Across Grade Levels It is easy to assume that the alignment percentage of a material for one grade level is reflective of the material's alignment at all grade levels. Learning List's alignment reviews tell another story. There are many reasons why the alignment of a material may vary significantly from grade level to grade level. A different author may have written the material's content and/or a different person may have constructed the publisher's correlation at each grade level. The material's content may not progress in rigor at the same pace as the standards do. The material may not address a certain strand or domain that is emphasized more in one grade level than others. Bottom line : to prepare students effectively to master the standards, teachers must know which standards the material is aligned to in each grade level so that they can adjust their instructional strategies accordingly. Do not assume that the alignment percentage at one grade level is representative of the product’s alignment at all grade levels, or even at all grade levels within a single grade span. If your district is going to purchase multi-grade level material, check the alignment of the material at each grade level . Districts spend millions of dollars each year on new instructional materials. Basing purchasing decisions on incomplete materials will inevitably lead to disappointment and frustration. If you are considering new-to-market materials, prolong the review process to ensure that your district has reviewed the published edition that teachers will be using. One of the biggest predictors of a material's impact on student learning is its alignment to state standards. Before purchasing a new material, be sure to have an independent verification of the material's alignment to your state standards for each grade level you will be purchasing. Your teachers, students, and taxpayers deserve it.

Will you be participating in curriculum writing this year? If so, mapping resources to the district curriculum is a critical task in the process. Having materials mapped to the district curriculum saves teachers hours of work and helps facilitate standards-aligned instruction. This two-part blog series contains stepped-out guidance and important tips to help you map your resources to the district's curriculum.  The first blog provides tips to help you prepare for an efficient process. We discuss: developing a common definition of alignment, becoming familiar with your materials, and selecting citations (lessons, activities quizzes) in your materials to map to the district curriculum. The second blog  discusses: how to cite the aligned content in your material, where to look for additional aligned citations, resources for resolving alignment disagreements, and more.  If these DIY resources do not provide sufficient support, consider our new online courses : What Alignment Means and Why It Matters  (and How to Do It!) Mapping Instructional Materials to Your Curriculum These two-hour, self-paced courses provide instruction, skills practice, and a workbook to help you master the art of mapping your instructional materials to your district curriculum. Individual educators can enroll in a pre-scheduled course ($35 per course). Participants have two weeks to complete the course, and a certificate of completion is provided for professional learning credit., Alternatively, districts/campuses can enroll in a "closed" course facilitated by Learning LIst's Chief Academic Officer.   Contact us to learn more about the courses.