What State Education Agencies Can Learn from Efforts to Advance High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Learning

Photo by Gorodenkoff/Adobe Stock

The Evolving Role of State Education Agencies

Historically, local school districts in the United States have held primary responsibility for selecting instructional materials. These materials outline students’ course of study and are intended to address the specific needs of both students and educators. However, critics of this decentralized approach claim that it creates inefficiencies, fails to incorporate best practices, and perpetuates disparities in instructional quality across school districts.

In response, state education agencies (SEAs) have become more active over the past two decades in promoting high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and high-quality professional learning (HQPL). State policymakers’ interest in HQIM and HQPL is driven by the need for better alignment between instructional materials and state standards and by evidence that student test scores improve when teachers use materials closely aligned with those standards.

Despite increased state involvement, SEAs face challenges because of the limited capacity to influence decisions traditionally made by local school districts. Strengthening SEA capacity is needed to advance more effective policy design and implementation of HQIM and HQPL. This brief summarizes results and implications from a study of one effort, the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) Network, to support states in this area.

IMPD Network and Key Policy Areas

In 2017, CCSSO launched the IMPD Network, a multistate coalition to advance HQIM and HQPL. As of the 2023–2024 school year, the network consists of 14 member states. The IMPD Network was created to systematically help SEAs strengthen their capacity through such supports as coaching, peer learning convenings, and supplemental funding. The IMPD Network also supplies SEAs with a comprehensive shared framework (IMPD Roadmap) within which it operates, consisting of the following five key policy areas:

• Communicate with, learn from, and gain support of allies for HQIM work.
• Increase local education agencies’ selection and use of HQIM by signaling the quality of instructional materials and incentivizing their selection and use.
• Increase the number of teachers who participate in HQPL that is grounded in skillful use of HQIM.
• Increase the number of educator preparation programs (EPPs) that prepare new educators to identify and skillfully use HQIM.
• Collect and analyze data to support continuous improvement and understand outcomes.

The IMPD Network offers SEAs guidance on effective and locally relevant strategies to pursue these goals with the aim to advance HQIM adoption and HQPL participation.

Evaluating How the IMPD Network Shapes State Education Policy and Practice

The Walton Family Foundation engaged RAND researchers to evaluate the implementation and impact of the IMPD Network’s HQIM policy work and state support initiatives. Researchers used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate how the IMPD Network supports policymakers in their member states and whether these efforts have translated into policy development, increased policymaking capacity, and changes in teacher engagement with HQIM and HQPL participation. Researchers collected data through interviews with IMPD Network leaders and staff, coaches, SEA leaders, and district leaders, as well as from observations of IMPD coaching sessions. Researchers also analyzed IMPD coach reports on state progress, reviewed HQIM policies across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and examined data from the 2019–2024 American Instructional Resources Survey of teachers and principals nationwide.

Findings and Recommendations for SEAs

Key findings from this evaluation can inform curriculum policy reforms for SEAs, including those outside the IMPD Network. Below, RAND researchers summarize these findings and offer recommendations intended to benefit both IMPD states and non-IMPD states.

Coaching and Peer Supports Strengthens SEA Organizational Capacity

The IMPD Network provides member states with consistent, clearly specified goals and structures, paired with opportunities to tailor their policy work to their local context. State teams described benefiting from the supports provided by IMPD—especially access to their IMPD coach and the regular IMPD convenings. States also benefited from access to connections and expertise across the IMPD Network, including with peer states.

Notably, IMPD state leaders reported that these supports contributed to improvements in SEAs’ organizational capacity, including improved alignment of SEA structures, routines, and activities; enhanced access to knowledge and expertise; and increased staff knowledge and skills.

The recommendations for building SEA capacity are as follows:

• Define and prioritize goals: Identify clear goals related to each aspect of HQIM and HQPL policy work (e.g., signaling, adoption, training, use). Create opportunities for SEA team members to regularly dedicate time to maintain a consistent focus on these priorities.
• Leverage coaching expertise: Seek experienced coaches and consultants with policy expertise and strong project management skills to assist leaders and their teams in managing complex policy development and implementation work.
• Identify peer networks: Identify peers in similar roles in other SEAs to share experiences and learning on shared policy goals.
• Address capacity gaps for policy implementation: Analyze the SEAs’ organizational capacity gaps, pursue alignment of structures, routines, and activities for improvements, and provide support to overcome challenges in policy implementation.

SEAs Benefit from Adopting Strategies to Advance HQIM and HQPL Policies

HQIM work is complex and requires measurement at multiple levels to realize the goals of adoption and skillful use of HQIM at scale. Both IMPD states and their coaches agreed that state HQIM work was furthest along in helping schools and districts identify and acquire HQIM, while progress was slower on policies that targeted HQPL and EPPs.

As SEAs pursued each IMPD Roadmap policy area, they purposefully used strategies to help incentivize and support the adoption and skillful use of HQIM. Despite these efforts, state leaders identified challenges in implementation, such as limited or variable district compliance in reporting their HQIM. District respondents also noted complex, locally determined practices for curriculum selection.

As of April 2024, IMPD Network states were more likely than non-IMPD states to have policies related to HQIM and HQPL. Although some non-IMPD states implemented HQIM-related strategies similar to those of member states, these efforts were generally more limited in scale and showed less evidence of alignment with state standards.

Teacher self-reported HQIM use and HQPL participation, especially in English language arts, were higher in states that are IMPD members or have policies supporting HQIM use. Because of recent Science of Reading legislation, both IMPD states and non-IMPD states were more likely to have HQIM-related policy for reading and literacy instruction in elementary grades than in other grades and subjects.

The recommendations for advancing HQIM and HQPL policies are as follows:

• Leverage national movements and adapt existing policy strategies: Capitalize on broader national policy movements, such as the Science of Reading movement, to build urgency and allyship around advancing HQIM and HQPL work. When identifying policy strategies, review policy approaches used in peer states to identify promising options and consider adaptations for local fit.
• Ensure long-term sustainability: Plan for the sustainability of funding and staffing to support HQIM and HQPL initiatives when developing and implementing new procedures and processes. Partnering with external organizations can be an effective method for carrying forward initiatives amid SEA staff turnover. These external partnerships enable SEAs to nimbly respond to emergent needs.
• Integrate state policy with school district practices: Analyze existing district policies and activities related to HQIM and HQPL prior to implementation. Provide clear guidance on how new state policies or activities will supplement, supplant, or integrate with existing district practices.
• Track district administrator, school leader, and educator actions indicating HQIM implementation: Identify the behavioral changes envisioned for district administrators, school leaders, educators, and other support staff. Set measurable targets and monitor implementation progress to support these shifts.

Topics

• Education Administration
• Education Curriculum
• Education Policy
• Education Reform
• Educational Institutions