ASU+GSV 2025: Audience Q&A

Thank you for joining us at this year’s ASU+GSV Summit for The View From the Top: Leveraging State Data to Increase HQIM. Hosted by CEMD and moderated by Michelle Odemwingie, CEO of ANet, the session featured panelists Cory Epler from TNTP, Lora Kaiser from CEMD, and Craig Waterman from MA DESE.

The conversation focused on how state education agencies are leveraging curriculum data to strengthen decision-making and create more coherent, student-centered systems. This document captures key audience questions and panelist insights from the session.

Q1: You mentioned that five years ago you weren’t able to collect this data in Massachusetts. What changed from a policy standpoint that allowed you to make that shift?

Craig Waterman (MA DESE): It’s true—we weren’t even allowed to say what materials we thought were high quality. There was a cultural hesitation and legal concern about making those judgments without a transparent process. So we developed a review process that allowed us to say, factually, whether materials met expectations, using tools like the CURATE review. We also talked to superintendents to see if they wanted this data—they did. That support helped us make the case to our leadership.

Q2: You mentioned the challenge of tracking implementation. How wide-ranging is that, and what are you looking at when you say “implementation data”?

Craig Waterman (MA DESE): It varies a lot. We ran a grant with 54 districts we thought were strong implementers, and even within that group, there was a wide range—from materials not being used at all to inconsistent or ineffective use. Structural issues like lack of PD days or planning time really got in the way. We also saw cases where teachers followed a lesson perfectly but missed the purpose entirely. So, we need to think about things like coaching, PD, and expectations for special education. It’s about much more than just having the materials.

Q3: Were you collecting curriculum data through surveys, contracts, or another method?

Lora Kaiser (CEMD): We use a mix of sources but try to avoid burdening district leaders. We prioritize accessing publicly available data, contracts, and other records.

Craig Waterman (MA DESE): We started with surveys but moved to a secure reporting portal. It’s self-reported by districts, but they can quickly correct errors. We rely on what superintendents say they’re using.

Cory Epler (TNTP): Self-reporting works, but accuracy can be tough—especially with materials that have multiple versions or publishers. That’s where partners like CEMD really help with accurate lists and dropdowns.

Q4: Within the list of high-quality instructional materials, some are easier for teachers to use than others. Should states go further and say which are the best among them?

Cory Epler (TNTP): It really depends on the political landscape. Some states are comfortable offering guidance or even narrowing to a shortlist. Others won’t go beyond offering a vetted list. Regardless, districts still have to make decisions. That’s why strong selection processes that engage educators and communities are essential.

Lora Kaiser (CEMD): It’s also about making sure teachers experience the materials before large-scale adoption. One partner had teachers test lessons from different programs—it helped them see beyond the flashiness and focus on usability. Teacher voice is key.

Q5: What role, if any, do curriculum publishers play in gathering or validating this data?

Lora Kaiser (CEMD): If a provider wants to be part of a national story about curriculum use, they should reach out. There’s a lot of potential for mutual benefit. Providers often don’t even know where their products are used after adoption, especially over a 6-10 year cycle.

Cory Epler (TNTP): We’re interested in partnering with publishers who want to support strong implementation. It’s especially helpful when they understand internalization protocols and how their tools fit within district systems.

Q6: I noticed CEMDs market explorer only covers K-8. Is there a similar tool for 9-12?

Lora Kaiser (CEMD): The current Market Explorer focuses on district curriculum selection for Grades K-8. However, CEMD collects and analyzes district curriculum selection data across K-12. For more information about what has been selected for Grades 9-12, read High School Math: Examining the State of the Curriculum Market or contact us at info@cemd.org.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for the session—and a special thanks to those who asked thoughtful questions that deepened the conversation. We hope this Q&A offers valuable insight and continues to spark reflection on the role of state curriculum data in advancing HQIM.