ASU+GSV 2025 Panel Recap

Together, this panel explored how state leaders are using curriculum data to drive better decisions and more coherent, equitable instructional systems for students and educators.*

*Note: These responses are highlights from the 2025 ASU+GSV panel discussion, and are edited for clarity. This blog is intended as a recap, not a full transcript.

Michelle (Moderator): The work that you do at the Center for Education Market Dynamics is really around collecting and sharing curriculum information and data. When this first started, it was a bit of a novel idea. From your perspective, what have you seen and learned through that journey? What gaps are emerging and what has been most valuable about us actually taking a market perspective on curriculum implementation?

Lora Kaiser (CEMD): We started with one core question: What materials are getting selected on behalf of which students, and in what districts? That was four years ago. Today, we’ve mapped over 2,600 districts—covering over 60% of all US. students and nearly 80% of historically underserved students. We now have three years of data for more than 1,000 districts.

This data allows us to ask and answer new questions about instructional coherence. For example, only 4% of districts have the same math program across K–12. That kind of insight prompts strategic action. States can now ask: What do we have in place? What do we need to supplement? And how can we align our professional learning to what teachers are actually using?

We often compare it to opening a fridge where all the labels are redacted. You can’t prepare a meaningful meal without knowing what ingredients you have. The same applies to supporting students: You need to know what materials are in play. That visibility is what makes intentional, equity-driven support possible.

Michelle: Cory, you led one of the first breakthrough efforts in your time in Nebraska supporting the curriculum heat map. What were some of the driving forces behind why that was critical for a state? And how are you seeing that play out in schools and states now through your work at TNTP?

Cory Epler (TNTP): In 2017, we had no idea what districts were using. After visiting Louisiana, where they were leveraging HQIM to drive improvement, I realized we could do the same—even in a local control state like Nebraska.

The data allowed us to provide targeted support, especially for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools. When we asked leaders to develop improvement plans, they often didn’t even know what curriculum they were using. Instead of chasing the latest trend, we helped them focus on foundational elements like a high-quality K–3 literacy program.

Today, with partners like CEMD, we’re supporting states to collect and visualize this data, helping them move from visibility to action.

Michelle: Craig, you’ve taken some of this work to the next level in Massachusetts by creating an interactive dashboard that offers real visibility into what districts are using. Can you walk us through that process? What decisions led you here, and what decisions do you hope others will make as a result?

Craig Waterman (MA DESE): Five years ago, we couldn’t even say which materials we thought were good. We started with ad hoc surveys and heat maps that frankly weren’t reliable. Over time, with CEMD’s help, we built a dashboard that now includes data from 96% of districts.

This tool is designed for use. Districts can log in, view their own data, and fix inaccuracies in real time. They can also explore what other districts are using and how materials are rated. It helps leaders make informed decisions and even fosters regional collaboration.

Our next step is to expand this across content areas and start using longitudinal data to understand trends and impact over time.

Michelle: Lora, what have you seen be most effective over the past four years in helping states ensure their curriculum data is actionable for the communities they serve?

Lora: This is a journey. Some states have public dashboards. Some collect data but don’t share it. Others can’t collect it at all. Wherever a state is, the most important thing is having a strategic vision rooted in equity and student success.

It starts with asking the right questions: What do we want to know? Why does it matter? And how will we use it? From there, it’s about building step by step. States like Massachusetts and New Mexico are leading the way, but every state can begin that journey.

Michelle: Cory, how is this playing out at the district level? How are districts using this information, and what do you hope they’ll leverage it for?

Cory: At first, there was fear—that the state would use the data to create a list or shame districts. But our goal was to make smart, supportive decisions. For example, we learned that 60 districts were using Amplify Science. That insight let us design better support systems.Now in states like Kansas, we’re using stakeholder interviews to ensure the data is used constructively. Regional service centers can use it to align supports across multiple districts. It’s about making this a tool for improvement, not accountability.

Michelle: Final question. What’s one big takeaway or invitation you want the audience to walk away with from this national journey on HQIM and state data?

Cory: Materials are just the floor. We have to support implementation, too. That’s where real impact happens.

Craig: We’ve made progress on adoption, but now we need to capture implementation data. Coherence and support systems are critical.

Lora: HQIM can’t be treated in isolation. Students experience a mix of tools every day. We need to focus on unlocking coherence across the instructional system.

Explore our latest research to dive deeper into instructional coherence and see how districts are making decisions about core and supplemental math materials. And stay tuned for more insights and tools from CEMD on how state leadership and data can drive more equitable, coherent learning experiences for all students.