California’s New Math Instructional Materials List: Five Ways District Leaders Can Turn Selection Into Success

The Center for Education Market Dynamics • November 11, 2025

Guest Author: Lora Kaiser, Executive Director, CEMD

For the first time in a decade, California has released a new list of state-approved math instructional materials – 64 options representing 29 distinct product families, spanning kindergarten through Algebra 1. This long-awaited list is undoubtedly an important milestone for the state’s 5.5 million students, especially those who’ve long been underserved. But the real question isn’t what’s on the list — it’s what will happen next.

California’s district leaders have been working from a 2014 materials list, so this moment signals progress. Many of today’s materials reflect a decade of evolution: fresh approaches with deeper understanding of instructional shifts, strong digital tools, and thoughtful incorporation of supports for all learners. Seventeen publishers on this list weren’t present in 2014, and many have expanded their offerings. This list highlights a more modern market – and that’s good news.

But a list cannot deliver improved student outcomes on its own. It doesn’t tell district leaders how well these materials work for multilingual learners, how much professional learning teachers will need, or how districts should weigh evidence of usability. And without intentional, targeted support, many districts – especially smaller or under-resourced ones – will struggle to translate a lengthy menu of options into equitable, effective instruction.

CEMD’s recent analyses of the math curriculum landscape in California found that over 80% of K–5 students are using math materials from 2018 or earlier, and nearly a quarter are still on programs from the 2014 adoption list. In middle school, 84% of students access materials from 2018 or earlier. And districts serving high percentages of students from low-income families, students of color, multilingual learners, and rural communities are even more likely to rely on outdated materials.

In a recent discussion with partners supporting California districts, experts made clear the list opens the door, but capacity determines who walks through it. As Rivet Education’s Annie Morrison put it, “Adoption lays the foundation, but it’s important to remember that the implementation journey is the path to improved student outcomes.” UnboundEd’s Allison Carter reminded leaders to “go slow to go fast.” In other words, set a clear instructional vision, winnow aggressively, then go deep with reviews and pilots.

This is why the list is not sufficient on its own. Districts are left to do the heavy lifting: conducting local reviews, piloting materials, engaging teachers and communities, and ensuring that implementation aligns with their instructional vision. Some districts may have the support and infrastructure to do this; many will not.

---

With this in mind – and after listening and learning across the state – I have five recommendations for district leaders:

1. Ensure you have a clear vision for mathematics success in your district. What do you want to be true for your students? Your community? Taking the time to define and align on that vision is a critical step that allows every conversation a clear anchor to lean back on.
2. Center multilingual learners. Crystal Gonzales, Executive Director of the English Learners Success Forum, points out that nearly one in five California students identify as multilingual learners, meaning their needs must be non-negotiable from the very beginning – baked into rubrics and pilots, not an afterthought.
3. Build capacity. Orange County Department of Education’s Jody Guarino described a “classroom-to-cabinet” approach that builds shared understanding so that teachers, principals, coaches — everyone who touches student instruction – all learn together through the selection process, setting themselves up for greater success in effective implementation.
4. Winnow firmly. Start with that vision anchored in your student data and the state’s math framework. Turn that into a handful of guardrails, and use those to reduce the field to a few candidates for deeper review and piloting. Districts cannot waste time deeply reviewing a dozen products. Use those non-negotiables to narrow your list.
5. Plan for and invest in curriculum-based professional learning over multiple years, not two days. Teachers need ongoing job-embedded time to internalize lessons, rehearse routines, and anticipate misconceptions. This is a need I am hearing across the state.

---

Above all, share and learn together. Districts don’t need to navigate this alone. Joining regional networks, leaning on county offerings, participating in local conferences, and seeking out partners can all help districts compare notes, troubleshoot challenges, and build collective experience. Collaboration isn’t an “extra” – it’s what can create a shared movement for math improvement statewide.

The release of California’s new math materials list marks real progress. But unless district leaders pair it with clear plans for support, coherence, and capacity, this milestone risks becoming progress on paper only. The real impact will come from what happens next.