The Impact of State Adoptions

The Center for Education Market Dynamics • October 08, 2025

As we conducted analyses on the 2024–25 California curriculum selection data, an important trend emerged: the materials are largely outdated. This isn’t surprising; California hasn’t conducted a statewide math adoption since 2014 and districts have been waiting for new guidance. As highlighted in recent reports, many districts have selected new curriculum ahead of the upcoming adoption—but even more stayed behind. Because of this, the majority of math materials in the hands of California students—regardless of grade level—are from 2015 or earlier.

Our team set out to identify if this trend—alignment of the age of materials to the timing of a state’s adoption—was unique to California.

To do this, we identified several states with a cyclical (typically five to seven years) state adoption process, similar to California. We then analyzed the copyright years of the materials districts in those states had reported selecting during the 2024–25 school year, alongside the timing of a recent or upcoming adoption. The results were striking:

• North Carolina previously adopted math materials in 2018, and will next adopt in 2027. 56% of NC districts researched by CEMD currently have materials from 2016–2020, more than any other copyright year band (2015 and earlier or 2021 and later).
• New Mexico previously adopted math materials in 2019 and began another adoption cycle in July 2025. 89% of NM districts researched by CEMD currently have materials from 2016–2020.
• Oklahoma most recently adopted math materials in 2023. 62% of sampled districts currently have materials from 2021 and later.
• Virginia previously adopted math materials in 2017 and began another adoption cycle in the spring of 2025. 56% of districts in the CEMD database have materials from 2016–2020, demonstrating their shift with that 2017 adoption.

Even more interestingly, all five of these states have varying levels of state control regarding district curriculum selections—ranging from North Carolina where LEAs have full local control, to New Mexico, where LEAs may not spend more than 50% of their materials budget on non-state approved materials. The timing of the adoption is still the strongest indicator of the age of materials across each state.

Implications for States

For state education agencies (SEAs), the implications are clear. States hold significant influence over district adoption decisions – not only in selection of materials, but also in the timing of when adoptions occur. This underscores the responsibility of states to maintain regular adoption cycles, promote access to current and standards-aligned materials, and collect robust data that can guide policy and practice.¹

Even in states without legislation-driven materials adoptions, there are opportunities to support LEAs’ instructional material adoptions.

• The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) created the High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) network in 2017. Research has shown the work done in IMPD states has been successful in moving the needle towards increased adoption of HQIM. For states interested in replicating this success, CCSSO publishes an IMPD Policy Roadmap for States.
• The Comprehensive Center Network, a division of the Federal Department of Education, published a Guide to the Implementation of High-Quality Instructional Materials that outlines roles and responsibilities of SEAs in the adoption and implementation of HQIM.

Implications for Districts

For district leaders, the opportunity is to develop a strong understanding of your state’s adoption policies and the degree of flexibility available. In some states, adoption lists shape decisions directly; in others, districts exercise substantial autonomy. State lists are valuable reference points, but they are not the only source of reliable information.

• EdReports provides independent reviews of curriculum quality.
• Louisiana’s Instructional Materials Reviews offer examples of SEA-led evaluations.
• CEMD data can provide insight into adoption trends among peer districts, helping leaders anticipate both opportunities and challenges.
• For districts contemplating going “off” their state’s adoption list, CalCurriculum provides some thoughts (California-specific, but generalizable in many ways).

Ultimately, by understanding state policy, leveraging sources of curriculum review, and having a clear vision for their priorities and instructional objectives, districts place themselves in a strong position to make timely, well-informed adoption decisions that serve students effectively.

Interested in strengthening your state’s curriculum data collection system?

Explore CEMD’s Launch Guide, or contact our team to discuss customized support.

¹ State recommendations sourced from: https://www.chiefsforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CFC-ChoosingWisely-FINAL-1.pdf; https://www.nasbe.org/what-role-do-states-play-in-selecting-k-12-textbooks/; https://www.nasbe.org/states-take-many-paths-to-advance-high-quality-curriculum-and-align-professional-learning/