WHY MATERIALS MATTER

Through our work we know that

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR KIDS. WHAT IS CHOSEN MATTERS.

Research shows that students learn primarily through their interactions with teachers and content.

THIS INSTRUCTIONAL CORE IS THE FOUNDATION

This instructional core is the foundation for ensuring all kids are college and career-ready and have the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in school and beyond.

Download Infographic

“THAT INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS EXERCISE THEIR INFLUENCE ON LEARNING DIRECTLY AS WELL AS BY INFLUENCING TEACHERS’ INSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES AND BEHAVIOR, MAKES INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT.”

– Chingos and Whitehurst, 2012¹

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON STUDENT
LEARNING OUTCOMES.

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES.

ONE STUDY SHOWED USING A TOP RANKED PROGRAM IN 4th OR 5th GRADE MATH CAN LEAD TO

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GAINS OF 3.6 PERCENTILE POINTS

larger than the improvement of a typical teacher’s effectiveness in their first three years on the job when they are learning to teach.²

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES.

WHEN MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS USE HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

IT CAN SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES.

A 2017 study shows that the effect on learning is the same as moving an average performing teacher to one at the 80th percentile.³

HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS DON’T NECESSARILY COST MORE, BUT OFTEN HAVE BIGGER PAY OFFS.

“TEXTBOOKS ARE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE AND TEND TO BE SIMILARLY PRICED.

The implication is that the marginal cost of choosing a more effective textbook over a less effective alternative is essentially zero.” (Polikoff and Koedel, 2017)⁴

IMPROVING
THE QUALITY OF
CURRICULUM IS

40X MORE

COST-EFFECTIVE

THAN CLASS-SIZE
REDUCTION.⁵

HIGH-QUALITY MATERIALS DON’T NECESSARILY COST MORE, BUT OFTEN HAVE BIGGER PAY OFFS.

“TEXTBOOKS ARE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE AND TEND TO BE SIMILARLY PRICED.

The implication is that the marginal cost of choosing a more effective textbook over a less effective alternative is essentially zero.” (Polikoff and Koedel, 2017)⁴

IMPROVING THE
QUALITY OF CURRICULUM IS

40X MORE

COST-EFFECTIVE

THAN CLASS-SIZE
REDUCTION.⁵

TEACHERS KNOW THAT MATERIALS MATTER, BUT DON’T ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO THE QUALITY CONTENT THAT THEIR STUDENTS DESERVE.

HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

are cited as a top funding priority for teachers.⁶

Top Five Funding Priorities Identified by Teachers

55%

55% High-quality instructional materials and textbooks
55%

55% Additional staff
47%

47% Digital resources
47%

47% Higher salaries
46%

46% Intervention programs

AND YET...

ONLY 18% OF TEACHERS

believe that their district or school's instructional materials are aligned with the Common Core State Standards.⁷

WHEN TEACHERS DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO GREAT MATERIALS THEY HUNT FOR THEM ONLINE – OFTEN LEADING TO INCONSISTENT QUALITY THAT IMPACTS LOW-INCOME STUDENTS AND STUDENTS OF COLOR THE MOST.

TEACHERS SPEND 7-12 HOURS PER WEEK

searching for and creating instructional resources (free and paid),⁸ drawing from a variety of sources, many of them unvetted.

A 2017 RAND analysis found that

96% 1%

OF TEACHERS

use Google to find lessons and materials.

Nearly
75% 1%

OF TEACHERS

use Pinterest to find lessons and materials.⁹

Teachers working in schools that have a high proportion of students who receive free and reduced lunch are searching for materials online at higher rates.¹⁰

The assignments teachers select or create tend to be lower quality than what the district or state provided.¹¹

Percentage of assignments on grade-level

34% ASSIGNMENTS PROVIDED BY DISTRICT OR STATE

20% TEACHER CREATED/SELECTED ASSIGNMENTS

INCONSISTENT ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY CONTENT IMPACTS STUDENT LEARNING IN SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

IN A SINGLE SCHOOL YEAR, THE AVERAGE STUDENT SPENDS 581 OF 720 AVAILABLE HOURS ON ASSIGNMENTS THAT ARE NOT HIGH-QUALITY.¹²

THIS IS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT FOR STUDENTS OF COLOR AND STUDENTS LIVING IN POVERTY WHO HAVE LESS ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY STANDARDS-ALIGNED MATERIALS THAN THEIR PEERS.

A 2015 STUDY FOUND LOW-INCOME STUDENTS ARE LESS LIKELY THAN HIGH-INCOME STUDENTS TO HAVE QUALITY CONTENT AND CURRICULUM IN THE CLASSROOM.¹³

AND STUDENTS OF COLOR AND THOSE FROM LOW-INCOME BACKGROUNDS WERE LESS LIKELY THAN WHITE AND HIGHER-INCOME STUDENTS TO BE IN CLASSROOMS WITH GRADE-APPROPRIATE ASSIGNMENTS.¹⁴

AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT HAVING HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS DOESN’T END AT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION.

Nationwide, 40% of COLLEGE STUDENTS (including 66 percent of Black college students and 53 percent of Latinx¹⁵ college students) take at least one remedial course¹⁶ learning skills they were told they’d already mastered in high school.

A recent study found that college remediation costs students and their families

$1.5 BILLION ANNUALLY.¹⁷

Graduates who opt for a career straight out of high school aren’t faring much better, with many employers reporting high school graduates are

MISSING SKILLS

needed to do their jobs well.¹⁸

BUT WHEN TEACHERS HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY, ALIGNED INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR CLASSROOM PRACTICE AND THE INSTRUCTION STUDENTS RECEIVE.

A 2018 study illustrated that teachers using aligned materials engaged students in mathematical practices at a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RATE than teachers who did not have access to aligned curriculum.¹⁹

“When students who started the year off behind grade level were given more grade-appropriate assignments, stronger instruction, deeper engagement, and higher expectations, the gap between these students and their higher achieving peers began to narrow substantially.”²⁰

#MaterialsMatter

EdReports’ mission is to increase the capacity of teachers, administrators, and leaders to seek, identify, and demand the highest quality instructional materials. Explore hundreds of free reports and learn more about why materials matter for students and their futures.

Download Email BACK TO TOP

BACK TO TOP

Footnotes(1/2)

¹

Chingos, M., Whitehurst, G. (2012). Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core. Retrieved from Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0410_curriculum_chingos_whitehurst.pdf

²

Kane, T., Owens, A., Marinell, W. Thal, D., Staiger, D. (2016). Teaching Higher: Educators’ Perspectives on Common Core Implementation. Boston, MA: Harvard University Center for Education Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/teaching-higher-report.pdf

³

Jackson, K., Makarin, A. (2016-2017). Can Online Off-the-Shelf Lessons Improve Student Outcomes? Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol 10 (3), pages 226-254. Retrieved from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22398

⁴

Koedel, C., Polikoff, M. (2017). Big Bang for Just a Few Bucks: the Impact of Math Textbooks in California. Economic Studies at Brookings, Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol 2 (5). Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/es_20170105_polikoff_evidence_speaks.pdf

⁵

Boser, U., Chingos, M., Straus, C. (2015). The Hidden Value of Curriculum Reform: Do States and Districts Receive the Most Bang for Their Curriculum Buck? Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/06111518/CurriculumMatters-report.pdf

⁶

Scholastic.Teacher and Principal School Report: Equity in Education. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.scholastic.com/teacherprincipalreport/Scholastic-Teacher-and-Principal-School-Report.pdf

⁷

Zubrzycki, J. “Teachers Say They Know More About the Common Core, But Challenges Linger” EdWeek (2016).

⁸

Goldberg, M. (2016). Classroom Trends: Teachers as Buyers of Instructional Materials and Users of Technology. K-12 Market Advisors.
Retrieved from: https://mdreducation.com/reports/classroom-trends-teachers-buyers-instructional-materials-users-technology

⁹

Opfer, V., Kaufman, J., Thompson, L. (2016). Implementation of K-12 State Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts and Literacy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1529-1.html

¹⁰

Opfer, V., Kaufman, J., Thompson, L. (2016). Implementation of K-12 State Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts and Literacy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1529-1.html

¹¹

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

¹²

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

¹³

Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Zoido, P., Houang, R. (2015). The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol 44 (7), page 371-386. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X15603982

¹⁴

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

¹⁵

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#3

¹⁶

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#4

¹⁷

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#5

¹⁸

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#3

¹⁹

Opfer, V., Kaufman, J., Bongard, M, Pane, J. (2018). Changes in What Teachers Know and Do in the Common Core Era, American Teacher Panel Findings from 2015 to 2017. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html

²⁰

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

Footnotes(2/2)

¹³

Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Zoido, P., Houang, R. (2015). The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol 44 (7), page 371-386. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X15603982

¹⁴

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/

¹⁵

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#3

¹⁶

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#4

¹⁷

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#5

¹⁸

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/endnotes#3

¹⁹

Opfer, V., Kaufman, J., Bongard, M, Pane, J. (2018). Changes in What Teachers Know and Do in the Common Core Era, American Teacher Panel Findings from 2015 to 2017. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html

²⁰

TNTP. (2018). The Opportunity Myth. Retrieved from: https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/