Like many other teachers, I took the traditional route into the profession, pursuing an undergraduate degree in education. But during my teacher training between 2019 and 2023—by which point the adoption of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) had become a growing priority—I never had the chance to practice identifying or implementing HQIM or, for that matter, any curriculum at all. Instead, I spent most of my time writing lengthy lesson plans from scratch.
During my first week teaching second-grade special education in an elementary school, I was expected to start targeted small-group instruction to address my students’ learning needs. Without any curricular materials from my school or district, I found myself developing lessons that were not aligned with any differentiated curriculum, high-quality or otherwise. A few weeks into the school year, after asking for curricular materials, I received resources from the special education team—but I still lacked the experience to implement them effectively. This led me to feel frustrated, less confident, and in need of support that was not always accessible.
My experience as a beginning teacher is far from unique. As of 2024, only about 10 percent of U.S. teachers report that their preparation program emphasized helping them use curricular materials. When programs fail to prioritize HQIM, new teachers scramble to interpret pacing guidelines, adapt lessons, and reverse-engineer learning targets. Instead of refining their instructional delivery, they are simply trying to stay afloat.
So why aren’t educator prep programs (EPPs) ensuring that new teachers are prepared to use HQIM effectively? Let’s consider the central problem. Although states are increasingly encouraging the selection of HQIM, districts ultimately decide on curricula. EPPs typically send teachers to dozens of different districts—each of which is making its own choices around instructional materials. So it’s not realistic to expect EPPs to instruct future teachers on a particular HQIM.
What EPPs can do is intentionally build teachers’ capacity to recognize features of HQIM, while also practicing adapting and implementing HQIM across contexts. These are related but distinct skills. Recognizing the hallmarks of HQIM requires analytical preparation, while implementing them with fidelity requires structured practice. Most EPPs neglect both.
Teaching candidates to identify HQIM is not about training them to shop for curriculum. In districts with loose curriculum guidance, this skill helps teachers avoid patching together ineffective materials. In districts with strict guidance, it deepens their understanding of the curriculum’s design so that, when adaptations are necessary, they strengthen rather than diminish its core components.
On the other hand, implementation is a separate challenge. Even when HQIM are present in schools, new teachers have rarely been taught how to interpret pacing guides, differentiate without weakening coherence, or implement materials with fidelity. Without this preparation, teachers spend more time learning to decode the curriculum and less time responding effectively to students’ needs.
Currently, three states—Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas—are going even further, taking concrete steps to integrate HQIM into EPPs.
1. Louisiana has prioritized selecting evidence-backed HQIM to improve teacher support and student achievement. Although the Pelican State’s educational progress can be attributed to several factors, its evidence-backed curricula and investment in teacher training aligned to those curricula serve as key principles. In 2024, the state began investing in high-quality preparation as a long-term strategy to retain teachers. To reinforce this approach, the HQIM requirement for school districts is aligned with efforts to support EPPs, encouraging them to shift from training aspiring teachers to design their own lessons toward preparing them to implement structured, research-based lessons. It surely helps that Eureka Math is used by approximately 90 percent of Louisiana public-school teachers and that the ELA curriculum Louisiana Guidebooks is used by over 80 percent, making it likely that teachers will see these programs in their own future schools.
2. Tennessee EPPs have partnered with three school districts through the Lead in Literacy network to support strong early literacy preparation for educators. Together, they work to construct a shared vision for literacy instruction, build candidate knowledge and skills grounded in research on reading and HQIM, and ensure best practices from these efforts translate into improved support for diverse learners. The goal is to ensure that new teachers enter classrooms prepared to deliver effective literacy instruction on day one.
3. In Texas, efforts to strengthen educator preparation include integrating HQIM into coursework. For example, Dallas College—one of Texas’s largest community college systems—has embedded HQIM directly into its educator preparation coursework. These instructional materials include Eureka Math and Amplify Reading, which are widely used across the country. Teacher candidates gain valuable insights into maximizing the use of these curricula through research-based instructional strategies, strategic partnerships, and faculty training facilitated by TNTP.
Other states and EPPs can learn from these efforts. In places like Louisiana and Dallas College, alignment is made easier by the widespread use of specific HQIM, which allows EPPs to ground coursework in materials candidates are likely to encounter in the field. But even in states without that level of consistency, EPPs can still ensure candidates enter the profession able to identify and implement HQIM with fidelity across contexts. That skillset is transferable, regardless of where a candidate teaches.
To ensure that this shift is successful, stronger partnerships between EPPs and school districts are needed. Student teaching placements already connect the two systems, but coursework and on-the-ground experiences are not always intentionally aligned. In practice, that means candidates may complete their training in schools that do not utilize HQIM. Without widespread adoption of HQIM across districts, efforts to better align EPPs with curriculum reform will have limited impact. Programs and districts should move beyond informal coordination and intentionally work to ensure that aspiring teachers have meaningful opportunities to practice identifying and implementing HQIM.
If states and districts are serious about improving instruction, teacher preparation cannot remain disconnected from curriculum reform. HQIM alone will not drive results. Teachers must be prepared to identify and use them effectively from day one. That preparation begins in EPPs, and it should be treated as a priority effort to prepare teachers to teach students effectively.
