School board members are possibly the most overlooked decision-makers in education, and they rarely dominate reform conversations. However, local school board members routinely approve one of the most important decisions school districts make: curriculum. As science of reading reforms accelerate across districts and states, this role is becoming more consequential—and more complicated. Despite this key role, most board members receive little to no training on evaluating whether those materials are high-quality and evidence-based.
So why does it matter that school board members understand the indicators of high-quality curriculum? For one, there is growing evidence that curriculum quality positively influences student outcomes. Several studies have found that the choice of math and science textbooks has significant effects on test scores; others indicate a positive impact on English language arts (ELA) achievement.
Examples of implementing high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) that led to better student outcomes can be seen in Duval County Public Schools in Florida and the Seaford School District in Delaware. In Duval, the county reported extraordinary improvement in grades 3, 4, and 5 math one year after implementing a new HQIM math curriculum. The county saw a 6 percentage point improvement in grade 3 compared with a statewide improvement of 3 percentage points, and in grade 4, scores improved by 3 percentage points, whereas the state showed no growth. In Seaford, where the multilingual student population has doubled over the last year, the district went from being one of the state’s lowest-performing districts on state tests to one of the highest after adopting a high-quality ELA curriculum.
Science of reading reforms have also sharpened expectations for the curriculum to be aligned with evidence-based practices and include coherent knowledge-building strategies. Therefore, curriculum adoption is no longer a routine approval, but a high-stakes instructional decision with significant implications for student achievement.
Most required school board training focuses on governance, ethics, and budgeting, while little to no training focuses on instructional quality or curriculum evaluation. Even organizations that increasingly acknowledge the importance of HQIM often treat curriculum knowledge as peripheral rather than essential to board service.
For example, the National School Boards Association offers optional webinars, research, and guidance on HQIM adoption, including a framework for evaluating curriculum and questions board members should ask during the approval process. School Boards for Academic Excellence similarly promotes a curricular audit program, evaluation tools, and guidance related to standards alignment and science of reading practices. As far as it can be determined from its public-facing materials, other organizations, such as School Board Partners, focus more heavily on governance, policymaking, and leadership skills rather than explicit training on evaluating HQIM.
These efforts are valuable, but they remain optional, uneven, and secondary to traditional board training priorities. In other words, resources and training on HQIM exist from these organizations, but there is little guarantee that all board members engage with them or develop a baseline understanding of curriculum quality before engaging in the curriculum approval process. As a result, many board members are still expected to approve curriculum without a basic understanding of how to evaluate its quality.
Without this knowledge, members may rely heavily on vendor claims, approve staff recommendations without scrutiny, or be swayed by political or community pressure. Discussions about curriculum approval can then focus on surface-level features rather than evidence of effectiveness and alignment to practices like the science of reading. Ultimately, when no one at the table understands what makes a curriculum high-quality, it becomes difficult to ensure districts adopt one.
However, it’s important to recognize that boards should not select curriculum themselves or override the opinions of educators and school leaders. Boards should merely serve as informed overseers of the adoption process, with the ability to evaluate curriculum proposals and ask informed questions to ensure districts adopt HQIM.
Ideally, with adequate training, members should understand what HQIM means and how strong materials can improve student outcomes. Additionally, they should recognize key indicators of a high-quality curriculum, such as standards alignment, evidence-based practices (especially relating to science of reading–aligned materials), and knowledge-building. Finally, they should ask basic but powerful questions during the curriculum process that help determine whether materials are effective and appropriate for their district.
A solution is for organizations like National School Boards Association, School Boards for Academic Excellence, and School Board Partners to provide universally required, lightweight training in recognizing and understanding HQIM. This could build on existing training structures through short HQIM modules in board-member onboarding, state-provided guidance on HQIM, and partnerships with organizations already providing resources in this area. States and school board organizations could also encourage broader use of existing curriculum evaluation frameworks and guidance questions that support informed oversight during the approval process.
School boards already have the authority to approve curriculum, but they should also have the basic knowledge needed to recognize high-quality curriculum and ask good questions before approving materials. Effective oversight requires at least a basic understanding of what a HQIM looks like. If we expect school boards to do this well, they need to be better informed.
