Morgan S. Polikoff, Xander Beberman, Dion Burns, Linda Darling-Hammond, H. Alix Gallagher, Danielle M. Gomez, Shira Haderlein, Jacob Hibel, Elizabeth Huffaker, Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, Douglas Knecht, Havisha Khurana, Susanna Loeb, Beth Meloy, Sarah Novicoff, Heather Price, Deborah Stipek, Lisa Towne, Ilana Umansky
Curriculum policy shapes what students learn, how teachers teach, and which academic opportunities remain open or closed as students move through school. Its effects are not always visible at the point decisions are made. During the Common Core transition, for example, California districts reduced access to eighth-grade algebra, with enrollment falling from roughly 60 percent of students to under 20 percent. The immediate rationale was equity, reflecting concerns that many students were being placed in courses for which they were not prepared. Over time, however, this shift was associated with a decline in advanced mathematics course-taking in high school, particularly in calculus and precalculus, without corresponding improvements in achievement. Students who did not enter the accelerated pathway had lower rates of access to A-G courses linked to four-year college enrollment, with especially large differences for low-income students.
This example illustrates how curriculum policy can reshape students’ academic trajectories over time. California is now at another such moment, with new literacy requirements, a recently completed mathematics materials adoption, and ongoing decisions about course access, supplementation, and implementation support. These decisions are likely to influence students’ opportunities and outcomes over the coming years, often in ways that may only become apparent over time.
This brief draws on Getting Down to Facts III technical reports on curriculum adoption and use, early literacy, secondary mathematics, early childhood education, high school policy, and multilingual learner access to examine how California’s curriculum policies are functioning in practice. It uses “curriculum” broadly: not only to mean textbooks and subject-matter content, but also to include the design of learning experiences, the supports teachers receive to enact them, and the extent to which instruction reflects what is known about how students learn and develop.
Across the studies, six patterns emerge: districts often make consequential curriculum decisions with limited state guidance; teachers often receive limited district guidance; many teachers view current materials as inadequate and supplement extensively; the state lacks usable data on key aspects of curriculum use; curriculum reforms are most effective when paired with coherent professional learning and implementation support; and curriculum policies can shape students’ later opportunities in important, if sometimes indirect, ways. These findings raise questions about how curriculum decisions are made, supported, and evaluated over time.
Key Findings
1. California districts often lack clear, specific guidance from the state about curriculum quality and implementation. In areas such as mathematics, early literacy, and early childhood education, the state does not always provide districts with sufficiently clear or differentiated guidance about which curriculum materials and supports are highest quality. As a result, districts are often left to sort through too many options with too little help, which increases local burden and contributes to uneven implementation, especially in smaller and mid-sized systems.
2. Teachers often lack clear district guidance about curriculum use and supplementation. Districts vary widely in the expectations they set for how teachers should use adopted materials. Even with expectations, districts commonly give teachers substantial autonomy without corresponding guidance about supplementation. This pattern leaves important decisions about curriculum coherence, consistency, and quality to individual teachers or schools rather than embedding them in a clearer district strategy. This lack of guidance places responsibility on teachers to curate supplemental materials and results in materials whose quality is not systematically known being widely used in California classrooms.
3. Many California teachers view their curriculum materials as inadequate and supplement them extensively. Teacher survey data and district leader reports suggest that many California teachers see their core materials as insufficient, especially for engaging students and meeting diverse learning needs. These perceptions help explain the high rates of supplementation and teacher-created materials, raising concerns about consistency, instructional quality, and the degree to which current materials support strong teaching.
4. California lacks usable statewide data on key curriculum issues. Although schools and districts report a large amount of information through tools such as SARCs and LCAPs, these data are often not standardized or accessible in ways that support monitoring, research, or improvement. Important gaps remain in understanding curriculum adoption, supplementation, high school course-taking, and multilingual learner access to programs and opportunities.
5. Curriculum reforms are more effective when they are paired with professional learning and coherent implementation supports. Evidence from California’s literacy reforms suggests that curriculum policy can improve student learning when it is coupled with strong professional development, local planning, implementation support, and follow-through. These findings indicate that curriculum reforms are most likely to succeed when they are embedded in a broader system of support rather than treated as stand-alone policy changes.
6. Curriculum policies can have important indirect effects on students’ later opportunities. Curriculum-related reforms do not only affect instruction in the short term. They can also reshape course-taking patterns and students’ access to later academic opportunities. In California mathematics, for example, course-taking reforms were associated with reduced access to advanced math, showing that curriculum policy can have significant downstream effects even when achievement effects are limited.
