Johns Hopkins researchers presented findings from a statewide teacher survey on high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics at a Virginia Board of Education meeting.

The institute surveyed K–12 ELA and math teachers statewide between Sept. 5 and Oct. 16; statewide response rate was 23%. The survey found a majority of ELA teachers using HQIM that EdReports has deemed high quality, while just 10% of responding K–12 math teachers reported using HQIM for math lessons. District variation was large: Fairfax County reported 88% of ELA teachers using HQIM but only 2% of math teachers; Virginia Beach reported about 31% of ELA teachers and 34% of math teachers using HQIM; Suffolk reported 81% of ELA teachers and 2% of math teachers using HQIM.

The presenters — Dr. Ashley Burner, director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, and Dr. David Steiner, executive director of the institute — said the research record shows that high-quality, knowledge-building curriculum combined with strong implementation and teacher preparation improves student outcomes and can reduce achievement gaps. They described the survey as an anonymous baseline instrument adapted from prior RAND work to gather what teachers use, how they use it, and what supplementary resources teachers rely on (for example, Teachers Pay Teachers or Pinterest).

Panelists and board members focused discussion on implementation supports. Dr. Steiner said publishing materials alone is not sufficient: teachers need sustained professional learning and local leadership aligned with curriculum. He recommended extended professional development (he cited at least 20 hours spread over months rather than a one-day workshop) and argued for systems that translate diagnostic assessment data (iReady, MAP, etc.) into decisions about who receives tier 2 or tier 3 supports. He and Burner emphasized recruiting and elevating “master teachers” within divisions to lead adoption, aligning teacher-preparation programs to the chosen curricula, and using targeted grants to incentivize thorough adoption in underperforming districts.

Board members raised questions about AI and curriculum, district-created materials, and state policy. Dr. Burner and Dr. Steiner said AI tools so far are most effective when they sit alongside HQIM (examples cited in the presentation included CourseMojo and Zearn used with Eureka), and that district-created materials sometimes meet high-quality standards but often do not; where local materials are high quality and used consistently, the presenters encouraged continued local use. Superintendent Gullickson told the board about the new state law HB2777 (mentioned by the department during discussion) and a phased timeline to July 1, 2026, for aspects of the law related to materials review and adoption; Johns Hopkins faculty said the institute conducts its own tough reviews and can advise on local materials.

Presenters and board members repeatedly stressed that adoption must be paired with coherent professional learning and instructional leadership. Dr. Steiner said Louisiana’s statewide, coherent approach to HQIM and aligned assessments is one model that produced progress through COVID and can offer lessons for Virginia. The presenters concluded by inviting follow-up questions and offering support for future survey administrations to monitor progress.

The board did not take formal action on the presentation; staff and Johns Hopkins representatives discussed follow-up and possible future collaboration.