4 At the time of the survey, 99.7 percent of teachers indicated that their schools had physically closed, with three-quarters of teachers reporting that their schools had closed by March 16, 2020.

Our work aims to substantiate and extend earlier findings on the effects of student-teacher race matching on academic achievement using longitudinal data for students in Grades 3 through 8 in Tennessee. We examine heterogenous effects not only by racial subgroup and student preparedness, as explored in prior literature, but also by levels of teacher effectiveness, drawing on data from the state's teacher evaluation system. We find that student-teacher race congruence does not have a significant overall effect on test scores. However, subgroup analyses reveal a positive, significant race-match effect in elementary school math. We observe meaningful effects for Black students in both reading and math, race-matched students in the bottom-most preparedness quartile in math, and race-matched students assigned to teachers in the middle two teacher performance quartiles in math. Our results align with prior findings, emphasizing that race-match effects transcend state borders. Findings support policy efforts to diversify the educator labor force.

he RAND American Educator Panels (AEP) consist of the American Teacher Panel (ATP) and the American School Leader Panel (ASLP). These panels are nationally representative samples of K-12 public school educators. The ATP includes more than 25,000 teachers, and the ASLP includes more than 7,500 school principals. Both groups respond to numerous online survey requests each year. The AEP began in 2014 and expanded significantly during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years (Robbins and Grant, 2020).Since 2014, the RAND Corporation has recruited AEP members using probabilistic sampling methods. The AEP samples are designed to be of sufficient size to facilitate national analyses as well as analyses of prevalent subgroups at the national level (e.g., elementary school teachers, high school mathematics teachers, teachers in urban schools). Similarly, the panels are designed to permit analyses of the following geographic areas: Alabama,

As Deborah Ball and David Cohen wrote in 1996, "The design and spread of curriculum materials is one of the oldest strategies for attempting to influence classroom instruction." Unlike other educational reforms, which may depend on the talent and skills of the educators who lead them, a curriculum-textbooks or online materials composed of organized and scaffolded objectives, lesson plans, activities, and assessments constituting an entire course of studyis already written and static, seemingly ready to be scaled across whole states and school districts. KEY FINDINGS■ Most teachers do not use a single curriculum as it is written. Instead, they reported using multiple curricula, making substantial modifications, or creating their own curriculum materials.■ Most teachers agreed that their observations and evaluations take into account their use of curricula. However, fewer teachers reported receiving coaching or professional development workshops focused on curriculum use.■ How teachers used their curriculum was connected to whether they reported receiving evaluative feedback on curriculum use or more frequent curriculum-focused professional learning (PL).■ Teachers in eight states focused on curriculum reforms were more likely to report use of standards-aligned curricula andin some cases-more evaluative feedback and PL focused on curricula.■ Teachers in high-poverty schools reported more-frequent use of standards-aligned curricula for English language arts (ELA), digital materials, and supplementary materials. They were also more likely to report evaluative feedback and PL focused on curricula.■ The extent of teachers' curriculum-focused evaluative feedback and PL were connected with the number of standards-aligned practices in which teachers reported all their students engaging. However, whether teachers reported using a standards-aligned curriculum regularly-in itself-was not related to teachers' reports of their students' standards-aligned practices.

Digital instructional materials are becoming an increasingly prominent resource for teachers. Nearly all teachers consult some form of online tools and resources: Ninety-five percent of elementary teachers and 97 percent of secondary teachers have reported using Google to plan instruction, and more than half of both elementary and secondary teachers report consulting Pinterest, Teachers Pay Teachers, and their state department of education websites to do this planning. 1 In addition, recent findings from the American Teacher Panel demonstrate that teachers' use of standards-aligned and content-specific websites has increased over the past several years. 2 The use of digital learning tools (websites, apps, and online resources used for instructional purposes) is pervasive; educators believe that digital learning tools have significant value, and many teachers would like to use digital learning tools more often. 3 However, teachers lack information about these materials' quality and effectiveness. This information is especially necessary because evidence suggests that teachers seek supplementary materials, including those found online, to fill gaps in comprehensive curriculum materials. 4 Although efforts exist to evaluate the quality and standards alignment of comprehensive curriculum materials, 5 there is little research on the standards alignment, quality, and effectiveness of digital materials. 6 As a result, teachers might rely on trial and error or anecdotal advice from peers instead of rigorous evidence and research when selecting digital materials. 7 Moreover, the use of digital materials presents unique obstacles-for example, the need for specific technological hardware or internet access, concerns about internet safety, and teachers' perception that they lack adequate training to use digital materials. 8 This Data Note adds new insights from English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science teachers on their use of digital materials. Drawing on data from the spring 2019 American Instructional Resources Survey (AIRS), we share the digital materials that ELA, mathematics, and science teachers across the United States reported using regularly for instruction during the 2018-2019 school year. In addition to identifying the most commonly used digital instructional materials, we examine how teachers' use of these materials