U.S. public schools spend an estimated $837.6 million a year on math assessment and curriculum software, growing at a 3.70% CAGR to $1.0 billion by 2030, and Kentucky and Texas have written into law which math tests they may buy.

On October 22, 2026, Renaissance agreed to route Star Math scores into Carnegie Learning’s ClearMath core curriculum, a deal inside the estimated $837.6 million that American public schools spend each year on math assessment and curriculum software (2025). That spending grows at a 3.70% CAGR to $1.0 billion by 2030. The deal is the third time in 2026 that Renaissance has wired its test into a curriculum it does not publish, and it coincides with a change in who chooses the test. Texas bars district benchmark tests in grades 3–8 from 2027–28 unless the test is on the state’s approved list or, in 2027–28 and 2028–29, provisionally approved. Both Texas and Kentucky require K–3 math screening from state-approved lists, Texas from 2027–28 and Kentucky from 2026–27. In those states a math test sold at $4–$10 a student is worth what it routes to: i-Ready instruction priced at $22–$35 a subject.

The 60-page report profiles 12 companies, among them Renaissance, Carnegie Learning, Curriculum Associates, HMH (NWEA), McGraw Hill, Pearson, Amplify and IXL Learning. It carries 14 charts and figures, 10 data tables, three forecast scenarios and a year-by-year forecast to 2030.

Report Highlights:

• The State Decides Which Test Schools Buy: In Kentucky from 2026–27 and in Texas from 2027–28, the state, not the district, decides which K–3 math screeners schools may buy, and in Texas which grades 3–8 benchmark tests. That makes a test sold at $4–$10 a student worth only what it routes to: i-Ready instruction priced at $22–$35 a subject.
• The Market Sized Layer by Layer: U.S. public schools spend an estimated $837.6 million a year (2025) on math tests, adaptive practice and supplemental instruction, and the digital layer of core math curricula. In the base case the total grows at 3.70% a year to $1.0 billion by 2030, but inside it the test layer grows far more slowly than practice and instruction; the report gives each layer’s rate.
• The Cheapest Layer and the Fastest Grade Band: The test is the cheapest layer per student and, in the base case, the smallest of the three layers the report sizes. By grade band, K–2 grows fastest of the three bands, carried by state K–3 screening mandates; the report gives each band’s size and rate.
• Three Ways of Linking the Test to the Lesson: A vendor selling its test and its own instruction as one license, an assessment vendor routing its scores into curricula it does not publish, and a curriculum publisher building unit tests in with an assessment partner now compete. The report names the companies behind each and analyzes which is positioned to capture the instruction spend.
• The Texas Exposure by Listing Status: The Texas rule puts district math-test spending in grades 4–8 at risk, in full from 2029–30, when provisional approval has expired; the report estimates the amount by listing status and year. Displacement may be selective, and the report weighs the evidence on interim and curriculum-embedded assessment.

This report will provide answers to the following questions:

• How much do U.S. public schools spend on math tests, adaptive practice and instruction, and the digital layer of core math curricula, and how fast does each layer grow to 2030?
• Which states have written into law which math tests districts may buy, from which school year and for which grades?
• Why is a listed math test worth what it routes to, and how do test and instruction prices compare per student?
• Which of the three ways of linking the test to the lesson is positioned to capture the instruction spend, and which companies stand behind each?
• How much Texas district math-test spending in grades 4–8 is at risk, by listing status and year?
• Which grade band grows fastest, and what carries it?
• What does the evidence on interim and curriculum-embedded assessment say about how selective displacement may be?

Companies Covered:

Renaissance, Carnegie Learning, Curriculum Associates, HMH (NWEA), McGraw Hill, Pearson, Amplify, Savvas, Great Minds, IXL Learning, Illustrative Mathematics, New Meridian

Report Specifications:

60 pages · 14 charts and figures · 10 data tables · 12 company profiles · 5-year forecast horizon · 3 scenarios · 3 segmentation views

Pricing:

• Single User License – $4,950
• Site License – $5,450
• Enterprise License – $5,950

To place an order, contact david.pringmill@policy2050.com