Alignment to College and Career Ready Standards: Overall Summary

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for alignment to CCSSM. While the Grade 6 materials passed Gateway 1's review of focus and coherence, the materials failed to meet expectations of Gateway 2's review of rigor and the mathematical practices.

For Gateway 1, the instructional materials meet the alignment expectations for focus and coherence. The material assesses only the content required for Grade 6 and previous grades. Grade 6 meets the threshold of 65% of the year being focused on major work of 6.RP.A, 6.NS.A, 6.NS.C, 6.EE.A, 6.EE.B and 6.EE.C. In Grade 6, there are a few times that the supporting work enhances the understanding of the major clusters. The program can be taught in 154 days. The program overview guide explicitly shows where the standards are taught and where previous standards are used to enhance new learning. The program has many components to give all students extensive work with grade-level problems. The CCSSM are visibly listed on the student pages and in the teacher edition. The work in each unit is specific to that unit's topic. There are few connections made between units and concepts.

For Gateway 2, the materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the alignment expectations for rigor and the mathematical practices. Conceptual understanding isn't attended to thoroughly to set explicit expectations for understanding or interpreting. Each lesson is launched with a real-world situation but they are often application problems that do not support building conceptual understanding. There are insufficient problems designed to build fluency, particularly within dividing multi-digit numbers and adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing multi-digit decimals. The enrichment project for each unit is the major resource for application with multi-steps. Within the lessons there are many real-world problems, but few that are also multi-step problems. There is an attempt to balance conceptual and procedural work. The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for practice-content connections. While the MP are included and labeled in the launch of each lesson and the focus question, they are not identified in the in-class teaching notes and are missing in other areas of the curriculum. A teacher who is not familiar with the MPs would not be able to use the information given on the individual lessons to educate the students on how to use the MPs to assist in solving a math problem. On some lessons the MPs are used well, but other lessons are mislabeled as being aligned to certain practices. Materials have students constructing arguments through certain routine problems such as reasoning, reflecting, writing and error analysis. These problems appear in each lesson in the same manner, so the depth of the MPs is not able to fully develop. Students are prompted to construct arguments through some of the questions, but the students frequently do not need to analyze problems in-depth in order to make these arguments. The teacher notes do not indicate how they can assist their students practicing the skills in the mathematical practices. This series does not meet the standard to explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics. It often uses vocabulary that is not precise and does not allow for the student to be completely immersed in the language of mathematics.

Overall, the instructional materials partially meet the expectations for alignment to CCSSM.

See Rating Scale
Understanding Gateways

Alignment

|

Partially Meets Expectations

Gateway 1:

Focus & Coherence

0
7
12
14
12
12-14
Meets Expectations
8-11
Partially Meets Expectations
0-7
Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway 2:

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

0
10
16
18
7
16-18
Meets Expectations
11-15
Partially Meets Expectations
0-10
Does Not Meet Expectations

Usability

|

Not Rated

Not Rated

Gateway 3:

Usability

0
22
31
38
0
31-38
Meets Expectations
23-30
Partially Meets Expectations
0-22
Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway One

Focus & Coherence

Meets Expectations

+
-
Gateway One Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet the expectations for focusing on major work and coherence. The instructional materials assess only the material required for Grade 6 and previous grades. Grade 6 meets the threshold of 65% of the year being focused on major work of 6.RP.A, 6.NS.A, 6.NS.C, 6.EE.A, 6.EE.B and 6.EE.C. In the Grade 6 there are a few times that the supporting work enhances the understanding of the major clusters. The program can be taught in 154 days. The program overview guide explicitly shows where the standards are taught and where previous standards are used to enhance new learning. The program has many components to give all students extensive work with grade-level problems. The CCSSM are visibly listed on the student pages and in the teacher edition. The work in each unit is specific to that unit's topic. There are few connections made between units and concepts.

Criterion 1a

Materials do not assess topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced.
2/2
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet expectations for assessing material at grade level. The instructional materials assess only the material required for Grade 6 and previous grades. A few questions are one grade below grade level and are used as a review of skills.

Indicator 1a

The instructional material assesses the grade-level content and, if applicable, content from earlier grades. Content from future grades may be introduced but students should not be held accountable on assessments for future expectations.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet expectations for assessing material at the Grade 6 level.

  • The instructional materials assess only the material required for Grade 6 and previous grades.
  • A few questions are one grade below grade level and are used as a review of skills.

Criterion 1b

Students and teachers using the materials as designed devote the large majority of class time in each grade K-8 to the major work of the grade.
4/4
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet the expectations for spending the majority of class time on the major work for the grade level. Approximately 65% of the year is focused on major work of 6.RP.A, 6.NS.A, 6.NS.C, 6.EE.A, 6.EE.B and 6.EE.C.

Indicator 1b

Instructional material spends the majority of class time on the major cluster of each grade.
4/4
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet the expectations for spending the majority of class time on the major work for the grade level. Approximately 65% of the year is focused on major work of 6.RP.A, 6.NS.A, 6.NS.C, 6.EE.A, 6.EE.B and 6.EE.C.

Criterion 1c - 1f

Coherence: Each grade's instructional materials are coherent and consistent with the Standards.
6/8
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for being coherent and consistent with the standards. In Grade 6, there are a few examples where the supporting work enhances the understanding of the major clusters. The program can be taught in 154 days. The program overview guide explicitly shows where the standards are taught and where previous standards are used to enhance new learning. The CCSSM are visibly listed on the student pages and in the teacher edition. The work in each unit is specific to that unit's topic. There are connections made between units and concepts.

Indicator 1c

Supporting content enhances focus and coherence simultaneously by engaging students in the major work of the grade.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for supporting content engaging students in the major work for the grade level. For example:

  • Lesson 9-6 connects integer work with drawing polygons on a coordinate grid. (6.NS.C and 6.G.A)
  • The topic 14 review connects expressions with surface area (6.EE.A and 6.G.A).

Indicator 1d

The amount of content designated for one grade level is viable for one school year in order to foster coherence between grades.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet the expectations for amount of content being viable for one school year.

  • The program can be taught in 154 days, which fits within a typical school year of 170-190 days.
  • The materials do not provide explicit directions to teachers to continue to focus on the major work of the grade during the remaining days of instructional time.

Indicator 1e

Materials are consistent with the progressions in the Standards i. Materials develop according to the grade-by-grade progressions in the Standards. If there is content from prior or future grades, that content is clearly identified and related to grade-level work ii. Materials give all students extensive work with grade-level problems iii. Materials relate grade level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 meet the expectations for being consistent with the progressions in the standards.

  • The Program Overview Guide explicitly shows where the standards are taught and where previous standards are used to enhance new learning. (pages 68-75)
  • The overview instructs the teacher which intervention lesson to assign to provide support for individual students or the whole group.
  • The program has many components to give all students extensive work with grade-level problems.
  • For each unit there is a readiness assessment, personalized study plans to provide differentiation and guiding questions to meet diverse needs of students.

Indicator 1f

Materials foster coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the Standards i. Materials include learning objectives that are visibly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings. ii. Materials include problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain, or two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for fostering coherence through connections at a single grade.

  • The CCSSM are visibly listed on the student pages and in the teacher edition.
  • The work in each unit is specific to that unit's topic. There are no visible connections between clusters across units.
  • Two examples of connections between standards were in topic 14 ("finding surface area with use of fractional sides") and topic 15 ("creating histograms using negative integers and rational numbers"). There were missed opportunities to make connections in the geometry and statistics lessons.

Gateway Two

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

Does Not Meet Expectations

+
-
Gateway Two Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for rigor and balance. Conceptual understanding is not attended to thoroughly setting explicit expectations for understanding or interpreting. Each lesson is launched with a real-world situation but they are often application problems that do not support building conceptual understanding. There are insufficient problems designed to build fluency, particularly within dividing multi-digit numbers and adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing multi-digit decimals. The enrichment project for each unit is the major resource for application with multi-steps. Within the lessons there are many real-world problems, but few that are also multi-step problems. There is an attempt to balance conceptual and procedural work. The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for practice-content connections. While the MPs are included and labeled in the launch of each lesson and the focus question, they are not identified in the in-class teaching notes and are missing in other areas of the curriculum. A teacher who is not familiar with the MPs would not be able to use the information given on the individual lessons to educate the students on how to use the MPs to assist in solving a math problem. On some lessons the MPs are used well, and other lessons are mislabeled as being aligned to certain MP. Materials have students constructing arguments through certain routine problems such as reasoning, reflecting, writing and error analysis. These problems appear in each lesson in the same way, so the depth of the MPs is not able to fully develop. Students are prompted to construct arguments through some of the questions, but the students frequently do not need to analyze problems in-depth in order to make these arguments. The teacher notes do not indicate how they can assist their students in the MP. This series does not meet the standard to explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics. It often uses vocabulary that is not precise and does not allow for the student to be completely immersed in the language of mathematics.

 

 

Criterion 2a - 2d

Rigor and Balance: Each grade's instructional materials reflect the balances in the Standards and help students meet the Standards' rigorous expectations, by helping students develop conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application.
4/8
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for rigor and balance. Conceptual understanding is not attended to by thoroughly setting explicit expectations for understanding or interpreting. Each lesson is launched with a real-world situation, but these launches prioritize application over building conceptual understanding. There are too few problems and practice designed to build fluency, particularly in dividing multi-digit numbers and adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing multi-digit decimals. The enrichment project for each unit is the major resource for application with multi-steps. Within the lessons there are many real-world type problems but very few that are multi-step problems. There is an attempt to balance conceptual and procedural work.

Indicator 2a

Attention to conceptual understanding: Materials develop conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts, especially where called for in specific content standards or cluster headings.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for developing conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts.

  • There are multiple representations used including verbal descriptions, graphs, number lines, tables and equations.
  • Conceptual understanding is not thoroughly addressed by setting explicit expectations for understanding or interpreting. For example, 6.RP.A.3 specifically calls for tape diagrams and double number lines to show student understanding in regards to ratios. There is one number line in Digits.
  • Each lesson is launched with a real-world situation, emphasizing application but not supporting building conceptual understanding.
  • One example of building conceptual understanding is topic 6 on the division of fractions.

Indicator 2b

Attention to Procedural Skill and Fluency: Materials give attention throughout the year to individual standards that set an expectation of procedural skill and fluency.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet expectations for attending to the expectation of procedural skill and fluency.

  • The fluency standards for Grade 6 are 6.NS.B.2 and 6.NS.B.3. Lesson 7-3 is the only lesson focused on fluently dividing multi-digit numbers (6.NS.B.2).
  • Lessons 7-1 through 7-4 address 6.NS.B.3 to fluently add, subtract, multiply and divide multi-digit decimals for each operation.
  • Lessons 7-5 and 7-6 compare decimals and fractions.
  • Lesson 7-7 solves real-world problems involving the operations with decimals.
  • The materials do not include many opportunities for students to practice fluency.

Indicator 2c

Attention to Applications: Materials are designed so that teachers and students spend sufficient time working with engaging applications of the mathematics, without losing focus on the major work of each grade
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for spending sufficient time working with engaging applications of the mathematics, without losing focus on the major work of each grade.

  • The enrichment project for each unit is the major resource for multi-step application problems.
  • There are many real-world type problems, but few multi-step problems within the lessons.
  • Students do not have many chances to model their thinking in a variety of instances while solving problems.

Indicator 2d

Balance: The three aspects of rigor are not always treated together and are not always treated separately. There is a balance of the 3 aspects of rigor within the grade.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for balance between the three aspects of rigor with the grade.

  • Each lesson begins with a launch that includes a real world situation and conceptual base.
  • In the "Got It" sections, there are problems that are procedural and applications of the mathematical topic.
  • There is an attempt to balance conceptual and procedural work.
  • The piece missing is enough practice for fluency of dividing multi-digit numbers; and adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing multi-digit decimals.

Criterion 2e - 2g.iii

Practice-Content Connections: Materials meaningfully connect the Standards for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice
3/10
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for practice-content connections. While the MPs are included and labeled in the launch of each lesson and the focus question, they are not identified anywhere in the in-class teaching notes and are missing in other areas of the curriculum. Problems often include too much scaffolding to enrich the mathematics for students. A teacher who is not familiar with the MPs would not be able to use the information given on the individual lessons to educate the students on how to use the MPs to assist in solving a math problem. On some lessons the MPs are used well and other lessons are mislabeled as being aligned to certain MPs. Materials have students constructing arguments through certain routine problems such as reasoning, reflecting, writing and error analysis. Students are prompted to construct arguments through some of the questions; however, the students frequently do not need to analyze problems in-depth in order to make these arguments. The teacher notes do not indicate how they can assist their students in the MPs. This series does not meet the standard to explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics. It often uses vocabulary that is not precise and does not allow for the student to be completely immersed in the language of mathematics.

Indicator 2e

The Standards for Mathematical Practice are identified and used to enrich mathematics content within and throughout each applicable grade.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for identifying and using the Standards for Mathematical Practice (MPs) to enrich mathematics content.

  • While the MPs are included and labeled in the launch of each lesson and the focus question, they are not identified anywhere in the in-class teaching notes or in other areas of the curriculum.
  • The questioning strategies offered in the program overview guide are the best examples of how to assist the educator to lead their students into applying the MPs to enrich the mathematics content.
  • Each lesson has students using a variety of MPs to enrich the lesson, but need explicit teacher support in order to ensure students practice these skills. The teacher would need to help students recognize what practices and skills they are employing to solve problems, and ensure students are using tools appropriately in practicing a standard.
  • MP4 on modeling is referred to often, but these lessons miss the opportunity to also practice MP5, which requires students to select the appropriate tool, in order to solve real-world problems.

Indicator 2f

Materials carefully attend to the full meaning of each practice standard
0/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations to carefully attend to the full meaning of each practice standard.

  • A teacher who is not familiar with MPs would not be able to use the information given in the individual lessons to educate the students on how to use the MPs to assist in solving a math problem.
  • The materials have inconsistent quality in terms of implementing the MPs. Some lessons incorporate the MPs well, while others indicate that practices are present where they are not.
  • Even though each lesson details which practices are correlated, only certain problems within the lessons are labeled as meeting the MPs, making it difficult to determine how the lesson truly meets the standards.
  • The problems do not reflect the full meaning of the MPs. For example, the problems want students to explain their work in order to satisfy MP3 and do not ask students to critique the reasoning of others.
  • One example of the materials not reaching the full meaning of MP3 and being inconsistent is in lesson 1-1.
  • In Lesson 1-1, the launch is a broad problem with multiple answers that uses MPs 1 and 2 well. Students would be making conjectures and planning solutions. They would make sense of quantities and their relationships.
  • The focus question for Lesson 1-1 is labeled as aligned to MPs 2 and 4; however, the students neither reason abstractly nor model in order to answer the question.
  • There is no evidence of MPs 3, 6, 7 and 8 in the materials for lesson 1-1; however, the program overview guide lists those MPs next to the lesson.

Indicator 2g

Emphasis on Mathematical Reasoning: Materials support the Standards' emphasis on mathematical reasoning by:
0/0

Indicator 2g.i

Materials prompt students to construct viable arguments and analyze the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for prompting students to construct viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others.

  • Materials have students constructing arguments through certain routine problems such as reasoning, reflecting, writing and error analysis.
  • These problems appear in each lesson in the same manner, which leads to less depth in the practice of the MP.
  • While the essence of standard for MP3 is in lessons in Grade 6, students are not directly prompted to "construct viable arguments."
  • Students are prompted to construct arguments through some of the questions in each lesson, but in many cases parts of the answers are already given to the students in advance and they do not need to think deeply about the answer. For example, in the lesson 4-4, "Do You Understand," there is an error analysis on writing an equation for a situation and students have to find the error. This question does not require the students to fully reason and construct arguments because they have already been told it is incorrect.

Indicator 2g.ii

Materials assist teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards.
0/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 do not meet the expectations for assisting teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others.

  • The attempt is present to assist teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments, but it is only found in the program overview guide and it is not embedded in the teacher notes or instructions to be included in each lesson.
  • The teacher notes do not indicate how to assist their students in the MPs.

Indicator 2g.iii

Materials explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet the expectations for explicitly attending to the specialized language of mathematics.

  • This series does not explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.
  • The materials often use vocabulary that is not precise and does not allow for the student to be immersed in the language of mathematics.
  • A vocabulary lesson is at the end of each topic. While this structure could support the development of mathematical language, they are isolated lessons.
  • The focus questions that conclude each lesson are often based on explaining the vocabulary focus of a lesson. For example, in Lesson 1-2, students need to understand the term "variable" to answer the question, "What does a variable allow you to do that you couldn't do before?"

Gateway Three

Usability

Not Rated

Criterion 3a - 3e

Use and design facilitate student learning: Materials are well designed and take into account effective lesson structure and pacing.
0/8

Indicator 3a

The underlying design of the materials distinguishes between problems and exercises. In essence, the difference is that in solving problems, students learn new mathematics, whereas in working exercises, students apply what they have already learned to build mastery. Each problem or exercise has a purpose.
0/2

Indicator 3b

Design of assignments is not haphazard: exercises are given in intentional sequences.
0/2

Indicator 3c

There is variety in what students are asked to produce. For example, students are asked to produce answers and solutions, but also, in a grade-appropriate way, arguments and explanations, diagrams, mathematical models, etc.
0/2

Indicator 3d

Manipulatives are faithful representations of the mathematical objects they represent and when appropriate are connected to written methods.
0/2

Indicator 3e

The visual design (whether in print or online) is not distracting or chaotic, but supports students in engaging thoughtfully with the subject.
0/0

Criterion 3f - 3l

Teacher Planning and Learning for Success with CCSS: Materials support teacher learning and understanding of the Standards.
0/8

Indicator 3f

Materials support teachers in planning and providing effective learning experiences by providing quality questions to help guide students' mathematical development.
0/2

Indicator 3g

Materials contain a teacher's edition with ample and useful annotations and suggestions on how to present the content in the student edition and in the ancillary materials. Where applicable, materials include teacher guidance for the use of embedded technology to support and enhance student learning.
0/2

Indicator 3h

Materials contain a teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials) that contains full, adult-level explanations and examples of the more advanced mathematics concepts in the lessons so that teachers can improve their own knowledge of the subject, as necessary.
0/2

Indicator 3i

Materials contain a teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials) that explains the role of the specific grade-level mathematics in the context of the overall mathematics curriculum for kindergarten through grade twelve.
0/2

Indicator 3j

Materials provide a list of lessons in the teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials), cross-referencing the standards covered and providing an estimated instructional time for each lesson, chapter and unit (i.e., pacing guide).
0/0

Indicator 3k

Materials contain strategies for informing parents or caregivers about the mathematics program and suggestions for how they can help support student progress and achievement.
0/0

Indicator 3l

Materials contain explanations of the instructional approaches of the program and identification of the research-based strategies.
0/0

Criterion 3m - 3q

Assessment: Materials offer teachers resources and tools to collect ongoing data about student progress on the Standards.
0/10

Indicator 3m

Materials provide strategies for gathering information about students' prior knowledge within and across grade levels.
0/2

Indicator 3n

Materials provide strategies for teachers to identify and address common student errors and misconceptions.
0/2

Indicator 3o

Materials provide opportunities for ongoing review and practice, with feedback, for students in learning both concepts and skills.
0/2

Indicator 3p

Materials offer ongoing formative and summative assessments:
0/0

Indicator 3p.i

Assessments clearly denote which standards are being emphasized.
0/2

Indicator 3p.ii

Assessments include aligned rubrics and scoring guidelines that provide sufficient guidance to teachers for interpreting student performance and suggestions for follow-up.
0/2

Indicator 3q

Materials encourage students to monitor their own progress.
0/0

Criterion 3r - 3y

Differentiated instruction: Materials support teachers in differentiating instruction for diverse learners within and across grades.
0/12

Indicator 3r

Materials provide strategies to help teachers sequence or scaffold lessons so that the content is accessible to all learners.
0/2

Indicator 3s

Materials provide teachers with strategies for meeting the needs of a range of learners.
0/2

Indicator 3t

Materials embed tasks with multiple entry-points that can be solved using a variety of solution strategies or representations.
0/2

Indicator 3u

Materials suggest support, accommodations, and modifications for English Language Learners and other special populations that will support their regular and active participation in learning mathematics (e.g., modifying vocabulary words within word problems).
0/2

Indicator 3v

Materials provide opportunities for advanced students to investigate mathematics content at greater depth.
0/2

Indicator 3w

Materials provide a balanced portrayal of various demographic and personal characteristics.
0/2

Indicator 3x

Materials provide opportunities for teachers to use a variety of grouping strategies.
0/0

Indicator 3y

Materials encourage teachers to draw upon home language and culture to facilitate learning.
0/0

Criterion 3aa - 3z

Effective technology use: Materials support effective use of technology to enhance student learning. Digital materials are accessible and available in multiple platforms.
0/0

Indicator 3aa

Digital materials (either included as supplementary to a textbook or as part of a digital curriculum) are web-based and compatible with multiple internet browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, etc.). In addition, materials are "platform neutral" (i.e., are compatible with multiple operating systems such as Windows and Apple and are not proprietary to any single platform) and allow the use of tablets and mobile devices.
0/0

Indicator 3ab

Materials include opportunities to assess student mathematical understandings and knowledge of procedural skills using technology.
0/0

Indicator 3ac

Materials can be easily customized for individual learners. i. Digital materials include opportunities for teachers to personalize learning for all students, using adaptive or other technological innovations. ii. Materials can be easily customized for local use. For example, materials may provide a range of lessons to draw from on a topic.
0/0

Indicator 3ad

Materials include or reference technology that provides opportunities for teachers and/or students to collaborate with each other (e.g. websites, discussion groups, webinars, etc.).
0/0

Indicator 3z

Materials integrate technology such as interactive tools, virtual manipulatives/objects, and/or dynamic mathematics software in ways that engage students in the Mathematical Practices.
0/0

Additional Publication Details

Report Published Date: Sun Feb 15 00:00:00 UTC 2015

Report Edition: 2014

Title ISBN Edition Publisher Year
null 9780133315783 null null null

About Publishers Responses

All publishers are invited to provide an orientation to the educator-led team that will be reviewing their materials. The review teams also can ask publishers clarifying questions about their programs throughout the review process.

Once a review is complete, publishers have the opportunity to post a 1,500-word response to the educator report and a 1,500-word document that includes any background information or research on the instructional materials.

Educator-Led Review Teams

Each report found on EdReports.org represents hundreds of hours of work by educator reviewers. Working in teams of 4-5, reviewers use educator-developed review tools, evidence guides, and key documents to thoroughly examine their sets of materials.

After receiving over 25 hours of training on the EdReports.org review tool and process, teams meet weekly over the course of several months to share evidence, come to consensus on scoring, and write the evidence that ultimately is shared on the website.

All team members look at every grade and indicator, ensuring that the entire team considers the program in full. The team lead and calibrator also meet in cross-team PLCs to ensure that the tool is being applied consistently among review teams. Final reports are the result of multiple educators analyzing every page, calibrating all findings, and reaching a unified conclusion.

Math K-8 Rubric and Evidence Guides

The K-8 review rubric identifies the criteria and indicators for high quality instructional materials. The rubric supports a sequential review process that reflect the importance of alignment to the standards then consider other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

For math, our rubrics evaluate materials based on:

  • Focus and Coherence

  • Rigor and Mathematical Practices

  • Instructional Supports and Usability

The K-8 Evidence Guides complement the rubric by elaborating details for each indicator including the purpose of the indicator, information on how to collect evidence, guiding questions and discussion prompts, and scoring criteria.

X