The K–2 ELA foundational skills review criteria identify the indicators for high-quality supplemental foundational skills instructional materials. The review criteria support a sequential review process that reflects the importance of alignment to seminal research, theoretical frameworks, and standards, and considers other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

The ELA foundational skills review criteria evaluate materials based on:

• Alignment to Research-Based Practices and Standards for Foundational Skills Instruction

• Usability

The ELA foundational skills evidence guides complement the review criteria by elaborating details for each indicator, including the indicator’s purpose, research supporting the indicator, information on collecting evidence, guiding questions and discussion prompts, and scoring criteria.

NOTE: The ELA foundational skills review criteria contains only two gateways. The structural pieces in our comprehensive reviews that we typically review as a part of Gateway 3 (e.g., guidance for implementation) are critical to the success of a program and are therefore located in Gateway 2.

The ELA review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 ELA, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Text Quality and Complexity, and Alignment to Standards with Tasks Grounded in Evidence

• Building Knowledge with Texts, Vocabulary, and Tasks

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The ELA Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

NOTE: These review tools are intended to be used for comprehensive programs that do not contain a foundational skills component and are instead designed to be implemented with a supplement.

The ELA review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 ELA, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Text Quality and Complexity, and Alignment to Standards with Tasks Grounded in Evidence

• Building Knowledge with Texts, Vocabulary, and Tasks

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The ELA Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

The ELA review criteria identifies the indicators for high quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 ELA, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Text Quality and Complexity, and Alignment to Standards with Tasks Grounded in Evidence

• Building Knowledge with Texts, Vocabulary, and Tasks

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The ELA Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

The ELA review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 ELA, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Text Quality and Complexity, and Alignment to Standards with Tasks Grounded in Evidence

• Building Knowledge with Texts, Vocabulary, and Tasks

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The ELA Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

As of May 2023, EdReports and the Center for Assessment (CfA) officially paused efforts to review commercial interim assessment products due to a lack of publisher participation. However, we hope that by sharing what we’ve learned on our extensive journey, and the tools we have created, educators can exercise their purchasing power to press the assessment market for greater transparency and quality. Students are counting on us—they deserve evidence-based support to help them learn and grow. Learn more here. 

Interim Assessment Review Criteria

The interim assessment review criteria supports a sequential review process that reflect the importance of alignment to college and career-ready standards, evidence of publisher claims on design elements, and utility of the results to support teachers in appropriate ways. The criteria considers other high-quality attributes of assessments as recommended by educators and assessment experts.

The review process for assessments should be based on the uses publishers indicate their tests were designed to serve. The evaluation process includes three gateways, with each stage including specific criteria as follows:

• Gateway 1: Alignment of the assessment to the expectations of college and career-ready standards and adherence to expectations for fairness and accessibility.

• Gateway 2: Evidence of technical quality based on the types of information vendors provide related to student performance (i.e., achievement, predictive, sub-scores, and growth) and the ways in which they intend for that information to be used.

• Gateway 3: Evidence supporting the clarity and utility of score reports and supporting resources that guide interpretation and use. 

Unlike EdReports’ curriculum review tools, the interim assessment tools differ in a few significant ways should districts decide to use them for a review process:

• Gateways are not designed to be sequential. Rather, reviews should be done using all gateways. The criteria used in gateways 2 and 3 would depend on the intended design of assessment products.

• Scores for indicators roll up to criteria scores, but criteria scores do not roll up to gateway scores. Given the difference in criteria in the gateways, and the difference in scoring depending on claims and assessment design, EdReports and CfA felt scoring was more helpful at the criteria level.

• The design process is meant for both educators and assessment experts. Gateway 1 is predominantly designed for educator reviews, gateway 2 for assessment experts with deep research and technical knowledge, and gateway 3 for both educators and experts.

Interim Assessment Evidence Guide

The interim assessment evidence guides complement the review criteria 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. The guides are essential for fully understanding the review criteria and working with teams to calibrate and discuss assessment quality.

Interim Assessment Implementation Guide

The interim assessment implementation guide was designed for vendors to better understand how the review criteria and evidence guides would be used to evaluate assessments as well as to clarify the type of information that would be needed to conduct a review. This guide can help those interested in using these tools to frame their request for information from assessment providers to better understand the products they are considering.

The K-8 review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Focus and Coherence

• Rigor and Mathematical Practices

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The K-8 Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

The high school review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria 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 review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Focus and Coherence

• Rigor and Mathematical Practices

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The High School Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

As of May 2023, EdReports and the Center for Assessment (CfA) officially paused efforts to review commercial interim assessment products due to a lack of publisher participation. However, we hope that by sharing what we’ve learned on our extensive journey, and the tools we have created, educators can exercise their purchasing power to press the assessment market for greater transparency and quality. Students are counting on us—they deserve evidence-based support to help them learn and grow. Learn more here. 

Interim Assessment Review Criteria

The interim assessment review criteria supports a sequential review process that reflect the importance of alignment to college and career-ready standards, evidence of publisher claims on design elements, and utility of the results to support teachers in appropriate ways. The criteria considers other high-quality attributes of assessments as recommended by educators and assessment experts.

The review process for assessments should be based on the uses publishers indicate their tests were designed to serve. The evaluation process includes three gateways, with each stage including specific criteria as follows:

• Gateway 1: Alignment of the assessment to the expectations of college and career-ready standards and adherence to expectations for fairness and accessibility.

• Gateway 2: Evidence of technical quality based on the types of information vendors provide related to student performance (i.e., achievement, predictive, sub-scores, and growth) and the ways in which they intend for that information to be used.

• Gateway 3: Evidence supporting the clarity and utility of score reports and supporting resources that guide interpretation and use. 

Unlike EdReports’ curriculum review tools, the interim assessment tools differ in a few significant ways should districts decide to use them for a review process:

• Gateways are not designed to be sequential. Rather, reviews should be done using all gateways. The criteria used in gateways 2 and 3 would depend on the intended design of assessment products.

• Scores for indicators roll up to criteria scores, but criteria scores do not roll up to gateway scores. Given the difference in criteria in the gateways, and the difference in scoring depending on claims and assessment design, EdReports and CfA felt scoring was more helpful at the criteria level.

• The design process is meant for both educators and assessment experts. Gateway 1 is predominantly designed for educator reviews, gateway 2 for assessment experts with deep research and technical knowledge, and gateway 3 for both educators and experts.

Interim Assessment Evidence Guide

The interim assessment evidence guides complement the review criteria 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. The guides are essential for fully understanding the review criteria and working with teams to calibrate and discuss assessment quality.

Interim Assessment Implementation Guide

The interim assessment implementation guide was designed for vendors to better understand how the review criteria and evidence guides would be used to evaluate assessments as well as to clarify the type of information that would be needed to conduct a review. This guide can help those interested in using these tools to frame their request for information from assessment providers to better understand the products they are considering.

The science review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria supports a sequential review process that reflects the importance of alignment to the standards then considers other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

For science, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Three-Dimensional Learning

• Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning

• Coherence and Full Scope of the Three Dimensions

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

To best read our reports we recommend utilizing the Codes for NGSS Elements document that provides the code and description of elements cited as evidence in each report.

The science review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria supports a sequential review process that reflects the importance of alignment to the standards then considers other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

For science, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Three-Dimensional Learning

• Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning

• Coherence and Full Scope of the Three Dimensions

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

To best read our reports we recommend utilizing the Codes for NGSS Elements document that provides the code and description of elements cited as evidence in each report.

The science review criteria identifies the indicators for high-quality instructional materials. The review criteria supports a sequential review process that reflects the importance of alignment to the standards then considers other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

For science, our review criteria evaluates materials based on:

• Three-Dimensional Learning

• Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning

• Coherence and Full Scope of the Three Dimensions

• Instructional Supports and Usability

The Evidence Guides complement the review criteria 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.

To best read our reports we recommend utilizing the Codes for NGSS Elements document that provides the code and description of elements cited as evidence in each report.