Alignment: Overall Summary

The instructional materials for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet expectations for alignment to the CCSSM. In Gateway 1, the instructional materials do not meet the expectations for focus as they assess above-grade-level standards and devote approximately 84% of instructional time to the major work of the grade. For coherence, the instructional materials are not coherent and consistent with the Standards. The instructional materials have an amount of content designated for one grade level that is partially viable for one school year, and the materials partially engage students in the major work of the grade through supporting content. The materials do not identify content from future grades, do not give students work with extensive grade-level problems, and miss connections between two or more clusters in a domain or two or more domains. Since the materials do not meet the expectations for focus and coherence in Gateway 1, they were not reviewed for rigor and the mathematical practices in Gateway 2 or usability in Gateway 3.

See Rating Scale
Understanding Gateways

Alignment

|

Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway 1:

Focus & Coherence

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

Gateway 2:

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

0
10
16
18
N/A
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
N/A
31-38
Meets Expectations
23-30
Partially Meets Expectations
0-22
Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway One

Focus & Coherence

Does Not Meet Expectations

+
-
Gateway One Details

The instructional materials for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet expectations for focus and coherence in Gateway 1. For focus, the instructional materials do not meet the expectations for assessing grade-level standards, although the amount of time devoted to the major work of the grade is approximately 84%. For coherence, the instructional materials are not coherent and consistent with the Standards. The instructional materials have an amount of content designated for one grade level that is partially viable for one school year, and the materials partially engage students in the major work of the grade through supporting content. The materials do not identify content from future grades, do not give students work with extensive grade-level problems, and miss connections between two or more clusters in a domain or two or more domains.

Criterion 1a

Materials do not assess topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced.
0/2
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet expectations for not assessing topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced. The instructional materials include assessment items that align to standards above this grade level.

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.
0/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet the expectations for assessing grade-level content.

The materials include a Readiness Test, 14 Unit Tests, two Midterm Tests, and two Final Tests. The assessments include above-grade level content that would require major modifications and, if removed, would change the underlying structure and intent of the materials. Examples include:

  • In Unit Test 1, Question 1, and Unit Test 3, Questions 1-2, students “answer the following question and answer which animal is there the most of” after viewing a graph. In 1.MD.4, students interpret data with three categories, but these questions include four or five categories.
  • In Unit Test 13, Skill 2, and Final Test, Skill 2, students compute 53-3, 78-5, and 66-6, which aligns to 2.NBT.5.
  • In Final Test 1, Skill 5, students solve word problems with four addends, which does not align to 1.OA.2 (solving problems with three addends).
  • In Unit Test 7, Skill 11, Question 4, students partition hexagons in various ways. This does not align to 1.G.3, partitioning circles and rectangles into two and four equal shares and describing the shares.
  • In Unit Test 9, Skill 2, students find the next shape in the pattern. Creating or extending patterns aligns to 4.OA.5. 

 Examples of grade-level assessment items include:

  • In Unit Test 1, Questions 3 and 4, students show how many fruits there are using a picture of bananas, apples, and oranges on a graph. In this problem, students organize, represent, and interpret data (1.MD.4).
  • In Unit Test 2, students match analog clocks with times to the hour and half hour (1.MD.3).
  • In Unit Test 3, students add and subtract in math sentences with three numbers (1.OA.2).
  • In Unit Test 4, students calculate addition within 20 using a recommended strategy of decomposing to make 10 (1.OA.6).

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 instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 meet expectations for devoting the large majority of class time to the major work of the grade. The instructional materials spend approximately 84% of instructional time on the major work of the grade.

Indicator 1b

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

The instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 meet the expectation for spending the majority of class time on the major clusters of each grade. For Grade 1, this includes all clusters within 1.OA and 1.NBT along with 1.MD.A.

  • The number of units devoted to major work of the grade (including supporting work connected to the major work) is 9 out of 14, which is approximately 64%.
  • The number of lessons devoted to major work of the grade (including supporting work connected to the major work) is 105 out of 140, which is approximately 75%.
  • The number of days devoted to major work (including assessments and supporting work connected to the major work) is 129 out of 154, which is approximately 84%.

The number of days devoted to major work is most representative of the instructional materials because that involves assessments. As a result, approximately 84% of the instructional materials focus on major work of the grade.

Criterion 1c - 1f

Coherence: Each grade's instructional materials are coherent and consistent with the Standards.
3/8
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet expectations for being coherent and consistent with the Standards. The instructional materials partially engage students in the major work of the grade through supporting content, do not identify content from future grades, do not give students work with extensive grade-level problems, and miss connections between two or more clusters in a domain or two or more domains.

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 Japan Math Grade 1 partially meet expectations for supporting content enhancing focus and coherence simultaneously by engaging students in the major work of the grade. Supporting standards appear in lessons with no connections to the major work of the grade, with a few exceptions.

Examples of supporting work not connected to major work of the grade and/or omitted connections include:

  • In Unit 2, students match time with an analog clock, record the time on an analog clock, and draw the hands on the clock (1.MD.3), but there are no connections in the unit to 1.OA or 1.NBT.
  • Units 10 and 11 address 1.G, but there are no connections to major work of the grade.

Examples of supporting work connected to major work of the grade include:

  • In Unit 1, students create graphs and answer questions of “how many?” (1.MD.4), and the materials make connections to 1.OA.1, using addition and subtraction within 20 to answer word problems. For example, in Lesson 3, the Teacher Edition states, “Show how many toys there are in the graph below.”
  • In Unit 9, Lesson 4, the materials connect 1.G.2 connect with 1.OA.1 as students count and add the number of shapes. For example: “What kinds of shapes are there and how many of them are there?” “There are 4 kinds of shapes. There are 12 triangles. There are 24 pieces altogether.”

Indicator 1d

The amount of content designated for one grade level is viable for one school year in order to foster coherence between grades.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 partially meet the expectation for having an amount of content that is viable for one school year. 

According to the publisher, the instructional materials can be completed in 154 days as outlined in the teacher manual: one day per lesson and one day for each assessment. However, the content presented is insufficient to the instructional time allotted for each lesson, and teachers would need to make modifications to ensure content is viable for one year.

The Teacher’s Edition includes a scope and sequence of the instructional materials, noting there are 14 units with 140 lessons in total, each designed for 50 minutes. The 50 minutes for each lesson includes workbook pages for students to complete with scripted teacher directions and question prompts. Each prompt is accompanied by a suggested amount of time. In the materials, time was not identified or described for assessments, so one day was allotted per unit for assessments.

Lessons that include suggested prompt activities that take less than the 50 minutes described in the Scope and Sequence include, but are not limited to:

  • In Unit 1, Lesson 2 is 15 minutes.
  • In Unit 2, Lessons 1 and 2 are 15 minutes. 
  • In Unit 4, Lesson 2 is 30 minutes.
  • In Unit 5, Lesson 3 is 15 minutes.
  • In Unit 6, Lesson 1 is 30 minutes.

In addition, examples of lesson prompts that would not provide 50 minutes of instructional time include, but are not limited to:

  • In Unit 8, Lesson 1, 10 minutes are suggested for teachers to ask students, “What kind of situation is this?” (displaying a picture), “How many children are there?” “How many girls are there?” and “Are there more girls or boys?”
  • In Unit 8, Lesson 2, 20 minutes are suggested for students to answer “What can we understand about this diagram?” “How is this picture different, how is it the same?”
  • In Unit 9, Lesson 2, 35 minutes are suggested for students to lay out the shapes to match the picture (seven shapes in all). 
  • In Unit 11, Lesson 3, 10 minutes is suggested for students to look at a picture of two faces and think about the shapes. 

Teachers would need to find additional content for many lessons to meet the time frame of 50 minutes. Optional expansion workbooks can be purchased separately for more questions, however, these were not reviewed as they are not part of the core program.

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.
0/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Japan Math Grade 1 do not meet expectations for being consistent with the progressions in the Standards. Overall, the materials do not provide all students with extensive work on grade-level problems. The instructional materials do not develop according to the grade-by-grade progressions in the Standards. Content from prior and future grades is not clearly identified nor related to the grade-level work. The instructional materials do not relate grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades. At the beginning of each unit, there is "Explanation of the Unit" which provides a description of connections to concepts that have been taught earlier and is identified as “What Students Have Learned Previously”.

The lessons follow a structure of Try, Understand, Apply, and Master. Most lessons do not provide enough opportunity for students to independently demonstrate mastery. The lessons include teacher-directed problems that the class solves together, but the instructional materials do not include supplemental practice or problems that students complete independently. Whole class instruction is used in the lessons, and all students are expected to do the same work throughout the lesson.

Examples of content from prior and future grades that is not clearly identified include:

  • In Unit 1, Lessons 2-4, students make graphs with 4 or 5 categories of data, which aligns to 2.MD.10, but is not identified as such. 
  • In Unit 3, Lesson 4, students start with a total amount in a word problem and subtract 2 subtrahends (some dogs leave, then some more dogs leave). This is a two-step problem, which is above grade level and not identified in the instructional materials. 
  • In Unit 13, Lesson 2, 4, 6, and 9, students subtract two-digit numbers by one-digit numbers above 20, which aligns to Grade 2 standards and is not indicated by the publisher. 

Examples of the instructional materials not addressing grade-level standards or giving all students extensive work with grade-level problems include:

  • In Unit 9, Lesson 6, students choose the next shape in a pattern of shapes by circling the shape from a choice of three, which does not align to 1.G.2 (composing shapes) because students are not composing shapes.
  • 1.OA.7, determine the meaning of the equal sign, is not addressed. 
  • 1.NBT.5, add or subtract 10 to a two-digit number mentally, is not addressed.
  • There are no lessons addressing 1.G.1, distinguish between defining and non-defining attributes.

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 instructional materials for Japan Math Grade 1 partially meet expectations for fostering coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the Standards.

The materials include learning objectives that are visibly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings, and examples include:

  • In Unit 4, Lesson 3, the objective, “Understand how to calculate and addition problem with an augend of 9 by decomposing the addend in 9 + 5,” is shaped by 1.OA.C, Add and subtract within 20.
  • In Unit 6, Lesson 3, the objective, "Understand how to count two-digit numbers (groups of ten and some more)," is shaped by 1.NBT.B, Understand place value.
  • In Unit 7, Lessons 2 and 3, the objective, “Understand how to compare lengths using arbitrary units,” is shaped by 1.MD.A, Measure lengths indirectly and by iterating length units.

The materials do not 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 examples include, but are not limited to:

  • In Unit 4, students adding and subtracting within 20 (1.OA.C) is not connected to representing and solving problems involving addition and subtraction (1.OA.A).
  • In Unit 7, students measuring lengths indirectly and by iterating length units (1.MD.A) is not connected to grade-level work with addition and subtraction (1.OA).

Gateway Two

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

Not Rated

+
-
Gateway Two Details
Materials were not reviewed for Gateway Two because materials did not meet or partially meet expectations for Gateway One

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.

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.
N/A

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.
N/A

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
N/A

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.
N/A

Criterion 2e - 2g.iii

Practice-Content Connections: Materials meaningfully connect the Standards for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice

Indicator 2e

The Standards for Mathematical Practice are identified and used to enrich mathematics content within and throughout each applicable grade.
N/A

Indicator 2f

Materials carefully attend to the full meaning of each practice standard
N/A

Indicator 2g

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

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.
N/A

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.
N/A

Indicator 2g.iii

Materials explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.
N/A

Gateway Three

Usability

Not Rated

+
-
Gateway Three Details
This material was not reviewed for Gateway Three because it did not meet expectations for Gateways One and Two

Criterion 3a - 3e

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

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.
N/A

Indicator 3b

Design of assignments is not haphazard: exercises are given in intentional sequences.
N/A

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.
N/A

Indicator 3d

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

Indicator 3e

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

Criterion 3f - 3l

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

Indicator 3f

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

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.
N/A

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.
N/A

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.
N/A

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).
N/A

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.
N/A

Indicator 3l

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

Criterion 3m - 3q

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

Indicator 3m

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

Indicator 3n

Materials provide strategies for teachers to identify and address common student errors and misconceptions.
N/A

Indicator 3o

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

Indicator 3p

Materials offer ongoing formative and summative assessments:
N/A

Indicator 3p.i

Assessments clearly denote which standards are being emphasized.
N/A

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.
N/A

Indicator 3q

Materials encourage students to monitor their own progress.
N/A

Criterion 3r - 3y

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

Indicator 3r

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

Indicator 3s

Materials provide teachers with strategies for meeting the needs of a range of learners.
N/A

Indicator 3t

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

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).
N/A

Indicator 3v

Materials provide opportunities for advanced students to investigate mathematics content at greater depth.
N/A

Indicator 3w

Materials provide a balanced portrayal of various demographic and personal characteristics.
N/A

Indicator 3x

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

Indicator 3y

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

Criterion 3z - 3ad

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

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.
N/A

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.
N/A

Indicator 3ab

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

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.
N/A

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.).
N/A
abc123

Additional Publication Details

Report Published Date: 09/19/2019

Report Edition: 2017

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.

Rubric Design

The EdReports.org’s rubric supports a sequential review process through three gateways. These gateways reflect the importance of standards alignment to the fundamental design elements of the materials and considers other attributes of high-quality curriculum as recommended by educators.

Advancing Through Gateways

  • Materials must meet or partially meet expectations for the first set of indicators to move along the process. Gateways 1 and 2 focus on questions of alignment. Are the instructional materials aligned to the standards? Are all standards present and treated with appropriate depth and quality required to support student learning?
  • Gateway 3 focuses on the question of usability. Are the instructional materials user-friendly for students and educators? Materials must be well designed to facilitate student learning and enhance a teacher’s ability to differentiate and build knowledge within the classroom. In order to be reviewed and attain a rating for usability (Gateway 3), the instructional materials must first meet expectations for alignment (Gateways 1 and 2).

Key Terms Used throughout Review Rubric and Reports

  • Indicator Specific item that reviewers look for in materials.
  • Criterion Combination of all of the individual indicators for a single focus area.
  • Gateway Organizing feature of the evaluation rubric that combines criteria and prioritizes order for sequential review.
  • Alignment Rating Degree to which materials meet expectations for alignment, including that all standards are present and treated with the appropriate depth to support students in learning the skills and knowledge that they need to be ready for college and career.
  • Usability Degree to which materials are consistent with effective practices for use and design, teacher planning and learning, assessment, and differentiated instruction.

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