INFOhio ICoach

Our district is considering Ready Reading for our new ELA curriculum.  Overall, it received great scores from EdReports, but I found it interesting that when looking deeper at the 5th-grade text level it did not seem to progress lexile levels systematically.  Instead, the Criterion Level 1:1 Text Quality and Complexity Indicator 1D showed lexile levels ranged from 610 to 1030 but jumped around these levels throughout the year, not progressively.  I think this information would be valuable from a teacher's view to signal when a more prominent differentiation need exists for students on an IEP.

Agree. I wonder if your curriculum team has seen the report as well.

My district just adopted Envison math and the ratings look great! I compared Envision to our old math program GoMath. A key difference I noticed was the foucs and coherence piece is much stronger with Envision. I also started exploring other programs through Savvas and I'm interested in the "My View Literacy Reading Program" it has good ratings too. I was surpised that there was nothing about a gifted reading program I use called Junior Great Books- I like the program, but I was curious to know its rating. 

That's great that the math curriculum your district adopted was reviewed well. Junior Great Books! I remember as a kid being in that program; I'd be interested in seeing it evaluated as well. 

Our district just adopted enVision (by Savvas) for math, K-8. I'm glad to know it recieved the green rating! I didn't find Think Central's Science Fusion listed (our science program 4-8) so I'm curious how that one ranks. 

As with most ratings/reports, I do not see much for the social studies - and I'm curious how those programs rank. I'm a former history teacher so I'd like to see this built out for this content, too.

EdReports has not started reviewing SS curriculums yet. They are just starting with Science. It is a great resource nonetheless!

I was curious to find reviews for Math in Focus and Saxon Math because I was assigned these texts earlier in my career and was dissatisfied- I supplemented these because I found they did not address meeting the needs of all learners and also were not relevant in mathematical experiences. Although some aspects were not rated, my exploration of these did affirm my feelings at the time.

I also wanted to find some resources rated high for science and I was shocked that the majority were found to not meet expectations for alignment. Why is this? It seems astounding to me in 2022. I am glad to see Amplify was reviewed positively because we are reviewing the needs in our science curriculum and this is one we all agree is quite good.

I reviewed the report for StudySync ELA, which I have used for 2 years and really love. In reading the report I was not in the least surprised to see that it "meet expectations" at every level. One sub scale area that did not meet expectations was indicator 1D. In the breakdown the report noted that not all texts met the recommended grade band quanative score. But, that seems universal when dealing with literary texts, especially as grade levels advance. Teachers may need keep in mind which texts they are selecting as they progress. This program does an excellent job at leading students through annotation and close reading of all texts. 

My district adopted Fountas & Pinnell for reading this year. The results were not positive using EdReports, but not surprising. The teachers using the program were not impressed. Sharing this information with the teachers who are using the program would perhaps make them feel that they are not alone in their concerns. It was very interesting reading the publisher's response to the report that is linked on the EdReports site.

Our district recently adopted MyPerspectives published by Savvas Learning Company (f/k/a Pearson).  Our 7-12 teachers using this material was wondering the level of quality of this material.  The district indicated it met expectations for usability and and alignment.  Edreports provides evidence for teachers to find that indeed, the district was correct with their assessment.

During the 2020-2021 school year, we researched and began the adoption process of the SAVVAS curriculum for Algebra 1 and Geometry. Through using EdReports, we were able to provide confirm and provide evidence to our staff that the products met expectations on usability and standard alignment.

Our district uses the Savvas enVision math, and I have most recently taught 6th graders.  The ratings for this curriculum were 14/14 on focus and coherence, and 17/18 on rigor and mathmatical practice.  This does not surprise me, as when teaching the text I was able to see the rigor and focus on standards.  However, one thing to note.  I often needed supplemental materials for remedial skills with strugglling learners.  Because of the rigor, those who were already behind really struggled to keep up with the content in the textbook.

I was definitely surprised to see that Fountas & Pinnell and Fundations only partially meet expectations. I thought they were widely used and thought they were meeting expectations. 

Our district is focusing on implementing math coaches in each building, so I will definitely share this resource with that department so they can help assess their curriculum needs. 

The ELA currciculum we adopted 6 tears ago is Units of Study in Reading and Units of Study in Writing (we have had writing for more than 6 years). As I shared in my previous post (should have looked ahead!), the edReport review confirmed what all grade levels in my K-5 building found... the curriculum does not meet our standards. The lack of higher level thinking and text-dependent questions were a big one. Teachers in grades 2 - 5 really noticed a lack of writing in response to reading. That is very important to our students, especially when taking our lovely state tests.

The second curriculum I looked at was Investigations in Math, 3rd edition. We adopted this one 6 years ago as well. I served on the math committee to learn how to use this curriculum in depth, and spent a lot of time comparing it to the state standards, choosing what components could be skipped, and what needed to be supplemented. We found the curriculum to meet the major work of 2nd grade, but needed some deeper questionsing and varied question formats. We also found the curriculum to bounce around a bit, and planned some units out of order to better meet our needs. The edReports review confimred these impressions of the curriculum.

When did edReports first begin doing this? I wonder if it was available when these curriculum decisions were made? We have definitely spent a lot of man hours analyzing the curriculum and finding areas to supplement. I am guessing nothing is perfect. 

I am not a classroom teacher, so I don't typically work directly with the ELA curriculum that our district uses (Journeys). But having talked with teachers and seen where our students struggle, it does not surprise me that it does not meet expectations for alignment. Seeing the review that says it does not meet for building background knowlege, it makes so much more sense to me now why our teachers are looking for supplemental materials to support the curriculum. 

1.  The Center for the Collaborative Classroom is a not--for-profit organization that provides participants everything they need to implement a workshop approach to teaching/learning integrated English Language Arts, including print materials, a one-stop digital platform full of resources, and PD.  We have been immersed with implementation  for 6 years, K-5.  There is a considerable emphais on SEL--as in learning to read, write, and discuss in community. Some teachers love it.  Others, would prefer a more traditional anthology/TE set up. So--I was curious how the program would rate with the critics. I was super-pleased to discovered that EDReports rated all 3 grade bands that comprise K-8 GREEN/High on the quality of the literature included.  (The program is focused on genuine literary and information literary texts.). All 3 grade bands earned 24 out of 32 points for Building Knowledge (75%).  It appeared the program lost points for questions focused on vocabulary and comprehension.  I think arming teachers with this knowledge would empower them to tweak, omit, and/or add questions per the reviewers' suggestions.  Indeed, they already do!

2.  ILLUSTRATIVE MATHMATICS is a curriculum we use in grades 6-11.  Or, let me put it this way--that we should be implementing with fidelity.  Our teachers and students in grades 6-9 made great strides toward pandemic recovery this year, while Geometry and Algebra--where the curriculum is not honored--did poorly.  It was gratifying to see that Illustrative Mathematics, K-12 earned GREEN/MEETS EXPECTATIONS across the board.  I had recently shared this information with our superintendent and BOE members, just to reinforce the significance of our local results.