IPartner

Two resources that I looked at that are listed under the Ohio Materials Matter are Wonders for Kindergarten and Amplify ELA.  I was surprised that Wonders was ranked as meeting requirements as in some national reviews it is viewed as not aligned to current reading research but I do think it does meet most of what the State of Ohio is looking for with regards to Ohio Materials Matter.  Additionally, I was not surprised that Amplify ELA met the meeting requirements criteria as Amplify ELA is a research-based curriculum that is nationally aligned with many of the current initiatives going on nationally.   

I reviewed Amplify's reading program for K-5 and this rating did not surprise me. Knowing that Amplify's CKLA Curriculum focuses heavily on text that build background knowledge and foundational skills, I was curious to see where this was rated. According to EdReports, this program was in the green in meeting all of the high quality standards that are needed to ensure that a curriculum holds learners to high standards. I was intriguied by the way that "buliding knowledge" section was rated so high, as the research has found that grade level to grade level this curriculum does a good job of building students understanding (factual vs conceptual knowledge) from grade level to grade level vs. just skill based instruction. 

It was interesting to see a math program that I've seen used by Holt McDougal rated so low. Knowing that this program has been used in schools, checking the research from EdReports it rated very low in many areas. This surprised me as I wondered what went into the decisions to purchase this material if it is so low. This is helpful information to then help schools or districts ensure that they are supplementing other high quality materials on programs that might not be rated as highly. 

Agree - My first thought is what process schools and districts use to purchase as well. I have to wonder if they know about the reviews from EdReports!

One resource I reviewed on the Ohio Materials Matter was Fountas & Pinnell Classroom 2020, I was very surprised to find that according to EdReports this program does not meet any of the requirements for text quality. Also, I am curious why there is no data for the Usability? Fountas & Pinnell has been around for a long time and many aspects of it are in use in many schools and districts. I know this is focusing on the "Classroom" program but I am very curious how this resource scored so poorly. 

Another resource I reviewed was the HMH INTO Math 2020 - I chose this resource as I am currently working with a district that is piloting 2 math programs this year. I was thrilled to see that everything is in the green as meeting all of the standards, this is not a surprise as I have been working with teachers implementing the program it does seem to align, provide opportunities for engagement and rigor. I was disappointed to find that the second math program being piloted was not yet rated for the elementary grades. Illustrative Math was rated highly for use at the middle school and high school level but does not yet have a rating for elementary. I am curious how this rating will turn out as the program has many great attributes, there are gaps and I will follow up in the future to see how EdReports ranks the program. 

Nicole,

I would recommend taking the EdReports Class in our High-Quality Instructional Materials for Each Child Learning Pathway. It provides a deeper look at how EdReports determines their ratings. https://www.infohio.org/campus/learning-pathways/high-quality-instructional-materials-for-each-child-learning-pathway

Looking at Wonders (2017) vs Wonders (2020), I found it interesting that the 2017 version partially meets expectations and the 2020 version did meet expectations.  I always found that the newer versions appeared to be just repackaged and changed very little.  I would be curious to see what they changed to get the higher scores in Building Knowledge.  If you were a district that purchased in 2017, I wonder what they would encourage you to supplement to make up for the weaker areas. 

Adam - that is a great question! You can do a comparison of two curriculums on the EdReports site. Take a look at this lesson in the EdReports class https://www.infohio.org/campus/learning-pathways/course/edreports/using-the-compare-materials-feature

The comparison feature is a very useful tool.  It is helpful to be able to toggle back and forth and read the full reports to get more information regarding the rating scores.

Many of the schools we support use the Wonders reading series and Fundations.

Wonders First Grade 2020 met expectations in all three gateways. I liked how teachers can explore each gateway in-depth and discover the criteria for the overall score while identifying criteria & indicators that may have deficiencies. For example, the teacher planning criterion showed that minimal support is provided to assist with the implementation of embedded technology.

Fundations Grade 1 materials reviewed partially meet the criteria for alignment to standards and research-based practices for foundational skills instruction. Upon further exploration, I found that Fundations Grade 1 provide limited opportunities for students to practice decoding to develop accuracy and fluency.

This would be a great tool for future resource selection. The information provided in EdReports & Ohio Materials Matter are extremely valuable and a must for the curriculum adoption process.

I looked at MyPerspectives for Middle School ELA. It scored at the highest rating level in all categories. I compared that with StudySync, which also met all expectations, but not always at the highest level. In a previous district, there was a lot of discussion surrounding both of these materials. At the time, the EdReports data was not shared. What was more important was the usability by the teachers. Since both resources meet expectations, I'm not sure that the decision would have been different had they had the EdReports data. But maybe it would have.  

I looked into Agile Mind Middle School Mathematics. This is not a program I was previously aware of. After digging deeper, I wasn't surprised that it was a resource that met the requirements. Then I looked into Everyday Mathematics 4. This is McGraw's materials. I used to be an editor at McGraw and I was very surprised to see that it was at the partially met status. The editors work very hard to make sure all requirements are met, especially for our state. This experimentation definitely has me wondering specifically how these reports are generated. 

Hi Elizabeth, 

To get a better idea of how EdReports develops their reports, I recommned taking the EdReports class from INFOhio. You can find it in the High-Quality Instructional Materials for Each Child Learning Pathway in INFOhio Campus.

One of my focus areas as a curriculum consultant is mathematics.  So, I chose to look at mathematics texts.  First, I was surprised by how many resources received high marks for alignment.  This is especially true given the work we have done with districts where some of the recommended options were not ones the teams found aligned.  I also took note that a couple of "nationally recognized" (BI) selections did not receive high marks.  One thing that I find interesting is that one of the things mathematics education experts value, constructivism, is difficult to determine from the ratings system.

NOTE:  I omitted names, for the ESC does not recommend resources.  We facilitate discussion and evaluation for districts so that they can find the resource with best fit according to their needs and wants.

I reviewed two resources in the Ohio Materials Matters Reviews.  The
Paths to College and Career English Language Arts 9-12 was the first one.  This resource was designed for students grades 9 - 12.  Every rating was at a minimum of 29 of 32. The resources rated very high. I was not familiar with this resource so I had no preconceptions.  The second resource I reviewed was everyday math for grades 3-5. Focus and coherence rated very high, but rigor was 15 of 18 total.   

I looked through a list of curriculum products our programs have used in the past and both Calvert and i-Ready had reviews in the system.

I was already familiar with i-Ready because we chose that platform as part of our 1:1 rollout in my previous district. It was good to see that over 5 years later, the most recent (2020) version was still rated effective for both content and usability.

The 2018 version of Clavert was rated only partially effective for content and was not rated for usability.

I will be mentioning this when we do our curriculum review this spring.