# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Reading Basics, Part 2: The Simple View of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Reading Basics, Part 3: Scarborough’s Reading Rope

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Background Knowledge Around Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Background Knowledge Around Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marblehead ELA Curriculum Selection Process

# data[].attributes.headline
The Science of Reading Comprehension - Due 2/7

# data[].attributes.subject
The Science of Reading Comprehension - Due 2/7

# data[].attributes.headline
The Science of Reading Progresses: Communication Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

# data[].attributes.subject
The Science of Reading Progresses: Communication Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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 criteria, evidence guides, and key documents to thoroughly examine their sets of materials.

After receiving over 25 hours of training on the EdReports review tools 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 professional learning communities to ensure that the review tools are 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.

Review Criteria Design

The EdReports review criteria 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 Tools and Reports

Review Tools -EdReports Review Tools are the combination of Review Criteria and a corresponding Evidence Guide.

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

The Evidence Guide complements the 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.

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.

The ELA foundational skills 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.

The ELA foundational skills review criteria evaluates materials based on:

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: The ELA foundational skills review criteria contains only two gateways. The structural pieces that we normally review as a part of Gateway 3 (e.g. differentiation) in our comprehensive reviews are critical to the success of a program, and are, therefore, interspersed and combined with other indicators in Gateway 2.

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:

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 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

Design to Facilitate Teacher Learning

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

Design to Facilitate Teacher Learning

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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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 criteria, evidence guides, and key documents to thoroughly examine their sets of materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
View quick reference guides on critical components of curriculum

View the rubrics our CURATE panels use to evaluate curricular materials for (English Language Arts and Literacy; Mathematics; Science and Technology/Engineering; and Digital Literacy and Computer Science).

The last major changes to our rubrics were in August 2021 to more intentionally integrate inclusive and culturally responsive practice throughout the rubric indicators.

In August 2022, the CURATE Team updated the "Notes and Tips" sections rubrics to clarify language and understanding, but no substantive changes were made.

See where specific curricular materials are used in Massachusetts

Explore other sites and resources designed to support curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CURATE Resources - Center for Instructional Support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The goal of the Massachusetts public K-12 education system is to prepare all students for success after high school. Massachusetts public school students are leading the nation in reading and math and are at the top internationally in reading, science, and math according to the national NAEP and int…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Reading League - Curriculum Evaluation Tool

# data[].attributes.subject
The Reading League - Curriculum Evaluation Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Arts Curriculum Selection Team Values One Pager