EdReports Revises Curriculum Ratings, Some Publishers’ Scores Improve

By Liana Loewus — October 28, 2015 1 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A nonprofit that reviews curricula for common-core alignment, which came under fire after initially posting low ratings for nearly all the texts it analyzed, has tweaked its process—and consequently upped the scores for several publishers., a self-described Consumer Reports-style review of instructional materials, published its first round of reviews in March. The group looked at K-8 mathematics materials from widely used publishers such as Pearson, McGraw Hill, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. It found that 17 of 20 math series evaluated failed to meet criteria for alignment to the Common Core State Standards.

Publishers and some math experts pushed back on the reviews, saying they were tainted by

shoddy methodology and were ultimately misleading.

In June, announced that it was altering its review process, including gathering more evidence and putting more information on the website.

As of yesterday, those updated reviews are now out.

Three series—Connected Math (published by Pearson), Go Math (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), and Math Expressions (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)—got improved scores for alignment in at least one grade level. Another series, My Math (published by McGraw Hill), was found to meet all expectations for usability in grades 4 and 5. has also given publishers more space on its website to post information about how their materials were developed.

The group is planning to release results for high school math and 3rd-8th grade English/language arts materials next year, according to the website.

Image: Connected Math, a Pearson product, now meets expectations for alignment and partially meets expectations for usability at grade 8. Previously, the series did not meet expectations for alignment and was not reviewed for usability at that grade.

Related Tags:

A version of this news article first appeared in the Curriculum Matters blog.