A Consumer Reports-style review of math instructional materials that called out nearly all the curricula evaluated for failing to align to the common-core standards is now coming under attack for its methodology.
The nonprofit EdReports.org posted online its first round of reviews, which focused on K-8 mathematics materials from widely used publishers such as Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, at the beginning of the month. The group found that, contrary to their publishers鈥� claims, 17 of 20 math series evaluated failed to meet criteria for alignment to the Common Core State Standards.
Publishers and at least one outside math expert, however, argue that the teacher-led reviews were tainted by shoddy methodology and are misleading. One publisher of a primarily digital curriculum that was found unaligned even claims that some reviewers spent little or no time logged into its materials, making the review 鈥渋nadequate and inconsistent with rigorous standards.鈥�
If widely accepted, EdReports鈥� reviews could have profound effects for adoption decisions, curriculum experts said.
鈥淚n general, the results are pretty bad for all the publishers,鈥� said Morgan Polikoff, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, who was not part of the project. 鈥淚 think people really will pay attention to this.鈥� The outcomes echo previous alignment studies conducted by Mr. Polikoff and others.
But publishers have since sharply criticized the EdReports.org methodology, especially the use of 鈥済ateways,鈥� or thresholds, that curricula needed to pass through to continue in the review process.
Jay A. Diskey, the executive director of the Association of American Publishers鈥� P-12 learning group, based in Washington, said the use of such gateways resulted in 鈥渁 very shallow, incomplete review.鈥�
Diane J. Briars, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, also has 鈥渧ery serious reservations鈥� about the process. 鈥淚 think they ended up with a lot of false negatives,鈥� she said.
Just one curriculum series stood out from the pack. Eureka Math, published by Great Minds, a small Washington-based nonprofit organization, was found to be aligned to the common core for all grades, K-8.
Teacher Teams
EdReports.org, spearheaded by Maria M. Klawe, the president of Harvey Mudd College, in Claremont, Calif., was launched in August. The project is underwritten primarily by $3 million in grants from the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which also was a major backer of the development of the common core, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation of Menlo Park, Calif., and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust in New York City. (The Gates and Hewlett foundations also support, respectively, coverage of college- and career-ready standards and deeper learning in 澳门跑狗论坛.)
The 46 reviewers, half of whom are practicing teachers, worked in teams of four over several months to review the K-5 or 6-8 instructional series. Team members combed through the curricula independently鈥攗p to a dozen textbooks apiece鈥攁nd then met in a weekly videoconference to discuss their findings.
The curricula were first evaluated on whether they met the common core鈥檚 expectations for focus and coherence鈥攖hat is, whether they stuck to grade-level content and followed a logical sequence for math learning. If a text passed that first gateway鈥攁nd a majority did not鈥攖he reviewers then moved along to gateway two, which looked at whether the curriculum met the expectations for rigor. The third and final gateway measured usability.
Reviewers and EdReports.org representatives said in October that team members were spending three or four hours a week looking over the texts on their own.
But Philip Uri Treisman, the founder and executive director of the University of Texas at Austin鈥檚 Charles A. Dana Center, which helped develop the Agile Mind curricula, said that his group tracked the amount of time reviewers spent logged into Agile Mind鈥檚 digital materials. It found that two of the four reviewers 鈥渓ogged into the digital materials for little or no time at all, depending on the grade level of the program,鈥� and that 鈥渓ess than 23 percent of the total content were reviewed by more than one panelist for an hour or more,鈥� he wrote in an email. Some units were reviewed for less than 10 minutes, he said.
Reviewers鈥� Response
Eric Hirsch, the executive director of EdReports.org, responded that not all the logins worked, and that teams came together and completed their individual reviews from a projector screen. 鈥淚t may have only taken 10 minutes for reviewers to look or assess whether a unit or lesson were to cover the major work of the grade sufficiently,鈥� said Mr. Hirsch. 鈥淲e stand by the work our educators did on the review.鈥�
The EdReports.org website uses a three-tiered rating system鈥�"meets criteria,鈥� 鈥減artially meets criteria,鈥� or 鈥渄oes not meet criteria"鈥攆or each gateway. The site also has more-detailed reports for each textbook, which include documentation on how the reviewers reached each score.
Among the highlights:
鈥� My Math, a K-5 instructional series by McGraw-Hill, was deemed fully aligned for grades 4 and 5.
鈥� Of the seven Houghton Mifflin Harcourt instructional series reviewed, four partially met alignment criteria for at least one grade level.
鈥� One of the four Pearson texts reviewed was judged to be partially aligned for at least one grade level.
鈥� All texts by Agile Mind, Big Ideas Learning, Edgenuity, Kendall Hunt, and TPS Publishing Inc. were considered not aligned to the common standards.
More than 40 states have adopted the common core, the set of English/language arts and math standards released in 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.
Publishers had two weeks to write responses of up to 1,500 words, which were posted with the reviews on the EdReports.org website.
Pearson wrote that the reviewers 鈥渁pplied a very narrow standard for measuring focus.鈥� Big Ideas said that the gateway process 鈥渄iscredits鈥� the evaluation, because it allowed reviewers to come to 鈥渢he generalized conclusion that Big Ideas Math fails two other gateways, rigor and usability, without even a perfunctory analysis鈥� of those characteristics.
In an email, John Hartz, a spokesman for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Edgenuity, said that the gateway process 鈥渨ill mislead readers.鈥�
Ms. Briars, the NCTM president, agreed with many of those critiques. Gateway one, she said, had a 鈥渇atal flaw鈥� in that, in order to pass through it, instructional material could not assess content from future grades. 鈥淚f that gets a zero, the whole program is thrown out,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut the assessment tasks are separate from what the kids see every day. And I might want to assess informally what students know and how in-depth their knowledge is.鈥�
Methodology Debate
Several publishers noted in emails and interviews that their curricula had been adopted by state and district review teams.
鈥淚t has to be asked whether some of the differences here have to do with the type of rubric and alignment tool that was used鈥� by EdReports.org, said Mr. Diskey of the AAP.
But USC鈥檚 Mr. Polikoff said EdReports.org鈥檚 review process made sense. 鈥淭here can always be methodological quibbles,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t would be useful to look at all three gateways for all the books, but this seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to constrain the task.鈥�
Mr. Hirsch said the gateway process came out of discussions with educators, who consistently concluded that 鈥渋f you鈥檙e not teaching the right math, these other things won鈥檛 matter as much.鈥� Even so, he said, 鈥渨e view every publisher response as an opportunity for learning.鈥�
Alignment studies conducted by researchers William Schmidt, the co-director of the education policy center at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, and Mr. Polikoff came to the same conclusion as EdReports.org: Claims of common-core alignment are generally unfounded.
For Denise Walston, the director of mathematics for the Washington-based Council of the Great City Schools, the review has the potential to improve what鈥檚 going on in classrooms. 鈥淒istricts considering buying, I think they need to pause and wait a little bit,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut for those that have bought materials and have some programs that only partially met expectations from EdReports, now鈥檚 the time to look at what鈥檚 there and try to figure out ways they can supplement. ... The textbook is what [teachers] depend on, so you鈥檝e got to make sure what you put in their hands is right.鈥�
EdReports.org plans to eventually move on to secondary math and K-12 English/language arts curricula and to institute a rolling review process for K-8 math materials, said Mr. Hirsch.
