Frequently Asked Questions

EdReports is an independent nonprofit committed to ensuring all students have access to high-quality instructional materials. We publish free reviews of K–12 instructional materials, using an educator led approach to evaluate materials based on the quality of their design: how well they structure evidence-based teaching and learning to support college and career-readiness.

EdReports increases the capacity of teachers, administrators, and education leaders to seek, identify, and demand the highest-quality instructional materials. Drawing upon expert educators, our evidence-rich reviews of instructional materials and support of smart adoption processes equip teachers with excellent materials nationwide. Learn more about what we do.

Yes! Every EdReports review is:

• Educator-led: Our reviews are by educator, for educator. Expert educator reviewers are selected through a rigorous process, receive extensive training and support, and dedicate over 100 hours of their time per series report to analyzing every page of instructional materials.
• Independent: We do not charge fees or accept free materials or any other type of contributions from publishers. In addition, we ensure that our board members and reviewers have no conflicts of interest, such as relationships with publishers or previous experience using the materials.
• Rigorous: Our reports provide reliable, evidence-rich, and comprehensive information about a program’s alignment to college and career-ready standards, learning research, and other indicators of quality. 
• Transparent: We make our review criteria and process publicly available in order to help educators and school systems better evaluate instructional materials. 

EdReports reviews are designed to be one input in a comprehensive, teacher-led adoption process that prioritizes local needs and integrates multi-year implementation planning throughout. Learn more via our free guide, 6 Key Adoption Steps.

EdReports offers a suite of free resources that help navigate our reviews, promote smart adoption practices, aid in implementing new materials, and help identify gaps in materials a school district or teacher may currently be using.

EdReports reviews are educator-led. We firmly believe that those closest to the classroom are best positioned to review materials.

EdReports does not make recommendations or advise on whether one curriculum is “better” than the other. This is because what is “better” for one student, teacher, or district is something that is a question that requires a lot more information than what we look for in our review indicators. For example, we do not review for social and emotional learning, but that does not mean it is not an important consideration or priority.

EdReports’ reviews focus on whether materials meet our indicators, criteria, and gateways. Different indicators and criteria may matter more to different districts based on the professional support, student learning results, and overall local context regardless of a program’s summative total. Our aim is to empower schools and districts with information to choose the best curricula to meet their local needs.

EdReports is a strong starting point for conversations about curriculum, but it isn’t the ending point. Districts should look at EdReports reviews and evidence as one part of a thoughtful adoption process. Our reviews can be an important tool for adoption committees to communicate with teachers about materials under consideration as well as with other district leadership about recommendations.

What’s more, the information in our reviews support adoption committees and educators to see where they can put the bulk of their analysis time and resources. As you begin your materials adoption, use our reports as a way to determine what areas of specific programs should be explored further. It will help you to ensure the materials chosen are not only aligned to standards, but also meet the unique needs of the teachers and students in your community.

See our latest annual report for a list of funders whose generous support makes our work possible.

EdReports reviews PK-12 materials from all sources including for-profit, non-profit, and open educational resources (OERs).

In K-12, we currently review year-long, comprehensive instructional materials in mathematics, English language arts, and science. We also review standalone supplemental K-2 foundational skills materials, but we do not currently review any other types of supplemental K-12 materials.

In pre-K, we review materials that cover one or more of the following domains: mathematics, language and literacy, science and engineering, social studies, social and emotional development, fine arts, and physical and motor development.

For high school mathematics, we review collections of courses (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II OR Integrated I, II, III) and do not review standalone courses. 

For K-2 foundational skills supplements, we review standalone foundational skills programs, meaning that the program does not rely on other materials to deliver instructional content. Explicit instruction, practice, and assessment in alphabet knowledge and print concepts, phonemic awareness, phonics, word recognition and word analysis, and fluency must occur in the materials.

Read more about materials currently under review and recommend materials for us to review.

EdReports reviews core, year-long, Pre-K-12 materials in English language arts (ELA), math, and science, as well as K-2 ELA foundational skills supplements. We review programs from all sources, including for-profit, non-profit, and Open Education Resources.

We are guided by the long-term goal of providing a broad picture of materials, reviewing as close as possible to 100% of the ELA, math, and science market. EdReports is in regular contact with curriculum publishers to determine readiness for review and to request access to materials. We prioritize curricula for review based on multiple factors such as content stability, relevance, market share, and field demand. EdReports maintains sole discretion in determining both our review queue and the publication of reports. Suggest materials to review on our website.

To conduct a review, we request temporary access to materials from publishers—at no cost for digital formats or, when necessary, at a nominal fee to cover actual printing costs. This enables us to expand the number of reviews we conduct and provide the field with more timely, transparent, and independent information.

We are not procuring materials for instructional use, and we do not accept gifts or incentives. Our sole purpose in requesting access is to conduct educator-led evaluations of curricula. This approach aligns with how most states and districts conduct instructional materials reviews, and we maintain strict conflict-of-interest policies to ensure independence and credibility.

Research shows that rigorous college- and career-ready standards can improve and deepen student learning. To reach these standards, what is taught matters. Teachers need access to high-quality, aligned instructional materials to support their students.

Currently, not all students have the same access to rigorous curricular materials and this perpetuates the opportunity gap with only 18 percent of teachers who strongly agree that their district or school’s instructional materials are aligned to the Common Core State Standards. A 2015 study also found that low-income students are less likely than high-income students to have quality content and curriculum in the classroom.

A 2017 study investigating the impact of curriculum on student achievement found that the quality of instructional materials had a greater effect on learning than the influence of a student’s home and school. This effect size is second only to teaching quality.

EdReports review tools are documents used by our educator reviews to evaluate instructional materials. Each set of EdReports review tools covers a content area (e.g., science) and grade band (e.g., K–5), and comprises two documents:

• A Review Criteria document identifying the “indicators,” or specific items, against which EdReports’ educator reviewers evaluate the quality of instructional materials.
• An Evidence Guide elaborating details for each indicator including its purpose, information on how to collect evidence, guiding questions and discussion prompts for reviewers, and scoring criteria.

To learn more, visit the Review Tools section of our website. 

Reviewers receive dedicated training on EdReports’ review tools and process, then meet weekly over the course of several months to develop final reports. Reviewers independently gather evidence for specific indicators each week before meeting in teams to share evidence, come to consensus on scoring, and write the draft 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. Teams closely evaluate materials and look for multiple aspects of quality, including how well materials structure evidence-based teaching and learning grounded in research, alignment to college and career-ready standards, and supports for all students including multilingual learners. These comprehensive reviews are evidence-rich. No other review process provides as much detail about how materials meet or do not meet the criteria, including specific examples from the programs.

EdReports is committed to continuous learning and innovation to meet the evolving needs of the education community. We examine our review tools and review process on an ongoing basis, updating them as needed to ensure our reports provide maximum value to the field. We recently released our “version 2.0” review tools, building on the strong foundation of previous iterations with new innovations and improvements informed by feedback from the field. Key updates to the review tools include:

• Significant enhancements to ELA criteria to ensure stronger alignment with the science of reading and structured literacy practices.
• New, multilingual learner (MLL)-specific review criteria for each content area to enable broader and deeper evaluation for MLL supports.
• Deepened emphasis on the Standards for Mathematical Practice in math criteria and phenomena-driven three-dimensional instruction in science criteria.
• Streamlining of criteria and gateway structures across all content areas to increase consistency, clarity, and efficiency, and to facilitate a more nimble review process. 

EdReports does not retroactively update completed reports as a result of revising our review tools. Each report reflects a specific point in time, evaluating materials based on the criteria in place at the time of review. We’re always open to considering re-reviews of programs when publishers make substantive updates to their materials.

Reports created with our earlier versions (v1.0 and v1.5) contain valuable insights, but may not fully capture the most recent educational priorities and research. Users should:

• Carefully evaluate specific elements
• Consult current evidence guides
• Understand potential gaps in older review tools

For more information, see How to Use EdReports’ Earlier Reports and Review Tools.

We believe that high-quality instructional materials are extremely important but are not a silver bullet. Materials must be implemented with integrity in order to benefit students, and there are myriad factors beyond the scope of a curriculum that impact both its implementation and impact. This makes it extremely difficult to prove the effectiveness of any single program across multiple contexts—because there are so many factors that influence teaching and learning. There also remains a lack of robust, independent evidence, as many publishers sponsor or conduct their own studies.

Given this context, EdReports reviews focus on how materials are designed rather than the various ways they might be used in practice. EdReports has always reviewed materials for multiple aspects of quality, including but never limited to standards alignment, in all content areas. These aspects include how well materials structure evidence-based teaching and learning grounded in research, alignment to college and career-ready standards, and supports for all students including multilingual learners. 

Every EdReports review is split into two or three stages, called “gateways.” A program must meet certain requirements in the first gateway in order to be reviewed in the next gateway. The same is true for any subsequent gateways.

If a program did not proceed to a certain gateway, it’s labeled as “not eligible” (NE) for that gateway. The requirements to pass from one gateway to another vary across contexts, but:

• They always include a minimum “passing” gateway score.
• They may also include minimum scores in specific “non-negotiable” components of the gateway.

EdReports’ content review teams consist of outstanding classroom educators, district coaches, and state content leaders who deeply understand college-and career-ready standards and the importance of high-quality instructional materials.

The selection process includes an application, interviews, and a work sample to ensure reviewers’ mastery of the standards. Learn more about being a content reviewer and how to apply.

EdReports reviewers receive more than 25 hours of training and meet in weekly professional learning communities, spending an average of 150 hours each per series report (three grade levels).

All content reviewers will meet regularly in national professional learning communities with fellow educators and spend 5–10 hours per week, including team calls, reviewing materials.

Most reviewers work through one series over the course of 3–4 months.

Check for current openings here.

• More than 25 hours of online and in-person professional development with EdReports staff and other content reviewers
• A stipend per series reviewed ranging from $1,750 – $2,500 depending on the role you play on a review team
• Opportunities to grow as a leader, and opportunities to learn with national experts in the field
• A supportive network of fellow educators

EdReports is in regular contact with curriculum publishers to determine readiness for review and to request access to materials. Publishers are invited to provide an orientation to the review team and may respond to clarifying questions throughout the process.

Once a review is complete, publishers have the opportunity to post a 1,500-word response to the educator report, and a 1,500-word document that includes any background information or research on their instructional materials.

We do not accept gifts, incentives, or compensation to influence any aspect of the review process. EdReports maintains strict conflict-of-interest policies to ensure the continued independence and credibility of our process.