About This Report
- EdReports reviews are one tool to support curriculum decisions. We do not make recommendations, and our reports are not prescriptive.
- Use this report as part of a comprehensive, teacher-led adoption process that prioritizes local needs and integrates multi-year implementation planning throughout.
- EdReports evaluates materials based on the quality of their design: how well they structure evidence-based teaching and learning to support college and career-readiness. We do not assess their effectiveness in practice.
- Check the top of the page to confirm the review tool version used. Our current tools are version 2.0. Reports based on earlier tools (versions 1.0 or 1.5) offer valuable insights but may not fully align with current instructional priorities.
Report Overview
Summary of Alignment & Usability: enVisionMATH California Common Core | Math
Math K-2
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Kindergarten through Grade 2 have varied results for alignment to the CCSSM. The instructional materials reviewed for Kindergarten partially meet expectations for alignment as they meet expectations for focus, partially meet expectations for coherence and rigor and balance, and do not meet expectations for practice-content connections. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 1 do not meet expectations for alignment as they do not meet expectations for focus and practice-content connections and partially meet expectations for coherence and rigor and balance. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 2 do not meet expectations for alignment as they meet expectations for focus, partially meet expectations for coherence and rigor and balance, and do not meet expectations for practice-content connections. None of the materials for Kindergarten through Grade 2 were reviewed for usability in Gateway 3.
Kindergarten
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
1st Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
2nd Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
Math 3-5
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grades 3 through 6 have varied results for alignment to the CCSSM. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3 do not meet expectations for alignment as they do not meet expectations for focus and partially meet expectations for coherence. The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 4 and 5 partially meet expectations for alignment as they do not meet expectations for focus and partially meet expectations for coherence, rigor and balance, and practice-content connections. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet expectations for alignment as they meet expectations for focus and coherence and partially meet expectations for rigor and balance and practice-content connections. None of the materials for Grades 3 through 6 were reviewed for usability in Gateway 3.
3rd Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
4th Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
5th Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
Math 6-8
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grades 3 through 6 have varied results for alignment to the CCSSM. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3 do not meet expectations for alignment as they do not meet expectations for focus and partially meet expectations for coherence. The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 4 and 5 partially meet expectations for alignment as they do not meet expectations for focus and partially meet expectations for coherence, rigor and balance, and practice-content connections. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6 partially meet expectations for alignment as they meet expectations for focus and coherence and partially meet expectations for rigor and balance and practice-content connections. None of the materials for Grades 3 through 6 were reviewed for usability in Gateway 3.
6th Grade
View Full ReportEdReports reviews determine if a program meets, partially meets, or does not meet expectations for alignment to college and career-ready standards. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Materials must meet expectations for standards alignment in order to be reviewed for usability. This rating reflects the overall series average.
Usability (Gateway 3)
Report for 3rd Grade
Alignment Summary
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 do not meet expectations for alignment to the CCSSM. The instructional materials do not meet expectations for focus and coherence in Gateway 1 as they do not meet expectations for focus and partially meet expectations for coherence. Since the instructional materials do not meet expectations for focus and coherence, evidence was not collected regarding rigor and practice-content connections in Gateway 2 and usability in Gateway 3.
3rd Grade
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Usability (Gateway 3)
Overview of Gateway 1
Focus & Coherence
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 do not meet expectations for focus on major work and coherence in Gateway 1. The instructional materials do not meet expectations for focus as they assess topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced, and they do not devote the large majority of class time to the major work of the grade. The instructional materials partially meet the expectations for coherence by including an amount of content designated for one grade level that is viable for one school year and fostering coherence through connections at a single grade.
Gateway 1
v1.0
Criterion 1.1: Focus
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 assess topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced. There are assessment items that assess above grade level statistics and probability standards.
Indicator 1A
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 do not meet expectations for assessing grade-level content. Most of the assessments include material appropriate for Grade 3, however, there are six assessment items that assess above grade level statistics and probability standards.
In the Teacher Edition, a Topic Test is available for each of the sixteen topics. In Topics 1 and 6, the instructional materials assess content that aligns to 7.SP.8. For example:
- In Topic 1 Topic Test, question 13 states, “Alex, Eric, Josh, and Tony are playing tennis. How many different groups of 2 can they make?”
- In Topic 1 Topic Test, question 18 states, “Karen wants to make a sandwich. She can choose from rye bread, whole-wheat bread, or multigrain bread. Karen can choose one ingredient from turkey, roast beef, tuna, or cheese to put on the bread. How many different sandwiches can she make?”
- In Topic 6 Topic Test, question 9 states, “Tia can buy one of 4 books and one of 4 bookmarks. How many different combinations of one book and one bookmark can she choose?”
- In Topic 6 Topic Test, question 14 states, “Tony can choose one main dish: steak, chicken, or fish. He can choose one side dish: peas, corn, squash, beans, potatoes, okra, or spinach. How many different combinations of one main dish and one side dish are there?”
In Topic 16, the instructional materials assess content that aligns to 7.SP.2. For example:
- In Topic 16 Topic Test, question 7 states, “Jose spun a spinner 12 times. The line plot below shows his results. What section of the spinner did Jose land on the most?”
- In Topic 16 Topic Test, question 10 states, “What is the most common length of string that Tony has collected?”
The instructional materials assess content that is above grade level or not aligned to a standard.
- The Topic 5 Topic Test, question 17 assesses the formal term of Identity Property. Question 17 states, “The product of two numbers is the same as one of the factors. How can you use properties of multiplication to determine what the factors are?” According to 3.OA.5 students are not expected to use formal terms for these properties. The answer sample given states, “Using the Identity Property of Multiplication, one of the factors could be 1; Using the Zero Property of Multiplication, one of the factors could be 0.”
- In Topic 9 Topic Test, questions 4 and 7 assess multiplication of fractions. “James bought a bag of 12 dinner rolls. He used ⅙ of the bag. How many dinner rolls did James use?” and “Ms. Rodriguez planted 24 tulips in her flower bed. Of the tulips, 1/3 are red. How many tulips are red?” (4.NF.4c)
Examples of the instructional materials assessing grade-level content include:
- In Topic 4 Topic Test, question 17 states, “Mason has 4 boxes of granola bars. There are 5 granola bars in each box. Write and solve a multiplication sentence to find how many granola bars Mason has.” Students use multiplication within 100 to solve word problems in situations involving equal groups. (3.OA.3)
- In Topic 10 Topic Test, question 1 states, “Ellen used fraction strips to compare fractions. Which comparison is true?” Students compare two fractions with the same numerator by reasoning about their size. (3.NF.3d)
- In Topic 15 Topic Test, question 3 states, “Which shows the total capacity represented in this picture?” Students read liquid measurements of three beakers to solve for total capacity. (3.MD.2)
Criterion 1.2: Coherence
Students and teachers using the materials as designed do not devote the large majority of class time to the major work of the grade. The instructional materials devote approximately 59 percent of class time to the major work of Grade 3.
Indicator 1B
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 do not meet expectations for spending a majority of instructional time on major work of the grade.
- The approximate number of topics devoted to major work of the grade (including assessments and supporting work connected to the major work) is 10 out of 16, which is approximately 63 percent.
- The number of lessons devoted to major work of the grade (including assessments and supporting work connected to the major work) is 95.5 out of 163, which is approximately 59 percent.
- The number of weeks devoted to major work (including assessments and supporting work connected to the major work) is approximately 19 out of 33, which is approximately 58 percent.
A lesson-level analysis is most representative of the instructional materials as the lessons include major work, supporting work, and the assessments embedded within each topic. As a result, approximately 59 percent of the instructional materials focus on major work of the grade.
Criterion 1.3: Coherence
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 partially meet expectations for coherence. The instructional materials include an amount of content designated for one grade level that is viable for one school year and foster coherence through connections at a single grade. The instructional materials also miss some connections between major and supporting work and do not clearly identify content from prior and future grade levels.
Indicator 1C
The instructional materials reviewed for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 partially meet expectations that supporting work enhances focus and coherence simultaneously by engaging students in the major work of the grade. Supporting standards/clusters are sometimes used to support major work of the grade and often appear in lessons with few connections to the major work of the grade.
Throughout the series, supporting standards/clusters are typically taught in isolation and rarely connected to the major standards/clusters of the grade. Students can often complete problems aligned to supporting work without engaging in the major work of the grade. The following examples illustrate missed connections in the materials:
- In Topic 5 Lesson 5-5, students find patterns by using 10 as a factor when multiplying one-digit numbers by 10, which is aligned to the supporting standard 3.NBT.3. In the Visual Learning Animation, the teacher is informed to prevent misconceptions by reminding the students about the commutative property of multiplication and the concept that a whole number times a multiple of 10 would have the same product as a multiple of 10 times a whole number. The Visual Learning Animation is aligned to 3.OA.9 and does not simultaneously engage students with the work of 3.NBT.3.
- In Topic 14 Lesson 14-10, students create or identify equal areas within a figure with unit fractions. The supporting standard 3.G.2 has a natural connection with the major work cluster 3.MD.C, where students understand concepts of area. 3.MD.C is not supported in lesson 10 when students use centimeter grid paper to create equal areas and determine the new unit fraction within a rectangle without engaging in finding the actual area of the rectangle.
- In Topic 16 Lesson 16-5, students create scaled bar graphs and determine the scale. The supporting standard 3.MD.3 has a natural connection with the major work cluster 3.OA.A where students multiply and divide to solve problems. 3.OA.A is supported in lesson 5 when students use multiplication to determine scale; however, division is not addressed.
Examples that illustrate connections in the materials include:
- In Topic 2 Lesson 2-7, supporting cluster 3.NBT.A connects to the major cluster 3.OA.D when students solve addition and subtraction word problems within 1,000 by writing equations to represent and check the reasonableness of their solution.
- In Topic 9 Lesson 9-1, students determine if a figure shows equal or unequal parts and names the fraction if appropriate. Guided Practice questions 1-4 state, “In 1-4, tell if each shows equal or unequal parts. If the parts are equal, name them.” The supporting standard of 3.G.2 is used to enhance the focus on the major work standard 3.NF.1.
- In Topic 16 Lesson 16-4, students create a pictograph from given information. Problem Solving question 13 states, “Marisol is making a pictograph to show plant sales. There were 35 plants sold in June. How many symbols should Marisol draw for June?” The supporting standard of 3.MD.3 is used to enhance the focus on the major work standard 3.OA.3.
Indicator 1D
The instructional materials for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 meet expectations that the amount of content designated for one grade level is viable for one year.
As designed, the instructional materials can be completed in 169 days. The suggested amount of time and expectations for teachers and students of the materials are viable for one school year as written and would not require significant modifications.
The instructional materials consist of 115 lessons that are listed in the Table of Contents. Lessons are structured to contain a Daily Review, Develop Concept-Interactive, Develop Concept-Visual, Close/Assess and Remediate, and Center Activities.
The instructional materials consist of 54 reteaching lessons and assessments that are listed in the Table of Contents. These include Reteaching, Topic Tests, Performance Assessments, Placement Test, Benchmark Tests, and End-of-Year Test.
The publisher does not provide information about the suggested time to spend on each lesson or the components within a lesson. The Implementation Guide has a chart that suggests times for a multi-age classroom. The lessons within the multi-age classroom are structured differently than a single-age classroom. The multi-age lessons are structured to contain Problem Based Interactive Learning, Guided Practice, Center Activities, Independent Practice, Small Group Strategic Intervention, and Digital Assignments/Games. The suggested time for the multi-age lesson is 50-75 minutes per lesson.
Indicator 1E
The instructional materials for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 partially meet expectations for the materials being consistent with the progressions in the standards.
The instructional materials do not clearly identify content from prior and future grade levels and do not use it to support the progressions of the grade-level standards.
Prior and future grade-level work is not clearly identified within each lesson. For example:
- In Topic 1 Lesson 1-1, the Teacher Edition lists the standards 3.NBT.1 and 3.NBT.2 as the focus of the lesson. Students read and write numbers to 1000 using base-ten numerals, number names, and expanded form. This is prior grade-level content aligned to 2.NBT.3.
- In Topic 1 Lesson 1-2, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.1 as the focus of the lesson. Students locate and write numbers on a number line. This is prior grade-level content aligned to 1.NBT.1.
- In Topic 1 Lesson 1-3, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.1 as the focus of the lesson. Students fill in missing numbers on number lines. Students do not round numbers to the nearest 10 or 100. This is prior grade-level content aligned to 1.NBT.1.
- In Topic 1 Lesson 1-7, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.1 as the focus of the lesson. Students find all possible combinations of a given set of numbers. This is future grade-level content aligned to 7.SP.8.
- In Topic 3 Lesson 3-3, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.2 as the focus of the lesson. Students use base-10 blocks to solve problems and then write the solution using the standard algorithm. This is future grade-level content aligned to 4.NBT.4.
- In Topic 3 Lesson 3-4, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.2 as the focus of the lesson. Students add three or more two-digit and three-digit numbers using the standard algorithm. This is future grade-level content aligned to 4.NBT.4.
- In Topic 6 Lesson 6-8, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.OA.3 as the focus of the lesson. Students find all possible combinations of data or objects. This is future grade-level content aligned to 7.SP.8.
Some of the lessons include a section in the Teacher Edition called, Link to Prior Knowledge. The Link to Prior Knowledge poses a question or strategy that has previously been learned for students to connect to the current lesson. The Link to Prior Knowledge does not explicitly identify standards from prior grades. For example:
- In Topic 10 Lesson 10-4, the Link to Prior Knowledge states, “What do you already know about number lines? Sample answer: The numbers are greater as they move to the right.” The publisher does not connect this prior knowledge to a specific prior grade level.
The instructional materials attend to the full intent of the grade-level standards by giving all students extensive work with grade-level problems.
The majority of lessons within the 16 topics focus on and provide students with extensive opportunities to practice grade-level problems. Within each lesson, students practice grade-level problems within Daily Common Core Review, Practice, Reteaching, Enrichment, and Quick Check activities. For example:
- In Topic 3 Lesson 3-7, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.NBT.2, Fluently subtract within 1,000 using strategies and algorithm based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction, as the focus of the lesson. Students subtract three-digit numbers while explaining how to use place-value blocks. Independent Practice Question 9 states, “Use place-value blocks or draw pictures to subtract. 347-263 = ___”
- In Topic 7 Lessons 7-1 and 7-2, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.OA.2, Interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers, as the focus of the lesson. Students interpret whole-number quotients of whole numbers through equal shares and partitioning. In lesson 7-2, Guided Practice question 2 states, “15 tennis balls, 3 balls in each can, How many cans?”
- In Topic 15 Lesson 15-1, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.MD.2, Measure and estimate liquid volumes and masses of objects using standard units of grams (g), kilograms (kg), and liters (l). Add, subtract, multiply, or divide to solve one-step word problems involving masses or volumes that are given in the same units, as the focus of the lesson. Students choose an appropriate unit and tool, estimate, and measure in milliliters and liters. Students identify objects that hold about a milliliter and liter.
- In Topic 16 Lesson 16-6, the Teacher Edition lists the standard 3.MD.3, Solve one- and two-step “how many more and how many less problems” using information presented in scaled bar graphs, as the focus of the lesson. Independent Practice problem 9 states, “How many more people voted for gymnastics than for jogging?”
The instructional materials contain a Common Core State Standards Skills Trace for each topic that can be found in the Printable Resources section of the Program Resources Document. This document contains the grade-level standards for each topic and the standards from previous and future grade levels that are related to the standards focused on in the specified topic. The document states the specific topic numbers from previous and future grades to which the grade-level standards are related.
- In Topic 3, the skills list the standard 3.NBT.2 as the focus of the topic. This standard is linked to a Looking Back list where it lists the standard 2.NBT.5 as the focus in Topic 8 within the Grade 2 instructional materials. The standard 3.NBT.2 is also linked to a Looking Ahead list where it lists the standard 4.NBT.4 as the focus in Topic 4 within the Grade 4 instructional materials.
Indicator 1F
The instructional materials for enVisionMATH California Common Core Grade 3 meet expectations that materials foster coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the Standards.
Each topic is structured by a specific domain, and the learning objectives within the lessons are clearly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings. For example:
- In Topic 2 Lesson 2-1, the lesson objective states, “Students will use concrete materials and concepts of addition to model the commutative, associative, and identity properties of addition.” This is shaped by the cluster 3.NBT.A, Use place-value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic.
- In Topic 7 Lesson 7-1, the lesson objection states, “Students will use models to solve division problems involving sharing and record solutions using division number sentences.” This is shaped by the cluster 3.OA.A, Represent and solve problems involving multiplication and division.
- In Topic 10 Lesson 10-3, the lesson objection states, “Students will compare and order fractions to solve problems.” This is shaped by the cluster 3.NF.A, Develop understanding of fractions as numbers.
Materials include problems and activities that connect two or more clusters in a domain, or two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important.
- In Topic 4 Lesson 4-3, cluster 3.OA.A connects to cluster 3.OA.B when students apply properties of operations as strategies to solve word problems involving equal groups and arrays. Problem Solving question 18 states, “Candice arranged 32 berries in the array shown. What other array can she use for the berries?”
- In Topic 5 Lesson 5-7, cluster 3.OA.A connects to cluster 3.OA.D when students use multiplication within 100 to solve two-step word problems involving equal groups.
- In Topic 14 Lesson 4-4, cluster 3.MD.C connects to cluster 3.OA.A when students use multiplication and division within 100 to solve a word problem involving area. Problem Solving question 13 states, “Jen’s garden is 4 feet wide and has an area of 28 square feet. What is the length of the garden?”