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: SpringBoard Middle | Math
Math 6-8
The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6-8 vary in alignment scoring. Grades 6 and 7 do not spend a majority of time on the major work of the grade level. Each of these grades devotes less than 50% of the time to major work. There are some examples of coherence within these grades and some examples of coursework following the progressions of learning throughout the grade levels. In Grade 8, the materials are found to be focused on the major work of the grade level, and they partially meet the criterion for being coherent and consistent with the standards. This grade was reviewed for rigor and MPs. Procedural skills and fluency are found to be strong, but Grade 8 materials support of conceptual understanding and application opportunities are lacking. Grade 8 materials incorporate vocabulary in a meaningful way, but MP 3 is not fully attended to for the teacher nor for the students.
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)
7th 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)
8th 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 7th Grade
Alignment Summary
The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 do not meet the expectations for alignment to the CCSSM. In gateway 1, the instructional materials do not meet the expectations for focus on major work because they devote an insufficient amount of time to the major work of the grade, and the materials do not meet the expectations for coherence because they do not make sufficient connections between the standards. Since the materials do not meet expectations for focus and coherence in gateway 1, they were not reviewed for evidence of rigor and the mathematical practices in gateway 2.
7th Grade
Alignment (Gateway 1 & 2)
Usability (Gateway 3)
Overview of Gateway 1
Focus & Coherence
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 do not meet the expectation for focus and coherence in the CCSSM. For focus, the instructional materials do not meet the criteria for the time devoted to the major work of the grade with a 45.3 percent of the days allocated in the timeline aligning to the major work. For coherence, supporting work is sometimes connected to the focus of the grade with some missed opportunities for natural connections to be made. The amount of content for one grade level is not viable for one school year, and the materials will not foster coherence between the grades. Content from prior or future grades is not clearly identified and materials that relate grade level concepts to prior knowledge from earlier grades is not explicit. Overall, the materials are shaped by the CCSSM and do incorporate some natural connections, but they do not do enough to prepare a student for upcoming grades. The material also lacks some consistency for grade-to-grade progressions, and content that is not on grade level or supports on grade level learning is not explicit.
Gateway 1
v1.0
Criterion 1.1: Focus
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 do not meet the expectations for focus within the grade. The materials reviewed for Course 2 do assess mostly grade-level content with some above grade-level topics, but If the future grade content was removed, it would not change the underlying structure of the assessments. The instructional materials do not meet the expectations for majority of class time on the major clusters of this grade. Only 45.3 percent of the days are suggested in the materials for major work of this grade. Overall, the instructional materials meet the criteria for grade-level assessments, however it does not spend the majority of time in the major clusters of this grade.
Indicator 1A
The assessments that are included in the web version of Springboard were reviewed for Course 2 and found to meet the expectations for instructional material that assesses the grade-level content and, if applicable, content from earlier grades. Content from future grades is sometimes introduced, but students should not be held accountable on assessments for those future expectations. If the future grade content was removed, it would not change the underlying structure of the assessments. Overall, the instructional material in the summative assessment items reviewed in Course 2 addressed the major areas of focus for this grade level in a challenging and effective manner with most units having little or no above grade level standards addressed.
Quality, on grade-level examples are:
- Unit 1, question 18 asks students to demonstrate their knowledge of 7.NS.A.2.C by using order of operations to solve a real world problem.
- Unit 3, question 16 asks students to demonstrate their knowledge of 7.RP.A.3 by using a real world example of how the mark up of a cost is important in everyday life.
Areas of improvement are:
- Unit 4, question 1- 1 asks students to discuss corresponding line segments given similar triangles which is 8.G.A.2.
- Unit 4, question 8-1 asks students to give two similar triangles and select the true statement which is 8.G.A.2.
- Most of the questions in Unit 7 address the MP standards and are not connected to the content standards at this level. Question 7 addresses what type of tax paid to the Federal Government, which is not a mathematics standard within any of the grades for CCSSM, however it can be connected to the practice standards.
Criterion 1.2: Coherence
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 do not meet the expectations for focus within the grade. The materials reviewed for Course 2 do assess mostly grade-level content with some above grade-level topics, but If the future grade content was removed, it would not change the underlying structure of the assessments. The instructional materials do not meet the expectations for majority of class time on the major clusters of this grade. Only 45.3 percent of the days are suggested in the materials for major work of this grade. Overall, the instructional materials meet the criteria for grade-level assessments, however it does not spend the majority of time in the major clusters of this grade.
Indicator 1B
The teacher edition and consumable student edition reviewed for Course 2 do not meet the expectations for spending the majority of class time on the major cluster of each grade. To determine this we evaluated three perspectives: 1) the number of activities devoted to major work, 2) the number of lessons devoted to major work, and 3) the number of days devoted to major work. Along with major work of the grade, parts of the materials addressing non-major work were also examined for increasing focus on major work through coherent connections. The number of days devoted to major work is the most reflective for this indicator because it specifically addresses the amount of class time spent on concepts, and the conclusion was drawn through this data.
We determined our evidence from the Contents Page, pages v - ix and the number of days suggested in "Planning the Unit" found in the the teacher edition and written by the publisher.
- Activities – 13 out of 27 activities which is 48.1 percent of time spent on major work.
- Lessons – 34 out of 71 lessons which is 47.9 percent of time spent on major work.
- Days – 64 out of 141 days which is 45.3 percent of time spent on major work.
Including Embedded Assessment Days:
- Unit 1: 21 days, all days on major work
- Unit 2: 12 days, all days on major work
- Unit 3: 22 days, all days on major work
- Unit 4: 3 days out of 31 days on major work of the grade level
- Unit 5: 6 days out of 33 days on major work of the grade level (It is not explicitly written that any of the standards in this unit are major work.)
- Unit 6: 0 days out of 17 days on major work of the grade level
- Unit 7: 0 days out of 5 days on major work of the grade level
This allows for 64 days out of 141, or 45.3 percent, to be spent on major work of Grade 7 including support from parts addressing non-major work.
Excluding Embedded Assessment Days:
- 7.RP.A has 20 instructional days out of 127 total days (16 percent).
- 7.NS.A has 20 instructional days out of 127 total days (16 percent).
- 7.EE.A and 7.EE.B has 15 instructional days out of 127 total days are addressed (11.8 percent).
This allows for 55 days out of 127 which is 43.3 percent to be spent on major work of Grade 7 including support from parts addressing non-major work.
Criterion 1.3: Coherence
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 do not meet the expectations for being coherent and consistent with the standards. Supporting work is sometimes connected to the focus of the grade with some missed opportunities for natural connections to be made. The amount of content for one grade level is not viable for one school year, and the materials will not foster coherence between the grades. Content from prior or future grades is not clearly identified and materials that relate grade level concepts to prior knowledge from earlier grades is not explicit. Overall, the materials are shaped by the CCSSM and incorporate some natural connections that will prepare a student for upcoming grades, however the material does lack some consistency for grade-to-grade progressions, and content that is not on grade level or supports on grade level learning is not explicit.
Indicator 1C
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 partially meet expectations that supporting content enhances focus and coherence by engaging students in the major work of the grade. In some cases, the supporting work enhances and supports the major work of the grade level, and in others, it does not.
Examples where connections are present, but the connections to major work are not well explored and, therefore, support a partial rating include:
Non-Major Cluster: 7.SP.B (draw informal comparative inferences about two populations) is used to support major clusters in Unit 6.
- Activity 26, pages 361-390 supports 7.NS by having students compare populations which involves working with rational numbers.
Non-Major Clusters: 7.G.A (draw, construct and describe geometrical figures and describe the relationships between them) and 7.G.B (solve real-life and mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume) are used to support the major clusters in Unit 4:
- Activity 13, pages 137-146, supports 7.EE and 7.NS by having students find angle pairs which involves working with rational numbers and creating/solving equations.
- Activity 15, pages 159-168, supports 7.RP by having students create and solve ratios and proportions to find similar figures.
- Activity 16, pages 169-178, supports 7.EE by having students create and solve equations in real-life mathematical problems based on circumference and area of circles.
- Activity 17, pages 179-189, supports 7.EE by having students create and solve equations in real-life mathematical problems based on composite area.
- Activity 18-2 and 18-3, pages 199-212, support 7.EE by having students create and solve equations in real-life mathematical problems based on lateral and total surface area of pyramids.
Examples where connections are missed:
- Activity 20, pages 227-250, has students working with exploring probability which could have been used to support 7.RP.A by connecting proportional reasoning and percentages when extrapolating data from random samples.
- Activity 21, pages 251-274, has students working directly with probability which again could have been used to support 7.RP.A by connecting proportional reasoning and percentages when looking at data from random samples.
Indicator 1D
The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for the amount of content designated for one grade level being viable for one school year in order to foster coherence between grades. With embedded assessment days not included there are approximately 127 days of lessons in the materials. There needs to be additional material, other than assessment days, to ensure a student's grasp of all major work at this grade level. Overall, the amount of content that is designated for this grade level is short of the amount of material needed to make it truly viable for one school year.
- According to the pacing guide, each period is 45 minutes in length and there is a suggested 127 days of lessons.
- When Embedded assessments are also included in the pacing guide and if all are given during the course of the year the total would be 141 days.
The guiding focus taken for this indicator for our team was, "Will the non-major and major work of this material be enough to prepare a student for the next grade level?" With the amount of days, many of those days not focusing on major work, the non-major work days not often supporting the major work of the grade, it will require the teacher to make significant modifications to prepare the student for the next grade level and supports this indicator receiving a partially meets rating.
Indicator 1E
The teacher edition, consumable student edition, and summative end of unit assessments reviewed for Course 2 partially meet the expectations for the material to be consistent with the progressions in the standards. Content from lower/above grade standards are not clearly identified, and a teacher will have to spend much time unpacking the activities to identify the non-grade level material. Also, materials do not always relate grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades within each lesson. Connections are not explicitly made to content in future grades. However, in general, the progression of standards are followed throughout this course.
Some examples of areas where identification of standards from lower/upper grades would be beneficial are:
- In Unit 3, Activity 8-1 works with ratios and proportions. The connection given is "In previous courses, students have written ratios of two quantities." For a new teacher it would be beneficial to have standards marked and an explanation of how that prior learning is connected to this activity.
- The activity also begins with writing of ratios and this is not marked as below grade level and should be expressed as 6.RP.A.1 at least in the teacher edition.
- In Unit 4, Activity 13-1 works with angle pairs. It also makes a connection to previous grade learning on angle definitions and classification, but does not give any standards for a teacher to refer to.
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 partially meets the expectation of giving all students extensive work with grade-level problems. Overall, the materials do not consistently give students of varying abilities extensive work with grade-level problems.
For each activity there are one to five standards attached and there are two to four lessons based on that activity to extend and develop the understanding of the standards included in the activity. For struggling learners or those that need enrichment, the book does provide pointers interspersed throughout the units with ideas on how to differentiate or teach the topic in a different way.
Examples of this are:
- Unit 1, Activity 1, Lesson 1-2 on multiplying and dividing decimals has an ELL support box that provides another way to think about multiplying decimals to assist students that may struggle with this concept.
- Unit 3, Activity 9, Lesson 9-2 on constants of proportionality has a differentiating instruction box that helps students to extend their thinking (especially the students that can reason abstractly).
Examples that are not at the depth of knowledge needed to prepare a student for the next grade are:
- The summative assessments reviewed for this course were limited in nature, containing multiple-choice responses and no significant performance tasks found.
- Unit 4, Activity 13, Lesson 13-1 on complementary, supplementary, and adjacent angles is very procedural. Though the standards 7.EE.B.3, 7.EE.B.4, and 7.G.B.5 are attached to this entire activity the lessons are low in rigor and may not prepare a student for more advanced geometry.
Examples of lessons that do give a student extensive work at the grade level and are real-world application problems covering the major work of the grade are:
- Unit 2, Activity 6, Lesson 6-2 on writing and solving equations uses a music scenario to introduce students to writing two-step equations. It is real world, moves the students from concrete to abstract by using variables to represent quantities that vary and are attainable, but rigorous enough to prepare a student for upcoming mathematics courses.
- Unit 3, Activity 9, Lesson 9-1 on equations representing proportional relationships has a great deal of real-world problems and questions that make a student defend their answer.
The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectation of relating grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades. Overall, materials only generally relate grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades.
Each unit begins with an overview that explains what earlier knowledge will be extended in the activities themselves and then each activity has an "Activity Standards Focus" section that will explain the connections between the previous grades and the new learning. This is a rather general overview and is never specific as to where the connections are actually happening and between which grades.
Example of the general overview:
- Unit 4, Activity 16 begins with the "Activity Standards Focus" saying, "In earlier grades, students learned basic facts about plane figures-how to classify them, distinguish them from one another, and, in certain cases, find their perimeters and areas." This or with "Until now" is how many of the activities begin and then a slight change in what was learned based on what the new learning is.
Indicator 1F
The instructional materials reviewed for Course 2 partially meet the expectations for fostering coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the standards. Overall, materials include learning objectives that are visibly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings.
- The Unit titles are clearly labeled and aligned to the standards without a need for much interpretation.
- Unit 1 - Number Systems (7.NS)
- Unit 2 - Expressions & Equations (7.EE)
- Unit 3 - Ratio and Proportion (7.RP)
The instructional materials do include some problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain. They include a few problems and activities that connect two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important. However, overall the materials only partially foster coherence through connections in Course 2.
- For the majority of the work, most standards were taught and covered within one lesson out of the entire series and not aligned with any other concept throughout the year.
Some examples of where connections were made, and supported a partially meets rating, are:
7.EE.B.3
- This standard is first taught in Unit 2, Activity 6.
- It is reinforced all throughout the book with real world problems involving rational numbers.
- For example, this standard is covered in the following units and activities:
- Unit 2, Activity 7
- Unit 3, Activity 11
- Unit 3, Activity 12
- Unit 4, Activity 13
- This standard is discussed in three out of the seven units of the course.
7.NS.A.1
- This standard is taught in Unit 1, Activity 1
- It is reinforced in Unit 1, Activities 2 and 4
- It is also reviewed throughout the book when rational numbers are being used in problems.
7.NS.A.2
- This standard is taught in Unit 1, Activity 2
- It is reinforced in Unit 1, Activity 3
- It is also reviewed throughout the book, especially within the activity involving scale drawings.