Math

Version 2.0 review tools were developed in 2024 and 2025, with inaugural reports released in 2025. To learn more about version 2.0 tool revisions, including the introduction of multilingual learner (MLL)-specific tools, see our Frequently Asked Questions page.

Guidance for Using Reports Created With Earlier Math Review Tools

Reports created with earlier versions of our review tools (v1.0 and v1.5) contain valuable insights, but may not fully capture the most recent educational priorities and research. When referencing a report created using earlier review tools, users should:

• Carefully evaluate specific elements in earlier tools
• Refer to v2.0 review tools (above) for the most current best practices
• Compare earlier tools to current ones to understand potential gaps in earlier review tools

For further details, see the section below on how our math review tools have evolved and How to Use EdReports’ Earlier Reports and Review Tools.

Since publishing our first reviews of math curricula in 2015, we have made a range of enhancements to our math review tools and process driven by emerging research findings and feedback from our users and stakeholders, including math researchers, educator reviewers, classroom educators, and district and state leaders.

 

Overview of Math Review Tools by Version

Version 2.0

Report year range: 2025–present

Grades covered: K–12

Key attributes and innovations: math-specific:

• Increased precision and consistency around rigor and balance across all grade levels.
• All eight Math Practices scored separately and with binary scoring across all grade levels.
• Increased requirements to focus on major work of the grade in K–2 materials.

Key attributes and innovations: shared with ELA and science tools:

• Creation of dedicated, standalone MLL review tools for each K–12 content area.
• Tools standardized and streamlined across grade bands to increase efficiency and clarity.
• Indicators to evaluate the content and scope of assessments located in either Gateway 1 or 2 in all tools to ensure a larger percentage of programs receive ratings for this aspect of their assessments.
• Final review gateway renamed to “Teacher and Student Supports” to better reflect its intent and scope.

 

Version 1.5

Report year range: 2021–2025

Grades covered: K–12

Key attributes and innovations: math-specific:

• Addition of more detailed information on coherence, including more delineated coherence scoring within and between grades, and evidence on the number of instructional days in a program.
• Increased depth of focus on the Math Practices, including how well materials engage students with the Practices, increased emphasis on MP3, and improved reporting on MP6.

Key attributes and innovations: shared with ELA and science tools:

• Final review gateway largely standardized across K–12 ELA, math, and science review tools.
• Key innovations included:
  • Development of Learner Variance indicators addressing supports, grade-level engagement, unfinished learning, and varied learning approaches.
  • Indicators to evaluate materials’ multilingual learners (MLL) supports across all tools.
  • Introduction of a revised Technology Criteria Form detailing digital and distance learning components for publishers.

 

Version 1.0

Report year range: 2015–2021

Grades covered: K–12

Key attributes and innovations: math-specific:

• Developed to facilitate the first ever independent, national, free reviews of K–12 math instructional materials.
• Version 1.0 review tools evaluated materials for:
  • Focus on major work of the grade in both instructional time and assessment
  • Coherence within and between grades
  • Consistency with the progressions in standards
  • Rigor and balance
  • Meaningful connection between content standards and the Standards for Mathematical Practice

Key attributes and innovations: shared with ELA and science tools:

• Final review gateway evaluated materials for instructional supports and other aspects of quality design, including:

• • Effective lesson structure and pacing
  • Support for teacher learning and understanding of standards
  • Support for teachers to meet the needs of a range of learners
  • Support for effective use of technology to enhance student learning

 

Comparing Current and Earlier Math Tools

While not exhaustive, the following information highlights some of the most important factors to consider when using math reports created using earlier review tools (v1.0 and v1.5). For more details, please refer to the full review criteria and evidence guides for each tool version linked above.

 

Rigor and Balance

In our current tools:

• All K–12 tools call explicitly for materials to develop each aspect of rigor and to provide student opportunities to demonstrate their development in each aspect.
• This increased clarity and consistency ensures that materials are evaluated with precision and consistency across grade levels.
• The indicator relating to balance across the three aspects uses binary scoring, awarding either zero or two points based on how well materials deliver on treating the three aspects both independently and together.

In earlier tools:

• Earlier tools looked for intentional development of all three aspects of rigor and balance in treating them independently and together, but with less precision and consistency across grade levels than version 2.0 tools.

 

The Standards for Mathematical Practice

In our current tools:

• Each of the eight Math Practices is the focus of a separate, binary score of zero or one point, based on how well materials support the development of that Practice.
• This ensures clarity and usability of reports, providing targeted insights into how materials engage students with each Math Practice.

In earlier tools:

• Earlier tools grouped some of the Math Practices together under shared indicators, with some variations between K–8 and high school tools.
• Each Math Practices indicator in earlier tools allowed for three-level scoring of either zero, one, or two points—somewhat less precise than our current tools.

 

Assessments

In our current tools:

• Assessment indicators are distributed across Gateways 1 and 3, compared to only Gateway 3 in earlier tools.
• This ensures that assessments support comprehensive understanding of major content clusters. It also means that a larger percentage of programs receive ratings for their assessments, which are a core part of any instructional program.

In earlier tools:

• Assessment indicators were located in Gateway 3; only programs that achieved passing scores in Gateways 1 and 2 were evaluated for their assessments.

 

Minimum K–8 thresholds for major work of the grade

In our current tools:

• Current tools look for at least 75% of K–2 materials to address the major clusters of the grade, and at least 65% in grades 3–8.

In earlier tools:

• Earlier tools looked for at least 65% of materials to address the major clusters of the grade across all of K–8.