Search Results

Over the last three years, yours, like most districts, likely scrambled to meet students’ needs in lots of new ways. The district may have purchased new materials to support at-home learning. Teachers may have subscribed to online resources individually.  And, since students returned to school, intervention, and tutoring resources have likely been purchased. When you analyze the current list of materials in your district, do you have an abundance of instructional materials? If so, are all being utilized, and are they meeting the needs of your students and educators? Having too many instructional materials can be as challenging as not having enough materials. Too many resources complicate teacher planning and can lead to a lack of consistency in curriculum implementation across classrooms or campuses. The result: curriculum chaos. Auditing your instructional materials will help you determine which materials are adding value for students and educators and which are no longer meeting their needs. Below are 4 steps to help you audit your current instructional materials : Inventory your materials: Create a list of the materials being used in each grade and subject or course. Identify where you have instructional materials that appear to be duplicative. Add columns to your list to answer the following questions for grades and subjects or courses where you appear to have an abundance of materials. Material type: Is the material core, supplemental, test prep, or intervention? Alignment: Does the material have a correlation to the standards? Has the alignment to standards been verified? Student Supports: Are the materials designed to support specific student needs (e.g., closed captioning, translations, audio support, visual content) Student Supports: Are the materials designed to support specific student needs (e.g., closed captioning, translations, audio support, visual content) ? Cost: What is the unit cost of the material (one-time purchase or subscription)? Identify redundancies: Are there supplemental materials in your list that appear redundant in terms of material type, students served, and targeted standards? For each of those materials determine the following: Which of those has the higher alignment percentage? Which has the higher usage rate? After completing the audit share the results with stakeholders in your district such as curriculum staff, English learner and bilingual coordinators, principals, and your instructional materials selection committee. Let the data guide your decisions about which materials to keep and which to discontinue. As with selecting new materials , eliminating materials is an important decision. Thus, using a data-driven process with buy-in from educators will help you reduce curriculum chaos and bring organization to your instructional materials.

If you have perceived an increase in state control over the adoption of instructional materials, you are not alone. This blog explains the reason for the shift away from districts' control over the selection and use of instructional materials. In a recent EdWeek article , education leaders who shaped the standards movement argue “that states should be doing more ‘quality control’ when it comes to instructional materials—signaling which are high-quality and incentivizing and supporting districts to use them.” Citing the findings of a 2022 RAND Corporation study , the architects of the Common Core State Standards argue that states that have implemented 1) a vetting process to identify high-quality instructional materials, and 2) professional learning to support the implementation of those materials, have seen improvement in student achievement. It seems difficult to draw that conclusion based on the findings of the RAND study which, as explained below, draws no connection between specific state policies and student achievement results. It is noteworthy that the development of the Common Core state standards and the Rand Study referenced above were funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CCSSO and EdReports also receive funding from The Gates Foundation. The High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) Network The RAND study analyzed the work of the High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (IMPD) Network. Formed in 2017, the IMPD Network is a group of 13 states convened by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to promote districts' adoption and teachers' use of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM). The IMPD Network initially included 8 states: Delaware, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, which dropped out in 2022. Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas had joined by 2020. (Doan, et al. 2022, 7) Instructional Materials and Professional Development Network (IMPD) Strategies Pursuant to the CCSSO policy roadmap , the IMPD Network states implement a variety of "signals and incentives" to encourage the adoption, use, and support of HQIMs by districts and teachers. These include: (1) Signaling the quality of materials: All IMPD network states provide information about the quality of instructional materials to guide districts about the types of materials they should adopt. Recognizing that states have varying definitions of HQIM, the study focuses on standards alignment as a universal measure of quality. For purposes of this study, the term "standards-aligned curriculum materials" refers to any materials that EdReports has judged as fully meeting the expectations of college-and career-ready standards. (Doan, et al. 2022, xi) In other words, materials counted as HQIMs for purposes of this study are not necessarily aligned to state standards. Besides identifying state-sanctioned HQIMs, other signals these states are using to encourage districts to adopt HQIM include (a) posting a list of the instructional materials districts are using on the state department of education's website, and (b) posting guidance/rubrics to facilitate districts' selection of HQIM. A few of the Network states mandate district adoption of state-adopted instructional materials. (2) Incentivizing the adoption of HQIM: Most network states also tie funding, including Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relieve (ESSER) funds, state grants, and competitive funding, to the selection of HQIM . In other words, districts are not eligible for grants unless they agree to use certain state-sanctioned HQIMs. Some IMPD Network states also enter into state contracts with HQIM publishers to lower the price and make it easier for districts to purchase HQIMs. (3) Providing professional learning aligned to the HQIM: Most IMPD Network states also incentivize districts to purchase HQIMs by providing school/district staff with professional learning aligned to the HQIMs to ensure successful implementation. The states also incentivize districts to select certain professional learning vendors that meet state-adopted criteria. (4) Engaging with educator preparation programs : IMPD Network states are beginning to work with teacher prep programs to increase focus on using HQIM within classes and clinical experiences. (Doan, et al. 2022, 8-9) Table A.1. identifies the specific signals and incentives that have been implemented in each of the 13 IMPD states. (Doan, et al. 2022, 91-93). While cloaked in terms of fostering local control (e.g., encouraging, incentivizing), the IMPD Network states' signals and incentives actually limit districts' choice of instructional materials. RAND Report's Theory of Action and Findings So have the IMPD signals and incentives worked? The RAND study set out to investigate the extent to which being in the IMPD network predicted districts' adoption and teachers' use of standards-aligned materials. The study analyzed teacher survey responses collected through the American Instructional Resources Surveys (AIRS) since 2019. (Doan, et al. 2022, 6) Comparing the responses of teachers in the 13 IMPD Network states to teachers nationally, the authors conclude that "participation in the IMPD Network was positively linked to the usage of standards-aligned materials," (Doan, et al. 2022, 86). However, they also acknowledge that there was "a high level of variation across the 13 states in the IMPD Network regarding the adoption of standards-aligned materials" in math (Doan, et al. 2022, 20) and ELA. (Doan, et al. 2022, 23). As illustrated in Figure 3.6: (1) for ELA, 41% of teachers in the original IMPD Network states and 38% of teachers in the new IMPD Network states reported that their district had adopted at least one standards-aligned material as compared with 29% of teachers in non-IMPD network states. (2) for math, 56% of teachers in the original IMPD Network states and 30% of teachers in new IMPD Network states reported that their district adopted at least one standards-aligned material as compared to 45% of teachers in non-IMPD states. (Doan, et al. 2022, 28) The data show that after three years of implementing the IMPD's signals and incentives, the number of districts that have adopted at least one standards-aligned curriculum has increased by approximately 10 percent. Report's Suggestions for State and District Policymakers The study makes the following suggestions to state and district policymakers: (1) State networks, like the IMPD Network, have great potential for shifting teaching and learning at scale . The authors acknowledge, however, "We do not know as much about the specific mechanisms by which the IMPD Network has led to shifts across participating states and whether shifts in the usage of standards-aligned materials will be sustained and have clear effects on student achievement, which could be the focus on follow-on research." (Doan, et al. 2022, 88) (2) To increase usage of and support for standards-aligned materials in the classroom, focus first on encouraging adoption of standards-aligned materials . The authors repeatedly note that districts' adoption of standards-aligned materials is a critical precursor to teachers' use of those materials: "Very few teachers reported that they used a standards-aligned material if they did not report that their school or district had adopted one." (Doan, et al. 2022, 89) (3) State requirements likely encourage more adoption of standards-aligned materials, but other levers, such as those increasing buy-in for use of standards-aligned materials among principals and teachers, might also encourage adoption and use . The study highlights the fact that states that mandated district adoption of HQIMs saw an increase in teachers' use of those materials. However, a few other states, such as Louisiana, Delaware and Nebraska, also saw increases in teachers' use of standards-aligned materials without mandates. The authors conclude that "absent mandates, much consensus-building, long-term work is necessary to encourage a high rate of usage of standards-aligned materials." (4) Encouraging buy-in among principals and teachers regarding the importance of using standards-aligned materials—rather than simply requiring use—could be an effective strategy for encouraging more use of those materials . Suggested principal-focused strategies include (a) professional development to help school leaders promote the implementation of HQIM in their schools, and (b) state-created tools for teacher observations that include consideration of whether teachers use HQIM in their lessons. (Doan, et al. 2022, 89) (5) Efforts to improve teachers’ understanding of what is standards-aligned and what is not could encourage greater usage of standards-aligned materials . One strategy to improve teacher buy-in and perceived adequacy of their materials was the use of curriculum ambassadors or lead teachers who serve as advocates for the material and support their colleagues in implementing HQIM. (Doan, et al. 2022, 89-90) (6) School systems leaders must lean into supports for standards-aligned materials to ensure uptake in usage . The report states, "As indicated by our findings, states likely play a large role in the adoption of standards-aligned materials. . . . chool systems themselves likely play the greatest role when it comes to the provision of supports, which, in turn, are connected to higher usage of standards-aligned materials. " (Doan, et al. 2022, 90) Our Analysis In the wake of the 2008 recession, many states loosened the reigns on districts' selection of instructional materials. Several states abandoned their state adoption process completely; others made the state adoption lists advisory rather than obligatory. Over the last few years, the pendulum has started to swing back and the RAND study explains why. Thirteen states in the CCSSO-led IMPD have implemented policies to wrest control over the selection and use of instructional materials away from districts and teachers with the goal of increasing the quality of materials used in the classrooms. How many more states will join the IMPD Network? Time will tell. The EdWeek article and RAND study cited above certainly aim to encourage participation. Policymakers and educators agree that using standards-aligned, high-quality materials fuels student achievement. They disagree over who should decide which materials are high quality. The architects of the Common Core and the CCSSO believe states should make that determination. However, local control over the selection and use of instructional materials is a long-held and deeply-rooted belief. To facilitate the achievement of the communal goal while also respecting local control, Learning List provides a range of resources, including online professional development courses , state-specific instructional material alignment reviews , and online Selection Toolkit , that empower districts and educators to select materials that are aligned to their state standards and provide the instruction and supports their students need. * Doan, Sy, Julia H. Kaufman, Ashley Woo, Andrea Prado Tuma, Melissa Kay Diliberti, and Sabrina Lee. 2022, " How States Are Creating Conditions for Use of High-Quality Instructional Materials in K–12 Classrooms: Findings from the 2021 American Instructional Resources Survey ." https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.html.

Caveat Emptor … a Latin phrase meaning, “Buyer Beware.” For centuries buyers have been held to a standard of due diligence; do your homework before you buy or suffer the consequences. Purchasing instructional materials is the single largest annual purchase a school district typically makes. To put it in context: school districts spend more on instructional materials annually than you paid for your house. A purchase that large certainly merits careful due diligence. Before we purchase a house, we engage a realtor and spend weeks even months visiting multiple houses on the market. We compare the features of each house against our mental list of "must haves" and select the house that exhibits the largest number of our "must-haves." Do districts exercise the same level of diligence before purchasing instructional materials? Traditionally, reviewing instructional materials before the district makes its selection decisions is a task delegated to overworked educators. Teachers review the available materials at vendor fairs, in their “spare” time at school and at home, and during interminable selection committee meetings. The same process is relied upon despite the fact that instructional materials have become increasingly complex and difficult to review. So, when it comes to buying new materials, how does your district avoid making a (multi) million-dollar mistake? Here are a few common mistakes districts make when purchasing instructional materials and some suggested solutions. Mistake #1: Rushing to Select Instructional Materials Many districts believe sooner is better when it comes to making a selection decision. Their goal is to complete their instructional materials selection process by early February or March. Some do this to ensure that the materials reach classrooms before school starts. However, most core materials are now available digitally, eliminating the need for a long delivery timeline. Other districts believe that state law requires school boards to approve materials by March or early April. In Texas, for example, districts must submit requisitions to purchase state-adopted materials to the Texas Education Agency by June 1st of the proclamation year. While publishers may impose a deadline for orders, most states do not require districts to purchase materials by a date certain. It is not wise to rush your selection and review process. Most new-to-market materials are not completed until a few months before they are to be delivered. Publishers start selling the concept of a material long before the material is finally published. Similarly, in "adoption" states, publishers submit the content of their new materials for state and public review, while the product features and functionality are still being built. Districts that rely on the publishers' claims or rely on the publicly available digital samples are relying on publishers' promises of what the product will look like, do, and contain. While publishers may intend to develop all of the functionality promised, 11th-hour production impediments may prevent the final product from containing all of those features. Bottom line : since most core instructional materials are available digitally, districts generally do not need to order materials as early as they used to. It is prudent to wait to make selection decisions until you have reviewed the available published products. Doing so will likely result in less disappointment and fewer purchased materials that go unused. Mistake #2: Believing Publisher's Alignment Claims First, why is alignment so important? Teachers expect that the district-provided core materials are aligned to 100% of the state's standards. If those materials are not 100% aligned, teachers may not teach all the knowledge/skills required by the standards. If students are not taught what the standards require them to know and be able to do, they are less likely to succeed academically. Teachers, as well as campuses and districts, are evaluated based on their students’ performance. In sales presentations, publishers generally claim that their materials are "aligned to the ." After all, if they did not make such claims, districts would not purchase their materials. Having reviewed thousands of PreK-12 instructional materials, Learning List can state with certainty, that most materials are not as well aligned to the state standards as publishers claim. Bottom line : the alignment of your district's instructional materials will inevitably impact students' scores, which in turn will impact teacher evaluations and campus and district ratings. Therefore, it is crucial to know the alignment percentage of materials your district is considering purchasing. If your district decides to have teachers review the alignment of the materials being considered for adoption, it is important to have more than one teacher check the alignment of each material for each grade level. Why? Determining alignment is an inherently subjective endeavor. Having a few teachers working together to check the material's alignment reduces the subjectivity of alignment determinations. This whitepaper discusses common alignment challenges and strategies for overcoming them. If the district lacks the time or capacity to perform alignment reviews internally, Learning List's low-cost subscription instructional materials review service provides access to independent alignment reviews of thousands of the most widely used PreK-12 instructional materials conducted by highly experienced, trained educators . Mistake #3: Assuming Alignment is Consistent Across Grade Levels It is easy to assume that the alignment percentage of a material for one grade level is reflective of the material's alignment at all grade levels. Learning List's alignment reviews tell another story. There are many reasons why the alignment of a material may vary significantly from grade level to grade level. A different author may have written the material's content and/or a different person may have constructed the publisher's correlation at each grade level. The material's content may not progress in rigor at the same pace as the standards do. The material may not address a certain strand or domain that is emphasized more in one grade level than others. Bottom line : to prepare students effectively to master the standards, teachers must know which standards the material is aligned to in each grade level so that they can adjust their instructional strategies accordingly. Do not assume that the alignment percentage at one grade level is representative of the product’s alignment at all grade levels, or even at all grade levels within a single grade span. If your district is going to purchase multi-grade level material, check the alignment of the material at each grade level . Districts spend millions of dollars each year on new instructional materials. Basing purchasing decisions on incomplete materials will inevitably lead to disappointment and frustration. If you are considering new-to-market materials, prolong the review process to ensure that your district has reviewed the published edition that teachers will be using. One of the biggest predictors of a material's impact on student learning is its alignment to state standards. Before purchasing a new material, be sure to have an independent verification of the material's alignment to your state standards for each grade level you will be purchasing. Your teachers, students, and taxpayers deserve it.

Will you be participating in curriculum writing this year? If so, mapping resources to the district curriculum is a critical task in the process. Having materials mapped to the district curriculum saves teachers hours of work and helps facilitate standards-aligned instruction. This two-part blog series contains stepped-out guidance and important tips to help you map your resources to the district's curriculum.  The first blog provides tips to help you prepare for an efficient process. We discuss: developing a common definition of alignment, becoming familiar with your materials, and selecting citations (lessons, activities quizzes) in your materials to map to the district curriculum. The second blog  discusses: how to cite the aligned content in your material, where to look for additional aligned citations, resources for resolving alignment disagreements, and more.  If these DIY resources do not provide sufficient support, consider our new online courses : What Alignment Means and Why It Matters  (and How to Do It!) Mapping Instructional Materials to Your Curriculum These two-hour, self-paced courses provide instruction, skills practice, and a workbook to help you master the art of mapping your instructional materials to your district curriculum. Individual educators can enroll in a pre-scheduled course ($35 per course). Participants have two weeks to complete the course, and a certificate of completion is provided for professional learning credit., Alternatively, districts/campuses can enroll in a "closed" course facilitated by Learning LIst's Chief Academic Officer.   Contact us to learn more about the courses.

While states and districts have engaged in numerous strategies to address Covid-related learning losses, the strategy getting the most attention and investment is high-dose tutoring. According to a February 2023 report published by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), states have spent $700 million of ESSER reserve funds to expand tutoring opportunities, including $470 million on large-scale, high-dose tutoring programs. This blog endeavors to provide tips, based on lessons learned from tutoring programs across the country, to help districts implement successful high-dose tutoring programs. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) regularly surveys a national sample of public schools about the impact of Covid-19. The December 2022 NCES Pulse survey included questions about the types of tutoring schools are offering: Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the public schools reported providing high-dose tutoring Fifty-nine percent (59%) offer standard tutoring Twenty-two percent (22%) provide self-paced tutoring . High-dose tutoring is one-on-one or small-group tutoring that takes place at least three times a week for at least 30 minutes per session. Tutors are educators or well-trained tutors and the tutor follows an evidence-based, core curriculum program. Standard tutoring is less intensive tutoring that takes place one-on-one, or in small or large groups. Tutoring is offered less than three times per week and tutors are educators who may or may not have received training in specific tutoring practices. Self-paced tutoring is tutoring where students work at their own pace, typically online. They receive guided instruction and move on to new material after mastering the content. Are all three types of tutoring programs equally effective? J-PAL's Tutoring Evidence Review analyzed the evidence from 96 randomized evaluations of tutoring programs and provides the following insights into what type of tutoring programs work best and for whom: Tutoring programs led by teachers or paraprofessional tutors are generally more effective than programs that used nonprofessional (volunteer) or parent tutors. Paraprofessional tutors include, among others, school staff members, undergraduate students in education, and service fellows. The effects of tutoring programs tend to be strongest among students in earlier grades, though a smaller set of programs at the secondary level were also found to be effective at improving learning outcomes. While the overall effects for math and reading tutoring programs are similar, reading tutoring tends to be relatively more effective for students in preschool through first grade, while math tutoring tends to be more effective for students in second through fifth grade. Tutoring programs conducted during school tend to have larger impacts than those conducted after school. During EdWeek's recent Essentials on Tutoring forum , Susan Loeb, professor and director of the education policy initiative at Stanford's Graduate School of Education, and Scott Muri, superintendent of Ector County ISD provided further, similar guidance about the attributes of successful tutoring programs: They target students' individual needs They are "intensive" meaning that they occur over a long period of time, daily or every other day for an entire school year They happen as part of the school day, either before during, or immediately after school when it's easiest to reach and engage students They use professional, trained tutors Tutors have access to student data showing where the students' needs exist Tutors rely on the district's curriculum so that the tutoring is aligned with the material students are expected to learn Contracts for tutoring services were "outcomes-based"; their continuation hinged on students' progress. As mentioned, high-dose tutoring is effective when aligned with the district's curriculum. This blog provides tips about using the district's existing materials to deliver standards-aligned tutoring. Providing high-dose tutoring is challenging for many reasons, including cost, scheduling, and staffing. If your district is (considering) partnering with a vendor to deliver tutoring service, Bart Epstein , a former executive at Tutor.com, provides this advice, "No school district should be paying for tutoring if kids aren't showing up." Sources: Barshay, Jill. 2022. “PROOF POINTS: Early Data on ‘High-Dosage’ Tutoring Shows Schools Are Sometimes Finding It Tough to Deliver Even Low Doses.” The Hechinger Report. August 1, 2022. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-early-data-on-high-dosage-tutoring-shows-schools-are-sometimes-finding-it-tough-to-deliver-even-low-doses/. ‌Heubeck, Elizabeth. 2023. “Talking High-Dosage Tutoring: A Researcher and Schools Chief Share Strategies.”  Education Week , February 21, 2023, sec. Student Achievement. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/talking-high-dosage-tutoring-a-researcher-and-schools-chief-share-strategies/2023/02. “2022 School Pulse Panel.” n.d. Ies.ed.gov. https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/spp/. “Road to Recovery: How States Are Using Federal Relief Funding to Scale High-Impact Tutoring |.” n.d. Accessed March 3, 2023. https://learning.ccsso.org/road-to-recovery-how-states-are-using-federal-relief-funding-to-scale-high-impact-tutoring. ‌‌“The Transformative Potential of Tutoring for Pre K-12 Learning Outcomes: Lessons from Randomized Evaluations.” n.d. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). Accessed March 3, 2023. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/transformative-potential-tutoring-pre-k-12-learning-outcomes-lessons-randomized.

A recent  EdWeek  article titled,  Why Printed Books Are Better Than Screens for  Learning to Read addresses the debate over print vs digital materials for young learners in an interview with Maryann Wolf, the director of the Center for Dyslexia, Diverse Learners, and Social Justice at UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Wolf begins by saying that the answer is not binary. "There are advantages and disadvantages for each type of medium , depending on the purpose or intention." "For young children ,  physical books are best, audio is second best and tablet is a clear third."  While tablets are often more engaging, they promote "passive engagement."  Students learn to be distracted instead of learning to focus. "So between zero and five, the evidence has become quite clear that children's use of the screen is helping to develop the opposite of what we want in focusing attention."  Wolf points out that while print is more advantageous for learning, digital materials are useful tools for diagnostic screening and for skills practice, particularly for students with dyslexia or students who have limited background knowledge of a subject.  While students may perceive that they are better readers online because they can read faster, Wolf points out that students can read faster online because screens make it easy to scroll and skim. However, students need to learn deep reading skills using print first and then need to be taught to use those same skills when reading online.  Wolf concludes, "Books are really one of the greatest tools for the mind and should never be lost until we are assured that the same processes that were advantaged there are not being diminished by the other mediums."  An article in the Hechinger Report titled, “A Textbook Dilemma: Digital or Paper?” discusses Patricia Alexander’s review of research on this topic. Ms. Alexander is an educational psychologist and a literacy scholar at the University of Maryland. Despite numerous (878) potentially relevant studies on the topic, Ms. Alexander pointed out that “only 36 directly compared reading in digital and in print and measured learning in a reliable way.” Despite the need for further research on this topic, Ms. Alexander found that numerous studies affirm the finding that: “if you are reading something lengthy – more than 500 words or more than a page of the book or screen – your comprehension will likely take a hit if you’re using a digital device.” This pertained to college students as well as students in elementary, middle, and high school.     The research highlights several reasons why: Reading online is more physically and mentally demanding (e.g., “the nuisance of scrolling and the tiresome glare and flicker of the screen") than reading a textbook. Online readers may not concentrate as well, distracted by social media alerts, the temptation to browse the internet, etc. Reading a printed book leaves spatial impressions in your mind (i.e., where something was on a page) that may not occur with the same frequency online. Ms. Alexander also addressed whether “note taking on paper offers measurable advantages for learning?” For example, whether highlighting and underlining online versus on paper affected comprehension more positively. She concluded, “Those kinds of motor responses have never been of highest value in terms of text processing strategies.” Rather, “the studying strategy with ‘the greatest power,’ …. involves deeply questioning the text — asking yourself if you agree with the author, and why or why not.” The point of the research is not to identify a winner; print and digital materials are here to stay. As Ms. Alexander put it, “The core question when is a reader best served by a particular medium? And what kind of readers? What age? What kind of text are we talking about? All of those elements matter a great deal.” For more research on this topic, see " Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension ." This blog from 2019 discusses a review of the research on this same topic. That research pertained to the best medium for students from kindergarten through college. The research is not trying to discern a winner in the debate. Rather, the core question the research is trying to answer is when does a particular medium best serve a reader?

Are you looking for supplemental reading material for your students? Take a look at Learning List’s review of McGraw Hill’s Actively Learn . McGraw Hill’s Actively Learn is a fully digital, supplemental program for grades 3-12 that supports English Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science. Learning List recently reviewed the content for English Language Arts. The program is designed to help students improve reading comprehension by providing engaging reading materials, questions, and activities to support learning. The program intends to drive learning, engagement, and equity with interactive content that includes more than 20,000 texts in English, with translation support for additional languages. Students also have access to numerous accessibility tools to support students with specific learning needs. Actively Learn enables teachers to meet specific instructional goals by providing real-time progress monitoring, allowing teachers to add to or revise content, and supporting thematic instructional design with theme-based organization of texts. Read Learning List’s three reviews of this product to learn more. Read our Editorial Review to learn how the program supports writing instruction. Learning List has also completed a report of the material’s alignment to the TEKS, as well as a review of its technology compatibility and support for remote learning. These reviews not only inform selection decisions, they also facilitate instructional alignment. To learn more about this product and thousands more PreK-12 instructional materials, contact Learning List for subscription information. About McGraw Hill* McGraw Hill’s mission is “to unlock potential and accelerate learning for every student.” McGraw Hill values innovation, membership, passion, adaptability, credibility, and transparency. Information in this section is provided by or adapted from McGraw Hill .

If you care about instructional materials, you need to know about legislation that is sailing through the Texas legislature: House Bill 1605 (Buckley) and its identical companion Senate Bill 2565 (Creighton). The legislation would implement significant changes in how instructional materials are selected and used in Texas classrooms. Why should you care? California, Texas, New York, and Florida have long been bellwether states in the K-12 publishing market. Additionally, Texas is a member of the High-Quality Instructional Materials and Professional Development (HQIMPD) network , a 13-state network led by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in Washington, DC, which advocates for greater state control over the adoption and use of high-quality instructional materials (i.e., the Louisiana Believes model). For both of these reasons, these bills are likely to have national reverberations. The legislation would implement many of the state-control reforms advocated by CCSSO through the HQIMPD network, as summarized below. The State identifies high-quality instructional materials (HQIMs) for districts to adopt The legislation shifts authority over the state instructional materials review process from the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) to the governor-appointed commissioner of education. The commissioner would be required to design a new state instructional materials review process under his control, select the materials that will be reviewed each year, and maintain a public website to house those reviews. The legislation authorizes the SBOE to approve the commissioner's new review process and to approve or reject each reviewed material. Additionally, the legislation requires the commissioner to purchase Open Education Resources (OERs) for specified subjects and grade levels and authorizes him to purchase other instructional materials and technology for all districts to use. To provide public information about the quality of the materials districts are using, publishers of state-approved materials would be required to provide an instructional materials portal where parents could access those materials. Districts would be required to make all teaching materials available for parent review beginning one month before and extending one month after the school year. Parents would also be able to request an external review of the instructional resources their children's teachers are using. Districts would be required to annually report information about all of their instructional materials to the Texas Education Agency. The State incentivizes districts to adopt HQIMs The SBOE would maintain a list of state-approved and rejected materials. It is likely that a limited number of materials will be deemed high-quality and approved for each subject area and grade band, as has been the result in Louisiana. For example, for science, Louisiana has only two state-approved Tier 1 elementary and middle school materials and one additional state-approved material for sixth grade. Furthermore, although the legislation states that districts cannot be required to use commissioner-selected OERs, the bill's $843 M fiscal note would be paid for out of the state Instructional Materials and Technology fund, leaving little in that fund to disperse to districts for local purchases of instructional materials. The legislation allocates a one-time , $40 per student allotment in the Foundation School Program for purchases of state-approved materials across all subjects as well as an annual $20 per student allotment to cover OER printing costs. By depleting districts' funding for instructional materials, the legislation will, in fact, force districts to use the commissioner's OERs. The State incentivizes teachers to use high-quality instructional materials The legislation prohibits school districts from requiring teachers to develop unit/lesson plans, create resources or select instructional materials unless those duties are specified in the teacher's contract. It also extends liability protections to teachers who use SBOE-approved materials as designed . Thus, in order to take advantage of that immunity, teachers would have to follow the material's scope and sequence and lesson plans without supplementation. The State provides professional learning aligned to HQIMs The bills authorize the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide support for districts' adoption, selection, and use of instructional materials. TEA is also required to create an OER support program to assist districts and charter schools in using OERs and creating class schedules that allow sufficient time for teacher planning and preparation within the workday. The State engages educator preparation programs The legislation requires pre-service teachers to demonstrate a thorough understanding and competence in using the state-approved OERs in order to earn a teaching certificate. This summary reflects the committee substitutes of HB 1605 and SB 2565. As explained, the legislation would significantly expand the commissioner of education's control while restricting the SBOE's authority over the selection of instructional materials for Texas public schools. It would empower parents to review teachers' materials. It would diminish school districts' capacity to locally select instructional materials and limit teachers' autonomy to select resources for their lessons. It would also reshape the K-12 market for publishers. Similar bills are likely to appear in other HQIMPD states.

Does your district need practice material for mathematics? Take a look at Learning List’s review of DeltaMath INTEGRAL. DeltaMath INTEGRAL is a fully digital, supplemental mathematics program for grades 6-12. Learning List recently reviewed the content for grades 6-8 and Algebra I. The program intends to supplement core mathematics instruction by providing practice problems and opportunities for students to develop content and skills in mathematics. The program provides a bank of practice problems organized by topic and standard. Some question types are consistent with the STAAR redesign question types in Texas. The problems address general mathematics skills and concepts but do not typically address process standards or real-world contexts. Assessments are not included; however, the program enables teachers to create assessments based on specific skills or TEKS. Additionally, teachers can customize multiple assignment features to create assignments and assessments for students that correlate to the instruction they are providing. Progress monitoring is supported at the teacher, campus, and district levels. Read Learning List’s Alignment Report for a standard-by-standard review of this material’s alignment to the TEKS. Learning List has also completed an Editorial Review of the material’s instructional quality, as well as a review of its technology compatibility and support for remote learning. These reviews not only inform selection decisions, they facilitate instructional alignment and curriculum mapping, too. To learn more about this product and thousands more PreK-12 instructional materials, contact Learning List for subscription information. About DeltaMath DeltaMath is built by teachers. It began with one teacher’s goal to provide math practice problems for his students. Thirteen years later the program serves over 100,000 teachers and over 4 million students. Information in this section is provided by or adapted from DeltaMath .

The end of the school year and the impending ESSER cliff are two forces compelling districts to review their K-12 curriculum materials to determine which instructional resources to keep and which to discard. If you are involved in making those decisions in your district, the first question you are likely asking is, " Which materials are teachers using ?" Several companies, including Canvas , Day 180 , and Lightspeed Systems, can help you track the usage of digital materials. A staff survey and/or Input from instructional coaches can help gauge the usage of print materials. The next, and equally, if not more important question to answer is " Which materials should teachers be using? " Not all materials are created equally. Auditing your materials will help you separate the wheat from the chaff so that you can identify the high-quality materials to keep. This blog provides actionable, step-by-step guidance to help you audit your instructional materials. If you need help streamlining the process, Learning List's auditing tool can help. Contact us to learn more.

On May 22, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed settlement order in a first-of-its-kind case against an education technology (ed tech) company for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The settlement order contains valuable guidance for ed tech companies and school districts that work with them. Congress enacted COPPA in 1998 with the goal of protecting the safety and privacy of children online by prohibiting the unauthorized or unnecessary collection of children's personal information online by ed tech companies. The FTC is in charge of enforcing the law. To implement COPPA, the FTC passed the COPPA Rule which went into effect in April 2000 and was amended in July 2013. The rule requires online service providers and websites directed at children under 13 to notify parents about personally identifiable information the company intends to collect from their children and to obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection and use of that information. According to the complaint , until September 2022, EdModo operated an online platform and mobile app which allowed teachers to provide virtual classes for students. The company provided a free version of the service, called EdModo Platform, and a subscription version called EdModo Enterprise. Individual teachers could register for accounts independently on the free version. EdModo Enterprise required a school or district contract. Both EdModo Platform and EdModo Enterprise collected personal information from students without parental consent, including students' first and last names, email addresses, birthdates (between July-September 2020), and phone numbers (prior to July 2020). Students were permitted to provide additional information, including their school name and a profile picture. EdModo automatically collected personally identifiable usage and device information, such as cookies, IP address, device type, operating system, browser type and ID, and geographic location based on the IP address. EdModo's Terms of Service suggested that schools and teachers were responsible for obtaining verifiable parental consent, as required by the COPPA Rule. Furthermore, the company and its third-party advertising partners used the collected data to target ads to students, including students under 13, on the EdModo Platform. The FTC's complaint alleges that EdModo violated the COPPA Rule by: (1) failing to obtain verifiable parental consent prior to collecting, using, or disclosing personally identifiable information of children, (2) retaining personal information collected online from children for longer than reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected, and (3) unfairly requiring schools and teachers to comply with the COPPA Rule on the company's behalf without providing adequate information or support to meet the Rule's requirements. Those allegations in the complaint are consistent with the FTC's May 2022 policy statement which warned that the Commission would specifically focus on the following provisions of the COPPA Rule when investigating potential violations by ed tech providers: Prohibitions Against Mandatory Collection:  Companies cannot require children to provide more information than is reasonably needed for participation in the intended online activity. The guidance states, "Students must not be required to submit to unnecessary data collection in order to do their schoolwork."   Use Prohibitions:  Ed tech providers that collect personal information from a child with the school’s authorization may use that information only to provide the requested online education service. The guidance states, "In this context, ed tech companies are prohibited from using such information for any commercial purpose, including marketing, advertising, or other commercial purposes unrelated to the provision of the school-requested online service."  Retention Limitations : Ed tech providers are prohibited from retaining children’s personal information for longer than is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected. The guidance states, "It is unreasonable, for example, for an ed tech provider to retain children's data for speculative future potential uses."  Security Requirements : Ed tech providers must have procedures to maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of children’s personal information. The guidance states, " ven absent a breach, COPPA-covered ed tech providers violate COPPA if they lack reasonable security." The policy statement also makes clear that "The responsibility for COPPA compliance is on businesses, not schools or parents - and agreements must reflect that." Companies that fail to follow the COPPA Rule face potential civil penalties, new requirements, and limitations on their business practices to stop unlawful conduct.  The proposed settlement order in this case fines EdModo $6 million and prohibits the company from Conditioning a child's participation in an activity on the disclosure of more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity Using children's information for non-educational purposes such as advertising or building profiles Using schools as intermediaries in the parental consent process. The proposed settlement order also requires EdModo to Complete several requirements before obtaining school authorization to collect information a child Implement and adhere to a retention schedule that details what information it collects, what the data is used for, and a time frame for deleting it Delete models or algorithms developed using personally identifiable information collected from children without verifiable parental consent or school authorization. EdModo ceased operations in the United States during the FTC's investigation, so the fine was suspended due to the company's inability to pay. But, if the proposed settlement order is approved by the court, EdModo will be bound by this order if it ever resumes. its U.S. operations. The significance of this case, however, is the guidance it provides for ed tech companies and educators about the FTC's enforcement of the COPPA Rule. More information about COPPA's application to ed tech companies can be found here.

McGraw Hill’s Texas Hole’s Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology (Hole’s Anatomy and Physiology) is a comprehensive science curriculum for high school Anatomy and Physiology. This review is based on the version of the material submitted for state adoption under Texas Proclamation 2024. While some content may specifically address the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the format and features of the Texas version is likely the same as the national version. Therefore, the information in our reviews is relevant to districts in other states, too. The materials are available in print and digital format and are accessible to students and teachers from McGraw-Hill’s interactive digital platform. The program uses real-world applications to help students master the core themes of anatomy and physiology. Hole’s Anatomy and Physiology opens with a preview chapter, which introduces scientific methods and processes, data analysis, and science and engineering practices. This chapter also provides students with suggestions and strategies for studying and learning the material. The material organizes instruction into units and chapters focused on various components of human anatomy and physiology. Each chapter begins with an introduction that includes an image, background information, a theme, and a real-world case study. Connections to the case study are made throughout the chapter and provide students with an opportunity to understand the topic in greater depth. Lessons provide a variety of activities, including hands-on labs and virtual labs. Case studies, data analysis, and multiple applications of the concepts throughout the material support students’ abilities to make real-world connections, find relevance in the material, and think critically. Chapters conclude with a summative assessment. All of the resources for teachers and students, including the teacher and student editions, are housed on McGraw-Hill’s interactive digital platform. Digital resources for students include an interactive cadaver dissection tool, animations, and flashcards. The platform provides a variety of monitoring resources for teachers, an item bank, and tools to enable teachers to create and edit assessments. The material is available in English. Lessons include supports for Emerging Bilingual students that are specific to the student’s language proficiency level. Supports for other special populations are limited. Read more about the rigor of the material and supports for differentiating instruction in List’s editorial review. About Learning List Learning List provides a range of curriculum support services, including a low-cost, subscription instructional materials review service for schools and districts. Subscribers get access to reviews of more than 3,300 K-12 instructional materials and can submit additional materials for review at no additional charge. Contact Info@LearningList.com for information about our low-cost subscriptions.   About McGraw Hill  * McGraw Hill’s  mission is “to unlock potential and accelerate learning for every student.”  McGraw Hill  values innovation, membership, passion, adaptability, credibility, and transparency. Information in this section is provided by or adapted from McGraw Hill.