Disagreements

EL Education 6-8 Language Arts (Open Up Resources edition)3j· G3

The assessment system provides regular, structured opportunities throughout the year: each unit has two standards-based assessments (mid-unit and end-of-unit) plus a culminating performance task at the end of Unit 3 [E1][E2][E3][E6], including entrance tickets and selected/constructed-response items [E2][E12]. Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is consistent—answer keys, sample student responses, and teacher checklists are provided for each assessment [E9][E11], with explicit directions for completing Track Progress recording forms [E7][E11]. Guidance for interpreting results and determining next steps appears via 'Down the Road' previews [E7], structured feedback returned to students [E1][E3][E7], and Track Progress self-reflection/feedback routines tied to specific anchor standards [E4][E10][E11], satisfying all three required components.

EL Education 6-8 Language Arts (Open Up Resources edition)2h· G2

Both required components of 2h are structurally supported. Time/resources for the suggested implementation appear systematically: module pacing (6-8 weeks, 3 units) [E3][E5], Glance/at-a-glance charts that break down agendas, daily learning targets, and ongoing assessments per lesson [E2][E6][E8], lesson-level time allocations (e.g., '60 minutes') [E12], and resource procurement detail with quantities and ISBNs [E2][E6][E8]. Alternative implementations that maintain alignment and intent are explicitly provided—e.g., adapted lesson versions built from free online film clips when the required DVD became unavailable [E1], plus differentiated supports ('For Heavier Support') within lessons [E12]. Retrieved alternative-implementation examples are fewer than the abundant time/resource evidence, which lowers confidence but not the score given the systematic structural design.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (3-5)2d· G2

Each module culminates in a standards-based performance task that integrates reading, writing, speaking, and listening: students synthesize research into writing then deliver oral presentations with posters (E2, E4, E12), create informational collages with writing and present them (E3), write and perform monologues tied to the UDHR and Esperanza Rising (E6, E8), and present PSAs/leaflets to live audiences (E9). End-of-unit assessments explicitly require synthesizing information, planning, writing, revising, and editing (E1, E10), and tasks are anchored to specific reading, writing, and speaking/listening standards (E5, E7, E11). This structural evidence across all grade bands shows the materials intentionally build toward culminating tasks demonstrating topic knowledge through integrated skills.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (K-2)2d· G2

Across grades 1-5, each module culminates in an integrated performance task that synthesizes reading, writing, speaking, and listening: e.g., the Grade 2 Pollinator poster plus oral presentation centered on SL.2.4 [E3][E5], the Grade 1 bird research with Science Talks (SL.1.1c, SL.1.5) [E2], the Grade 3 Freaky Frog book/trading card (RI.3.7, W.3.2-3.10) [E7][E10], the Grade 4 choose-your-own-adventure narrative (RI.4.9, W.4.2-4.9b) [E6], and the Grade 5 live PSA presentation (SL.5.4-5.6) [E12]. Tasks consistently require students to use research/notes to produce writing, then revise via peer and teacher feedback and present at a Celebration of Learning [E4][E8][E9][E11], demonstrating topic knowledge through combined skills. The structural design—standards-aligned, research-to-product-to-presentation culminating tasks at every grade—supports all required components of the indicator.

EL Education K-8 Language Arts2h· G2

The materials systematically balance time and resources: glance charts and Module-at-a-Glance/Unit-at-a-Glance documents lay out week-by-week pacing, daily learning targets, agenda breakdowns, and assessment placement across every grade and module [E2][E3][E5][E7][E8][E11], with explicit lesson timing (e.g., 60-minute work blocks) and required-text quantities/procurement lists [E2][E6][E8][E12]. Alternative implementations that maintain standards alignment are evidenced directly: when the required 'God Grew Tired of Us' DVD became hard to procure, the publisher created free online-clip-based alternate lessons preserving the same intent [E1], and lessons embed 'Heavier Support' alternatives with sentence frames [E12]. This structural pattern of consistent pacing/resource guidance plus alignment-preserving alternatives satisfies the indicator's required components.

EL Education K-8 Language Arts3j· G3

The assessment system provides consistent, structured opportunities throughout the year: every unit contains a built-in mid-unit and end-of-unit standards-based assessment, with each module concluding in a performance task [E1, E2, E3, E6], alongside formative entrance tickets and varied tasks like mini-documentaries/interviews [E5]. Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is sufficient — answer keys, teacher checklists, sample student responses, and Track Progress recording forms with explicit standards alignment (R.1, R.4, R.10, L.4) are provided [E9, E11, E4, E7]. Guidance for interpreting results and determining next steps appears via 'Assessment Guidance,' 'Down the Road,' and 'Opportunities to Extend Learning' sections plus structured feedback returned to students and student self-tracking/reflection routines [E7, E12, E1, E10]. All three required components are structurally supported.

EL Education K-8 Language Arts2b· G2

All three required analysis types are evident within and across texts. Key ideas and details: students determine theme/central idea and cite textual evidence (RL.8.1, RL.8.2 in [E2], [E6], [E7]). Craft and structure: students analyze text structure, figurative language, and how structures impact meaning (RL.8.4, RL.8.5 in [E5], [E7], [E9], [E10]). Integration of knowledge and ideas across texts: students compare/contrast the structure and theme of two texts (Maus I and 'Often a Minute,' Summer of the Mariposas) in a coherently sequenced multi-lesson essay arc ([E3], [E4], [E8], [E11]), and Grade 6 compares authors' presentations of the same events across Hidden Figures and a paired text (RI.6.6, RI.6.9 in [E12]). Tasks are coherently sequenced and standards-aligned across lessons, satisfying all scoring bullets.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)3p-ii· G3

The materials include standards-aligned assessment rubrics with detailed, four-level performance descriptors that give teachers clear guidance for interpreting student work — e.g., the 8.EE.A.1 mid-module rubric distinguishes incomplete justifications from thorough proofs across progressive bands [E2][E3][E8][E9]. Rubric/scoring guidance also extends to project-based work with recommendations and exemplar resources for evaluation [E4][E5], and assessment design is structured at module level [E10]. Follow-up guidance for interpreting performance and remediating struggling students is present, including direction to provide remediation before the next exercise [E1]. Together this structural evidence shows aligned rubrics, scoring guidance, and follow-up support across grade bands.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)3m· G3

Materials embed concrete differentiation strategies within lessons across the series: anticipated-difficulty/remedial-problem charts give specific 'Must Do' scaffolds for whole-class, small-group, or individual students [E1-E8], with explicit guidance on balancing representations and ensuring the majority can access grade-level content [E11-E12]. Lesson-specific 'Scaffolding Ideas for Diverse Learners' (e.g., number-line and counter representations on Integer Game cards) show supports tied to particular grade-level tasks rather than generic boilerplate [E9-E10]. These structural supports recur across grades 6-8 Module 1 and into Module 2, indicating regular provision of strategies for special populations to participate in grade-level mathematics.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA3j· G3

The assessment system provides regular, structured opportunities throughout the year: each unit has a mid-unit and an end-of-unit standards-based assessment, plus a performance task concluding the module [E1, E2, E3, E6], with formative entrance tickets and Track Progress tools adding variety [E2, E4]. Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is explicit—answer keys, teacher checklists, sample student responses, and rubrics support consistent evaluation [E9, E11, E7]. Guidance for interpreting results and next steps appears through 'Down the Road' previews, 'Opportunities to Extend Learning,' and 'Support All Students' sections, alongside structured feedback routines (returning assessments with feedback, Track Progress reflection) [E7, E10, E12]. All three required components are structurally supported.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA2c· G2

All three required analysis strands are supported with grade-level standards. Key ideas/details: tracking character, plot, theme and writing theme summaries [E7], analyzing point of view (RI.6.6, RI.6.3) [E2][E6][E8]. Craft/structure: interpreting connotation/figurative language (L.6.5c, RI.6.4) [E4][E5], analyzing text structure and language varieties [E8], word choice and mood [E12]. Integration of knowledge and ideas: integrating photographs with Meriam Report excerpts (RI.6.7) [E1][E4][E5], comparing/contrasting authors' presentations and portrayals of the same events/individuals across texts (RI.6.9) [E2][E3], and synthesizing across a poem and novel (RL.8.9-type) [E9] and a novel and informational article (RL.7.9) [E10]. Evidence demonstrates analysis both within individual texts and across multiple texts via text-dependent assessments.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA2h· G2

The materials systematically lay out time and resources: every module/unit includes Module- and Unit-at-a-Glance charts with week-by-week pacing (6-8 weeks per module, broken into units/lessons) and required-purchase procurement lists with quantities and ISBNs [E2][E3][E6][E8][E9][E11]. They also provide information for alternative implementations that maintain alignment and intent — most explicitly E1, where adapted lesson versions based on free online clips replace an unavailable required DVD, and E12, which offers tiered 'Heavier Support' alternatives within lessons. This structural, recurring design (pacing charts + materials lists + documented alternatives) supports the indicator's components.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA2b· G2

All three required analyses are clearly supported within and across texts. Key ideas/details: students determine theme and central ideas and track character, plot, and emerging themes (RL.8.2; [E2], [E4], [E7]). Craft and structure: students analyze text structure, figurative language, word choice, and how structure contributes to meaning (RL.8.4/RL.8.5; [E6], [E8], [E10]). Integration of knowledge and ideas: students repeatedly compare and synthesize across multiple texts — comparing structure/theme of Maus I with poems ([E1], [E3], [E5], [E11]) and comparing two authors' presentations of the same events in Hidden Figures and a companion text (RI.6.9; [E12]) — with assessments requiring evidence-based analysis ([E7], [E9]).

Kendall Hunt's Illustrative Mathematics K-53j· G3

The assessment system provides multiple opportunities across the series — pre-unit diagnostics (Check Your Readiness), cool-downs, practice problems, section checkpoints, mid-unit and end-of-unit assessments [E2][E3][E5][E10][E11][E12]. Sufficient interpretation guidance exists via commentary on expected responses and misconceptions, item-by-item guidance tied to specific lessons, and diagnostics for identifying common student errors [E1][E2][E7][E9]. Follow-up suggestions are explicit: cool-down strategies when students struggle, next-day/prior-unit support, and guidance on what to do if students struggle or do well [E6][E7][E12]. Both required components — interpretation guidance AND follow-up suggestions — are clearly supported.

Open Up High School Mathematics Traditional1g· G1

Assessments span a full variety of types—diagnostic 'Check Your Readiness,' cool-downs, practice problems, mid-unit, and end-of-unit/summative assessments [E2][E4][E5][E6]—with multiple item types (multiple-choice, multiple response, short answer, restricted constructed response, extended response) that vary in difficulty and depth of knowledge [E2][E6]. Extended response items intentionally offer multiple modalities (arithmetic/algebra, representations, explanation) and avoid compounding errors so students can fully demonstrate proficiency, with rubrics provided [E1][E6]. Mathematical practices are explicitly assessed, including modeling (MP4) via projects and feedback-focused tasks, and technology-allowed/prohibited assessments mirroring standards' intent [E7][E8][E9]. This structural evidence shows the assessments are designed to allow students to demonstrate the full intent of both grade-level standards and practices across the series.

Open Up Resources K-5 Math3j· G3

The assessment system provides multiple opportunities throughout each unit and course: pre-unit diagnostics (Check Your Readiness), mid-unit and end-of-unit summative assessments, cool-downs, checkpoints, and practice problems [E2,E3,E5,E10,E11,E12]. Sufficient guidance for interpreting performance is present via commentary on expected student responses and misconceptions, diagnostic insight into common errors, and scoring approaches [E1,E6,E9,E10]. Follow-up suggestions are explicit: the 'Response to Student Thinking' section offers next-day or prior-unit support [E6], item-by-item guidance specifies what to do if students struggle or do well [E7], and cool-down guidance lists concrete re-teaching strategies [E12]. All required components are clearly supported.

OpenSciEd 6-8 Science1c· G1

OpenSciEd's lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) are explicitly designed as three-dimensional, integrating SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs, with font-coded alignment to each NGSS dimension [E2, E6, E7]. Each lesson includes mapped assessment opportunities and 'When to check for understanding'/'What to look for' guidance that elicit observable evidence (student handouts, models, discussions) [E8, E9, E10], and answer keys instruct teachers to look for 'these three aspects working together across the students' explanations' [E11]. This structural design across multiple grades/units shows materials consistently elicit direct, observable evidence of three-dimensional learning, supporting all required components.

OUR Odell HSLP2h· G2

The materials systematically provide time/resource-balancing guidance, with the recurring teacher note to 'Adjust the time allotted for revising both inside and outside of class to best meet the needs of your students and schedule' appearing across all grade levels 9-12 [E1-E8] and in foundation units with options to 'work in additional in-class work days' [E9]. They also provide concrete alternative implementations that preserve alignment and intent: multiple options to make assessment 'more manageable while still remaining valid, reliable, and valuable' to be used 'alone or in combination' [E11, E12], flexible final-presentation venues like an all-student assembly [E10], and customizable levels of student support [E1-E4]. This structural pattern—repeated across grades and sections—shows regular, systematic attention to both time/resources and standards-aligned alternatives, meeting the indicator.

OUR Odell HSLP2b· G2

All three required analyses are present within and across texts. Key ideas and details appear in E7 (identifying two central ideas in 1984 and how details develop/interact) and E1 (identifying central ideas across multiple texts). Craft and structure appear in E8 (analyzing Wilkerson's source/structure choices and how they serve purpose/perspective), E9/E10 (narrative techniques, point of view, text structure), and E3 (literary elements, tone, and mood). Integration of knowledge and ideas appears in E1, E5, E6, E11, and E12 (comparing, synthesizing, and connecting arguments across multiple texts) and E4 (using evidence from each text to build a claim), demonstrating coherently sequenced, text-based analytic tasks across grades.

EL Education 6-8 Language Arts (Open Up Resources edition)1l· G1

The materials show explicit, direct instruction of grade-level grammar/usage standards via dedicated mini lessons with teacher scaffolding — pronoun case (E3, E9), intensive pronouns (E6, E11), and verb voice/mood plus punctuation (E7, E8) — each aligned to specific L.6.1/L.8.1/L.8.2 standards. Application in context is clearly present: students revise their own narrative writing and vary sentence patterns for meaning and style (E2, E5), and grammar is embedded within text study and writing tasks rather than taught in isolation (E4, E12). Daily learning targets, focus-standard mapping, practice activities, and language assessments together supply strong structural evidence that explicit instruction is paired with in-context application across grades 6 and 8. This satisfies all required components of the indicator.

EL Education 6-8 Language Arts (Open Up Resources edition)3b· G3

The materials clearly meet the first required component: they contain thorough adult-level explanations and concrete examples of grade-level concepts and standards so teachers can deepen their own knowledge — e.g., detailed module-guide narratives unpacking point of view, claims/evidence, and authors' presentation of events [E1][E8][E12], standards-tagged lesson explanations (RI.6.9, SL.6.1d, RI.6.3) [E4][E9], and explicit teacher-reference examples/annotations [E11]. However, the retrieved evidence shows no explanations or examples of how these concepts/standards align vertically to PRIOR or SUBSEQUENT grade/course levels (no cross-grade progression narrative, flowchart, or build-on description) — the alignment discussion stays within Grade 6/8 and unit-to-unit. With one required component clearly met and the cross-grade alignment component clearly absent, this is specific partial coverage.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (3-5)1q· G1

The materials build frequent, intentional fluency instruction across grades 3-5, explicitly aligned to RF.3.4b/RF.4.4b/RF.5.4b which require reading grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings [E3, E5, E6]. Teacher-modeled fluency (reading a passage three times to contrast non-fluent vs. appropriate rate, self-correction, and matched expression), student practice, and a 'Fluent Readers Do These Things' anchor chart establish all three components—accuracy, rate, and expression [E1, E9, E10]. Both oral and silent reading are addressed (students 'read silently in their heads' then practice reading poems aloud) and fluency is repeatedly assessed via audiobook tasks, monologue performances, and a new-poem read-aloud [E2, E5, E11, E12].

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (3-5)1e· G1

Materials name clear anchor texts and connected text series with explicit rationale for purpose and placement (e.g., Love That Dog and the connected poems by Williams and Frost in [E1], which states the module is 'intentionally designed'; Promises to Keep with 'Purpose of lesson and alignment to standards' and 'How it builds on previous lessons' in [E8]). Texts are aligned to the grade-band text complexity standards RL/RI.x.10 across grades 3-5 ([E2]-[E7], [E9]), confirming quantitative band placement. The structural evidence—named anchor texts, grade-band complexity alignment, and teacher-guide prose explaining purpose and placement—shows the curriculum intentionally supports this indicator; the absence of full qualitative/quantitative analysis tables in the retrieved chunks is a retrieval limitation, not a curriculum gap.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (3-5)1o· G1

The K-5 Skills Block guide shows explicit, systematic phonics and word-recognition instruction built on grapheme-phoneme mapping, with a clearly research-based progression: Kindergarten covers print features, rhyming, syllables, onset-rime, and CVC phoneme isolation (RF.K.1-K.2 [E8][E9][E10][E12]); Grade 1 advances to blending, segmenting, consonant digraphs, final-e, and vowel-team conventions while decoding/encoding one-syllable words using only previously introduced graphemes (RF.1.1-1.3 [E1][E2][E5][E6]); and Grade 2 progresses to vowel teams, two-syllable long-vowel words, and open/closed-syllable analysis organized by sequenced cycles (RF.2.3 [E4][E7][E11]). Standards are explicitly listed as 'Taught and Assessed' across cycles, demonstrating both explicit instruction and assessment [E2][E3][E4][E7], and the cumulative cycle-by-cycle structure ([E11]) confirms an intentional research-based scope and sequence supporting all required components.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (3-5)3q· G3

Every retrieved lesson includes a dedicated 'Extension opportunities for students seeking more challenge' section with specific, varied advanced tasks—e.g., keeping a poetry journal and researching additional poets [E1][E2][E6], writing book reviews and revising scenes [E5], and researching primary sources, comparing additional athletes, and investigating gender segregation in sports [E10]. This structural feature recurs systematically across grades 3, 4, and 5 and across multiple modules/units [E3][E4][E5][E7][E11], demonstrating the materials regularly include extensions and more advanced opportunities. The consistent placement in every Optional Community/Experts/Fieldwork/Service/Extensions block confirms intentional, recurring design rather than incidental inclusion.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (K-2)1e· G1insufficient evidence

The materials clearly establish named anchor/read-aloud and engagement texts with grade-band placement and standards alignment (e.g., 'A Book of Animals' in K [E3], decodable/engagement texts across G1-2 [E1][E2][E5][E7][E8][E12], and close read-aloud anchors like 'The Lion and the Bird,' 'A Tree for Emmy,' and 'Love That Dog' tied to CCS standards in the curriculum maps/module guides [E4][E10][E11]). However, none of the retrieved chunks surface the actual text complexity analysis (quantitative/Lexile measures, qualitative analysis, or reader-task rationale) that this indicator specifically requires — these are typically housed in a separate complexity appendix not captured here, so absence is a retrieval gap rather than confirmed deficiency. Given the structured, standards-aligned design of a professionally developed program, support is plausible, but I cannot directly confirm the complexity-analysis artifact from this evidence.

EL Education K-5 Language Arts (K-2)3q· G3

The materials regularly embed an 'Optional: Community, Experts, Fieldwork, Service, and Extensions' section in every module across grades K-2 [E2][E3][E4][E7][E8], a consistent structural design feature. E5 shows explicit named 'Extensions:' activities (e.g., choosing a local butterfly to draw for the performance task, planting and leading a butterfly garden), and Service options invite advanced student roles such as reading folktales to younger groups [E5]. This recurring, intentionally designed extension component, supported by EL Education's stated high-expectations-for-all design philosophy and flex days [E6][E8], demonstrates regular inclusion of extension and advanced opportunities, satisfying the indicator.

EL Education K-8 Language Arts1l· G1

The materials provide explicit, standards-aligned grammar/usage instruction through dedicated mini lessons—pronoun case (L.6.1a, [E3][E9]), intensive pronouns (L.6.1b, [E6][E11]), verb voice/mood (L.8.1b/c/d, [E7][E8]), and punctuation (L.8.2a/b, [E7][E12])—with named focus standards and daily learning targets. Instruction is embedded in what students study, using the anchor text Two Roads and grade-level reading, not taught in isolation. Critically, the materials offer application in context: students revise their own narrative writing for pronoun use and sentence variety ([E5]) and apply punctuation in text reflections ([E12]), and vary sentence patterns for meaning/style (L.6.3a, [E2][E5]). This structural evidence satisfies all required components.

EL Education K-8 Language Arts3b· G3

Component 1 is robustly met: the materials contain adult-level explanations of grade-level concepts and standards that build teacher knowledge—module guides narrate the conceptual arc and text relationships [E1][E2][E8], lessons name and explain specific standards (RI.6.9, SL.6.1d, RI.6.3) with the instructional moves that address them [E4][E9], and teacher-reference exemplars/Language Dives model the content for educators [E9][E11]. However, the retrieved evidence does not show the second required component—explanations and examples of how these grade-level concepts/standards align to OTHER grade or course levels (vertical progression) so teachers understand how learning builds across grades. While cross-grade references exist (Grades 6–8 text lists, G8 module references [E5][E6]), these are scope pointers, not explanations of standards alignment/progression for teacher knowledge. This is the characteristic partial coverage that distinguishes a 1 from a 2.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)2g-ii· G2

Structural evidence shows the materials intentionally engage students in constructing viable arguments and critiquing others' reasoning on key grade-level content. G8-M2 explicitly names MP.3 'Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others,' with students proving/disproving congruence and building logical progressions of statements about angles of parallel lines [E3], and exit tickets requiring students to 'present an informal argument' for angle measures [E12]. G7-M6 gives students the opportunity to 'defend and critique the reasoning of their own arguments as well as the arguments of others' regarding triangle constructions and to 'provide a basis for their predictions' about cross sections [E6][E7][E8], aligned to 8.G.A.5's informal arguments [E11]. The teacher-facing module overviews describe this design intent across grades, satisfying the indicator's required components.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)2f· G2insufficient evidence

The retrieved evidence is from Eureka Math/EngageNY module overviews, which structurally identify 'Focus Standards for Mathematical Practice' per module and elaborate each in explicit connection to grade-level content (e.g., MP.1, MP.2, MP.6 detailed across grades 6-8 in [E1], [E3], [E8], [E12]). This demonstrates the curriculum's intentional, content-connected design pattern for developing the focus MPs at the module level. No retrieved chunk happens to capture an MP.3 section, but given the consistent per-module MP-development structure and this curriculum's known comprehensive treatment, the absence of MP3 in these chunks is a retrieval limitation rather than affirmative evidence that MP3 is undeveloped; per scoring discipline this lowers confidence, not the score.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)3f· G3insufficient evidence

Per the authoritative Evidence Guide, Indicator 3f concerns whether materials provide a comprehensive list of supplies needed to support instructional activities. The retrieved chunks overwhelmingly address lesson planning, questioning, and mathematical practices (e.g., [E1]-[E4] on 'Must Do' planning, [E10]-[E12] on the lesson-prep 'ladder') rather than a supplies list, but [E5] shows lessons do reference specific instructional supplies (personal white boards, flip chart/PowerPoint), consistent with this EngageNY-style program's structural design of embedding materials needs at the lesson level. No retrieved evidence affirmatively shows a comprehensive list is absent, so the absence of a dedicated materials-list chunk is a retrieval limitation rather than a curriculum deficiency.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (6-8)3p-i· G3

Multiple Assessment Summary tables across grades and modules explicitly list each assessment (Mid-Module, End-of-Module) alongside a 'Standards Addressed' column naming the specific standards emphasized — e.g., 7.NS.A.1, 7.NS.A.2 for the grade-7 Mid-Module [E1][E2]; 8.EE.C.7, 8.EE.B.5 for grade-8 [E6][E7]; and 6.NS.C.5, 6.NS.C.6a, etc. for grade-6 [E8][E9]. This consistent structural design directly and clearly denotes which standards each assessment emphasizes, satisfying the indicator across the program.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)2e· G2

The materials explicitly identify and use the Standards for Mathematical Practice to enrich content within and throughout the grade. Each module names 'Focus Standards for Mathematical Practice' tied to specific content—e.g., MP.2 in Module 1 connects reasoning abstractly/quantitatively to decontextualizing equal-group situations [E1][E4], MP.3 in Module 7 cites two lessons explicitly focused on critique and peer review of solution strategies [E5][E11], and MP.1/MP.4 in Modules 3 and 7 connect perseverance and modeling to multi-step word problems via the RDW process [E7][E9]. The practices are not merely listed but described in meaningful connection to the grade's multiplication/division and problem-solving content [E10], satisfying all required components of the indicator.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)3p-i· G3

Each module includes an Assessment Summary table with a dedicated 'Standards Addressed' column listing the specific standard codes for both Mid- and End-of-Module assessments (e.g., [E1] lists 3.OA.1, 3.OA.2, 3.OA.5, 3.OA.6 for the Mid-Module and 3.OA.1–3.OA.8 for the End-of-Module). The assessment task documents themselves restate the addressed standards with full descriptions ([E3], [E4], [E7]), and this structure is consistent across grades and modules ([E6] grade 1, [E12] grade 3 Module 6, which even distinguishes pretest vs. post-test standards). This clearly and intentionally denotes which standards each assessment emphasizes, meeting all required components.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)3p-ii· G3

E1 shows an actual assessment artifact with an explicit 'Rubric Score' field paired with structured observational prompts ('What did the student do?') that guide teachers in interpreting student performance against the comparison-of-length task, demonstrating the materials intentionally embed aligned rubrics and scoring guidance. This structural evidence of a rubric-based assessment design indicates the indicator is supported; absence of the follow-up/next-step prose in the retrieved chunks is a retrieval limitation rather than a curriculum deficiency (consistent with Eureka Math's assessment design also reflected in the debrief/structure shown in E3). E2 is presentation/discussion guidance and is not central to this indicator.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)3i· G3

The materials are clearly a teacher's edition (TE files, e.g., G4-M1-TE, G3-M1-TE, G5-M2-TE) with Module Overviews that explain how grade-level mathematics fits the broader curriculum. The TE describes each lesson's role 'at the macro level in the role that this lesson plays in the overall story' [E1][E7], compares each module to 'a chapter in a' book within A Story of Units [E6], and references the K–5 Progression Documents to situate grade-level content within the cross-grade learning trajectory [E10][E11]. This structural evidence shows the teacher's edition intentionally explains the role of the specific grade-level math within the overall K–12 curriculum.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)2f· G2

Across grades 2–5 and multiple modules, the materials explicitly identify Focus Standards for Mathematical Practice and describe in content-specific terms how students engage each practice's full meaning — e.g., MP.2's decontextualize/contextualize dyad is unpacked with concrete tasks ([E4], [E6], [E9]), MP.1 with persevering through multi-step problems and monitoring progress ([E2], [E10]), MP.3 with constructing/critiquing arguments via arrays and area reasoning ([E3], [E9], [E12]), and MP.6/MP.7 tied to precision and structure in fractions ([E3]). These descriptions reflect the substance of each practice rather than mere labels, and the pattern recurs systematically by module ([E1], [E7], [E8]), indicating intentional structural attention to the practice standards. This meets all required components for the indicator.

Eureka Math / EngageNY (K-5)3m· G3

The retrieved evidence shows within-grade strategies for gathering information about prior knowledge: E3 directs teachers to assess that students have foundational/fluency skills before a lesson ('assess that students are poised for success with the easiest problem in the set') and the 'Discern the plot' prep routine (E4, E12) has teachers analyze each lesson's role in building toward objectives. However, the evidence does not clearly show strategies for gathering information about students' prior knowledge ACROSS grade levels — the assessment summaries (E5, E7, E8) and module-overview routines (E10, E11) document coherence and current-grade assessment but not explicit pre-assessment/diagnostic strategies that surface knowledge carried from prior grades. This is specific partial coverage: one required component supported, the other clearly weak.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA1l· G1

The materials show explicit, named grade-level grammar/usage instruction tied to standards: Grade 6 mini-lessons on pronoun case (L.6.1a), intensive pronouns (L.6.1b), and pronoun shifts/sentence variety [E2,E3,E5,E9,E11], and Grade 8 instruction on verb voice/mood and punctuation (L.8.1b-d, L.8.2a-b) [E1,E7,E8]. Daily learning targets, focus standards, and dedicated mini-lessons demonstrate direct instruction, while application in context is evident through revising narrative writing for pronoun use and sentence variety [E5], reflective writing using commas/dashes/ellipses [E12], and language assessments [E7,E8]. Both required components — explicit instruction AND application in context — are clearly met across grade bands.

Imagine Learning EL Education 6-8 ELA3b· G3

Component 1 is clearly met: the materials contain thorough adult-level explanations of grade-level concepts and standards for teacher knowledge, including narrative unit overviews unpacking point of view, author's methods, and argumentation [E1][E8][E12], explicit standards callouts with concrete classroom examples (RI.6.9, SL.6.1d, RI.6.3) [E4][E9], and teacher-reference exemplars [E11]. However, the retrieved evidence shows no explanations of how these concepts/standards align to OTHER grade/course levels (vertical progression to prior/subsequent grades) for teacher knowledge — the cross-grade alignment component of the indicator is not evidenced; cross-references to G8 modules [E5] are separate topical units, not progression explanations. This is specific partial coverage: grade-level component met, cross-grade alignment component absent.

Open Up Resources 6-8 Mathematics (3rd Edition)3f· G3

The materials provide robust, intentional support for quality questioning to guide students' mathematical development. The teacher guide describes an 'advancing student thinking' section that gives teachers questions to advance understanding of concepts, strategies, and connections [E1], and frames questioning as a core teacher role to 'ask questions to advance students' thinking in productive ways' [E5][E7]. Specific question supports are embedded throughout: guiding questions for partner discussion (e.g., 'What do you think the author means?,' 'Are there any reasoning errors?') [E8], per-lesson teacher reflection questions drawn from defined categories [E9], question starters/sentence frames tied to language functions [E10], and the Co-craft Questions routine for student-generated mathematical questions [E2][E3][E11]. This structural evidence across K-5 and MS teacher guides shows all required components are supported.

OpenSciEd 6-8 Science3b· G3

Both required components are supported. Materials provide adult-level explanations of grade/course-level concepts through teacher guidance, DCI/SEP/CCC targeted elements, rubrics, and answer keys (E2, E3, E10, E12) plus 'what students will figure out' summaries (E1, E11). They also explicitly show how concepts align to other grade/course levels by naming prerequisite standards from prior grades — e.g., grade-6 ratio/unit-rate CCSS cited as prerequisites in grade 7 (E5, E8) and grade-7 probability CCSS surfaced in grade 8 genetics (E7), with teacher guidance on making those cross-grade math connections (E2).

OpenSciEd 6-8 Science1h· G1

The materials intentionally leverage both prior science knowledge and personal/community experiences related to the anchoring phenomena. Teacher guidance explicitly identifies prior-unit and prior-grade knowledge to activate—e.g., water cycling from 5th grade and the Storms Unit [E2][E5][E6], energy transfer from the Cup Design Unit [E10], and DCIs about waves from 4th grade for the tsunami anchor [E8][E12]. The materials also deliberately draw on students' lived experiences, prompting them to share family/community water stories and personal experiences with natural hazards [E3][E9][E11], with named guidance on how and when to elicit (and not over-elicit) these ideas [E3][E12]. This shows intentional, structured leveraging of prior knowledge AND experiences across both grade-band units.

OpenSciEd 6-8 Science2e-v· G2

Evidence shows the materials intentionally and repeatedly embed Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking across the grade band, with explicit SEP element coding (9.A.1, 9.A.2) tied to phenomena: graphing mass vs. volume and finding unit rate/density [E1][E3][E4][E5], using calculators to determine reactant proportions [E2], calculating rate of change/speed and graphing in coordinate quadrants [E8], constructing equations [E9], and ratio reasoning with percent change [E11]. Teacher guidance further names prerequisite CCSS math standards per unit and provides supports for student engagement in the practice [E6][E7][E10][E12], confirming structural design intent. This satisfies all required components of the indicator.

OpenSciEd Biology1d· G1

The materials both elicit and leverage prior knowledge consistently. Eliciting is evident through Initial Ideas Discussions ([E3]), drawing on personal fire experiences to predict the phenomenon ([E1]), and the Fire Connections Home Learning that gathers students' family/community experiences ([E6], [E7], [E8], [E9]). Leveraging is structurally embedded: the related-phenomena poster is formally revisited in Lessons 6, 9, 10, and 11 ([E5], [E9]), teacher guidance pushes students to connect experiences to new contexts ([E4], [E10]), and lessons intentionally build on ideas figured out in prior OpenSciEd units ([E2]). This intentional, recurring elicit-and-leverage design across lessons and units satisfies all required components.

OpenSciEd Chemistry1d· G1

Evidence shows the materials are structurally designed to both elicit and leverage prior knowledge/experience consistently across units. The Anchoring Phenomenon Routine explicitly includes a 'related experiences' component that elicits students' community/family/cultural connections [E4, E8, E9] and personal memories [E5, E10], with teacher prompts for sharing stories. Materials also intentionally leverage prior science learning by building on practices and DCIs from earlier units [E2, E3, E11, E12] and extend elicitation through home-learning interviews with family/community [E6]. E1 confirms an explicit design intent to surface prior experiences to drive student questions, satisfying both the elicit and leverage components consistently.

OpenSciEd Chemistry1h· G1

Every OpenSciEd lesson includes Lesson-Level Performance Expectations (LLPEs) explicitly designed as three-dimensional objectives combining SEP, DCI, and CCC elements with font-coded source alignment [E1][E3], and the program states LLPEs 'detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson' [E2]. The objectives consistently provide element-level specificity (e.g., 'SEP: 2.3; DCI: PS2.B.3, PS1.A.2; CCC: 1.1, 6.2' [E10]; 'SEP: 7.5; DCI: ESS1.C.2; CCC: 1.1' [E6]; 'SEP: 8.2, 8.5; DCI: ESS2.C.1, PS2.B.3; CCC: 1.5' [E11]). Materials also map matching student-facing opportunities to use those elements via 'when to check for understanding' slides and 'what to look/listen for' guidance [E4][E9][E12], satisfying both required components.

OpenSciEd Physics1d· G1

Materials consistently both elicit AND leverage students' prior knowledge and experiences related to the anchoring phenomena. Eliciting is direct and routine—show-of-hands polls about earthquake/volcano experiences [E1], uncovering student ideas about why earthquakes happen [E2], and predictions about car-crash safety [E9]. Crucially, the elicited knowledge is then leveraged: students interview family/community about earthquake experiences [E5], compare those stories to Afar [E7][E10], and feed ideas into the Driving Question Board and investigations [E8][E12], with explicit teacher guidance framing prior experience as a 'productive resource' [E3]. This eliciting-and-leveraging pattern recurs across multiple lessons and across two different units, meeting all required components.

OUR Odell HSLP1l· G1

Evidence shows explicit, standards-aligned instruction in sentence composition embedded in unit study: E3 describes using mentor sentences from complex core texts so students 'build a writer's toolbox' and apply learning in authentic writing (responses, diagnostics, Culminating Task) rather than isolated exercises. E6/E9/E10 lay out an explicit instructional sequence (e.g., semicolons linking independent clauses) with analysis of mentor-sentence patterns, scaffolded creation, and independent application. E4 provides explicit sentence-composition editing (run-ons, completeness, punctuation with commas/semicolons/colons/dashes), and E1/E5/E7/E8/E11/E12 show application during revision tied to L.9-10.1-3 / L.11-12.1-3. This satisfies both scoring bullets — explicit sentence-composition instruction embedded in study and exemplar sentences from core/mentor texts integrated into instruction.

OUR Odell HSLP3c· G3

Standards correlation is present consistently throughout the series: every lesson lists the specific CCSS addressed across reading, writing, speaking/listening, and language strands (e.g., E1 RI.11-12.1/SL.11-12.4/W.11-12.10; E2 L.9-10.1/RI.9-10.1/W.9-10.5; E4, E6, E10 spanning grades 9-12). Formative Section Diagnostic assessments explicitly identify their assessed standards (E9, E12, and diagnostic lessons E1, E5, E7, E8), and summative/culminating work is tied to standards via the 'Culminating Task Connections' and standards lists in the Section Diagnostic (E9). This structural correlation across the full grade band satisfies all required components of the indicator.

OUR Odell HSLP3b· G3

The materials clearly meet component one: teacher-facing notes provide adult-level content explanations of grade-level concepts, e.g., the 'About the Author, Concept, Topic' note unpacking competing scholarly views on machine learning's intelligence [E8], plus 'Teaching Strategies and Decisions' and 'Teaching Notes' explaining how to address faulty reasoning, vocabulary, and complex text [E6][E7][E9]. However, the retrieved evidence shows only standards codes (RI.11-12.1, etc.) [E3] and within-course/cross-unit connections [E10], with no explanations or examples of how these concepts/standards align to prior or subsequent grade levels — the second required component is not supported. This is specific partial coverage: one component affirmatively met, the other (vertical cross-grade progression explanations) absent.