Recently, EdReports, the widely-used curriculum review site, has been under fire over inconsistencies in its reviews.
This has spawned a great deal of discussion – almost none of it defending EdReports. In particular, we have seen a dearth of EdReports defenders with regard to its reviews of basal programs and Bookworms. Educators aren’t chiming in to say, “Basal reading programs are actually high-quality.” In fact, the opposite.
Turns out even EdReports acknowledges the critiques.
In a recent column, Eric Hirsch of EdReports announced plans to shift its review strategy, saying, “We’ll be evaluating how to make our reports more responsive to the rapidly evolving curriculum space and considering stakeholder feedback on topics including usability and volume of content.” Critiques about “volume of content” are at the heart of critiques of basal programs.
A memo to its reviewers is more pointed: “We’re most vulnerable to criticism around our reviews of basals / big box programs. We need to be particularly intentional in this area.”
At this point, it’s a consensus position: EdReports got its reviews of basals wrong.
Literacy experts think EdReports got Bookworms wrong, as well. And close watchers should note that Fishtank ELA earns a recommendation from the Knowledge Matters Campaign, but failed to earn all-green from EdReports. It’s hard to miss the daylight between experts and EdReports.