Science

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

Guidance for Using Reports Created With Earlier Review Tools

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

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

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

Since publishing our first reviews of science curricula in 2019, we have made a range of enhancements to our science review tools and process driven by emerging research findings and feedback from our users and stakeholders, including science researchers, educator reviewers, classroom educators, and district and state leaders.

 

Overview of Science Review Tools by Version

Version 2.0

Report year range: 2025–present

Grades covered: K–12

Key attributes and innovations: science-specific:

• Increased clarity and consistency across all grade levels in review criteria and scoring indicators related to:

• • Phenomena and problems driving learning
  • Three-dimensional learning and assessment
  • Coherence and scope of materials.

• These refinements help report users more precisely understand the intent of all indicators and continue to support the field’s growth in its implementation of the NGSS and phenomenon-driven, three-dimensional instruction.

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

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

 

Version 1.5

Report year range: 2021–2025

Grades covered: K–12

Key attributes and innovations: science-specific:

• Introduction of high school science tools, including the addition of “claims-based” review to account for all the varying needs and program designs of the high school science landscape—particularly, that most high school programs aren’t designed to address all standards.
• Claims-based review means:
  • Determining which standards are “claimed” for a program in teacher-facing materials.
  • Confirm the claimed standards are addressed in the program and that its content genuinely builds towards the claimed standard.

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

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

 

Version 1.0

Report year range: 2019–2021

Grades covered: K–8

Key attributes and innovations: science-specific:

• Developed to facilitate the first ever independent, national, free reviews of K–8 science instructional materials.
• Version 1.0 review tools evaluated materials for:

• • Design for three-dimensional learning and assessment aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
  • Leveraging of science phenomena and engineering problems to drive learning and student performance
  • Coherent design, scientific accuracy
  • Supporting grade-level and grade-band endpoints of all three dimensions

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

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

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

 

Comparing Current and Earlier Science Tools

The core focus of science review tools has remained constant across tool versions, but we have made some adjustments in Gateways 1 and 2 of our current tools related to language structure and indicator order. The updates aim to increase consistency across grade bands and increase clarity for those using reports.

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

 

Phenomena and problems

In our current tools:

• Increased clarity of indicator language related to phenomena and problems driving learning, including a scored indicator to evaluate how well materials are designed to include both phenomena and problems.

In earlier tools:

• The indicator relating to materials being designed to include both phenomena and problems was unscored in earlier tools, providing narrative evidence only.
• The intent of the indicators has remained largely consistent across tool versions. In some instances, the language of earlier indicators was less clear and specific in conveying this intent.

 

Three-dimensional learning and assessment

In our current tools:

• Increased clarity of indicator language and consistency across grade bands around how well materials are designed for three-dimensional learning and assessment.
• This includes evaluating whether materials:

• • Clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
  • Include a formative assessment system focused on targeted learning objectives.
  • Include a summative assessment system to assess student achievement of relevant standards.
  • Are designed to incorporate three-dimensional assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.

In earlier tools:

• Earlier indicators considered the same factors as current tools, but less consistently across grade bands. E.g., in version 1.5 tools, the following indicators were present in high school tools but not in K–8 tools:

• • Materials clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
  • Materials are designed to incorporate three-dimensional performance tasks.

• The intent of the indicators has remained largely consistent across tool versions. In some instances, the language of earlier indicators was less clear and specific in conveying this intent.

 

Coherence and scope of materials

In our current tools:

• Increased precision in scoring indicator language to evaluate how well materials provide student opportunities to fully learn and develop all relevant Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts.

In earlier tools:

• The intent of the indicators has remained largely consistent across tool versions. In some instances, the language of earlier indicators was less clear and specific in conveying this intent.

 

Assessments

In our current tools:

• Indicators for evaluating assessments are distributed across Gateways 1 and 3. Indicator language clearly delineates the specific scope of each assessment indicator.

In earlier tools:

• Indicators for evaluating assessments were also distributed across Gateways 1 and 3 in earlier tools, but with some areas of potential overlap between different indicators.