In this series, Linda Bevilacqua, President of the Core Knowledge Foundation, will share an instructional materials developer’s perspective on the current materials landscape as well as provide an in-depth look at the Core Knowledge curricular materials. If you have questions you’d like Linda to address, please submit them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you could give one piece of advice to fellow publishers/instructional materials developers to help them better meet the needs of the field, what would it be?
I really wish that all publishers and instructional materials developers would voluntarily agree to complete a rubric, such as the Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET) created by Student Achievement Partners, and make it publicly available for anyone to use.
I am specifically thinking that the publisher would complete the Evidence section of the IMET, citing specific examples of how their curriculum or product meets the criteria identified in the IMET. Publishers would not complete the “Meets or Does Not Meet” Rating of each metric; this section would be left blank so that any educator using this tool could evaluate the evidence cited and make their own determination as to whether the criteria had been met.
I think this would offer benefits to both publishers and consumers. Publishers know (or should know!) their own materials best and should be able to provide clear and specific examples as evidence of how their product addresses the Standards.
This would shift some of the burden to publishers of proving whether materials are CCSS aligned and would be a real time saver to consumers looking to evaluate materials. Using a single tool, like the IMET, would also allow everyone–publishers and consumers alike–to compare apples to apples in evaluating materials.
As an instructional materials developer, I would welcome the opportunity to complete the IMET in this way and demonstrate to consumers how our published materials align with the CCSS.