Michigan’s curriculum review process is generating debate — especially around what “evidence-based” actually means. Some assume Michigan requires Top Tier ESSA research studies. Others may suggest research isn’t really required at all. The reality is more structured — and more strategic.
Michigan’s framework is scored, not binary. Higher levels of research earn more points. But any evidence is better than none. And importantly, evidence is weighted alongside instructional quality — not treated as an afterthought.
It’s a Points System, Not a Pass/Fail
Michigan’s review process evaluates programs across three phases:
- Alignment to scientifically based reading research
- High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) design
- ESSA Levels of Evidence
Each phase contributes to the overall score. That means:
- Tier 1 evidence earns more points than Tier 2.
- Tier 2 earns more than Tier 3.
- Tier 3 earns more than Tier 4.
- No evidence earns zero.
In other words, higher tiers strengthen your score — but something is always better than nothing. This is not an “all or nothing” model. It’s incremental.
Evidence Is Weighted Equally With HQIM
One of the most overlooked aspects of Michigan’s rubric is weighting.
The ESSA evidence phase is averaged alongside:
- Science-of-reading alignment
- High-quality instructional materials indicators
Evidence is not a minor add-on. It meaningfully affects the overall score — just as much as instructional design quality.
A program with strong HQIM alignment but weak or missing evidence will see that reflected.
A program with moderate evidence and strong alignment can remain competitive.
That balance is intentional.
Michigan is signaling that:
- Instructional correctness matters.
- Research validation matters.
- And both influence the final determination.
What This Means for Curriculum Teams
For companies preparing submissions, the implications are clear:
- Tier 1 evidence strengthens your position.
- Moderate evidence still contributes meaningfully.
- No evidence materially weakens your score.
The key is not just having research — but organizing and articulating it clearly against the rubric.
Because in Michigan’s framework, evidence is scored, weighted, and visible.
And when timelines are compressed, teams without organized research narratives are at a disadvantage.
Michigan ESSA Levels of Evidence Worksheet
Required submission document outlining how vendors must document Study Design, Results, Sample Size, and Match criteria.