How we rate

How we make money, and what it never buys

Some outbound links are or will become affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. That is the whole model, and it is disclosed on every page it appears. What that money does not do: it does not decide who gets listed, what worldview tag a curriculum carries, what its "not for" note says, or where it sits in a list or comparison. We have no sponsored placements and no pay-to-be-reviewed. A free resource with no affiliate program is ranked on the same merits as one that pays.

How we tag worldview

Every curriculum carries one of three tags: Christian (faith is woven into the materials), Secular (no religious content), or Faith-neutral (usable by religious or secular families). We label both directions symmetrically, and we never treat Christian as the unmarked default.

We also say it plainly: "faith-neutral" is not the same as secular. A faith-neutral program can still carry quiet assumptions, or omit a topic like evolution to avoid offending buyers. Where we have inspected the materials, we name where the worldview actually shows up. Where we have not, we say so rather than guess.

How we describe cost

We use real, current pricing and we do not understate it. Free tiers are flagged as free, and when a program needs a one-time manipulative or block kit on top of the per-level price, we say so, because the sticker price is not the real first-year cost. "Free" is its own honest category, not a teaser for an upsell.

Why every pick has a "who it is not for"

Balance on this site is structural, not a matter of reviewer mood. Every curriculum entry is required to carry a "not for" note and a "best for" line, and our comparison table asks every option the same questions, including "who should skip this." That means a weak spot can never hide by being left off the page. An all-positive writeup next to an affiliate link is exactly the thing we are built against.

How we verify links and what "last verified" means

We check links by hand and in code, and we re-check the data behind a page rather than trusting it forever. When a page shows a "last verified" date, that is a date we actually re-confirmed the facts, prices, or statutes, not an automatic timestamp. If something is old, we would rather show the real old date than fake freshness.

How we rate state laws

State pages come in tiers we label honestly. Scout Verified states have had a full by-hand pass against primary sources. Others are marked "researched, depth review in progress." We present each requirement neutrally and, on verified states, link the exact statute that governs it, so you can read the law yourself instead of taking our word for it. We do not frame more or less regulation as good or bad. This is general information, not legal advice.

How we write the special-needs guides

Our condition guides present each approach with its real evidence and its real criticism, in confidence tiers where the evidence is mixed. We use support-needs language, cite credible and, for autism, autistic-led sources, and were reviewed adversarially for overstatement before publishing. They are educational, not medical advice, and they say so. We will never use cure language or promise outcomes.

What we will never do

• Accept payment to be listed, recommended, tagged, or ranked.
• Invent data, reviews, ratings, star counts, or match percentages.
• Put a reviewer's name on something they did not review, or fake a freshness date.
• Use fear (surprise social-worker visits, "you will ruin your child") to drive sign-ups.
• Hide faith-based or secular options behind framing. Both stay findable and fairly labeled.
• Reproduce a product's marketing claims as if they were our findings.

Found a mistake?

We would genuinely rather hear it. Prices change, laws change, and links rot. If something here is wrong or out of date, tell us and we will check it and fix it, with the "last verified" date updated when we do.