AERA Open - January-March 2017, Vol. 3, No. 1 - Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher

Estimates relative achievement effects of four commonly adopted elementary mathematics textbooks in California using school-level textbook adoption data from fall 2008 and fall 2009. Findings show Houghton Mifflin’s California Math is more effective than the other three, raising Grade 3 standardized math scores by about 0.05 to 0.08 student-level standard deviations. The study also finds positive effects in higher elementary grades, with differential impacts that are educationally meaningful and scalable at near-zero marginal cost.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

Estimated effects of four adopted textbooks

Evidence from California Math across grades

Data sources and quasiexperimental evaluation approach

AERA Open January-March 2017, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1–22 DOI: 10. 1177/2332858417690511 © The Author(s) 2017. [http://ero.sagepub.com](http://ero.sagepub.com) Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California Cory Koedel Diyi Li University of Missouri Morgan S. Polikoff Tenice Hardaway University of Southern California Stephani L. Wrabel The RAND Corporation We estimate relative achievement effects of the four most commonly adopted elementary mathematics textbooks in the fall of 2008 and fall of 2009 in California. Our findings indicate that one book, Houghton Mifflin’s California Math, is more effective than the other three, raising student achievement by 0.05 to 0.08 student-level standard deviations of the Grade 3 state standardized math test. We also estimate positive effects of California Math relative to the other textbooks in higher elementary grades. The differential effect of California Math is educationally meaningful, particularly given that it is a schoolwide effect and can be had at what is effectively zero marginal cost. Keywords: curriculum, econometric analysis, economics of education, educational policy, mathematics education, quasiexperimental analysis Several recent experimental and quasiexperimental studies point toward differences in curriculum materials having educationally meaningful effects on student achievement (Agodini, Harris, Atkins-Burnett, Heaviside, & Novak, 2010; Bhatt & Koedel, 2012; Bhatt, Koedel, & Lehmann, 2013) . Chingos and Whitehurst (2012) argue that relative to other potential educational interventions—and in particular, human resource interventions—making better-informed decisions about curriculum materials represents an easy, inexpensive, and quick way to raise student achievement. However, the extent to which educational administrators can improve achievement by selecting better curriculum materials is hampered by a general lack of information. Given the wide variety of materials from which decision makers can choose, and the wide variety of implementation contexts (e.g., high-/low-poverty schools, states with different curricular goals and assessments, etc.), the handful of available efficacy studies is far from sufficient to inform those charged with selecting curriculum materials on behalf of students. We contribute to the sparse literature on the efficacy of curriculum materials by leveraging unique school-level data on textbook adoptions to estimate the relative effects on student achievement of four commonly used elementary mathematics textbooks in California (we refer to curriculum materials as “curricula” and “textbooks” interchangeably throughout our study) . In addition to adding to the literature that narrowly evaluates the effects of curriculum materials, our study also contributes to a larger literature on the effects of curriculum interventions broadly defined. For example, recent studies by Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2015); Cortes, Goodman, and Nomi (2015); Domina, McEachin, Penner, and Penner (2015); and Dougherty, Goodman, Hill, Litke, and Page (2015) examine curricular interventions that intensify and/or modify the timing of exposure to mathematics course work. Jackson and Makarin (2016) study the effects of making “off-the-shelf” supplemental mathematics lessons available to teachers online. All of these studies identify large effects of curriculumbased interventions on student achievement. Echoing the sentiments of Chingos and Whitehurst (2012) and Bhatt and Koedel (2012), Jackson and Makarin conclude that their“highly scalable” intervention is more cost-effective than alternative policies aimed at improving teacher quality. Textbook adoptions in California are reported by individual schools as a requirement of the 2004 Eliezer Williamset al. v. State of California et al. court ruling and resulting Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 L

FAQs

Which elementary math textbook shows the strongest effect in the study?

Houghton Mifflin’s California Math shows the strongest effect, outperforming three other commonly adopted textbooks.

How large is the estimated impact on Grade 3 standardized math test scores?

California Math is estimated to raise student test scores by about 0.05 to 0.08 student-level standard deviations on the Grade 3 state standardized math test.

What data and method are used to evaluate curriculum effects?

The study manually collects textbook adoption information from schools’ School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs) and merges it with longitudinal achievement and school characteristics data, then applies a quasiexperimental evaluation of curriculum effects.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher