The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only two studies met WWC evidence standards, both addressing math; no studies meeting standards addressed oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing, or cognition, and the extent of evidence for math was rated small. → SRA Real Math Building Blocks PreK 2007

Evidence¶

SRA Real Math Building Blocks PreK 2007¶

SRA Real Math Building Blocks PreK. (2007). WWC Intervention Report. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/buildingblocks/

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

WWC extent-of-evidence categorization across the two qualifying studies (2 studies, 4+ schools, 32 classrooms/255 children in the math domain); Appendix A6 lists zero studies for all five other early childhood education domains. No effect sizes are reported for the unexamined domains.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Building Blocks for Math to be small for mathematics achievement. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reser-vations addressed oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing, or cognition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Level One™ is small, with no standards-meeting studies in four of six outcome domains — related
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement — related
• No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small — related
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• The Bright Beginnings preschool curriculum shows no discernible effects on preschool children's school readiness across oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math domains — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related