The evidence base for Core-Plus Mathematics is small: of 17 reviewed studies, only one met WWC standards (with reservations) and 16 did not meet standards or screens¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Seventeen studies were reviewed; one quasi-experimental design met WWC evidence standards with reservations, and the remaining 16 did not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens, so the extent of evidence is categorized as small. → Core-Plus Mathematics 2010

Evidence¶

Core-Plus Mathematics 2010¶

Core-Plus Mathematics. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: Core-Plus Mathematics, High School Math. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp

q2 · i? · review · r3

The WWC's review of the available literature (publicly available through March 2010). Most excluded studies were quasi-experiments in which "the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent" or were ineligible for not examining intervention effectiveness.

"Seventeen studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Core-Plus Mathematics on high school students. One study is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence stan-dards with reservations. The remaining 16 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only one of seven eligible studies of I CAN Learn® met WWC group design standards, and it met them only with reservations — related
• The guide's recommendations rest on a screened evidence base of 15 studies meeting WWC group design standards drawn from more than 2,800 citations — related
• Thirteen of 14 reviewed studies of the program fail WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens, most for lacking comparison-group designs or non-equivalent quasi-experimental groups — related
• Only one of 10 identified studies of InsideTrack© Coaching met WWC group design standards without reservations — 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 extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — related
• The evidence base for Everyday Mathematics® on primary mathematics achievement is small: one study of 3,436 students met WWC standards, and 33 of 34 eligible studies did not meet group design standards — related
• The evidence base for Head Start's school-readiness effects is small: only one of 40 eligible studies met WWC group design standards — related
• The evidence base for Reading Mastery with adolescent learners is small: only 2 of 175 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — a narrower finding that bears on this claim