Claims

Implementation uptake of Everyday Mathematics in treatment schools was low, with only 55% of teachers in year one and 44% in year two implementing the unique and essential components

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Implementation analyses demonstrated surprisingly low levels of uptake in treatment schools, declining from 55% of teachers in the Unique Class in year one to 44% in year two. → Vaden-Kiernan 2015

Evidence

Vaden-Kiernan 2015

Vaden-Kiernan, M., Borman, G., Caverly, S., Bell, N., Ruiz de Castilla, V., Sullivan, K., & Rodriguez, D. (2015). Findings from a Multi-Year Scale-Up Effectiveness Trial of Everyday Mathematics. SREE Spring 2015 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567630

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Implementation study using classroom observations, interviews, and surveys with teachers and key staff such as curriculum trainers. In year two only 44% of teachers in treatment schools were in the Unique Class; limited contamination occurred in two schools in year one (3 teachers) and one school in year two (4 teachers), all within the same district.

"Implementation analyses demonstrate surprisingly low levels of uptake in treatment schools. In Year One, only 55% of teachers in treatment schools showed evidence of implementing both the unique and essential components of EM."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.