The study examines whether some early elementary school math curricula are more effective than others at improving math achievement in schools serving a high percentage of disadvantaged students.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q2 i? The study compares the relative effects of early elementary math curricula on math achievement in high-disadvantage schools. → Agodini 2010
Evidence¶
Agodini 2010¶
Agodini, R., Harris, B., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for First and Second Graders (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
q2 · i? · causal · r?
The issue brief's framing statement describes the study's purpose: comparing early elementary math curricula for improving math achievement in schools serving disadvantaged students. The webpage snapshot prints no effect estimates or findings.
"This study examines whether some early elementary school math curricula are more effective than others at improving math achievement in schools serving a high percentage of disadvantaged students."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A large-scale experimental study compared the effects of the four mathematics curricula on student achievement — a broader claim this one bears on
- The study is the largest experimental-design study of multiple math curricula, covering 110 schools with this report based on the first cohort of 39 schools — a broader claim this one bears on
- First-grade math achievement is significantly higher under Math Expressions and Saxon Math than under Investigations in Number, Data, and Space and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The evaluation uses a school-level random assignment design to estimate the relative effects of four early elementary math curricula — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- The better-performing early math curricula raised achievement for several student subgroups, including students in low-scoring and high-poverty schools — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The curriculum evaluation was the second report from a multi-year (2005-2013) IES-funded study of mathematics curricula — related
- A large-scale, rigorous study compared four elementary math curricula's effects on achievement across two years, first through second grade — related
- Math Expressions and Saxon Math raise first-grade math percentile rank 9 to 12 points more than Investigations and SFAW — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
math-curricula-relative-effects-disadvantaged-first-second-graders |
title |
The study examines whether some early elementary school math curricula are more effective than others at improving math achievement in schools serving a high percentage of disadvantaged students. |
description |
The study examines whether some early elementary school math curricula are more effective than others at improving math achievement in schools serving a high percentage of disadvantaged students. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2010 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — agodini-2010 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.