Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

Introduction

This report presents the findings of a review of about four hundred studies evaluating mathematics and science curricula and professional development models for middle school and high school. As requested by the GE Foundation, the main goal of this review was to identify, in response to the GE Foundation's request, mathematics and science curricula as well as professional development models that had been deemed effective based on their success in increasing student achievement. The Foundation's interest in these findings stems from its desire to initiate a program of funding to foster sustainable improvement in academic achievement of underrepresented and disadvantaged populations.

Historically, curriculum choice at the local level has often been made by a committee that decides which curriculum to adopt based on considerations only peripherally related to student achievement—such as state-imposed standards, recommendations of others, cost, and presentations by publishers' representatives. Choice of professional development models follows a similar pattern. Indeed, there has been very little else available to guide school districts in their curriculum selection process, since for most curricula and textbooks the only data at hand are publishers' figures on the number of adoptions. That has been changing. There is a growing movement to assess the effectiveness of math and science curricula through various methodologies, including content analyses, comparative studies, case studies, and synthesis studies.¹ And while there have been several studies of the effectiveness of professional development practices, very few have measured the effects of these practices on student achievement.

In this document, we describe the methodology used to conduct this review, present our findings, and end with a summary of conclusions. To provide an international perspective on these topics, the report includes a brief look at the research on mathematics and science education in three countries that are similar in key dimensions to the U.S.

Notes from this Section:

1. The majority of these efforts have been undertaken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Research Council (NRC), and the U.S. Department of Education. The AAAS study used content analysis, the NRC study did not rate specific curricular math programs, and the U.S. Department of Education study reviewed middle school math programs only.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.