Characteristics of the CPMP Curriculum

In the Classroom

The CPMP curriculum is a flexible curriculum that can be used in a variety of ways with different groupings of students. Thus, each school should make the decision about grouping students that best fits their student body and community. In whatever configuration the school chooses, the availability of extension activities in the student text, and of maintenance tasks in the Teacher Resource materials, as well as different styles of practice problems, allows teachers to provide appropriate challenge or review for each student.

At this time, the CPMP curriculum is being successfully used in math/science magnet schools, in high schools with heterogeneous classrooms, with accelerated 8th graders, in accelerated tracks that move more quickly through the materials starting in 9th grade, and in schools that use several different curricula. In many schools, the CPMP materials are used successfully with all the students, whether they are tracked or untracked.

Bill Bokesch was a Core-Plus field-test teacher in a southern California high school. Over 70% of the students in his school did not have English as their first language. In a recent article in MathLink, Bill described the techniques he learned in a 45-hour Professional Development course required by the California legislature to help teachers teach LEP and ELL students who are assigned to regular instructional classes (as all California students are now). The course is called "Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English" (SDAIE). Bill compared the SDAIE recommendations with what he was already doing as a CMIC teacher.

Bill concludes: "By using appropriate settings, discussion, investigation, and tools, I help students in my CMIC classes learn mathematics in a way that strengthens their language skills and allows them to build on their existing mathematics knowledge." To read Bill Bokesch's entire article, download ELL-LEP.pdf (58 kb).

Student Preparation

Evaluation Evidence

There is a large and growing body of rigorous research documenting the effectiveness of the CPMP curriculum. Based on evidence from nationally standardized tests (ITED, SAT, ACT, NAEP), course-specific tests, researcher-developed tests, interviews, and surveys, the CPMP curriculum has been shown to enhance students' mathematical achievement and attitudes toward mathematics.

Quantitative Thinking
CPMP students outperform comparison students on the mathematics subtest of the nationally standardized Iowa Tests of Educational Development ITED-Q.

Conceptual Understanding
CPMP students demonstrate better conceptual understanding than students in more traditional curricula.

Problem Solving Ability
CPMP students demonstrate better problem solving ability than comparison students.

Applications and Mathematical Modeling
CPMP students are better able to apply mathematics than students in more traditional curricula.

Algebraic Reasoning
CPMP students perform better on tasks of algebraic reasoning than comparison students.

Algebraic Procedural Skills
This is the one area for which field-test research indicates mixed results. On some evaluation tests, CPMP students do as well or better, on others they do less well than comparison students. As part of the curriculum development process, revisions have been made to strengthen students' algebraic skills. The final and published version of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum maintains the well-documented effectiveness of the curriculum, while strengthening students' algebraic procedural skills.

Important Mathematics in Addition to Algebra and Geometry
CPMP students perform well on mathematical tasks involving probability, statistics, and discrete mathematics.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
CPMP students scored well above national norms on a test comprised of released items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Student Perceptions and Attitudes
CPMP students have better attitudes and perceptions about mathematics than students in more traditional curricula.

Performance on State Assessments
The pass rate on the 2004-05 Tenth-Grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning Mathematics test for 22 state of Washington high schools that were in at least their second year using the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum was significantly higher than that of a sample of 22 schools carefully matched on prior mathematics achievement, percent of students from low-income families, percent of underrepresented minorities, and student enrollment.

College Entrance Exams - SAT and ACT
CPMP students do as well as, or better than, comparable students in more traditional curricula on the SAT and ACT college entrance exams.

Performance on College Math Placement Tests
On a mathematics department placement test used at a major midwestern university, CPMP students performed as well as students in traditional precalculus courses on basic algebra and advanced algebra subtests, and they performed better on the calculus readiness subtest.

Performance in College Mathematics Courses
CPMP students completing the four-year curriculum perform as well as, or better than, comparable students in a more traditional curriculum in college mathematics courses at the calculus level and above.

The above results are drawn from several sources, including two research papers presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association:

• An Emerging Profile of the Mathematical Achievement of Students in the Core-Plus Mathematics Project
  
• Students' Perceptions and Attitudes in a Standards-based High School Mathematics Curriculum,
  

two field-test progress reports:

and a paper appearing in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, "Effects of Standards-based Mathematics Education: A Study of the Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra/Functions Strand," Vol. 31, No. 3 (2000).

On the quantitative section of the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED-Q), Core-Plus students significantly outperformed both the nationally representative norm group and comparison students in the same school who had a traditional mathematics curriculum.

The Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking (ITED-Q or ATDQT) is the mathematical subtest of the Iowa Test of Educational Development, a nationally standardized battery of high school tests. The ITED-Q is a 40-item multiple-choice test with the primary objective of measuring students' ability to employ appropriate mathematical reasoning in situations requiring the interpretation of numerical data and charts or graphs that represent information related to business, social and political issues, medicine, and science. The ITED-Q administered in CPMP national field test schools at the beginning of Course 1 served as the pretest for all courses, so the pretest-posttest analyses for Courses 1, 2, and 3 are for one, two, and three years of mathematics instruction, respectively. For the first and second years, there was a comparison group of ninth- or tenth-grade students in traditional mathematics courses in some field-test schools with both curricula.

Results for the following three cohort groups of CPMP students were analyzed: (1) all students who completed both the Course 1 Pretest and the Course 1 Posttest, (2) all students who completed both the Course 1 Pretest and the Course 2 Posttest, and (3) all students who completed both the Course 1 Pretest and the Course 3 Posttest. Table 1 below gives median (middle) ITED-Q percentiles of the CPMP and comparison distributions.

The results given in Table 1 are illustrated in the following graph.

Pretest to posttest growth in percentiles indicates growth by CPMP students beyond that of the national norm group. Such increases appear consistently across the CPMP distribution for each year. For example, the median CPMP Course 1 student increased the equivalent of nearly two years in just one year's time. Allowing for pretest differences, CPMP posttest means in schools with comparison groups are significantly greater than those of the comparison students.

On the SAT-I Mathematics test, students completing Core-Plus mathematics field-test courses performed at least as well as students in traditional mathematics curricula.

SAT data for 1997 from 13 CPMP schools were separated into groups according to the secondary mathematics courses the students had completed. SAT Mathematics scores of students who had completed Courses 1, 2 and 3 were compared to students who completed traditional algebra, geometry and advanced algebra. In Table 1, these groups are labeled "CPMP 3" and "Advanced Algebra," respectively. The CPMP 3 average (mean) is greater than that of the Advanced Algebra students, but the difference is not significant at the 0.05 level.

In one field-test school at the beginning of the CPMP field test (Fall 1994), all ninth-grade students who qualified for pre-algebra or algebra were randomly assigned by computer to CPMP Course 1 or to a traditional course. Many of these students completed Advanced Algebra or CPMP Course 3 in their junior year and took the SAT either in spring or summer of their junior year or in fall of their senior year. As shown in Table 2, the average Grade 8 ITBS Mathematics scores are nearly identical for the CPMP students and those in the traditional curriculum. Thus, these two groups were well-matched on mathematical achievement prior to high school. They learned mathematics in the same school and sometimes from some of the same teachers. The only apparent systematic difference between the groups is the curriculum. The average SAT Math score for the CPMP group is greater than that of the traditional group, but the difference is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

The results in Tables 1 and 2 are illustrated in the following graph.

On the ACT Mathematics test, students completing Core-Plus mathematics field-test courses performed as well as students in traditional mathematics curricula.

The 2,944 CPMP and 527 traditional students in the original CPMP field-test sample had nearly identical average scores on the ITED-Q pretest administered at the beginning of Grade 9. ACT scores were available from a reasonably large subset of these students, and their average ACT Mathematics and ACT Composite scores are given in Table 1. There is no significant difference (0.05 level) between the CPMP and traditional averages (means) for either the Mathematics or Composite score.

In one school district at the beginning of the CPMP field test (Fall 1994), all ninth-grade students in the two CPMP field-test schools who qualified for remedial mathematics through algebra were randomly assigned by computer to CPMP Course 1 or to the appropriate traditional course. Many of these students completed Advanced Algebra or CPMP Course 3 in their junior year and took the ACT either in spring or summer of their junior year or in fall of their senior year. The average sixth-grade CAT Mathematics percentiles for the CPMP students and those in the traditional curriculum are similar as shown in Table 2, so these two groups were well-matched on mathematical achievement prior to high school. They learned mathematics in the same schools and sometimes from some of the same teachers. The only apparent systematic difference was the curriculum. For this set of students, the average ACT Math scores for the CPMP group is almost identical to that of the traditional group. The average ACT Composite score for the CPMP group is greater than that of the traditional group, but the difference is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

The results in Tables 1 and 2 are illustrated in the following graph.

On a Mathematics Department Placement Test from a large Midwestern university, students completing field-test versions of Core-Plus Mathematics Courses 1-3 plus the precalculus path of Course 4 performed as well as students in traditional precalculus on basic algebra and advanced algebra subtests and better on the calculus readiness subtest.

The Mathematics Placement Test, compiled from a bank of items developed by the Mathematical Association of America, that is presently used at a major university was administered in several field-test schools in May 1999 at the end of CPMP Course 4 and traditional Precalculus courses. This test contains three subtests - Basic Algebra (15 items), Advanced Algebra (15 items) and Calculus Readiness (20 items). The first two subtests consist almost entirely of algebraic symbol manipulation, and the third subtest measures some of the important concepts that underlie calculus. A graphing calculator (with no symbol manipulation capability) is allowed on this test.

The CPMP Course 4 students included in the comparison below are all those in the 1998-99 Course 4 field test who completed the 6-unit "preparation for calculus" path as the last course in their sequence of CPMP Courses 1-4 (N = 164). The Precalculus students, also from field-test schools, completed a traditional precalculus course following a sequence of Algebra, Geometry and Advanced Algebra (N = 177). The two groups were further restricted to those students who indicated on a written survey their intention to attend a four-year college or university in the next school year. Eighth-grade mathematics standardized test scores for both groups were, on average, at about the 85th national percentile. Means by group and subtest are plotted in Figure 1. The CPMP Course 4 mean was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than the Precalculus mean on the Calculus Readiness subtest, while the group means did not differ significantly on the Basic Algebra or Advanced Algebra subtests.

Figure 1:

The Mathematics Department at the university that provided this placement test combines the subtest scores by a formula to recommend enrollment for each student in one of four college mathematics courses - Calculus I, Precalculus, Intermediate Algebra, and Beginning Algebra. Using that formula, the percent of CPMP Course 4 and Precalculus students who would be recommended for each course is illustrated in Figure 2. A much higher percentage of CPMP Course 4 students (50.6%) than traditional Precalculus students (39.0%) would be recommended for Calculus I suggesting that the CPMP curriculum with this sequence of Course 4 units better prepares students for this examination and presumably for college calculus.

Figure 2:

CPMP Course 4 was field tested nationally during the 1998-99 school year and some preliminary evidence on how CPMP graduates perform in collegiate mathematics courses is beginning to appear. A study completed at the University of Michigan examined the performance of students from two Michigan high schools in the same district, Andover High School and Lahser High School. In 1995 and 1996, a traditional mathematics curriculum was in place at both schools, and Lahser continued to use their traditional curriculum through 1998-99. In 1997, all Andover students who had not previously been accelerated had studied the CPMP curriculum, and by 1998 all Andover students were in the CPMP program.

Computer files provided by the University of Michigan registrar were used to generate the achievement data summarized in the following table. The table includes the number of matriculants from the school under the year, the mathematics courses taken in the first year of study at the University of Michigan together with the grade point averages, and numbers of elections and the course averages in each year. The mathematics courses are 105/110 (precalculus), 115 (calculus I), 116 (calculus II), 215 (calculus III), 216 (introduction to differential equations), and honors (all honors math courses open to freshmen). The grade point averages were calculated using the University of Michigan system as follows: A+ (4.3), A (4), A- (3.7), B+ (3.3), B (3), ..., D (1), D- (0.7), E+ 0.3), and E (0).

The Andover achievement for the years 1997 and 1998 when CPMP was in place is stronger than both pre-CPMP Andover (i.e., 1995 and 1996) and 1997 and 1998 Lahser achievement. Similarly, the number of Andover matriculants at the University of Michigan for the last two years is greater than that for the previous two years. These achievement and admissions data clearly support the view that in collegiate mathematics courses at the University of Michigan, graduates of the CPMP program perform as well as, or better than, graduates of a traditional mathematics curriculum.

Graduates of the CPMP program at Andover have, themselves, commented on their preparedness for collegiate mathematics and mathematics-related fields. The following comments are from three students who studied the pilot version of CPMP Course 4. The first two students enrolled at the University of Michigan.

Comments such as the above are not unique to students at the University of Michigan. The following is a quote from an Andover graduate from the same class who enrolled at Stanford University.

A written, Likert-type survey of students' perceptions and attitudes about various aspects of their mathematics course experience was administered at the end of each school year during the field test. In four field-test schools, both CPMP Course 2 students (n = 221) and traditional geometry students (n = 134) completed this survey at the end of their respective courses. (Course 2 results are presented since the newness effect of the CPMP approach is likely to have disappeared by then). Each of the following findings was consistent across levels of pretest student achievement.

Local Implementation

Because much of the content in statistics, probability, and discrete mathematics is new for many teachers, and because some of the familiar material is developed more fully than in traditional mathematics, teachers need advice and support from other teachers and administrative support in order to implement the curriculum effectively. (Professional Development Opportunities)

Active involvement of students also requires a different type of planning by teachers. The Teacher Resource materials encourage teachers to be listening, observing, questioning, facilitating student work, and orchestrating class discussions in new ways. Professional development programs organized around reflecting on practice enable teachers to hone their skills in these areas.

At the very least, teachers should attend a professional development workshop led by an experienced CPMP teacher. In addition, schools should strongly consider providing the following supports:

We examined the classroom practices of 20 teachers during the field test of CPMP Course 1. Ten of these teachers comprised the top quartile of field-test teachers and the other 10 the bottom quartile with respect to their students' growth in mathematical achievement over the one-year course. Achievement was measured by a nationally standardized test called the Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking which is the mathematics subtest of the Iowa Tests of Educational Development. The primary data sources were: trained observer's holistic rating of the alignment of the instructional practice and classroom climate with CPMP's teaching for understanding model, self-perceptions of practice by the teachers, and expressed concerns of the teachers about the new curriculum.

The research results from this study, summarized below, are reported in a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education:
Schoen, H. L., Finn, K. F., Cebulla, K. J., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3) 228-259.

The description of the "effective" (i.e., first-quartile) teacher that emerged from analyzing the data from these sources follows. This teacher may be of either gender, but we will use female pronouns for convenience.

A paper by Richard Hill and Thomas Parker, that has been circulating informally for many years on the Internet and among critics of Standards-based reform, appeared in print in the December, 2006 American Mathematical Monthly. Hill and Parker claim to provide "compelling" evidence that students who learn high school mathematics from the Core-Plus Mathematics program are poorly prepared for collegiate mathematics at Michigan State University (MSU). However:

• The Hill and Parker paper does not provide crucial facts that seriously compromise the design, analysis, and conclusions of the study.

The six high schools in the Hill and Parker study were participating in the Core-Plus field test from 1994 to 1999, so Core-Plus evaluators have direct knowledge of the extent and nature of implementation of the Core-Plus Mathematics field-test units in these schools during those years. An article in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education includes a report of the implementation practices of Core-Plus teachers based on class observations and interviews and written surveys of teachers in 36 Core-Plus field-test schools, including the six in the Hill and Parker study. The abstract and downloadable article is at: my.nctm.org/eresources/article_summary.asp?from=B&uri=JRME2003-05-228a. In addition, more recent correspondence directly with the schools in the Hill and Parker study has confirmed the extent and nature of implementation of Core-Plus during the period of the Hill and Parker study. Based on this in-depth knowledge and analysis, it is our carefully considered conclusion that:

• Hill and Parker's study and their reporting of it are fundamentally flawed. The data and design do not support the stated conclusions and interpretations, and the report is strikingly misleading.

Hill and Parker analyzed trends in the MSU mathematics course-taking and achievement data from the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 graduates of six high schools. By 1998 and 1999, some of the graduates had studied some of the Core-Plus Mathematics field-test units. In four of the six schools, classified as CP (Core-Plus), Hill and Parker found a downward trend in the data, while in the other two "…declines are not evident in the data." For unclear reasons, Hill and Parker decided that the latter two schools "supplemented Core-Plus," and so they did not include these schools in the CP group and they removed them from their main analysis.

In fact, virtually every high school teacher supplements any curriculum they use in various ways, and the Core-Plus curriculum is no exception. As for the two excluded schools, 1998 and 1999 graduates in the Hill and Parker study would have completed field-test versions of three or four Core-Plus courses. There was no alternative curriculum track in either school, and there is no evidence that more supplementing of Core-Plus occurred in the two excluded schools than in the four schools that Hill and Parker chose for their main analysis. These two schools clearly should have been included in Hill and Parker's CP group.

• With vague and unconvincing justification, Hill and Parker separate out the two Core-Plus schools in which there was no downward trend, and base their main conclusions on the declining trend in MSU mathematics course-taking and achievement data in the other four schools.

Hill and Parker analyzed trends in the MSU mathematics course-taking and achievement data from the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 graduates of six high schools. Their negative conclusions about Core-Plus are based on four of the six schools, which had weaker data for the 1998 and 1999 graduates than for the 1996 and 1997 graduates. Since Hill and Parker conclude that their “results raise serious issues about the effectiveness of CPMP [Core-Plus] in preparing students to take college mathematics at Michigan State University,” most readers would naturally assume that all 1998 and 1999 graduates of the Core-Plus-identified schools in the analysis actually completed Core-Plus Mathematics courses in high school. Such readers would be wrong ­ as a very careful reading of Hill and Parker's definition of the CP (Core-Plus) group at the top of page 909 shows. The members of the CP group, by definition, were "implementing a system of offering only Core-Plus Mathematics" and possibly AP Calculus in 1998 and 1999. Further clarification comes from correspondence from Hill and Parker in which they state that, “our ‘Core-Plus Group’ consists of students from schools that were in the process of implementing Core Plus” [italics as in a written statement from Hill and Parker]. Furthermore, they openly state that they do not know whether or how much any individual student actually studied from the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum.

• Hill and Parker do not know which of the 1998 and 1999 graduates of these four schools completed even one course of Core-Plus Mathematics in high school. Yet they assert that their student-level analysis provides compelling evidence of the ineffectiveness of the Core-Plus Mathematics program.

In fact, in at least two of the four high schools classified as CP, the graduating classes had been taught from a variety of curriculum materials. For example, in the 1998 graduating classes from these two schools, only 40 out of 830 graduates participated in the field-test of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of these 40 Core-Plus students enrolled at Michigan State University. To attribute the performance of graduates from these schools to their having completed the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum, as implied and stated in the Hill and Parker report, is patently incorrect.

Thus, two schools in which all graduates completed three or more Core-Plus courses are excluded from the CP group, while two other schools in which very few students studied any Core-Plus Mathematics units are included in the CP group.

• Four of the six schools in the Hill and Parker study are misleadingly classified as Core-Plus schools or not. If these schools were more appropriately classified, then there might be the beginning of a valid study of Core-Plus students’ preparedness for collegiate mathematics at MSU. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the Hill and Parker study.

Hill and Parker's reporting of their study is misleading from beginning to end, starting with the title. Rather than being a “study of Core-Plus students at Michigan State University,” as the title states, it is actually, according to the authors’ own description, a study of “students from schools that were in the process of implementing Core Plus.” Their classification of schools as Core-Plus (CP) or not, does not reflect whether or not the students in those schools actually studied significantly from the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum.

• To attribute the performance of graduates from these schools to whether or not they completed the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum, as implied and stated in the Hill and Parker report, is patently incorrect.

A final and seriously misleading statement comes in the very last paragraph of the report where Hill and Parker imply that their study has to do with “the first edition of CPMP.” In fact, 1998 and 1999 graduates of the six schools in this study who actually completed Core-Plus courses in high school would have used some units of the unpublished field-test version of the curriculum. These draft Core-Plus Mathematics materials have not been used for many years. Based on our own field-test evaluations, this draft version was revised prior to publication in ways that maintain the well-documented strengths of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum (see the Evaluation page on the Core-Plus Web site at www.wmich.edu/cpmp/) while improving the curriculum in several ways, particularly as regards to preparation for collegiate mathematics. The changes made and some of their positive effects are discussed in Schoen & Hirsch (American Mathematical Monthly, February 2003). Moreover, a second edition of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum is now being completed, with Courses 1 and 2 published by Fall 2007.

• The Hill and Parker study is not about students who necessarily completed Core-Plus courses in high school. Furthermore, it does not address the published four-year Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum that has been used in schools since its completion in 2000 or the second edition of the curriculum that becomes available in Fall 2007.

We agree with Hill and Parker that there is a need for research assessing effects of different high school mathematics experiences on students’ progress in collegiate mathematics. However, the present Hill and Parker study does not contribute usefully to this research due to its substantial flaws and misleading interpretations. We urge concerned parties to look for valid research that addresses current published curricula. A brief report of our project evaluators’ start in this direction can be found at www.wmich.edu/cpmp/LongitudinalStudy1.html.

Another gauge of performance in college-level mathematics is provided by Advanced Placement courses. School districts using the published Core-Plus Mathematics program report increased enrollments and passing rates in Advanced Placement Calculus courses. Their students enter college with placement in courses above those described in the Hill and Parker study. See School Reports in the Evaluation section of the Core-Plus Web site. There are many valid publications and presentations about the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum.

• For an annotated bibliography of research and other publications about the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum, including journal articles, book chapters, papers presented at research conferences, and Ph.D. dissertations, see www.wmich.edu/cpmp/bibliography.html.

In 1997, an opinion survey of Core-Plus graduates and non-Core-Plus graduates in a Michigan school district was carried out by Greg Bachelis of Wayne State University. This survey was then analyzed by James Milgram of Stanford University and a report was widely disseminated on the Internet and to the media. This report attempts to conclude that Core-Plus students are not well-prepared for collegiate mathematics. However, the survey is invalid due to serious design flaws and the report draws incorrect conclusions. In spite of this, critics continue to draw attention to the study as a means to create fear of change.

Why is the Survey Invalid?

Self-reported data: The data are based on self-reported grades and test scores from students. This well-known error in survey research leads to unreliable data.

Self-selected sample: The survey is based on a self-selected sample, with no evidence of the makeup of that sample. This well-known error in survey research can lead to biased results.

Aggressively biased survey methods: The anti-Core-Plus group funding this survey aggressively campaigned among students. Such activity creates bias in the very group one is trying to survey.

Invalid generalizations: The school was using a 1997 pilot curriculum, which no longer exists. As part of the 4-year, data-driven curriculum development process, the curriculum has gone through several years of additional development since 1997. The final version of the Core-Plus curriculum maintains the well-documented strengths of Core-Plus (see frequently asked evaluation questions), while improving the curriculum in several ways.

Incorrect conclusions: This flawed opinion survey attempts to conclude that Core-Plus students are not well prepared for collegiate mathematics. On the contrary, data provided by the University of Michigan registrar indicates that in collegiate mathematics courses at the University of Michigan, graduates of the Core-Plus program perform as well as, or better than, graduates of a traditional mathematics curriculum.

Conclusion:

Due to fatal research flaws and incorrect conclusions, the Bachelis-Milgram study is not a valid study of the 1997 Core-Plus pilot program at Andover High School. Furthermore, it says nothing about the final Core-Plus curriculum in use today.

The invalid claims made on the basis of this single flawed study of one school are in marked contrast to a large and growing body of research that shows the positive effects of the Core-Plus curriculum in a wide range of schools nationally. Results of these rigorous research studies have appeared in refereed journals and presentations at professional conferences. They show the strong positive effects of Core-Plus Mathematics on students' conceptual understanding, problem solving ability, quantitative reasoning, attitudes toward mathematics, and success in advanced mathematical study. For more information about this research, see the Evaluation page, the annotated list of Research Publications, and School Reports from schools using the published version of the Core-Plus Mathematics program.

Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2003). Responding to calls for change in high school mathematics: Implications for collegiate mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, February, 109-123.

Schoen, H. L. & Hirsch, C. R. (2003). The Core-Plus Mathematics Project: Perspectives and student achievement. In S. Senk and D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn? pp. 311-344. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schoen, H. L., Finn, K. F., Cebulla, K. J., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3) 228-259.