Skip to main content
Log in

AN URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL CASE STUDY OF MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What does it take to change a school’s mathematics achievement profile from low to one that is proficient and advanced? Is this transformed achievement profile sustainable? Such is the story presented here, in this three-phase case study of a K-8 urban charter school’s mathematics program. The first phase discusses the school’s mathematics program as it existed in 2006. The second phase discusses the contents and interventions implemented which transformed the student achievement scores over a period of 3 years (2006–2009) from low achieving to proficient and advanced. The third phase is a follow-up mixed-methods investigation that was conducted to determine whether the achievement was sustainable and how the program changed. The interventions designed and implemented over the initial 3-year period are discussed, as are the findings of the follow-up study. This is discussed with reference to impacting change in student achievement and its relative significance for future work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Auguste, Hancock & Miller (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s schools. Boston, MA: McKinsey & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, M. J. & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Inequality in postsecondary education. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., Gersten, R. & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Kilpatrick, J., Milgram, R. J., Schmid, W. & Schaar, R. (2005). Reaching for common ground in K-12 mathematics education. Notices of the AMS, 52(9), 1055–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. Boston, MA: McKinsey & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J. & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. A. & Amabile, T. M. (2009). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) (2010). http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states. Accessed 5 Dec 2010.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Data Recognition Corporation (2010). https://http://www.drc-web.com/reportdelivery/. Accessed 15 Dec 2010.

  • Dillon, S. (2010, December 7). Top test scores from shanghai stun educators, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?emc=eta1. Accessed 8 Dec 2010.

  • Every Child a Chance Trust (2009). The long-term costs of numeracy difficulties. http://www.everychildachancetrust.org/every-child-counts/case-studies. Accessed 17 Sep 2011

  • Friedman, T.L. (2010, November 21). Teaching for America, The New York Times, p. WK 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/opinion/21friedman.html.

  • Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heifetz, R. A. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hembree, R. & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izumi, L. T. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty, high-performing schools in California. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, R. S., DePree, J., Celedon-Pattichis, S. & Brinkerhoff, J. (2007). Mathematics education at highly effective schools that serve the poor. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of American K-12 mathematics education in the 20th century. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition. Greenwich, UK: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H. & Maas, C. J. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, T. & Coughlan, J. (2004). The arithmetic gap. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Boston, MA: McKinsey & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B. & Levy, F. (1995). The growing importance of cognitive skills in wage determination. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(2), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2006). Curriculum focal points: For pre-kindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • OEDC Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2009). PISA 2009 results. http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2012.

  • Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) (2010). Assessment anchors and eligible content. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/assessment_anchors/7440. , Accessed 23 May 2010.

  • Phillipp, R. A. & Schappelle, B. P. (1999). Algebra as generalized arithmetic: Starting with the known for a change. The Mathematics Teacher, 92(4), 310–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. & Kmicikewycz, A. O. (2008). When generating answers benefits arithmetic skill: The importance of prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101, 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. & Stern, E. (2010). The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R.S., Duncan, G.J., Davis-Kean, P.E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., Susperreguy, M.I., et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In J. Frank & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suydam, M. N. (1979). The use of calculators in pre-college education: A state-of-the-art review. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Top PSSA Performers (2008, August 16). Philadelphia Inquirer.

  • U.S. Department of Education (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. S. & Naiman, D. Q. (2004). K-12 calculator usage and college grades. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 119–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the U.S.: Past to present. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 37(1), 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. (2001). How to prepare students for algebra. American Educator, 25(Summer), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila R. Vaidya.

Appendices

Appendix 1—Compilation of Program Elements

Grade Level:

Teacher Name _______________________________

Date of Observation ____________Date of Interview ____________

  

Non-use

Awareness

Sporadic Use (written)

Regular Use (written)

Master (written)

Everyday Math 2nd Ed

      

Everyday Math 3rd Ed

Lesson #

     

Excel Math

Lesson #

     

Math Facts Expectations

X

     

PSSA Checklist

X

     

Story Problem

X

     

Math Notebook

X

     

Pacing Schedule

X

     

Appendix 2—Teacher Interview Protocol

Math Program Elements

  1. 1.

    Please compare the math program you are implementing this year with the WOLCS program as designed (show chart of program).

  2. 2.

    How were you trained in math program?: ______________

  3. 3.

    Please describe and comment on the parts of the math program that you feel help your students the most in their understandings?

  4. 4.

    Are there any parts of the math program that are unusual or unique? Are there any parts that you have not seen in any other schools?

  5. 5.

    What is your view of the learning experience for your students?

  6. 6.

    Would you recommend that the school continue this program next year? Why or why not? What would you change?

  7. 7.

    If you could design the perfect math program for your students what would it look like?

  8. 8.

    How is progress monitoring done?

  9. 9.

    Use of Intervention Periods/how many per week? How are they used?

  10. 10.

    Describe use of Excel Test analysis, Excel check answer

  11. 11.

    Please describe how you use calculators in your classroom.

Overall System Elements (Use Only if the Teacher Taught Here Last Year)

  1. 1.

    To what do you attribute your students’ success in math achievement last year?

  2. 2.

    How well are your students doing this year in their understanding of math and math achievement? Are they demonstrating understanding?

  3. 3.

    Please describe why or why not you feel your students are achieving and showing understanding.

  4. 4.

    Describe how the Math Notebook is used.

  5. 5.

    How many times this year has the administration checked your Math Notebook?

  6. 6.

    Describe use of pacing schedule.

Motivational Elements

  1. 1.

    Describe use of motivational techniques for students, classrooms, and teachers.

  2. 2.

    Describe how the bulletin board is being used.

  3. 3.

    How important are classroom motivational elements to your students’ achievement?

  4. 4.

    How important are school-wide motivational elements to your students’ achievement?

Leadership Elements

  1. 1.

    Does the school leadership affect the students’ math learning and achievement? In what way?

  2. 2.

    What type of support do you receive from the school’s leadership for your students’ math learning and achievement?

  3. 3.

    What type of support do you receive from the school’s leadership?

Appendix 3—Administrator Interview Protocol

Math Program Elements

  1. 1.

    How is the math program working?

  2. 2.

    How has the math teaching been going?

  3. 3.

    What have been the problems?

  4. 4.

    What has worked well/not so well?

  5. 5.

    What are some of the underpinning attributes?

  6. 6.

    What are some of the highlights?

  7. 7.

    Understand what the issues are and how I can help with it?

  8. 8.

    What is your vision for the program? Where do you want to see it go?

Overall System Elements

  1. 1.

    How does pacing work?

  2. 2.

    How is the Math Notebook used?

Motivational Elements

  1. 1.

    What are the motivational programs and how are they used/administrated?

Leadership Elements

  1. 1.

    What is your role as a mathematics leader?

Math Program Elements

  1. 1.

    How is the math program working?

  2. 2.

    How has the math teaching been going?

  3. 3.

    What have been the problems?

  4. 4.

    What has worked well/not so well?

  5. 5.

    What are some of the underpinning attributes?

  6. 6.

    What are some of the highlights?

  7. 7.

    Understand what the issues are and how I can help with it?

  8. 8.

    What is your vision for the program? Where do you want to see it go?

Overall System Elements

  1. 1.

    How does pacing work?

  2. 2.

    How is the Math Notebook used?

Motivational Elements

  1. 1.

    What are the motivational programs and how are they used/administrated?

Leadership Elements

  1. 1.

    What is your role as a leader regarding mathematics?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paul, C.S., Vaidya, S.R. AN URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL CASE STUDY OF MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 12, 1241–1260 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9453-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9453-5

Key words

Navigation