Advertisement

A Lesson for the Common Core Standards Era from the NCTM Standards Era: The Importance of Considering School-Level Buy-in When Implementing and Evaluating Standards-Based Instructional Materials

  • Steven KramerEmail author
  • Jinfa Cai
  • F. Joseph Merlino
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

As educators begin to implement new curriculum standards like the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards, data from earlier reform efforts can provide critical information about what factors contribute to or impede the ability of new instructional materials to improve student learning. We used data from a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Local Systemic Change (LSC) initiative to investigate how school principal and teacher buy-in impacted the effectiveness of two middle school curricula designed to implement the NCTM Standards. We found that, compared to matched Comparison schools, Treatment schools with the highest buy-in saw substantial gains in mathematics achievement, whereas Treatment schools with the lowest buy-in saw substantial declines in mathematics achievement.

Keywords

Longitudinal study Mathematics reform Teacher buy-in School support Student performance Standards-based curriculum Common Core Standards Curriculum implementation Teacher professional development 

References

  1. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., & Pendleton, A. (2010). Achievement effects of four elementary school math curricula: Findings for first and second graders. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Retrieved Jan 12, 2013, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/index.asp
  2. Banilower, E. R., Boyd, S. E., Pasley, J. K., & Weiss, I. R. (2006). Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, M. W., & Edelson, D. C. (2001, April). Teaching by design: Curriculum design as a lens on instructional practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  5. Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 241–254). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Cai, J. (2010). Evaluation of mathematics education programs. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. C. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in Standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(3), 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the curriculum effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, J. (1998, April). Rethinking curriculum implementation: Paradigms, models, and teachers’ work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Confrey, J., Castillo-Chavez, C., Grouws, D., Mahoney, C., Saari, D., Schmidt, W., et al. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Chief State School Officers, Brookhill Foundation, & Texas Instruments. (2011). Common Core State Standards (CCSS) mathematics curriculum materials analysis project. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved Jan 23, 2013, from https://www.k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/pubdocs/CCSSOMathAnalysisProj.pdf
  13. Cross, C. T. (2004). Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.Google Scholar
  14. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobson, L. D., & Cook, T. J. (1980). Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flay, B., Biglan, A., Boruch, R., Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2005). Evaluating fidelity: Predictive validity for a measure of competent adherence to the Oregon model of parent management training. Behavior Therapy, 36, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., et al. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Glennan, T. K., Bodilly, S. J., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (2004). Expanding the reach of education reform: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved Jan 12, 2013, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG248.html
  21. Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(8), 552–558.Google Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM Standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hohmann, A. A., & Shear, M. K. (2002). Community-based intervention research: Coping with the “noise” of real life in study design. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, M. M. (2004). Reform ideals and teachers’ practical intentions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(13). Retrieved Jan 2, 2013, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaaa/v12n13/
  25. Kilpatrick, J. (2003). What works? In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), NSF funded school mathematics curricula: What they are? What do students learn? (pp. 471–488). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Krainer, K., & Peter-Koop, A. (2003). The role of the principal in mathematics teacher development. In A. Peter-Koop et al. (Eds.), Collaboration in teacher education (pp. 169–190). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009a). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009b). Focus in high school mathematics: fostering reasoning and sense making for all students. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  32. National Science Teachers Association. (2012). Recommendations on next generation science standards first public draft. Arlington, VA: NSTA. Retrieved Feb 6, 2013, from http://www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/recommendations2.aspx
  33. New Jersey Department of Education. (1996). New Jersey core curriculum content standards for mathematics. Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved Aug 7, 2007, from http://www.edsolution.org/CustomizedProducts/data/standards-frameworks/standards/09mathintro.html
  34. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in KI-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Donnell, C. L. & Lynch, S. J. (2008, March). Fidelity of implementation to instructional strategies as a moderator of science curriculum unit effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Retrieved Jan 12, 2013, from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/AERA%20O%27Donnell%20Lynch%202008%20-%20Fidelity%20of%20Implementation%20as%20a%20Moderator.pdf
  36. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1999). Academic standards for mathematics. Harrisburg. PA: Author. Retrieved Aug 7, 2007, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/MathStan.doc
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(21), 1–246.Google Scholar
  38. Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 368–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romberg, T. A., Folgert, L., & Shafer, M. C. (2005).Differences in student performances for three treatment groups. (Mathematics in context longitudinal/cross-sectional study monograph 7). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/Monograph%207%20Final.pdf
  40. Rubin, D. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Choosing a model and types of models: How to find what works for your school. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.Google Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C. & Groff, C. (2008). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Data Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE) Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/mhs_math_Sep_8_2008.pdf
  44. Stuart, E. A. (2007). Estimating causal effects using school-level data sets. Educational Researcher, 36, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R., Reys, B., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle school mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.Google Scholar
  46. Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives. Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. U.S. Department of Education. (2007a). What works clearinghouse intervention report: connected mathematics project. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved Nov 1, 2007, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CMP_040907.pdf
  48. U.S. Department of Education. (2007b). Mathematics and science specific 84.305A RFA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved Dec 2, 2007, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/funding/math_science/index.asp
  49. VanDerHeyden, A., McLaughlin, T., Algina, J., & Snyder, P. (2012). Randomized evaluation of a supplemental grade-wide mathematics intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1251–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vuchinich, S., Flay, B. R., Aber, L., & Bickman, L. (2012). Person mobility in the design and analysis of cluster-randomized cohort prevention trials. Prevention Science, 13(3), 300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The 21st Century Partnership for STEM EducationConshohockenUSA
  2. 2.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations