How Well Aligned Are Textbooks to the Common Core Standards in Mathematics?

Polikoff, Morgan S.

doi:10.3102/0002831215584435

Cited by 122 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The book's lead author, Randall Charles, was a coauthor of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Focal Points, widely considered a reformoriented mathematics document. Despite its seemingly reform-oriented description, analyses of other editions of enVision (the Common Core and Florida Grade 4 versions) found them to be typical in terms of their cognitive-demand coverage and far below the level of cognitive demand emphasized in the standards (Polikoff, 2015). The California state adoption report indicates that this curriculum met all five evaluative criteria.…”

Section: Supplementary Materials and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

Koedel¹,

Polikoff³

et al. 2017

AERA Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate relative achievement effects of the four most commonly adopted elementary mathematics textbooks in the fall of 2008 and fall of 2009 in California. Our findings indicate that one book, Houghton Mifflin's California Math, is more effective than the other three, raising student achievement by 0.05 to 0.08 student-level standard deviations of the Grade 3 state standardized math test. We also estimate positive effects of California Math relative to the other textbooks in higher elementary grades. The differential effect of California Math is educationally meaningful, particularly given that it is a schoolwide effect and can be had at what is effectively zero marginal cost.

show abstract

Section: Supplementary Materials and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

Koedel¹,

Polikoff³

et al. 2017

AERA Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the CCSS were first adopted by states in 2010, schools and districts have had fitful trails to implementation. Relatively few materials and supports were initially available to schools and teachers and, to this day, experts view relatively few textbooks to be CCSS aligned (Polikoff, 2015). Teacher change and building teacher capacity to instruct to more ambitious standards is also a slower process that requires a stable environment and a steady influx of resources, which many strapped school districts do not have.…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bubble Bursts: The 2015 Opt-Out Movement in New Jersey

Supovitz¹,

Stephens²,

Kubelka³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bubble Bursts: The 2015 Opt-Out Movement in New Jersey analyzes the scope, factors, and context of the opt-out movement that occurred in New Jersey in the spring of 2015. Using test participation data released in February 2016 by the New Jersey Department of Education, we found that approximately 135,000 students did not take the state assessment in the spring of 2015. Depending on how it was calculated, this represented between 11-19% of the population of students eligible for testing in grades 3 to 11 in the state. There was also a positive correlation between higher district opt-out rates and wealthier districts. We found that several factors contributed to these trends. Predominant amongst these were an accumulated skepticism with high stakes testing in general and the new PARCC assessment in particular, concerns from the Common Core State Standards rollout, teacher union opposition to premature teacher accountability, and confusion in the messages of state policymakers about graduation requirements. These explanatory factors were based upon interviews with over 30 state policymakers, professional education association representatives, advocacy group leaders, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Depending on how it was calculated, this represented between 11-19% of the population of students eligible for testing in grades 3 to 11 in the state. There was also a positive correlation between higher district opt-out rates and wealthier districts. We found that several factors contributed to these trends. Predominant amongst these were an accumulated skepticism with high stakes testing in general and the new PARCC assessment in particular, concerns from the Common Core State Standards rollout, teacher union opposition to premature teacher accountability, and confusion in the messages of state policymakers about graduation requirements. These explanatory factors were based upon interviews with over 30 state policymakers, professional education association representatives, advocacy group leaders, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Disciplines Educational Leadership | Education Economics | Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration FundingThis project received no external funding from any source.

show abstract

“…Teachers' Perceptions of Curriculum Alignment to the CCSSM Due to the important role that textbooks play in mathematics education (Banilower et al, 2013), surveys have examined the connection between curricular resources and the CCSS or CCSSM. Researchers have found a lack of alignment between curriculum materials that are advertised as aligned with the CCSSM and the CCSSM (Center for the Study of Curriculum, 2015; Polikoff, 2015). Teachers also perceived the curriculum resources that they currently use as lacking alignment with the CCSS (EPE Research Center, 2013;EWRC, 2013;Scholastic, 2013Scholastic, , 2014 or the CCSSM (Roth McDuffie et al, 2017).…”

Section: Teacher Perceptions Of Ccssm Assessment and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Its Impact on the Instructional Environment

Davis

Choppin

McDuffie

et al. 2017

School Sci & Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ (MSMTs') (N = 1,241) perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and its impact on the instructional environment. A total of eight factors appear in the data. These factors include professional support, teachers’ use of district‐adopted and non‐district‐adopted curricular resources, influence of CCSSM assessment and teacher evaluation on the instructional environment, influence of the CCSSM on classroom instruction, teachers’ planning practices, and perceived rigor of the CCSSM. The data suggest that teachers’ use of digital resources located online was disconnected from their district‐adopted resources suggesting a lack of curricular coherence. MSMTs note that the CCSSM had caused them to incorporate more reform‐oriented practices such as exploration and productive struggle into their daily instruction. MSMTs also perceive that the CCSSM includes new content that is more rigorous than previous state standards. Sampled MSMTs state that while state assessments will measure CCSSM content, they are less likely to include more complex problems or the standards for mathematical practice. Teachers are more likely to read teacher resources than student textbook activities online and to use digital resources for remediation instead of inquiry activities. Over one‐third of MSMTs wanted more CCSSM professional development.

show abstract

How Well Aligned Are Textbooks to the Common Core Standards in Mathematics?

Cited by 122 publications

References 45 publications

Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California

The Bubble Bursts: The 2015 Opt-Out Movement in New Jersey

Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Its Impact on the Instructional Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About