WWC curriculum labels invert the evidence: Everyday Mathematics ('potentially positive') vs Saxon ('mixed')
What Works Clearinghouse intervention reports (2015, 2017) · 2017
grade Dcritiqueindependentnot-applicable
Sample
EM: 1 qualifying study of 34; Saxon: 5 qualifying studies
Population
US elementary math curricula.
Design
Documents how WWC rating procedures interact with study availability.
Key findings
WWC curriculum labels cannot be used at face value for school-builder decisions: the highest-market-share reform curriculum carries a positive label from one weak study, while an RCT co-winner is labeled 'mixed' by rating-procedure artifact. Go to the underlying studies.
Genetic confound
N/A.
Replication notes
Object lesson, not evidence.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Mathematics (flagship reform text) | WWC label | 'potentially positive' — resting entirely on ONE first-year dissertation QED (ns after clustering); 33 other studies failed standards | standardized | n/a | business-as-usual | not-applicable | domain-skill |
| Saxon (RCT co-winner) | WWC label | 'mixed' — because pooling comparison curricula scored its significant RCT win over Investigations 'indeterminate' | standardized | n/a | active-alternative | not-applicable | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter?mixedconf: highgc: low