ABSTRACTTHE IMPACT OF STANDARDS-BASED MATHEMATICS CURRICULA IMPLEMENTED HETEROGENEOUSLY ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ByKari Krantz SelleckThis study examined the impact of standards-based mathematics curricula developed by the National Science Foundation, implemented within heterogeneously grouped, de-tracked high school classrooms. Four purposefully selected cohorts of high school students participated over a period of eight years. Outcome measures included two coursework measures (maximum difficulty level of math courses in which students enrolled and total number of math courses enrolled in during high school), and standardized state-level high school test results. Hierarchical regressions conducted on the sample as a whole showed no significant differences among the cohorts for the highest level of math course taken. The trends were that students in Cohort 2 (the first post-reform cohort) took slightly lower-level math courses than students in Cohort 1 (pre-reform), there was then a slight increase in Cohort 3, and finally, students in Cohort 4 took slightly higher-level math courses than students in Cohort 1. Regarding the number of courses taken, students in Cohorts 2 and 3 took fewer math courses than students in Cohort 1, and students in Cohort 4 took approximately the same number of math courses as students in Cohort 1. The results for Cohorts 2 and 3 were significant. There were negative, significant differences, although slight, for standardized tests. In other words, students post-reform performed slightly but significantly worse on standardized tests than students pre-reform. Further hierarchical regressions on the highest and two lowest-achieving quartiles (based on incoming eighth-grade state test results) showed that students at the highest proficiency level within the three post-reform cohorts fared slightly worse than those in the pre-reform cohort (-1.35, -.84, -.67) for highest level math course with Cohort 2 significant (0.36). Highest achieving students performed worse on standardized tests with Cohort 3 and 4 significant (both at p=.001) Students in the lowest proficiency levels across all post-reform cohorts fared better than the pre-reform cohort in terms of level of math courses. Low-performing students in the fourth cohort (strongest treatment group) took math courses nearly two-thirds (.62) of a difficulty level higher than students in the pre-reform cohort, and this result was significant (p = .010). New state math course-taking requirements along with changes in content and scale scores of the state assessments during this longitudinal study posed limitations to the study. Implications for national and state mathematics policy included.
Read
