References

Meets WWC evidence standards

Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R. (2009). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings from first graders in 39 schools (NCEE 2009-4052). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations

Good, K., Bickel, R., & Howley, C. (2006). Saxon Elementary Math program effectiveness study. Charlestown, WV: Edvantia.

Resendez, M., & Manley, M. A. (2005). The relationship between using Saxon Elementary and Middle School Math and student performance on Georgia statewide assessments. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Achieve.

Studies that fall outside the Elementary School Math review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Calvery, R., Bell, D., & Wheeler, G. (1993, November). A comparison of selected second and third graders’ math achievement: Saxon vs. Holt. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Christofori, P. (2005). The effect of direct instruction math curriculum on higher-order problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Sarasota, FL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Cummins-Colburn, B. J. L. (2007). Differences between state-adopted textbooks and student outcomes on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills examination. (Doctoral dissertation, Touro University International). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06A), 168–2299. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Doe, C. (2006). Marvelous math products. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 13(3), 30–33. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Fahsl, A. J. (2001). An investigation of the effects of exposure to Saxon math textbooks, socioeconomic status and gender on math achievement scores. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08), 2681A. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hansen, E., & Greene, K. (2000). A recipe for math. What’s cooking in the classroom: Saxon or Traditional? Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.secondaryenglish.com/recipeformath.html. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Harcourt Achieve, Inc. (2005). Case study research summaries of Saxon Math. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://saxonpublishers.hmhco.com/en/resources/result_c.htm?ca=Research%3a+Efficacy&SRC1=4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hook, W., Bishop, W., & Hook, J. (2007). A quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(2), 125–148. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Klein, D. (2000). High achievement in mathematics: Lessons from three Los Angeles elementary schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Nguyen, K., Elam, P., & Weeter, R. (1993). The 1992–93 Saxon mathematics program evaluation report. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City Public Schools. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—since the intervention was not implemented as designed.

Plato, J. (1998). An evaluation of Saxon Math at Blessed Sacrament School. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/plato1/Final.html. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2007). The relationship between using Saxon Elementary and Middle School Math and student performance on California statewide assessments. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2007). Saxon Math and California English Learners’ math performance: Research brief. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates.

Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2008). The relationship between using Saxon Math at the elementary and middle school levels and student performance on the North Carolina statewide assessment: Final report. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Resendez, M., Sridharan, S., & Azin, M. (2006). The relationship between using Saxon Elementary School Math and student performance on Texas statewide assessments. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Viadero, D. (2009). Study gives edge to 2 math programs. Education Week, 28(23), 1–13. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Vinogradova, E., King, C., & Rhoades, T. (2008, April). Success for all students: What works? Best practices in Maryland public schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.