The relationship between using Saxon Elementary and Middle School Math and student performance on Georgia statewide assessments.
Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2005). Jackson, WY: PRES Associates.
-
, grades1-5
Saxon Math Intervention Report - Primary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2017
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Math.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Saxon Algebra I Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Algebra I.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Saxon Geometry Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Geometry.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Multiple Saxon Math Courses Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Multiple Saxon Math Courses.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Saxon Algebra II Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Algebra II.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Saxon Advanced Math Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Advanced Math.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Saxon Math Intervention Report - Elementary School Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2013
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Math.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) |
Saxon Math vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
86.26 |
85.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) |
Saxon Math vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
88.31 |
86.86 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) |
Saxon Math vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
86.94 |
85.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) |
Saxon Math vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
73.92 |
71.39 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) |
Saxon Math vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
82.46 |
81.66 |
Yes |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Georgia
-
Race Black 29% White 61% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
Setting
The schools included in the study were distributed across the state of Georgia and represented a mixture of rural, urban, and suburban communities.
Study sample
Using information provided by the Georgia Department of Education, the study authors identified Georgia schools that used the Saxon Math curricula between 2000 and 2005, as well as schools that did not use Saxon Math but had similar student demographics to those who did. The study sample included students in grades 1–8 in 170 intervention schools and 172 comparison schools. This intervention report focuses only on findings for grades 1–5, because grades 6–8 are outside of the scope of this review. Data for the intervention group came from 85 schools for first grade, 85 schools for second grade, 83 schools for third grade, 79 schools for fourth grade, and 79 schools for fifth grade. Data for the comparison group came from 144 schools for first grade, 144 schools for second grade, 135 schools for third grade, 131 schools for fourth grade, and 129 schools for fifth grade. The authors reported no significant differences in baseline math performance between the Saxon and non-Saxon schools.
Intervention Group
The Saxon Math curricula were used as a core curriculum in the intervention schools. These schools used the version of the Saxon Math program that was appropriate for each grade level. Participating schools had used the program for an average of three years.
Comparison Group
Comparison group schools were selected from among all Georgia schools that did not implement Saxon Math based on propensity score matching methods. Schools were matched based on the their percentages of students who were female, African American, White, Hispanic, Native American, limited English proficient, educationally disadvantaged, migrant, disabled, gifted, and having left school during the prior year. The comparison group schools used a mixture of non-Saxon curricula. Sixty-two percent of the schools in the comparison group used basal math curricula with chapter-based approaches to teaching math. Five percent of the schools used curricula with an investigative approach. The remaining 33% of the schools used curricula that were a mix of basal, investigative, and computer-based approaches. No additional information was provided by the authors about the specific components of the basal, investigative, or computer-based approaches.
Outcome descriptions
Study authors measured outcomes using Georgia’s Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT), which assesses competency in number sense and numeration, geometry and measurement, patterns and relations/algebra, statistics and probability, computation and estimation, and problem solving. The authors note that per state policy, only school-level data could be released. Fourth-grade students were tested in each school year from 1999–2000 to 2004–05. First-grade, second-grade, third-grade, and fifth-grade students were tested in the spring of school years 2001–02, 2003–04, and 2004–05. All posttest scores are from spring 2005. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
The intervention and comparison schools in the study were all using their curricula as part of business-as-usual operations and did not receive additional implementation support as a part of the study. Therefore, teachers received the training and implementation support normally provided with their school’s curriculum. The study does not provide additional details on implementation support that schools may have received from curricula developers or other parties.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).