Research has identified a number of problems limiting the implementation of content standards in the classroom. Curriculum materials may be among the most important influences on teachers’ instruction. As new standards roll out, there is skepticism about the alignment of “Common Core–aligned” curriculum materials to the standards. This analysis is the first to investigate claims of alignment in the context of fourth-grade mathematics using the only widely used alignment tool capable of estimating the alignment of curriculum materials with the standards. The results indicate substantial areas of misalignment; in particular, the textbooks studied systematically overemphasize procedures and memorization relative to the standards, among other weaknesses. The findings challenge publishers’ alignment claims and motivate further research on curriculum alignment.
AgodiniR.HarrisB.Atkins-BurnettS.HeavisideS.NovakT. (2010). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings for first and second graders (NCEE 2011-4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
2.
AlajmiA. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 239–261.
3.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.AirasianP. W.CruikshankK. A.MayerR. E.PintrichP. R.. . . WittrockM. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
4.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
5.
BarrR. (1988). Conditions influencing content taught in nine fourth-grade mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 88, 387–411.
6.
BhattR.KoedelC. (2012). Large-scale evaluations of curricular effectiveness: The case of elementary mathematics in Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 391–412.
7.
CarmichaelS. B.MartinoG.Porter-MageeK.WilsonW. S. (2010). The state of state standards—and the Common Core—2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
8.
ChingosM. M.WhitehurstG. J. (2012). Choosing blindly: Instructional materials, teacher effectiveness, and the Common Core. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
CluneW. H. (1993). Systemic educational policy: A conceptual framework. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 125–140). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2011). Assessing the quality of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40, 183–185.
11.
DeeT. S.JacobB. A. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446.
12.
enVision Math Common Core. (2012). New York, NY: Pearson/Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley.
13.
enVision Math Florida. (2011). New York, NY: Pearson/Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley.
14.
FlandersJ. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new?Arithmetic Teacher, 35(1), 18–23.
15.
FlandersJ. R. (1994). Textbooks, teachers, and the SIMS test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 260–278.
16.
FreemanD. J.KuhsT. M.PorterA. C.FlodenR. E.SchmidtW. H.SchwilleJ. R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics?Elementary School Journal, 83, 501–513.
17.
FreemanD. J.PorterA. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools?American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403–421.
18.
FulmerG. W. (2011). Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36, 381–402.
19.
GamoranA.PorterA. C.SmithsonJ.WhiteP. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–338.
Go Math! Florida. (2011). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
22.
HamiltonL. S.BerendsM. (2006). Instructional practices related to standards and assessments (RAND Working Paper WR-374-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA.RussellJ. L.. . . BarneyH. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
24.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. A. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
25.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289–318.
26.
JacobsJ. K.HiebertJ.GivvinK. B.HollingsworthH.GarnierH.WearneD. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States aligned with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.
27.
JenningsJ. L.BearakM. (2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher. Advance online publication.
28.
JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA.SczesniakE. (2005). A comparative analysis of third-grade mathematics textbooks before and after the 2000 NCTM Standards. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 47–62.
29.
MartoneA.SireciS. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1332–1361.
30.
Math Connects. (2009). New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
31.
Math Connects to the Common Core. (2012). New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
32.
Math Connects Florida. (2011). New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
33.
McDonnellL. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 305–322.
34.
OakesJ.SaundersM. (2002). Access to textbooks, instructional materials, equipment, and technology: Inadequacy and inequality in California’s public schools. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
35.
PolikoffM. S. (2012a). The association of state policy attributes with teachers’ instructional alignment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 278–294.
36.
PolikoffM. S. (2012b). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118, 341–368.
37.
PolikoffM. S. (2012c). The redundancy of mathematics instruction in U.S. elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 113, 230–251.
38.
PolikoffM. S.FulmerG. W. (2013). Refining methods for estimating critical values for an alignment index. Journal for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 380–395.
39.
PolikoffM. S.PorterA. C.SmithsonJ. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards?American Educational Research Journal, 48, 965–995.
40.
PolikoffM. S.ZhouN.CampbellS. E. (in press). Methodological choices in the content analysis of textbooks for measuring alignment with standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice.
41.
PorterA. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
42.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116.
43.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.BarghausK. M.YangR. (2013). Constructing aligned assessments using automated test construction. Educational Researcher, 42, 415–423.
44.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.SmithsonJ. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 238–268.
45.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.ZeidnerT.SmithsonJ. (2008). The quality of content analyses of state student achievement tests and content standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(4), 2–14.
46.
RemillardJ. T. (2005). Key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.
47.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5, 251–281.
48.
SawchukS. (2012). New texts aim to capture standards. Education Week, 32(12), s21–s22.
49.
Saxon Math Intermediate 4. (2012). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
50.
SchmidtW. H.CoganL. S.HouangR. T.McKnightC. C. (2011). Content coverage differences across districts/states: A persisting challenge for U.S. education policy. American Journal of Education, 117, 399–427.
51.
SchmidtW. H.HouangR. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41, 294–308.
52.
SchmidtW. H.HouangR. T.CoganL. S. (2002). A coherent curriculum: A case of mathematics. American Educator, 26, 10–26.
53.
SchmidtW. H.McKnightC. C.HouangR. T.WangH. A.WileyD. E.CoganL. S.WolfeR. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
54.
SchmidtW. H.McKnightC. C.RaizenS. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
55.
SchmidtW. H.WangH.McKnightC. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525–559.
56.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
57.
SosniakL. A.StodolskyS. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 93, 249–275.
58.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
SteinM.RemillardJ.SmithM. (2007). How curriculum influences students’ learning. In LesterF. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
60.
ZeringueJ. K.SpencerD.MarkJ.SchwindenK. (2010). Influences on mathematics textbook selection: What really matters?Paper presented at the Research Presession of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Diego, CA.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
