RESEARCH

Evidence

Independent curriculum review, randomized studies and publisher-reported district results offer different ways to examine Core Curriculum™ and The Math Simulator™. Here is what each source covers.

Independent review · EdReports

A perfect score
from EdReports.

EdReports rated the 2021 edition of Core Curriculum™ “Meets Expectations” with full points in every gateway for grades 5–8.

Focus & Coherence: Meets Expectations, 14 of 14 points. The scale runs from 0 to 14, with the marker at 14.

Rigor & Practices: Meets Expectations, 18 of 18 points. The scale runs from 0 to 18, with the marker at 18.

Usability: Meets Expectations, 27 of 27 points. The scale runs from 0 to 27, with the marker at 27.

Core Curriculum™ by MidSchoolMath, 2021 edition, grades 5–8. Review released April 22, 2021, using review criteria v1.5. This review covers those materials; it does not cover Algebra 1 or Core Foundations™.

Read the EdReports review

RANDOMIZED TRIALS

THREE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS ·
1,000+ STUDENTS

The program guide summarizes three randomized controlled trials involving more than 1,000 students.

Study	Participants	Reported findings
Productive failure with The Math Simulator™	265 Grade 7 students, randomized by classroom.	Students encountered a story-based problem before direct instruction. Compared with a different math activity of the same length, the reported posttest effect was Hedges’ g = 1.24 (95% CI 0.97–1.51).
Head-to-head comparison	435 students at one public middle school.	The guide reports higher achievement and retention compared with two leading national publishers.
The Math Simulator™ versus control	353 middle school students.	The guide reports Hedges’ g = 1.18.

Source: Program Guide, p. 47. The guide identifies the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences as funders. Full studies are available on request. These summaries describe the studies reported in the guide and their tested interventions. Explore the existing MidSchoolMath research reports.

Tier 1

MidSchoolMath identifies Core Curriculum™ as meeting ESSA Tier 1, or “Strong evidence,” based on its review of the randomized controlled trials against ESSA criteria.

Source: Program Guide, p. 46. The Tier 1 designation described here is MidSchoolMath’s assessment of its studies.

GROWTH IN MIDDLE-GRADES MATH PROFICIENCY, 2022–2024

Focused curriculum.
National impact.

Our focus on middle school math helps teachers engage students, deepen understanding, and drive measurable growth nationwide.

While a national sample of districts averaged 0.8%, MidSchoolMath partner districts averaged 5.3%.

The guide compares reported proficiency growth for 123 randomly selected MidSchoolMath partner districts with a random sample of 100 U.S. districts using 2022–2024 state assessment data.

5.3%

MidSchoolMath partner districts

0.8%

Random sample of 100 districts

Publisher-reported map and proficiency charts for Horseheads, Green Bay and Portland from the final 2027 Program Guide. — Original district-results graphic from the program guide. The values are also listed in the table below.

Growth in middle-grades math proficiency, 2022–2024, as reported in the Program Guide, p. 6. MidSchoolMath analysis compares 123 randomly selected partner districts with a random sample of 100 U.S. districts using state assessment data; publisher-reported, not an independent study. Methodology available on request.

DISTRICT RESULTS

Students proficient on state math assessments, by implementation year
District	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
Horseheads Central SD, NY	20%	33%	47%	50%
Green Bay Area SD, WI	16%	17%	30%	Not shown
Portland Public Schools, OR	38%	42%	43%	Not shown

Source: Program Guide, pp. 48–49. MidSchoolMath review of state math assessment results for 120+ partner districts (340+ schools), compared with 100 randomly selected U.S. districts. Growth in proficiency, grades 6–8, within two years of implementation; publisher-reported. District results shown by year of implementation.

WHY MIDSCHOOLMATH

Middle schoolers need a math program of their own.

MidSchoolMath’s 2026 analysis of more than 120 U.S. school districts found a middle-grades math cliff in 96% of the districts studied. Of those, 97% used a segment of a K–8 program in the middle grades.

Source: Program Guide, p. 2. Publisher-reported district analysis. These figures describe the districts studied and the programs they used; the association does not establish that using a K–8 program caused the decline.

Sources and further reading

The research
behind this guide.

The program guide draws on research in mathematical discussion, group work, learning and memory. These references inform the approach; they are distinct from studies of MidSchoolMath products.

Discussion and group work

Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn (2nd ed.). Math Solutions.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Liljedahl, P. (2021). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics. Corwin.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions. NCTM.

Learning and memory

Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets. Jossey-Bass.
Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20(6).
Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4).

MidSchoolMath research and reviews

Cooney, J. B., & Laidlaw, J. (2019). A curriculum structure with potential for higher than average gains in middle school math.
Cooney, J. B., Laidlaw, J. S., & Frabasillio, A. Learning from failure to solve complex mathematical problems. IES ED-IES-13-C-0041 and -0043; NSF 1621403 and 1738444.
Laidlaw, J. (2019). Ongoing research in simulators and contextualized math. NSF-funded studies; full reports on request.
EdReports. (2021). Core Curriculum™ by MidSchoolMath (review criteria v1.5).
New Mexico Legislative Education Study Committee. (2017). Audit of MidSchoolMath schools, 2016 PARCC results.

Bibliography reproduced from the Program Guide, p. 51. Product counts, results and study summaries on this page are sourced to the 2027 guide. Product dashboard examples in the guide are labeled sample data and are not used here as evidence of outcomes.

GETTING STARTED