UW Center for Placement Testing · Research brief

Does your high school math track affect college placement?

A study of over 17,000 students finds a real gap between traditional and reform math curricula — but shows the placement test itself treats both fairly.

Read the original study (PDF)

The short version

What the study did

The University of Wisconsin's Center for Placement Testing set out to answer a practical question for K-12 educators and college admissions staff alike: does the type of math curriculum a student takes in high school affect how well they're prepared for college math? Using data from over 17,000 students who took the UW Math Placement Test, researchers sorted students into four groups — reform (such as Core-Plus or Integrated Math) or traditional, each split by whether the student had taken calculus. On average, traditional students outperformed reform students by 7–8% on the placement test, and students who had taken calculus — regardless of curriculum — scored dramatically higher and placed into more advanced college math courses. Encouragingly, when researchers checked whether individual test questions behaved differently for reform versus traditional students of similar overall ability, they found only small, isolated differences — evidence that the placement test doesn't unfairly favor one curriculum over another. A companion case study following a single Wisconsin high school across its multi-year transition from traditional to Core-Plus math told a similar story, though the researchers caution that staffing changes, shifting enrollment, and other local factors could also be at play.

Average placement scores by subject

Placement scores are scaled to an average of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. Higher scores place students into more advanced college math courses.

Basic math

Reform, no calculus
455
Reform, with calculus
620
Traditional, no calculus
498
Traditional, with calculus
672

Algebra

Reform, no calculus
446
Reform, with calculus
592
Traditional, no calculus
477
Traditional, with calculus
643

Trigonometry

Reform, no calculus
448
Reform, with calculus
585
Traditional, no calculus
479
Traditional, with calculus
620
Reform, no calculus Reform, with calculus Traditional, no calculus Traditional, with calculus

Bar length is scaled between 400–700 for visual comparison; labels show the actual placement score.

Where students placed

Percentage of students in each group placing into each college math course, from remedial math through calculus.

Reform, no calculus

18%
25%
41%
9%
7%

Reform, with calculus

26%
20%
47%

Traditional, no calculus

10%
20%
46%
12%
13%

Traditional, with calculus

17%
21%
61%
Remedial math Intermediate algebra College algebra / precalculus Trigonometry Calculus-ready

Figures rounded to the nearest percent by the original source and may not sum exactly to 100%.

Case study: one district's curriculum switch

Nekoosa High School (Wisconsin) moved from a traditional math sequence (1998–2001) through a dual-track transition (2002–2003) to a full Core-Plus curriculum (2004–2007). Researchers tracked ACT-Math and UW placement outcomes for 283 top-50-ranked graduates across that decade.

Curriculum track % remedial % calc-ready Avg. ACT-Math N
Core-Plus, no AP calculus33.3%3.1%20.096
Core-Plus, with AP calculus5.6%38.9%24.718
Traditional, no AP calculus9.4%24.5%23.3159
Traditional, with AP calculus0.0%85.7%30.37

The AP-calculus subgroups are small (7 and 18 students), so those figures should be read with caution.

Scores dropped immediately after the switch to Core-Plus and stayed lower through the transition years — a pattern the researchers say doesn't fit a "teachers just need time to adjust" explanation, since scores didn't recover over time.

Limits worth knowing

The placement test and scoring algorithm changed in 2002, though a re-analysis using one consistent scoring method produced the same pattern of results. The Nekoosa case study also can't fully separate curriculum effects from other changes happening at the same time — teacher turnover and experience, which students chose to take four years of math, declining enrollment, and shifting student demographics could all have played a role. The overall achievement gap between traditional and reform students was consistent enough, though, paired with evidence the test treats both groups fairly, to be a useful data point for districts evaluating math curriculum choices.