Draft:CPM Educational Program

CPM produces textbooks and digital instructional materials for grades 6–12 in both integrated and traditional course sequences. The curriculum is structured around three design principles that CPM calls its "Three Pillars": collaborative learning, problem-based learning, and mixed spaced practice.^[11] Lessons are organized so that formal definitions and algorithms are introduced in "Math Notes" boxes after students have engaged with underlying concepts through guided problems, rather than at the beginning of instruction. Each course also includes "Checkpoints" intended to signal where procedural fluency should be achieved.

The middle school program includes Core Connections, Courses 1–3 (3rd Edition), and the newer Inspiring Connections series, which incorporates research on culturally relevant pedagogy. An eighth-grade support course, Inspirations & Ideas, is designed to develop number sense and mathematical identity for students who may have struggled in earlier grades. High school offerings cover both integrated and traditional pathways through algebra, geometry, and advanced mathematics, as well as fourth-year courses in precalculus, calculus, and statistics aligned with Advanced Placement curricula. Spanish-language editions of several courses are available under the Core Connections en español imprint.

A portion of CPM's revenue from textbook sales funds its professional learning programs, which are accredited by the Middle States Association Commission on Elementary and Secondary Schools (MSA-CESS).^[6] CPM offers a multi-component Foundations for Implementation series for teachers new to its curriculum, covering content knowledge, instructional practices, and classroom environment over the course of the first year of implementation. Advanced workshops—the Building on series—address discourse facilitation, formative assessment, and equity-focused instruction for teachers who have completed the foundational program. CPM also administers a dissertation award program that funds external academic research on problem-based mathematics learning at the secondary level.^[12]

A 2003 evaluation by the Urban Institute found no statistically significant differences in standardized test scores between students using CPM and those in comparison groups, but noted possible advantages in students' conceptual understanding and attitudes toward mathematics.^[13] A 2009 best-evidence synthesis by Robert Slavin and colleagues, examining secondary mathematics programs, found mixed results for CPM, consistent with the broader pattern across inquiry-oriented curricula at the time.^[14]

CPM's curricular design draws on peer-reviewed research in mathematics education concerning collaborative learning structures, problem-based instruction, and spaced retrieval practice.^[14] In November 2025, the California State Board of Education approved CPM materials as part of its 2025 mathematics adoption, selecting them from among 64 approved programs representing 29 distinct product families—the first statewide California mathematics adoption in more than a decade.^[15][16]

CPM has received recognition from independent curriculum evaluators as well as criticism from mathematicians and some educators. In 2016, Education Week reported that CPM's integrated high school textbook was the only program among five reviewed by EdReports to achieve full alignment to the Common Core State Standards across all evaluated categories, while materials from major commercial publishers including Pearson, College Board, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt received poor ratings.^[9] Supporters of CPM point to its wide adoption across the United States, its repeated inclusion on California's state-approved materials lists, and evidence from classroom research that its collaborative approach increases student engagement and benefits students who have historically been underserved by traditional mathematics instruction.^[5][10]

CPM has also been the subject of persistent criticism, particularly in California during the 1990s "math wars," a period of intense public debate over how mathematics should be taught in K–12 schools.^[3] When the U.S. Department of Education designated CPM and several other reform-oriented programs as "exemplary" in 1999, more than 200 mathematicians and scientists—including faculty from leading research universities—signed a public letter objecting that the designated programs placed insufficient emphasis on procedural fluency and standard algorithms.^[4] Critics have argued that CPM's approach of systematically discouraging direct instruction in favor of group discovery can be ineffective, particularly for students who lack strong prior preparation in mathematics.^[4][17]