Assessments indicate that U.S. secondary school students struggle in math. Moreover, disparities between the lowest and highest performers persist and may be worsening. In this report, the authors use survey and interview data from math teachers of classes with mostly lower- and mostly higher-achieving students to understand their schools' math course placement policies, their classroom instruction, and professional learning opportunities.

Secondary Mathematics Instruction in Classes with Mostly Lower- and Mostly Higher-Achieving Students

Insights from the American Teacher Panel

Elaine Lin Wang, Jonathan Schweig, Rebecca L. Wolfe, Sophia Bokaie, Amanda Perez, Logan Elizabeth Robinson

ResearchPublished Jan 13, 2026

National assessments indicate that middle and high school students' mathematics achievement continues to be underwhelming. Moreover, disparities between the lowest and highest performers persist and may be worsening. In this report, the authors use teacher survey and interview data to understand what learning opportunities are available to students in mathematics classes with mostly lower- and mostly higher-achieving students. They examine teachers' reports of how their schools apply policy when assigning secondary (6th through 12th grade) students to mathematics courses or levels; how secondary teachers use school- or district-provided curriculum materials and plan and deliver instruction in mathematics classrooms with lower- versus higher-achieving students; and what professional learning and supports such teachers use and say they need.

Key Findings

  • Most secondary mathematics teachers that we interviewed described school policies for assigning students to mathematics courses primarily based on assessment or course-grade data.
  • Survey data suggest that supplementing or modifying curriculum is common practice, but in interviews, secondary mathematics teachers of lower-achieving students described simplifying the content, whereas teachers of higher-achieving students described complexifying it.
  • In interviews, secondary mathematics teachers of both lower- and higher-achieving students described prioritizing student engagement and test preparation when planning instruction.
  • Survey and interview data combined suggest that secondary mathematics teachers of lower-achieving students prioritized filling gaps in prerequisite knowledge and spending considerable class time addressing below–grade level standards, while teachers of higher-achieving students prioritized higher-order thinking tasks and student talk and addressed standards at or above grade level.
  • In interviews, secondary mathematics teachers said that they sought mathematics-specific professional learning grounded in the realities and constraints of their classrooms; their perceptions of the value of curriculum-based professional learning were mixed.

Recommendations

  • School leaders should prioritize transparency and consistency in the mathematics course placement process, particularly for cases in which discretionary judgment informs decisions.
  • District and school leaders should provide professional learning opportunities that support teachers of lower-achieving students in providing grade-level mathematics content.
  • District and school leaders should provide professional learning opportunities that are mathematics-specific and context-relevant.
  • District and school leaders should prioritize helping teachers engage all students in mathematics learning and challenge teachers' perceptions of student engagement.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Wang, Elaine Lin, Jonathan Schweig, Rebecca L. Wolfe, Sophia Bokaie, Amanda Perez, and Logan Elizabeth Robinson, Secondary Mathematics Instruction in Classes with Mostly Lower- and Mostly Higher-Achieving Students: Insights from the American Teacher Panel. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4411-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This report is based on research funded by the Gates Foundation and conducted by the Education and Employment Program of RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. All users of the publication are permitted to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transform and build upon the material, including for any purpose (including commercial) without further permission or fees being required.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.