Consultants last night said they could detect no differences in the effectiveness of two elementary math programs used in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, meaning school board members still have no clear-cut guidance on whether to abandon the controversial Everyday Math program.

The board in September voted to pay about $80,000 to New Jersey-based Mathematica Policy Research Inc. for a comparative analysis of Everyday Math and the Harcourt Math program.

Researchers told the board's Education Committee that they found no difference in the programs' overall effectiveness or in their effects on various student subgroups, including minority students, low-performing students and low-income students.

The analysis was led by Brian Gill, a senior social scientist at Mathematica who designed Pittsburgh's school-rating system two years ago when he worked at Rand Corp. in Oakland. Dr. Gill said he knew that board members and administrators had hoped the report would offer guidance on selecting a single, districtwide elementary math program.

"It's not going to make this easy for you, unfortunately," he said.

Everyday Math was introduced to city schools in the mid-1990s and vehemently defended by the district's top math officer, Diane Briars, who resigned in September 2006.

In 2005, amid complaints about the program, interim Superintendent Andrew King introduced the Harcourt program in 10 schools without consulting Dr. Briars. Dr. King left the district in June.

The programs take different approaches, with Harcourt the more traditional model. Some parents complained that Everyday Math's approach was so unusual -- emphasizing theory and multiple ways to solve problems, for example -- that they couldn't help with homework.

Dr. Gill said Mathematica's analysis examined test scores for nearly 2,000 students -- half in the Everyday Math program and half in Harcourt -- for 2004-05 through 2006-07.

But he cautioned that the study wasn't a "pure" look at Harcourt, in part because most Harcourt students previously had been schooled in Everyday Math. He also said the programs tended to be more alike than different in practice because teachers used supplemental materials to bridge perceived weaknesses in each.

Researcher Catherine Nelson said some teachers and administrators asked for a "middle way" that would incorporate the best of each program.

She said some were hesitant to talk about use of supplemental material because the district frowned on the practice.

"The phrase 'the math police' was used," she said.

Administrators planned to set up a committee to determine the district's next step.