Standards-based reform has grown in the field of education. Efforts to do so in mathematics and reading through the Common Core State Standards, while initially adopted widely, ultimately proved controversial. In contrast, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have been less polarizing. Using an event history analysis, we examined the state political, economic, and social factors that predicted adoption of the NGSS as well as how factors differentially related to full-scale adoption or adoption of standards based on the NGSS. Results show, while few factors predicted adoption broadly, the presence of a larger proportion of Republicans in the legislature predicted a higher likelihood of adopting standards based on the NGSS than fully adopting them.
AbelesA. T.HoweL. C.KrosnickJ. A.MacInnisB. (2019). Perception of public opinion on global warming and the role of opinion deviance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 118–129.
2.
AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (2007). Handbook of research in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
AllenR.ClarkJ. (1981). State policy adoption and innovation: Lobbying and education. State & Local Government Review, 13(1), 18–25.
4.
AllenM. D.PettusC.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2004). Making the national local: Specifying the conditions for national government influence on state policymaking. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(3), 318–344.
5.
AtkinsonR. D.MayoM. J. (2010). Refueling the US innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Forthcoming
6.
BarrettP.HansenN. J.NatalJ. M.NoureldinD. (2021, November1). Why basic science matters for economic growth. IMF Blog.
7.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–416.
8.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (2018). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 253–297). Routledge.
9.
BirklandT. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.
10.
BowenD. C.GreeneZ. (2014). Should we measure professionalism with an index? A note on theory and practice in state legislative professionalism research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14(3), 277–296.
11.
BybeeR. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.
12.
CamarotaS. A.ZeiglerK. (2014). A look at employment and wages in science, technology, engineering, and math. Center for Immigration Studies.
13.
CarmichaelS. B.MartinoG.Porter-MageeK.WilsonW. S. (2010). The state of state standards–and the common core–in 2010. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
14.
CoeT.DaughteryM. (2017). Strong standards: A review of changes to state standards since the common core. Achieve, Inc.
15.
Cohen-VogelL.McLendonM. K. (2009). New approaches to unanswered questions about federal involvement in education. In PlankD.SykesG.SchneiderB. (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 42–90). Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
16.
Cohen-VogelL.SadlerJ.LittleM. H.MerrillB.CurranF. C. (2022). The adoption of public pre-kindergarten among the American states: An event history analysis. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1407–1439.
17.
Cohen-VogelL.IngleW. K. (2007). When neighbors matter most: Innovation, diffusion and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), 241–262.
DiChristinaM. (2014, July22). Why science is important. Scientific American.
20.
DoyleW. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285.
21.
DuschlR.SchweingruberH. A.ShouseA. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academy Press.
22.
FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98, 486–493.
23.
FayerS.LaceyA.WatsonA. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics, 1, 1–35.
24.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3–31.
25.
FriedbergS.BaroneD.BeldingJ.ChenA.DixonL.FennellF.FisherD.FreyN.HoweR.ShanahanT. (2018). The state of state standards post-common core. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
26.
FunkC. (2014). Republicans’ views on evolution. Pew Research Center.
27.
FusarelliL. D.FusarelliB. C. (2014). Federal education policy from Reagan to Obama: Convergence, divergence, and “control.” In CooperB. S.CibulkaJ. G.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 205–226). Routledge.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.YuanK. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. RAND Corporation.
30.
HearnJ. C.McLendonM. K.MokherC. G. (2008). Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 665–683.
31.
HoffmannJ. P.CerboneF. G. (2002). Parental substance use disorder and the risk of adolescent drug abuse: An event history analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66(3), 255–264.
32.
HultenC. R. (2018). Education, skills, and technical change: Implications for future US GDP growth (Vol. 77). University of Chicago Press.
33.
HurstD.TanA.MeekA.SellersJ.McArthurE. (2003). Overview and inventory of state education reforms: 1990 to 2000. National Center for Education Statistics.
34.
JochimA.LaveryL. (2015). The evolving politics of the common core: Policy implementation and conflict expansion. Publius, 45(3), 380–404.
KousserT. (2002). The politics of discretionary Medicaid spending, 1980–1993. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 27(4), 639–672.
37.
LaVeniaM.Cohen-VogelL.LangL. B. (2015). The Common Core State Standards initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption. American Journal of Education, 121(2), 145–182.
38.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
39.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 1–25.
40.
McLaughlinM. W.ShepardL. A. (1995). Improving Education through Standards-Based Reform. A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform. National Academy of Education, Stanford University, CERAS Building, Room 108, Stanford, CA 94305-3084.
41.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.DeatonR. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.
42.
McLendonM. K.Cohen-VogelL.WachenJ. (2014). Understanding education policy making and policy change in the American states: Learning from contemporary policy theory. In Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 86–117). Routledge.
43.
MillerJ. D.ScottE. C.OkamotoS. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.
44.
MuñozG.BonceG. D.MegiasM.AlvarezE. S.AcostaE. (2020). The impact of high school science, technology, engineering, and Mathematics (Stem) magnet programs on the academic performance of students. The College of William and Mary.
45.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226006ERIC+1Wiki
46.
National Science Teaching Association. (n.d.). About the next generation science standards. National Science Teaching Association.
47.
Next Generation Science Standards. (n.d.a). Developing the Standards. Next Generation Science Standards.
48.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states (Vol. i). The National Academies Press.
49.
PlotnickR. D.WintersR. F. (1985). A politico-economic theory of income redistribution. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 458–473.
50.
PlutzerE.BranchG.ReidA. (2020). Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: A continuing challenge. Evolution Education and Outreach, 13(14), 1–15.
51.
PolikoffM. (2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of education governance and the promise of curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
52.
PolikoffM. S. (2014). Common Core State Standards Assessments: Challenges and opportunities. Center for American Progress.
53.
PorterA. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 421–449.
54.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.SmithsonJ. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238–268.
55.
PruittS. L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145–156.
56.
RosenthalA. (1996). State legislative development: Observations from three perspectives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21, 169–198.
57.
RutherfordF. J.AhlgrenA. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
58.
SawchukS. (2017). Even when states revise standards, the core of the Common Core remains. Education Week, 37, 1–14.
SchmidtW. H.McKnightC. C.HouangR. T.WangH.WileyD. E.CoganL. S. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. Jossey-Bass.
61.
SchmidtW. H.WangH. C.McKnightC. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525–559.
62.
SmithP. S. (2020). What does a national survey tell us about progress toward the vision of the NGSS?Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(6), 601–609.
63.
SquireP. (1988a). Career opportunities and membership stability in legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 65–82.
64.
SquireP. (1988b). Member career opportunities and the internal organization of legislatures. Journal of Politics, 50(3), 726–744.
65.
SquireP. (1993). Professionalism and public opinion of state legislatures. Journal of Politics, 55, 479–491.
66.
SquireP. (2006, July). The professionalization of State legislatures in the United States over the last century [Conference session]. 20th International Political Science Association World Congress, Fukuoka, Japan.
67.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211–227.
68.
SquireP.HammK. E. (2005). 101 chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies. Ohio State University Press.
69.
SupovitzJ.ReinkordtE. (2017). Keep your eye on the metaphor: The framing of the Common Core on Twitter. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(30), 30.
70.
TuttleN.KaderavekJ. N.MolitorS.CzerniakC. M.Johnson-WhittE.BloomquistD.NamatovuW.WilsonG. (2016). Investigating the impact of NGSS-aligned professional development on PreK-3 teachers’ science content knowledge and pedagogy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 717–774.
71.
TyackD. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education (Vol. 95). Harvard University Press.
