Did States’ Adoption of More Rigorous Standards Lead to Improved Student Achievement? Evidence From a Comparative Interrupted Time Series Study of Standards-Based Reform

Abstract

This study was designed to assess the effects of states’ adoption of more rigorous standards as part of the current wave of standards-based reform on student achievement using comparative interrupted time series analyses based on state-level NAEP data from 1990 to 2017. Results show that the effects of adopting more rigorous standards on students’ mathematics achievement were generally small and not significant. The effects on students’ reading achievement were also generally small, but negative and statistically significant for Grade 4. The study also revealed that the effects of states’ adoption of more rigorous standards varied across NAEP subscales and student subgroups.

Keywords

college- and career-ready standards comparative interrupted time series design student achievement NAEP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achieve. (2015). A review of the South Carolina college- and career-ready standards in English language arts and mathematics. https://www.achieve.org/publications/review-south-carolina-college-and-career-ready-standards

Achieve. (2016). A review of the Oklahoma January 2016 English language arts and mathematics academic standards. https://www.achieve.org/publications/review-oklahoma-january-2016-english-language-arts-and-mathematics-academic-standards

Bandeira de Mello

Blankenship

McLaughlin

D. H.

(2009). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005-2007 (NCES 2010-456). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Bay-Williams

Duffett

Griffith

(2016). Common core math in the K–8 classroom: Results from a national teacher survey. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Carmichael

S. B.

Martino

Porter-Magee

Wilson

W. S.

(2010). The state of the state standards—and the Common Core—in 2010. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Cavazos

(2018, August 22). New report from Common Core supporters says Indiana’s Academic Standards are almost as good. Chalkbeat Indiana. https://in.chalkbeat.org/2018/8/22/21105559/new-report-from-common-core-supporters-says-indiana-s-academic-standards-are-almost-as-good

Coburn

C. E.

(2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302

Coburn

C. E.

Hill

H. C.

Spillane

J. P.

(2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080

Cohen

D. K.

(1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737012003311

10.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00057

11.

Daro

Hughes

G. B.

Stancavage

(2015). Study of the alignment of the 2015 NAEP mathematics items at Grades 4 and 8 to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics. American Institutes for Research.

12.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

B. A.

(2011). The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586

13.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

Schwartz

N. L.

(2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712467080

14.

Education Week (2017, September 18). Map: Tracking the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-states-academic-standards-common-core-or.html

15.

Gewertz

(2015, September 28). The Common Core explained. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/common-core-state-standards/

16.

Hallberg

Williams

Swanlund

Eno

(2018). Short comparative interrupted time series using aggregate school-level data in education research. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18769302

17.

Heitin

(2015, March 17). Review of math programs comes under fire. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/review-of-math-programs-comes-under-fire/2015/03

18.

Heitin

(2016, August 30). Common-core reading materials get mixed results in first major review. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/common-core-reading-materials-get-mixed-results-in-first-major-review/2016/08

19.

Henderson

M. B.

Houston

D. M.

Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(2020). Results from the 2019 Education Next Survey. Education Next, 20(1), 10–27.

20.

Hill

H. C.

Chin

(2018). Connections between teachers’ knowledge of students, instruction, and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1076–1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218769614

21.

Hinton

(2016, December 28). Arizona state school board votes to replace Common Core. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/arizona-state-school-board-votes-to-replace-common-core/2016/12

22.

Kane

T. J.

Owens

A. M.

Marinell

W. H.

Thal

D. R. C.

Staiger

D. O.

(2016). Teaching higher: Educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation. Harvard University.

23.

Kober

McIntosh

Rentner

D. S.

(2013). Year 3 of implementing the common core state standards: Professional development for teachers and principals. Center on Education Policy.

24.

Kober

Rentner

D. S.

(2011). States’ progress and challenges in implementing Common Core State Standards. Center on Education Policy.

25.

Kober

Rentner

D. S.

(2012). Year 2 of implementing the Common Core State Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy.

26.

Loveless

(2014). The 2014 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Part III: A progress report on the Common Core. Brookings Institution.

27.

Loveless

(2015). The 2015 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Part II: Measuring effects of the Common Core. Brookings Institution.

28.

Loveless

(2016). The 2016 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Part I: Reading and math in the Common Core era. Brookings Institution.

29.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. U.S. Government Printing Office.

30.

Norton

Ballinger

Ash

(2016). Massachusetts English language arts/literacy and mathematics curriculum frameworks review. Abt Associates.

31.

Polikoff

M. S.

(2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435

32.

Polikoff

M. S.

(2017). Is Common Core “working?” And where does Common Core research go from here? AERA Open, 3(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417691749

33.

Polikoff

M. S.

Hardaway

Marsh

J. A.

Plank

D. N.

(2016). Who is opposed to the Common Core and why? Education Researcher, 45(3), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651087

34.

Rentner

D. S.

(2013). Year 3 of implementing the common core state standards: An overview of states’ progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy.

35.

Rentner

D.S.

Kober

(2014). Common core state standards in 2014: Districts’ perceptions, progress, and challenges. Center on Education Policy.

36.

Schmidt

W. H.

Houang

R. T.

(2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12464517

37.

Schmidt

W. H.

McKnight

Valverde

G. A.

Houang

R. T.

Wiley

D. E.

(1997). Many visions, many aims, Volume I: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Kluwer.

38.

Scholastic & the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2014). Teachers’ views on the Common Core State Standards one year later. https://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/teachers-on-the-common-core.htm

39.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

Campbell

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

40.

Smith

M. S.

O’Day

J. A.

(1991). Systemic school reform. In Fuhrman

S. H.

Malen

(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267). Falmer Press.

41.

Spillane

J. P.

Zeuli

J. S.

(1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737021001001

42.

St. Clair

Hallberg

Cook

T. D.

(2016). The validity and precision of the comparative interrupted time-series design: Three within-study comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(3), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616636854

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557422.pdf

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility (updated June 7, 2012). https://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/flexrequest.doc

45.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse procedures handbook (Version 4.1). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

46.

Wong

Cook

T. D.

Steiner

P. M.

(2015). Adding design elements to improve time series designs: No Child Left Behind as an example of causal pattern-matching. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(2), 245–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.878011

47.

Cepa

(2018). Getting college-ready during state transition toward the Common Core State Standards. Teachers College Record, 120(6), 1–36. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162833

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB