[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-591138-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-591138-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","did-states-adoption-of-more-rigorous-standards-lead-to-improved-student-achievement-evidence-from-a-comparative-interrupted-time-series-study-of-standards-based-reform","Did States’ Adoption of More Rigorous Standards Lead to Improved Student Achievement? Evidence From a Comparative Interrupted Time Series Study of StandardsBased Reform","","A comparative interrupted time series study evaluates how states’ adoption of more rigorous standards affects student achievement during the standards-based reform wave. Using state-level NAEP data from 1990 to 2017, the analysis finds generally small and not statistically significant effects on mathematics achievement. Reading effects are also small overall, but negative and statistically significant for Grade 4. Impacts vary across NAEP subscales and student subgroups, indicating heterogeneous reform outcomes.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/did-states-adoption-of-more-rigorous-standards-lead-to-improved-student-achievement-evidence-from-a-comparative-interrupted-time-series-study-of-standards-based-reform/591138/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/did-states-adoption-of-more-rigorous-standards-lead-to-improved-student-achievement-evidence-from-a-comparative-interrupted-time-series-study-of-standards-based-reform/591138.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"McQueen","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What study design is used to examine the effect of more rigorous standards?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study uses comparative interrupted time series analyses based on state-level NAEP data from 1990 to 2017.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How do the effects differ for mathematics versus reading achievement?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Effects on mathematics achievement are generally small and not significant, while reading effects are generally small but negative and statistically significant for Grade 4.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Do the effects remain consistent across different student groups and NAEP measures?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"No. The study shows effects vary across NAEP subscales and student subgroups, indicating heterogeneous impacts.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},591138,1792171005,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},5909890329169,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","American Educational Research Journal June 2022, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 610–647 DOI: 10.3102/00028312211058460  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)  \n􀀂 2021 AERA. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/aer](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/aer)  \nDid States’ Adoption of More Rigorous Standards Lead to Improved Student Achievement? Evidence From a Comparative Interrupted Time Series Study of StandardsBased Reform  \nMengli Song  \nMichael S. Garet  \nAmerican Institutes for Research Rui Yang  \nFacebook  \nDrew Atchison  \nAmerican Institutes for Research  \nThis 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.  \nMENGLI SONG, PhD, is a principal researcher at the American Institutes for Research; [email:](email: msong@air.org. Her work)[ msong@air.org](email: msong@air.org. Her work)[. Her work](email: msong@air.org. Her work) focuses on research design, quantitative methods, and evaluations of educational programs and policy.  \nMICHAEL S. GARET, PhD, is a vice president and Institute Fellow at the American Institutes for Research. He has designed and led rigorous studies of teacher professional development and teacher and leader evaluation systems, as well as continuous improvement in schools.  \nRUI YANG, PhD, is a researcher at Facebook. His work focuses on applying quantitative methods to solving people and business problems.  \nDREW ATCHISON, PhD, is a senior researcher at the American Institutes for Research. In that role, he conducts quantitative analysis on a wide range of topics, including school and district improvement, accountability, education finance, and educational equity.  \nStates’Adoption of More Rigorous Standards and Student Achievement KEYWORDS: college- and career-ready standards, comparative interrupted time series design, student achievement, NAEP  \nIntroduction  \nSince the release of the reportA Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), standards-based reforms have been a crucial part of federal and state efforts to improve education. An important impetus for the current wave of standards-based reform was the recognition that the rigor of states’ standards varied widely across states and declined in many states as an unintended consequence of the accountability requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Bandeira de Mello et al. , 2009) . To encourage states to adopt more rigorous standards, the Obama administration built into its $4.35 billion Race To the Top grant program the requirement that states applying for the grant need to demonstrate their commitment to adopting rigorous standards. Moreover, states were required to participate in a consortium consisting of a significant number of states working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of high-quality internationally benchmarked K–12 standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) .  \nThe push for common standards across states was further strengthened through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, which provided states with waivers ofcertain ESEA requirements. As one condition for receiving the waivers, states were required to adopt so-called ‘‘college- and career-ready (CCR) standards,’’ formally defined as ‘‘content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build toward college and career readines","cbCaib91EnNoaKlA","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaib91EnNoaKlA","pdf",2775834,38,"English","# Introduction\n## Standards-based reform and policy context\n## Common standards and college- and career-ready requirements\n## Evidence gap and study purpose","[{\"question\":\"What study design is used to examine the effect of more rigorous standards?\",\"answer\":\"The study uses comparative interrupted time series analyses based on state-level NAEP data from 1990 to 2017.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the effects differ for mathematics versus reading achievement?\",\"answer\":\"Effects on mathematics achievement are generally small and not significant, while reading effects are generally small but negative and statistically significant for Grade 4.\"},{\"question\":\"Do the effects remain consistent across different student groups and NAEP measures?\",\"answer\":\"No. The study shows effects vary across NAEP subscales and student subgroups, indicating heterogeneous impacts.\"}]","Did States’ Adoption of More Rigorous Standards Lead to Improved Student Achievement? Evidence From a Comparative Interrupted Time Series Study of StandardsBased Reform | PDF",1792071201,96]