Ga of Research Implementation Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 2 Acknowledgements A special thank you to the professors who believed in me and my research, when I did not believe in myself. Who taught me that my ideas matter and are needed in the world. Thank you, Dr. Dawson, for the year of editing. For helping me get comfortable with not being perfect right away because edits are not personal and can become something great, making me a better writer and presenter alongside my peers in research. Thank you to those who stepped outside of their comfort zones to read on a topic they were not an expert in, when I needed them most: My Mother, Diana. My Sister, Crystal. My Brother, Brian. My word smiths, my idols, and the best cheerleaders I could have hoped for. You helped me regain pride in my work and have the confidence to present well. Thank you to my husband Joseph, for the encouragement to not quit due to health difficulties, for always listening to what I was working on even when it didn’t make sense, and all the dishes you did. Thank you to my sons (Daniel, Tim, and Acie) for the extra hugs and quiet cuddles as you consistently found ways to spend time with me and let me work. Thank you to all of my family for working together to keep it quiet as I worked, the extra glasses of water and food. But most of all, thank you for the parodies and mini-dance parties that encouraged me to keep smiling. This research is dedicated to my sons, nieces, and nephews, who inspired me to go back to school. This would never have come to be without them. May we always speak of a better educational tomorrow, the love of learning and new discoveries along the way. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 3 Abstract The educational research-teaching practice gap or research-practice gap has been noticed between researchers, teachers and policy makers. The problem is that too little is known about the influence of state policy on research implementation in the classroom. The largest and most recent changes to educational policy came from the mass effort, put in across multiple states, to create a Common Core in the United States of America. This research examined the state core standards revision timelines or comparable documents for the western states. These serve as a visual representation of policy that controls and influences educational research and integration into the public education K-12 systems, the purpose being to enhance the process of disseminating information. The research was conducted in a descriptive design. As different states have varying timelines with multiple subjects, a quantitative comparison between the western states was made with a spreadsheet to compare the variables available. Timelines were located via Google or by contacting a state representative. Findings included similarities and differences between the states. The discussion compares select findings from the states to the literature review in preparation for recommendations of future revision timelines. An unexpected conclusion focuses on giving two years to research, one year to disseminate and train teachers prior to implementation, and up to five years of implementation prior to assessments. This research is intended for researchers, teachers, policy makers, curriculum developers and other interested parties in reducing the research-practice gap or dissemination and implementation. Keywords: American, education, public schools, policy, research, time, implementation Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………...6 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………….6 Policy Research Methods………………………………………………………………….7 Educational Research Implementation……………………………………………………8 Educational Policy………………………………………………………………………...9 Common Core Standards Policy………………………………...……………….10 Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………...11 Methodology & Design…………………………………………………………………………..12 Materials…………………………………………………………………………………12 Procedures……………………………………………………………………………..…12 Instrument………………………………………………………………………………..15 Limitations and Next Steps………………………………………………………………17 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………....18 States with a Timeline…………………………………………………………………....18 Alaska……………………………………………………………………………19 Arizona…………………………………………………………………………...20 California………………………………………………………………………...20 Colorado……...………………………………………………………………….21 Hawaii…………………………………………………………………………....22 Idaho……………………………………………………………………………..22 Montana………………………………………………………………………….23 Nevada…………………………………………………………………………...23 New Mexico…………………………………………...………..………………..23 Oregon……………………………………………………………………...….…24 Utah………………………………………………………………………………24 Washington………………………………………………………………………24 Wyoming…………………………………………………………………………24 State with the Quickest Timeframe……………………………………………………....25 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..28 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..29 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….…31 References………………………………………………………………………………………..32 Appendix A - Tables and Figures of Timelines…………………………………………………..37 Appendix B – Comparison Spreadsheets………………………………………………………...62 Appendix C – Suggested Revision Timeline…………………………………………………….66 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 5 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Education is connected to everything. Across all industries when advancements are made, it is because of education. Society is affected by advancements in all sectors. In today’s technological age, education needs a better way to advance alongside those sectors in order to remain relevant and up to date for future generations. When there is a discrepancy in education, it is often called a gap. For example, the famous Achievement Gap which describes “the persistent disparity in academic achievement between minority and disadvantaged students and their white counterparts” (Porter, n.d.). The term has been applied to describe not only a gap in achievement but linked to gaps of discipline (Gregory et al., 2010), income (Mackey et al., 2015), and social class (Stephens et al., 2014). However, a different gap called the Educational Research to Teaching Practice Gap or Research-Practice Gap, has been noticed between researchers, teachers and policy makers (Schӧnborn & Anderson, 2010; Vanderlinde & Van Braak, 2010; Winkle-Wagner et al., 2009). This gap is affecting the application of research across all educational sectors. Broenkkamp and Hout-Wolters (2008) work included a survey at a symposium where all participants (19 teachers, 20 teacher trainers, 32 policy makers, 51 researchers, 12 students of educational science, five designers of teacher materials, and two teachers-in-training) agreed on the existence of the research-practice gap. Their work also elaborates on the complexity of the problem and the importance of working together to be part of the solution. According to the various viewpoints represented at the symposium: Educational research often focuses narrowly on cognitive aspects of learning and overlooks affective factors in a broader context, making the research less applicable in classroom settings. Additionally, research has a limited impact on practices as it goes through legislative channels that are not effective in translating usable Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 6 research into actionable strategies that assist in the proper implementation of research. These factors contribute to the persistence of the gap between research and practice in education. To successfully navigate the research-practice gap, a way of working together for administrators, teachers, researchers, and policy makers is needed. The purpose of this research was to identify, in the educational industry, the current standard(s) for remaining up to date within policy. By examining where policy currently stands at the state level combined with each state’s various approaches, a comparison was drawn as to the quickest method available to fill this gap. Problem Statement Policies are created to improve student outcomes and educational research is conducted to improve educational practice. However, it is still up to educators to implement them. Educational policy is differentiated by state, providing a unique opportunity to fill the researchpractice gap that hasn’t been addressed yet. The problem is that too little is known about the influence of state policy on research implementation in the classroom. Research questions to address the problem are: What states have educational policies that exist with a designated timeline for implementation of the Common Core? And which state presented the quickest timeframe for educators to use the research? Literature Review In America, educational policy is created by one group (educational policy makers such as state legislators) and implemented by another group (practitioners such as teachers and administrators) that those policies affect. Educational policy makers are responsible for turning what is needed and valued by the population at large into policies that will protect the beliefs and values of the people (Clark, 2005). Historical examples of the values of the people becoming Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 7 policy, in an educational context, include the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Center on Education Policy, 2020). Recent examples of issues that educational policy makers look at involve classroom size, state testing, school safety, early childhood education, exploring the future and technology’s place in the classroom (American University School of Education Online, 2020). ESEA has been revised for years; most recently the No Child Left Behind Act became Every Student Succeeds Act. These examples reveal that policy changes originate from what currently matters to the populace or from a historical source that needs an update (University of Utah and Utah Education Policy Center, 2016). When the time for an update comes, policy research is used to inform and assist in the necessary decisions or revisions to be made. Policy Research Methods Research can be done prior to policy creation or after its implementation, through informative or evaluative policy research. Informing policy occurs when data is taken to improve policy decisions. Policy can be informed by any industry, sector or research available when the appropriate perspective is applied toward creating policy. A few examples of the variety of policy data available are professional development (Nils, 2020), optimal school size (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009), and student mental health (O’Farrell, et al., 2022). However, the areas of mental health, professional development, and school size are vastly different. Each of the above listed policy research studies were conducted with an eye toward education in order to inform policy. Suggesting that policy research is often informative as a method to better implement current or future policies. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 8 Evaluating how specific policy impacts aspects of educational life is conducted by individuals and groups that need data to confirm if policy or research is having the intended effect. For example, in the medical field recent studies show that it takes 17 years for 14% of research to reach practices (Balas & Borean, 2000; McNeal et al., 2020). Educational policies are evaluated with questions such as: Is more data needed to answer that question? Is it working and to what degree? Or is a new policy needed all together? These questions are global in their range of influence and scope. Out of the four examples to follow, two evaluations revealed their policies have missing pieces preventing their intended outcome (Cunningham, 2019; Dube, 2017), one exposed policy which failed in its entirety (Becerra-Lubies et al., 2021), and another highlighted policy which had successfully achieved its aims but was not implemented widely enough (Sáez-López & Rodriguez-Torres, 2016). Regardless of the purpose of the policy research, either the informing on or the evaluation of the policy, it is still vital in the process of making sure policies are functioning as intended. Educational Research Implementation There exists little information in educational literature about the time to implement state educational policy, the inclusion of timelines for implementation in policies, or time to transfer from researchers to practitioners. One aim of educational research is to place resources into the hands of teachers so that they can use those techniques or curriculum with confidence. Proper implementation and sustainability is what allows that aim to become a reality. When implementing a new curriculum, “…it can take up to five years to both initiate and sustain this kind of change in your classrooms” (Savvas, 2023, para 8). Systems researchers also make a similar claim, that it takes two to four years for new initiatives to be fully incorporated across a Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 9 school or district (Fixen, et al., 2016). However, most interventions have a short life of one and a half to four years, due to abandonment for whatever reason (Latham, 1988). Combining all three sources gives a range of educational feasibility between two to five years, and a warning to avoid abandoning any intervention too soon. The Veterans Affairs’ Health Systems Research website stated, through using an active Dissemination & Implementation Approach, it may be feasible that 80% of research findings could be adapted into real-world practice in only three to five years. These numbers provide hope for efficient implementation in the future, for all industries (Veterans Affairs’, 2023). Educational Policy The literature regarding the influence of educational policy on research is limited to a few known state examples. According to the Utah Education Policy History - 1997 to 2015, conducted by University of Utah and the Utah Education Policy Center, new educational policy occurs in bills that are passed in the state legislature. They further explained: Each time a legislator initiates a policy change in the law, it involves amending current sections of the Utah Code or enacting new code sections. Some bills make significant amendments and require the State Board of Education or local school boards to implement large changes (2016, p. 10). Educational policies often start in legislature and trickle down into state and local school boards for implementation. However, given the many policies in place for education, and a wide range of angles to examine them from, it may be helpful to focus on one policy, such as Common Core Standards, for comparison. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 10 Common Core Standards Policy The largest and most recent changes to educational policy came from the mass effort, put in across multiple states, to create a Common Core. In 2009, there were two main associations that led the initiative to build state support toward having a Common Core. Those two associations were the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. They assembled ‘work groups’ to write the standards; this included university professors, k-12 teachers, educational advocacy group leaders, and experts from testing companies. They had additional panels, which included state departments, in the review and feedback of those standards (Gewertz, 2015). Upgrading standards is not a new concept. There was a standards movement in the 1990s to counteract the Nation at Risk report; efforts were made but results varied too much by state (Sparks, 2010). In 2009, those who were for the development of the Common Core believed that a Common Core would fix the quality of academic standards from state to state that was brought on by the prior movement, would reduce the amount of college remediation courses, and create better outcomes for all working citizens (Gewertz, 2015). Those who opposed the Common Core disagreed with the standards themselves or the government’s involvement. Some viewed the standards as too weak in preparing students for college in math or science (Loewus, 2015). Others said the government had gone too far and violated federal law and the tradition of states’ rights (Gewertz, 2012; Talbert & Eitel, 2012). All but four states embraced the standards in a huge wave of adoptions in 2010 and 2011. But there was also an extraordinary backlash: By 2015, several states reversed their adoptions of the standards, and nearly half backed out of their initial promises to use tests designed to measure mastery of them (Gewertz, 2015, para. 3). Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 11 A brief analysis of why the Common Core failed led to a more recent article by Loveless (2021), which examined the initiative’s shortcomings. He stated, “(A) flaw in the theory is that no one knows what standards as written will look like when they are ultimately implemented. Standards must pass through many organizational layers—from state to district to school to classroom (para. 8).” & “Standards-based reform is a regulatory approach to school improvement (para. 14).” Moving forward, Loveless encouraged the next era of educational reform to invest in the basic science of education and the technical core of schooling. He believed that change will come about through careful experimentation, development and discovery of new curriculum materials that boost learning and effective instructional strategies and methods. The efforts made to establish a Common Core was a historic event that left fingerprints in policy. For example, a cursory examination of Utah State Policy 53E-4-202(8), required a State Core Standards Revision Timeline. The timeline included time to review standards, adopt and introduce, implement, and assess the core. Even states like Alaska, who were reported on one site as ‘not having adopted the Common Core’ was found to have such a timeline (World Population Review, 2024). A comparison of similar timelines provided valuable data to understand the speed and efficacy under which schools and states operate. Purpose This research examined the state core standards revision timelines, which serve as a visual representation of policy that controls and influences educational research and integration into the public education K-12 systems. The purpose being to enhance the process of disseminating information. In turn, this research will benefit and encourage researchers in their attempts to get educational information into the hands of practitioners and for core subjects to be Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 12 revised or revisited in a timely manner, remain current and improve the educational sector. To better fulfill the purpose, these are the research questions being asked: 1. What states have educational policies that exist with a designated timeline for implementation of the Common Core? 2. After comparing timelines, which state presents the quickest timeframe for educators to review and use Common Core content? Methodology & Design The research examined the state Common Core revision timelines for the length of time allotted to regularly review the subject matter and length of time teachers were given to implement. The research was conducted in a descriptive design. This design was chosen because “it allows the researcher to study and describe the distribution of one or more variables without regard to any causal or other hypotheses (Aggarwal & Ranganathan, 2019).” The variables in this case were that different states have varied timelines with multiple subjects. Materials This project did not deal with human subjects. The state Common Core revision timelines are at the heart of this research, without them it would be impossible to draw an appropriate comparison. State Common Core revision timelines were found within the State Board of Education policies, in Utah and other western states. Procedures To locate the state core revision timeline for all 13 of the western states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), the use of a Google search engine was used, which located seven timelines (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Appendix A Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation shows all collected timelines from following the procedure. As an example, Washington’s timeline (see below and also Table A15) is shown to illustrate, as one of the first collected timelines, the data sought. Washington’s Timeline As shown in this example are data regarding time to review, time for dissemination, time for implementation, how many subjects, and when the cycle repeats. Not all of the states’ timelines clearly stated the data sought at first (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). Additionally, it appeared that some of the numerical data points were missing entirely from the policy timelines. Below is an example of using available data to calculate missing timeline points, to glean all data available (see also Figure B1). In the example from Arizona the number four is the time in years between full implementation and when implementation review occurs. 13 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 14 Timeline Math When the state Common Core revision timeline could not be found via Google, emails were sent to state education policy specialists or the secretary of the State Board of Education to connect with the appropriate person. Emails requesting information were sent during April of 2025. In response to initial emails, a phone call or an email reply was received. Between the combination of phone calls and emails five more timelines were located (California, Oregon, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada). At the same time, the seven timelines originally found by Google search were also double checked via email. Three states (Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming) were updated and confirmed. As a result of the emails, original data was replaced with the most recent versions available. Alaska replied with a phone call, confirming the schedule found by Google was accurate, but no future standard updates were on the schedule at the time of the phone call. As New Mexico was the Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 15 only state without any timeline data, the ‘Instructional Material Adoption Cycle’ was located by reading through the policy for terms involving core standards, revisions and timelines. This chain of data collection via Google search, emails and phone calls left four states (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Washington) with unconfirmed data points. Those who replied and assisted with this collection of charts came from various positions within their own State Department of Education. Respondents will be collectively referred to as state representatives from this point on, in lieu of the following titles: • Administrator, Standards and Curriculum Guidance Unit, California Department of Education. • Director or Standards and Instructional Support, Colorado Department of Education. • Executive Assistant/Chief of Staff, OCID, State Director, Adult Education, NASSP National Digital Principal of the Year, HASSA Hawaii State Principal of the Year. • Chief Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer, Idaho State Board of Education. • Chief Program Officer, Montana Office of Public Instruction. • Education Program Professional, Health Education/Physical Education, Nevada Department of Education, office of teaching and learning. • Office Specialist Staff Support, Standards and Instructional Support, office of teaching, Learning and Assessment, Oregon Department of Education. • Supervisor of Standards, Wyoming Department of Education. Instrument When policies were found, any available or calculated data were recorded on a spreadsheet. Information categories included: where the policy is located, what the timeline was called, the time given to research, time for dissemination, time for implementation, number of Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 16 content subjects reviewed, and how long it takes to cycle through all of the steps in the process before starting again. The spreadsheet served as the main instrument to organize data and prepare for conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses. Qualitative analyses included identification of repeated words, reoccurring themes, or patterns. Quantitative analyses included tally counts and averages. Policies were located, read and then sorted into categories in an Excel spreadsheet. After this initial data organization, the spreadsheet was then split into three tables for ease of presentation. The three areas were policy location, numerical data points, and timeline names. Next, timeframes were calculated. Four areas present in most of the documents examined were: research, dissemination, implementation, and a full revision cycle. A full cycle is defined by how long it takes from the initial review until the process starts anew. To determine the length of time in various state policies, average time was calculated only for states where data was not stated clearly. Averages for Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, and Wyoming were determined by the difference between the beginning and ending dates of events provided on the timelines. Finding the differences in events and averages of timeframes generated a full revision cycle of research review and implementation. The average calculation for Hawaii required counting between the end and beginning of the next revision to calculate the cycles per subject and how many subjects had the same timeframe. Calculated averages provided a clear format and allowed a comparison of the policies available. Data was examined for any missing information or emerging timeline trends. In determining the revision cycle for Wyoming, two timeframes for research were discovered: one for new content standards and a second for review. The verbiage used to describe the purpose or Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 17 function of data collected was compared. Lastly, data was recorded into tables to allow for clear understanding of state policy implementation timelines. Limitations and Next Steps Inconsistencies in the formatting of state timelines resulted in missing data, which rendered the comparison chart incomplete and limited the scope of the analysis. For example, eight states had no dissemination listed and two had no research. Six states did not list a timeframe for implementation, two of which had ‘dates for implementation’ instead. This does not mean the data cannot be located, it simply is not available on this comparison of timelines. However, if the data truly is missing from policy, then there is room for improvement. The various approaches the timelines took is another limitation. Some focused-on standards or curriculum materials, some did both. A few could only provide a record of when the standards, framework, or curriculum were last updated. The variations make it difficult to confirm without a doubt that all of these timelines are in fact covering the same topic, though they all cover revisions of sorts. Not all data that could be gleaned from the provided timelines fit on the chart. For example, in the case of assessment: Wyoming had two-month standards audits, Utah assessed some of their subjects (ELA, Math, Health and Science) the year after implementation. Washington assessed two-years after implementation but only for Math, Science and English. Arizona reviewed every subject four years after implementation. This additional data leaves room for future inquiry and research, much like the missing data calls for clarification. Not all data was able to be confirmed at this time and older versions may be present on the spreadsheet or become outdated quickly as revisions occur. This study showed the difficulty Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 18 in navigating such changes. However, part of the difficulty with the data is due to its quick turnaround time of two weeks and this being the work of a first-time researcher. Questions that came from the research include: When is the best time to assess improvements? How are the records kept, as updates are prepared for the next committee? Are policy researchers making the most of the data we have access too? How much change is a wise threshold for teachers to maintain? How is the percentage yield of research increased? How is research translated into either informational data in books or usable data in practice? Would a larger comparison make the current data set better? These are important questions to ask in the process of disseminating research and implementation but are not addressed in this research. Should this study be replicated, it is advisable to take time to ask more questions of the contacts you make within each state and fill in the blanks left behind in the spreadsheet. Asking each state what is currently functioning as a content revision timeline is going to be the greatest asset in getting a glimpse of this ever-changing snapshot in time. Using follow-up questions to find missing data points are the best way to expound on what was collected here. Results States with a Timeline Specifically, what states have educational policies that exist with a designated timeline for implementation of the Common Core? These states were: Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. California clearly stated that its timeline was contingent on legislature and budgeting. Alaska has no current plan for revision in the future as they just finished updating their standards. There may be more than one policy per state. All of the timelines located for this study were either found from a Google search of policy or reported via email by the state representative (see Table B1). Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 19 Table B1 Policy Locations States Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* Idaho* Montana* Nevada* New Mexico Oregon* Utah Washington Wyoming* Policy Location 4 AAC 04.140 4 AAC 04.155 4 AAC 04.170 4 AAC 04.180 Historical Record Historical Record House Bill 20-1032 (Section 22-7-1005(6) C.R.S.) BOE Policy 102-3: Statewide Content and Performance Standards [2015] 33-118 & 33-118A IAPA 08.02.03 Subsection 004 & 128 ARM 10.53.104 NRS 389.520 NRS 389.520 Ch 337 – Books and Instructional Material (337.521) 53E-4-202(8) RCW 28A.655.070 HEA119 & HEA48 Note. Asteriks represent communication with a representative of the state. The western states’ policies provide a small snapshot in time of the current disarray within the research-practice gap. On some timelines, research and review to approve policy has been rolled into one and dissemination/integration is considered the same thing as well. It is important then to have a state-by-state overview of where the numbers for the research spreadsheet came from, within each state’s timeline. Alaska The ‘Standards Revision Schedule’ easily showed thirteen subjects, but there was nothing on research, dissemination or implementation. It became necessary to calculate the difference between when each standard was last updated from its scheduled update. Those numbers were Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 20 then averaged out at fourteen years, with the largest difference being eighteen years and the smallest being eight years (see Table A1). Arizona The ‘Tentative Review Schedule for Academic Content Standards’ showed ten subjects, a target date for implementation. A column called ‘Timeline for Next Adoption/Revision’ was consistently in one year time frames, resulting in a one in the ‘research time’ comparison chart. Taking the difference between ‘Timeline for Next Adoption/Revision’ and the ‘Target Date for LEA Full Implementation’ resulted in a ‘one’ for ‘Dissemination’. ‘Implementation’ on the comparison chart was also given ‘one year’ based on the ‘Full Implementation’ range being a year. The number for the ‘Full Cycle’ in the comparison chart, when each subject started in the ‘Adoption/Revision’ column to the last year of the ‘Review’ column, as the numbers varied, the final conclusion was an average of eight years. It was calculated under the assumption that if the cycle were to repeat itself after the review was complete, what would that number be? It was also discovered that the time between ‘Full Implementation’ and the ‘Date of Implementation Review’ was consistently four years, meaning that Arizona has a review of every subject four years after implementation (see Table A2, Table A3). California No timeline could be found for California. An inquiry was sent on the subject through email. The reply had attached ‘Current K-12 Content Standards, Curriculum Frameworks, and Keight Instructional Materials Adoptions’ and an explanation that “Updating standards generally requires funding authority through the state budget and are thus not on a set schedule for revision. In order for an update to occur an agreement with the Governor and the Legislature regarding funding of the project is required and affects the timing of any adopted revisions to Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 21 standards. Since funding has not been provided by the Governor and Legislature in this legislative term, there is not a timeline yet for an update to any core standards in the coming year.” The attachment underwent examination to become useful if possible. It had eleven subjects, and three columns detailing the year of the ‘Latest Standards Adoption Date’ the ‘Latest Curriculum Framework Adoption Date’ and the ‘Latest Instructional Materials Adoption Date’. No research, dissemination or implementation. Going by subject, from the latest date to the earliest date gave numbers for how long a complete update took. These numbers averaged out to seven years, with the longest update taking nineteen years, and the quickest taking three years (see Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Figure A1). Colorado Google search was not helpful with Colorado. In an email reply “Colorado state law establishes that the State Board of Education must review and adopt any necessary revisions to the standards at least- but not more than – once every six years. Additionally, statute specifies that the board must review approximately one-third of the standards every two years. Consequently, the standards revisions take place in three cycles that were established by the department.” With this news and the image provided, it was added to the spreadsheet that a full cycle was six years. Though the more detailed answer is one-third of subjects every two years. The image provided ten subjects. ‘Research/Planning’ became ‘Research Time’ of two years. ‘Transition’ became ‘Dissemination Time’ of one year. Followed by ‘Implementation’ of one year, no change necessary (see Figure A2). Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 22 Hawaii Hawaii was another state Google struggled with. What was unique about finding this timeline was that the email inquiry was responded to by giving a department phone number, which turned into another email to contact the correct person and eventually a timeline was sent back through email for examination. Light shading indicated the review process, while ark shading indicated the target year for adoption. Both the light and the dark shading were considered to be part of the research phase of two to three years. No dissemination or implementation was available. Counting between the dark shaded square and the next lightly shaded square revealed one subject had a seven-year cycle, two subjects had a six-year cycle and six subjects had an eight-year cycle. The average cycle length for Hawaii is closer to eight-years, at a seven point eight. With ELD always under review with support, and CTE under development they were not given a number to compute into the average (see Table A7). Idaho Idaho simply sent a link to the correct document. A total of eight subjects was present. A ‘Material Review’, ‘Local Review’, and the ‘Publishers Contract’ all happened in the same year, which led to putting ‘one year’ in ‘Implementation Time’ as it is unclear if any of those items are considered dissemination by Idaho. ‘Publishers Contract’ also lasts for six years, potentially setting the ‘Full Cycle’ for this state. The columns ‘Board Standards Approval’ and ‘Legislative Standards Approval’ were added together to create the number for ‘Research Time’ at two years, as they would not approve if someone hadn’t done their research first. Time between the approval columns and the ‘Material Review Year’ could potentially be dissemination time with an average of one point four but was left blank due to unfamiliarity with the process involved with such contracts (see Table A8 and Table A9). Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 23 Montana This state had nine subjects set in four cycles listed with dates for implementation. Research took one to two years to complete with dissemination being unclear. All cycles would be completed in five years according to the continuous school improvement plan listed on the first document found. The second image revealed overlapping cycles but no concrete data that could be added to the spreadsheet. Montana even confirmed that the documents from Google were “accurate and current with the adoption cycle, whereas the information in the plan is outdated but provides the process” (see Table A10, Table A11, Figure A3). Nevada Google could not find a timeline for Nevada and the original inquiry received no response. A phone call to the department provided an email address for the contact person with a warning that due to caseload, the person may not reply. A response was quickly received, and all data was collected. Though Nevada had previously been on a ten-year cycle it was in the process of receiving an update (see Figure A4). New Mexico New Mexico had an ‘Instructional Material Adoption Cycle’. Subjects were grouped into six rows. ‘Review’ was dubbed ‘Research’ and happened one year prior to the contracted school ‘year of implementation’. The ‘Contract period’ was set for six-years after the ‘Review’ and since two columns were about contract periods, it proved that a repeating cycle did exist for this state (see Table A12). Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 24 Oregon An email explained that Oregon is on a seven-year cycle and provided a link to two images that gave the rest of the data required. Seven subjects, two years for research ‘standards revision and materials evaluation’ and date for implementation (see Table A13, Figure A5). Utah The ‘Utah Core Standards Revision Timeline’ had twelve subjects. ‘Review/Revise Standards’ took one to two years depending on the subject. The term ‘Adopt and Introduce’ was applied to ‘Dissemination’ for one year. Implementation was also one year. Though it is noted that not all subjects are assessed the year after implementation. Social Studies was listed twice and counting between the review of one to the other revealed a seven-year cycle (see Table A14). Washington Washington state information provided a seven-year cycle for 10 content subjects. Two years for ‘Review’ and to meet the ‘State Adoption Target’ were assigned to the ‘Research Time’ column. Washington had a noted year to conduct ‘Professional Learning/Transition’, This year was applied to ‘Dissemination Time’ as implementation was listed for the following year. Washington requires one year before the content is officially implemented. Washington educates teachers on three to four content standards at a time. Assessment was also noted, two years after implementation (see Table A15). Wyoming The original timeline was found using Google. That older version was updated and confirmed via email. The updated version is the final image provided with only the numbers of subjects changed to thirteen. The original analysis had the number at fifteen due to all the performance standards and extended standards for those that take the WY-ALT assessment Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 25 instead of state assessments. Every difference between columns was in months. The ‘Full Cycle’ Average at six-seven years on a nine-year plan. A date to implement by was listed by implementation timeline. Wyoming had an average of 12.5 months for the initial creation of a standard, followed by the second standard review averaging 7.4 months. However, the average time after State Board and Governor approval was 2.5 years before the implementation date, which was applied to ‘Dissemination Time’. Wyoming has monthly timeframes from eight months, for review of familiar standards, to a year for new subject matter. Also noted was the lack of variance on the two-month long audits (see Table A16, Table A17, Table A18, Table A19, Table A20). State with the Quickest Timeframe After comparing timelines, Montana has the quickest timeframe review of content available, occurring every five years as part of the state’s continuous improvement plan. The quickest timeframe was determined by the time for research, dissemination, and implementation in the Full Revision Cycle. The number of content subjects specified in timelines was also noted in the cycle timeframe. Montana’s timeline showed the policy that required all content subjects to be reviewed every five years (see Table B2). A unique similarity was that every timeline was staggered in some way. Most research in the western states is at the two-year mark. Dissemination, if any is listed, takes one year and implementation is usually a date to implement by or a year. The average full cycle, from when research or the policy review starts to the next time the standard is reviewed again, is seven years. The average number of subjects covered by the western states is ten. On average then, the western states cover ten subjects over seven years, starting with two years for research and policy Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 26 approval, followed by one year or a date for implementation and in some cases, a year for dissemination. Table B2 Numerical Data Points from Western States Timelines States Research Dissemination Implementation # of Full Revision Time Time Time Subjects Cycle Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* … 1 year … 2 years 2-3 years … 1 year … 1 year … … 1 year … 1 year … 13 10 11 10 11 Idaho* Montana* 2 years 1-2 years … … 8 9 Nevada* 2 years … 1 year Date of implementation … New Mexico Oregon* Utah Washington Wyoming 1 year 2 years 1-2 years 2 years 7.4 month Average … … 1 year 1 year 2.5 year average 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year Date for implementation 6 7 12 10 13 9 14 Year average 8 year average 7 year average 6 years 1 subject - 7 years 2 subjects - 6 years 6 subjects - 8 years 6 years 5 years 10 years (Under review) 6 years 7 years 7 years 7 years 6-7 year average on a 9 year plan Note. Averages came from collective differences between columns of timelines. State differences that became apparent between Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Washington had some of the most beautiful and succinct timelines to work from, due to color and imaging used to present the data available. Alaska and Wyoming each offer the highest number of subjects taught, totaling 13. Wyoming was the only state able to present two separate timeframes for reviewing content, tracking ‘Review Committee Meetings’ in monthly increments for both their initial standard creation and revision. Also note that Arizona reviews all of its Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 27 content four years after implementation and Washington has a year dedicated to ‘professional learning/transition’. Words to describe the overall timeline purpose or function include: plan, review, revision, cycle, adoption, timeline, calendar, schedule, implementation, system, or process. Other unique words to describe what functional change was to take place include: state standards, learning standards, core standards, content standards, curricular materials, instructional materials, curriculum, curriculum framework, academic content standards or just standards. All of these words reveal not only the various angles from which the problem is currently addressed, but it also shows the perceived answer for the research-practice gap. Table B3 shows what the timelines for each state were officially called, illustrating for example that the word ‘standards’ is used nine times, but always in conjunction with another word. Table B3 Western State Revision Timeline Names States Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* Idaho* Montana* Timeline Name Standards Revision Schedule Tentative Review Schedule for Academic Content Standards Current K-12 Content Standards, Curriculum Frameworks, & K-8 Material Adoptions Standards Review & Revision Phases Hawaii Curriculumn Management System & Instructional Materials Approval Process Adoption Schedule for Curricular Materials Content Standards Revision Information / Montana Content Standards Revisions 2022-2026 Nevada* ~ Timeline Under Review / NA ~ New Mexico Instructional Material Adoption Cycle Oregon* Standards & Instructional Materials Calendar / Standards Development & Instructional Materials Timeline Utah Utah Core Standards Revision Timeline Washington Washignton State Learning Standards: Learning Standards Review & Revision Cycle Wyoming* 9 Year Plan WYCPS Review / State Standards Adoption & Implementation Timeline 2010-2024 Note. Asteriks represent communication with a representative of the state. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 28 Discussion The results of this study highlight that not many policy makers or practitioners understand how the processes of research, dissemination, and integration take place in schools or how much time is actually needed to make the processes more efficient. The variation in policy location, timeframe, and the number of subjects required for review underscore the limited influence of policy on closing the research-practice gap (Broenkkamp & Hout-Wolters, 2008). Given that the implementation of research in practice can be anywhere between two and four years (Fixen, et al., 2016) and up to five years in length (Savvas, 2023), it was not expected to find that Montana policy timeline had a five-year review cycle. Additionally, Montana is currently taking nine subjects and grouping them into one of four cycles, each cycle containing two to three subjects. Each cycle is broken down into steps that take place over the course of months. As one cycle’s subjects become adopted and move towards implementation, the next cycle begins, leaving room for some overlap. However, according to the Montana content standards revision timeline for 2022-2026 all cycles overlap. The policy in Montana appears to support implementation timeframe recommendations (Veterans Affairs, 2023). No educational timeline was longer than 14 years; revealing the discrepancy to be less in education than in the medical field, which can take up to 17 years (Balas & Borean, 2000; McNeal et al., 2020). The number of content areas identified in Montana policy provides guidance for states that have more than nine subjects to review. Following the Montana example, states like Alaska, (with thirteen subjects that vary in update timeframes), Utah (with 12 subjects updated over seven years), and Wyoming (with 13 to 15 subjects detailed in its nine-year plan) can spread their work into multiple committees to assist with content overlap. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 29 Arizona was the only state that implemented any form of assessment four years after implementation, this aligns with cautions that it can take up to five years to implement and sustain change in the classroom (Fixen et al., 2016; Savvas, 2023; Veterans affairs’, 2023). Given the claim of the research dissemination and integration taking three to five years, the suggested timeframe for research in Hawaii is within reason (Veterans Affairs’, 2023). Arizona’s timeframe for assessment reduces the risk of project abandonment too early (Latham, 1988). Dissemination of one year before the content is officially implemented in Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona is supported (Gewertz, 2015) as the quickest way to address the research-practice gap. Recommendations Based on the findings of the current study several recommendations to shorten the research-practice gap are suggested. These include recommendations in research, dissemination and implementation times. Drawing on the state of Washington policy, dissemination and teacher training on new materials is recommended for one year before the content is officially implemented. It is recommended that implementation is to be supported and monitored for four years, before any official assessment occurs similar to Arizona policy. It is recommended that changes in implementation be used sparingly to avoid project abandonment (Latham, 1998). Instead, research should be saved for the next revision cycle. A visual representation of the recommended cycles was created based on Wyoming and Alaska policies with multiple (13) subjects. The priority of this table is focusing on the year to disseminate and train teachers prior to implementation for four years. This recommended chart revealed only a two-year gap for research under these requirements. Every cycle has two subjects that overlap. It is recommended that subjects be grouped by two or three for review, to assist with content overlap and relevancy speed. Subjects should be arranged either in cycles or Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 30 staggering of subjects. The goal in this recommended cycle is the potential for a subject to have sufficient time for research, implementation and dissemination. The recommended cycle disseminates at least two content standards at a time for ease of teacher absorption and feedback. This recommended table is the quickest way to address the research-practice gap (see Appendix C). Table C1 Cycle Subjects Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Math Science ELA WIDA PE Math Extended Science Extended ELA Extended World Culture Health & Safety Cycle 6 Social Studies Performing Arts Cycle 7 CTE Computer Science Note. It is possible to add a third subject to any cycle. Table C2 Years within the Cycles Years: 1 2 3 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 7 R R R D R R 4 I D R R 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I I D R R I I I D R R A I I I D R R R A I I I D R R R A I I I D D R R A I I I I D R R A I I I I D R R A I I I I D R R A Note. R- research and materials, D- dissemination and teacher training, I- implementation, & Aassessment. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 31 Conclusion Originally this research was only concerned with the quickest method available to review and update data to fill the educational research–teaching practice gap. However, the literature and the results of this study demonstrate that the fastest method may not be the best method to achieve the desired result of successful implementation. Examining western state core standards revision timelines with the purpose of enhancing the process of information dissemination provided a visual representation of policy that controls and influences educational research and integration into the public education K-12 systems. Variation in state timelines for research, implementation, assessment, and dissemination obtained through online Google searches, emails, and phone calls with state representatives highlight similarities and differences in western state policies. The results demonstrated an unexpected finding with averages of two years for research, one year for dissemination and training, and up to five years of implementation prior to assessment. Based on the data collected, and the literature reviewed, it is recommended to take more time in regard to implementation and disseminating information. These recommendations are for researchers, teachers, policy makers, curriculum developers and other interested parties in filling the research-practice gap or improving the dissemination and implementation process. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 32 References Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2019). Study designs: Part 2 - descriptive studies. Perspectives in clinical research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6371702/ American University, School of Education Online. (2024, April 15). Education policy issues in 2020 and beyond, https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/education-policy-issues/ Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearbook of medical informatics, (1), 65–70. https://www.thiemeconnect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0038-1637943.pdf Becerra-Lubies, R., Mayo, S., & Fones, A. (2021). Revitalization of indigenous languages and cultures: critical review of preschool bilingual educational policies in Chile (2007–2016). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(8), 1147–1162. https://doiorg.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/13670050.2018.1563584 Broenkkamp, H., & Hout-Wolters, B. (31 May 2008). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. 203-220. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27823607 Center on Education Policy. (2020). History and evolution of public education in the US, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606970.pdf Clark, C. (2005). The structure of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 289-308. https://depts.washington.edu/comgrnd/ccli/papers/clarkStructureOfEdResearch05.pdf Cunningham, C. (2019). An investigation into school inspection policies in Western Australian state education performed by the Expert Review Group. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18(1), 39-58. https://link-galecom.hal.weber.edu/apps/doc/A718149189/AONE?u=ogde72764&sid=summon&xid=835794c7 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 33 Dube, G. A. B. (2017). A review of educational policies that affect funding of school libraries in Malawi. School Libraries Worldwide, 23(1), 84-94. https://link-galecom.hal.weber.edu/apps/doc/A506674315/LitRC?u=ogde72764&sid=summon&xid=3b655050 O’Farrell, P., Wilson, C., & Shiel, G. (2022, October 27). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to assessment of mental health in schools with implications for educational policy: A systemic review, British Journal of Educational Psychology 93(1), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12553 Fixen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2016, October 18). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature Gewertz, C. (2012, April 23). Advocates worry implementation could derail common core. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/advocates-worry-implementation-could-derailcommon-core/2012/04 Gewertz, C. (2015, September 30). The common core explained. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-common-core-explained/2015/09 Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621 Latham, G. I. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations. Principal, 68(1), 41–44. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: a policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071172 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 34 Loewus, L. (2015, February 24). Common core seen falling short in high school math. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/common-core-seen-falling-short-in-high-schoolmath/2015/02 Loveless, T. (2021, March 18). Why common core failed. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-common-corefailed/#:~:text=More%20than%20a%20decade%20after%20the%202010%20release,had%20a% 20significant%2C%20positive%20impact%20on%20student%20achievement. Mackey, A. P., Finn, A. S., Leonard, J. A., Jacoby-Senghor, D. S., West, M. R., Gabrieli, C. F., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2015). Neuroanatomical correlates of the income-achievement gap. Psychological science, 26(6), 925–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572233 McNeal, D. M., Glasgow, R. E., Brownson, R. C., Matlock, D. D., Peterson, P. N., Daugherty, S. L., & Knoepke, C. E. (2020). Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to nonresearch audiences. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e61. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.563 Nils, K. (2020). A systematic research review of teachers’ professional development as a policy instrument. Educational Research Review, 31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100366 Porter, A. (n.d.). Rethinking the achievement gap. Penn GSE. https://www.gse.upenn.edu/news/rethinking-achievement-gap Savvas Learning Company LLC. (2023). Your guide to a successful curriculum implementation. https://www.savvas.com/resource-center/blogs-and-podcasts/savvas-insights/2023/your-guideto-successful-curriculumimplementation#:~:text=Give%20It%20Time,more%20time%20to%20build%20enthusiasm Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 35 Sáez-López, J.-M., & Rodriguez-Torres, J. (2016, May 31). Reviews of educational policy regarding one laptop per child: “Escuela 2.0” program in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Digital Education Review. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1106190 Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2010). Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: Foundations for assessing and developing biochemistry students' visual literacy. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(5), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20436 Sparks, S. D. (2010, October 26). States set widely varying ‘proficiency’ bars. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/states-set-widely-varying-proficiency-bars/2010/10 Stephens, N., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M., (2014). Closing the social-class achievement gap. Association for Psychological Science. https://psychology.northwestern.edu/documents/facultypublications/destin-achievement.pdf Talbert, K. D., & Eitel, R. S. (2012, February 16). The road to a national curriculum: The legal aspects of the common core standards, race to the top, and conditional waivers. The Federalist Society, 13(1). https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-road-to-a-national-curriculum-the-legal-aspects-ofthe-common-core-standards-race-to-the-top-and-conditional-waivers University of Utah and Utah Education Policy Center. (2016). Utah education policy history 1997-2015 https://www.uepc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/103/2017/12/UEPC_Policy_History.pdf Veterans Affairs’ Health Systems Research. (2023, January 4). Putting research into practice is hard: But there is help! New training now available in TMS. VA Health Systems Research. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/news/research_news/research-010423.cfm Vanderlinde, R., & Van Braak, J. (2010, April). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 36 Journal, 36(2), 299-316. https://berajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01411920902919257 Winkle-Wagner, R. (January 2009). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in educational research: Methods at the margins. Palgrave Macmillion. World Population Review. (2024). Common core states 2024. https://worldpopulationreview.com/staterankings/common-core-states Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 37 Appendix A – Tables and Figures of Timelines Note. The links provided for each state were active working links upon collection. Table A1 Alaska’s Timeline Note.(https://education.alaska.gov/standards/pdf/Standards%20Revision%20Schedule_2021.pdf) Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A2 Arizona’s Timeline - First Page Note. (https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=57324fc2aadebe1358cfd47c) 38 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A3 Arizona’s Timeline - Second Page Note. (https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=57324fc2aadebe1358cfd47c) 39 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Figure A1 California’s Email 40 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A4 California’s Timeline Page One Note. Received by email, no link provided. 41 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A5 California’s Timeline Page Two Note. Received by email, no link provided. 42 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A6 California’s Timeline Page Three Note. Received by email, no link provided. 43 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Figure A2 Colorado’s Timeline Note. Received by email, no link provided. 44 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A7 Hawaii’s Timeline Note. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cAgU3E3lbuvbzR7-p1tkuq2gI_IkS8qJ7EF0i187PE/edit?tab=t.0) Pg. 16 45 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A8 Idaho’s Timeline – Page One Note. (https://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-process/2023-AdoptionSchedule.pdf) 46 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A9 Idaho’s Timeline – Page Two Note. (https://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/curricular/files/adoption-process/2023-AdoptionSchedule.pdf) 47 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A10 Montana’s Timeline – Page One Note. (https://opi.mt.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=70FrO0_7KIQ%3D&portalid=182) 48 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A11 Montana’s Timeline – Page Two Note. (https://opi.mt.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=70FrO0_7KIQ%3D&portalid=182) 49 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Figure A3 Montana’s Timeline Note. (https://opi.mt.gov/Educators/Teaching-Learning/K-12-Content-Standards/StandardsRevision) Montana also replied with an email providing more recent data on pg. 12 and 13 (https://opi.mt.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D2J7OcMUwPQ%3d&portalid=182) 50 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Figure A4 Nevada’s Email Note. No links provided. 51 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A12 New Mexico’s Timeline Note. (https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/adoptioncycle_02_19_24.pdf) 52 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A13 Oregon’s Timetable Note. (https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/Pages/default.aspx) 53 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Figure A5 Oregon’s Timetable Note. (https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/Pages/default.aspx) Figure 54 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 55 Table A14 Utah’s Timetable Note. (https://schools.utah.gov/curr/utahcorestandards/Standards%20Revision%20Timeline.pdf) Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A15 Washington’s Timeline Note. (https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2023-10/wa-state-learning-standardstimeline.pdf) 56 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A16 Wyoming’s Nine Year Plan Note. (https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Standards-Review-Timeline-forSBE-01.17.19-new-format-for-accessibility.pdf) 57 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A17 Wyoming’s Timeline – Page One Note. (https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/STATE-STANDARDSADOPTION-IMPLEMANTATION-TIMELINE.pdf) 58 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A18 Wyoming’s Timeline – Page Two Note. (https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/STATE-STANDARDSADOPTION-IMPLEMANTATION-TIMELINE.pdf) 59 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A19 Wyoming’s Timeline – Page Three Note. (https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/STATE-STANDARDSADOPTION-IMPLEMANTATION-TIMELINE.pdf) 60 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table A20 Wyoming’s Timeline – Updated Note. (https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Standards-Review-Timeline-forSBE.pdf) 61 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Appendix B - Comparison Spreadsheets Figure B1 Timeline Math Note. The number four is the time in years between full implementation and when implementation review occurs. 62 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation Table B1 Policy Locations States Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* Idaho* Montana* Nevada* New Mexico Oregon* Utah Washington Wyoming* Policy Location 4 AAC 04.140 4 AAC 04.155 4 AAC 04.170 4 AAC 04.180 Historical Record Historical Record House Bill 20-1032 (Section 22-7-1005(6) C.R.S.) BOE Policy 102-3: Statewide Content and Performance Standards [2015] 33-118 & 33-118A IAPA 08.02.03 Subsection 004 & 128 ARM 10.53.104 NRS 389.520 NRS 389.520 Ch 337 – Books and Instructional Material (337.521) 53E-4-202(8) RCW 28A.655.070 HEA119 & HEA48 Note. Asteriks represent communication with a representative of the state. 63 Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 64 Table B2 Numerical Data Points from Western States Timelines States Research Dissemination Implementation # of Full Revision Time Time Time Subjects Cycle Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* … 1 year … 2 years 2-3 years … 1 year … 1 year … … 1 year … 1 year … 13 10 11 10 11 Idaho* Montana* 2 years 1-2 years … … 8 9 Nevada* 2 years … 1 year Date of implementation … New Mexico Oregon* Utah Washington Wyoming 1 year 2 years 1-2 years 2 years 7.4 month Average … … 1 year 1 year 2.5 year average 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year Date for implementation 6 7 12 10 13 9 14 Year average 8 year average 7 year average 6 years 1 subject - 7 years 2 subjects - 6 years 6 subjects - 8 years 6 years 5 years 10 years (Under review) 6 years 7 years 7 years 7 years 6-7 year average on a 9 year plan Note. Averages came from collective differences between columns of timelines. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 65 Table B3 Western State Revision Timeline Names States Timeline Name Alaska* Arizona California* Colorado* Hawaii* Idaho* Montana* Standards Revision Schedule Tentative Review Schedule for Academic Content Standards Current K-12 Content Standards, Curriculum Frameworks, & K-8 Material Adoptions Standards Review & Revision Phases Hawaii Curriculumn Management System & Instructional Materials Approval Process Adoption Schedule for Curricular Materials Content Standards Revision Information / Montana Content Standards Revisions 2022-2026 ~ Timeline Under Review / NA ~ Instructional Material Adoption Cycle Standards & Instructional Materials Calendar / Standards Development & Instructional Materials Timeline Utah Core Standards Revision Timeline Washignton State Learning Standards: Learning Standards Review & Revision Cycle 9 Year Plan WYCPS Review / State Standards Adoption & Implementation Timeline 2010-2024 Nevada* New Mexico Oregon* Utah Washington Wyoming* Note. Asteriks represent communication with a representative of the state. Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 66 Appendix C - Suggested Revision Timeline Table C1 Cycle Subjects Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Math Science ELA WIDA PE Math Extended Science Extended ELA Extended World Culture Health & Safety Note. It is possible to add a third subject to any cycle. Cycle 6 Social Studies Performing Arts Cycle 7 CTE Computer Science Exploring the Educational Gap of Research Implementation 67 Table C2 Years within the Cycles Years: 1 2 3 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 7 R R R D R R 4 I D R R 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I I D R R I I I D R R A I I I D R R R A I I I D R R R A I I I D D R R A I I I I D R R A I I I I D R R A I I I I D R R A Note. R- research and materials, D- dissemination and teacher training, I- implementation, & Aassessment.