The purpose of this paper is to report findings from an exploratory study of the early implementation of the Common Core Learning Standards in New York City by a sample of charter management organizations (CMOs) and Children First Networks (CFNs). Using the existing literature on policy implementation—specifically the concepts of boundary spanners and mutual adaptation—this research investigated the role of networks as they facilitated the implementation of the new standards. We conducted in-depth interviews with leaders in both types of networks. The interviews focused on the strategies used to implement the Common Core and the challenges faced in the process. Our findings included evidence of varying capacity among CFNs and CMOs. More decentralized networks expressed greater difficulties with the transition, and the existence of a distinct network-level department with exclusively instructional responsibilities facilitated the adoption of the standards.
BerendsM. (2014). The evolving landscape of school choice in the United States. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (p. 451-473). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BermanP.McLaughlinM. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Implementing and sustaining innovations (Vol. VIII). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource in school reform. Creating Caring Schools, 60(6), 40-45.
5.
CrowsonR. L.BoydW. L. (1993). Coordinating services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140-179.
6.
FarrellC.WohlstetterP.SmithJ. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499-532.
7.
GarlandS. (2013, October). New York teachers excited and worried as common core standards launched in full (The Hechinger Report). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
8.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
9.
HillP. T. (2011). Leadership and governance in New York City school reform. In O’DayJ. A.BitterC. S.GomezL. M. (Eds.), Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation’s most complex school system (pp. 17-32). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
11.
HonigM. I. (2006a). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In HonigM. I. (Ed), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
12.
HonigM. I. (2006b). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357-383.
13.
LemkeJ. L.SabelliN. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. In MasonM. (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 112-123). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
14.
LipskyM. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Review, 6, 391-409.
15.
LittleM. E.HoustonD. (2003). Comprehensive school reform: A model based on student learning. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14, 54-62.
16.
MalenB.OgawaR.KranzJ. (1990). What do we know about site-based management: A case study of the literature—A call for research? In CluseW.WitteJ. (Eds.), Choice and control in American education volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). London, England: Falmer Press.
17.
MandellM. (1999). Community collaboration: Working through network structures. Policy Studies Review, 16, 42-64.
18.
McLaughlinM. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. The Teachers College Record, 77, 339-351.
19.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
OddenA. (1991a). The evolution of education policy implementation. In OddenA. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1-12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
OddenA. (1991b). New patterns of education policy implementation and challenges for the 1990s. In OddenA. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 297-327). Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (3rd ed., The Oakland Project). Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
SupovitzJ.FinkR.NewmanB. (2014, March). From the inside in: An examination of Common Core knowledge and communication in schools (Working Paper). GE Foundation Developing FuturesTM in Education Evaluation Series, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1548_frominsidein.pdf
26.
WeatherlyR.LipskyM. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Education Review, 47(2), 171-197.
27.
WingertP. (2013). With money available for common core, California districts study their options (The Hechinger Report). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
28.
WohlstetterP.GallagherA.SmithJ. (2013). New York City’s children first networks: Turning accountability on its head. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 528-549.
29.
WohlstetterP.MalloyC. L.ChauD.PolhemusJ. L. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy, 17, 399-430.
30.
WohlstetterP.SmithA. K. (2000). A different approach to systemic reform: Network structures in Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 508-515.
31.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
