The purpose of this comparative case study was to explore the ways educators at the school level experience the Common Core Standards and examine the contextual factors that impacted the way it was initially implemented. Qualitative data were gathered through teacher surveys, faculty focus groups, and interviews with each school principal and the two district Race to the Top coordinators. Analysis of the collected data uncovered common themes, including interpreting and framing the change, professional collaboration, impact of the change on teachers’ professional and personal lives, and pacing, communication, and training.
AlcantaraR. E. (2009). A learning model of policy implementation: Implementing technology in response to policy requirements (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
2.
AllisonG. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63, 689-718.
BardachE. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BasciaN. (2009). Pushing on the paradigm: Research on teachers’ organizations as policy actors. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. L. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 785-792). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BasciaN.OsmondP. (2012). Teacher unions and educational reform: A research review. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
7.
BohmerR.MalochB. (2011). Relating policy to research and practice: The Common Core Standards. Language Arts, 89, 38-43.
BowlingC. J.PickerillM. (2013). Fragmented federalism: The state of American federalism 2012-13. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43, 315-346.
10.
BrowneA.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation as mutual adaptation. In PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (Eds.), Implementation (pp. 206-231). Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
CooperB. S.FusarelliL. D.RandallE. V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications. Boston, MA: Pearson.
DatnowA. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 121-153.
17.
EvansR. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
FinnanC. (2000). Implementing school reform models: Why is it so hard for some schools and easy for others? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446356). Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446356
19.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaséK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
20.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
FusarelliL. D. (2002). Tightly coupled policy in loosely coupled systems: Institutional capacity and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 561-575.
22.
FusarelliL. D.FusarelliB. C. (2015). Federal education policy from Reagan to Obama: Convergence, divergence, and “control.” In CooperB. S.CibulkaJ. G.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (2nd ed., pp. 189-210). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
GrossN.GiacquintaJ. B.BernsteinM. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York, NY: Basic Books.
24.
HonigM. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
25.
KerchnerC. T.KoppichJ. E. (Eds.). (1993). A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
KerchnerC. T.MitchellD. E. (1988). The changing idea of a teachers’ union. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
27.
LaVeniaM. (2010). The common core state standards initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption of common K-12 academic standards (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tallahassee, FL:Florida State University.
28.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
29.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151.
30.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
31.
MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (1981). Introduction. In MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Effective policy implementation (pp. xi-xv). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
32.
McCullenC. (2013, June7). Join the distinguished “corps” of advocates supporting common core (The Friday Report, Vol. 15, No. 44, pp. 1-4). Raleigh: Public School Forum of North Carolina.
33.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Organized interests and the common core. Educational Researcher, 42, 488-497.
34.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
35.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
OddenA. R. (1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In OddenA. R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
38.
OlsenB.SextonD. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 9-44. doi:0.3102/0002831208320573
39.
PanH. L.ChenW. Y. (2011). Teacher evaluation as a catalyst for organizational learning. Unpublished paper. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
40.
PeirsonL.BoydellK.FergusonH. B.FerrisL. (2011). An ecological process model of systems change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 307-321. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9405-y
41.
PetersB. G. (1986). American public policy: Promise and performance (2nd ed.). London, England: MacMillan Education.
42.
PorterR. (2013). Understanding the Common Core implementation: How educators intuit, interpret, and begin to integrate curriculum reform (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
43.
PrestineN. A.McGrealT. L. (1997). Fragile changes, sturdy lives: Implementing authentic assessment in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 371-400.
44.
RothmanR. (2011). Something in common: Common core standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
Seashore LouisK.FebeyK.GordonM. F. (2015). Political cultures in education: Emerging perspectives. In CooperB. S.CibulkaJ. G.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (2nd ed., pp. 118-147). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
47.
Strong-RhoadsK. (2011). Transformational classroom leadership: Adding a new piece of fabric to the educational leadership quilt (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Sacramento State ScholarWorks. (2011-07-28T22:06:19Z)
