This article analyzes the messages and strategies of a sample of education interest groups, and assesses their interpretations of the political context to understand how the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) lost both political and public support during the crucial period of 2013-2014. Based on interviews with representatives of 19 interest groups who were actively involved in communicating about the standards, it focuses on the arguments, communication strategies, and targeted audiences of professional advocacy groups, policy membership organizations, and testing organizations. Our findings identify six themes that contributed to the climate of increased partisanship and politicization, and helped shape perceptions about the Common Core, both within the education sector and among the broader public. We argue that these policy factors, strategic factors, and contextual factors played an important role in shaping the environment within which the CCSS were being understood and implemented.
BennettW. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644, 20-39.
4.
BennettW. L.SegerbergA. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 739-768.
5.
BursteinP. (1998). Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In CostainA. NMcFarlandA. S. (Eds.), Social movements and American political institutions (pp. 39-56). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
CohenD.MoffitS. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CornianiM. (2008). Push and pull policy in market-driven management. Symphonya: Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 45-64.
9.
EdwardsB.FoleyM. (2002). Social movement organizations beyond the beltway: Understanding the diversity of one social movement industry. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 8, 87-107.
10.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. In FlodenR. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 27, pp. 25-68).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
HamiltonL.StecherB.YuanK. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions (No. RP-1384). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
12.
HecloH. (1974). Modern social policy in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
HopkinsB. (1991). Charity, advocacy, and the law. New York, NY: John Wiley.
14.
JochimA.McGuinnP. (2016). The politics of the Common Core assessment consortia: Why are states dropping out?Education Next, 16(4), 44-52.
15.
KingdonJ. W.ThurberJ. A. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
16.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London, England: Sage.
MadisonJ. (1787/ 2009). Federalist 10. In HamiltonA.MadisonJ.JayJ. (Eds.), The federalist papers (pp. 49-54). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
MaxwellJ. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In BickmanL.RogD. (Eds)., The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214-246). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
McDermottK. A. (2012). Interstate governance of standards and testing. In MannaP.McGuinnP. (Eds.), Education governance for the 21st century (pp. 130-155). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22.
McDonnellL.WeatherfordS. M. (2013). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher, 42, 488-497.
23.
McGuinnP. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
24.
McGuinnP. (2014). Visions and challenges for multi-state governance and sustainability. In HessF.McShaneM. (Eds.), Common core meets education reform: What it all means for politics, policy, and the future of schooling. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
McGuinnP. (2015). Core confusion: A practitioner’s guide to understanding its complicated politics. In SupovitzJ.SpillaneJ. (Eds.), Rising to the challenge of standards implementation in the New America. (pp. 145-154). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
26.
McGuinnP.SupovitzJ. A. (2016). Parallel play in the education sandbox. New America; Washington, DC.
27.
MehtaJ. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London, England: Sage.
29.
MurphyJ. (Ed.). (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
30.
PhillipsR. (2006). The role of nonprofit advocacy organizations in Australian democracy and policy governance. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 57-73.
31.
PiersonP. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
PiphoC. (1978). Minimum competency testing in 1978: A look at state standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 585-588.
33.
ReckhowS. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
ReedD. S. (2015, April). Ideologies of a common education: Ideological and interest-group opposition to Common Core State standards. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
35.
RothmanR. (2011). Something in common: The Common Core Standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
36.
SabatierP. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.
37.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106-136.
38.
SmithD. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. A. (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). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
40.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
SupovitzJ. A. (2008). Implementation as iterative refraction. In SupovitzJ.WeinbaumE. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 151-172). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
43.
SupovitzJ. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 211-227.
SupovitzJ. A.SpillaneJ. P. (2015). Challenging standards: Navigating conflict and building capacity in the era of the Common Core. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
46.
VinovskisM. A. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 53-85.
47.
WalkerJ. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
