This article analyzes the Common Core State Standards initiative as an innovation network. Using narrative data and quantitative analysis of hypertext linkages on the World Wide Web, we describe a network of about 3200 organizations that arose to scale up the Common Core State Standards and link them to aligned academic resources such as assessments, instructional materials, and professional development. By 2017, this network developed a “core-periphery” topology. The article describes structures and processes at the core of the network that created strong pressures for construction of a coherent ecosystem of instruction for American education and processes at the periphery that that worked against use of this system by most organizations in the network.
AcklandR. (2013). Web social science: Concepts, data and tools for social scientists in the digital age. Sage.
3.
AcklandR.GibsonR. (2013). Hyperlinks and networked communication: A comparative study of political parties online. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.774179
4.
BaumolW. J. (1986). Contestable markets: An uprising in the theory of industry structure. In Microtheory: Applications and origins (pp. 40–54). MIT Press.
5.
BeckerH. (1940). Constructive typology in the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 45(5), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083940
6.
BlumerH. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
BörzelT. (1997). What’s so special about policy networks? An exploration of the concept and its usefulness in studying European governance. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 1(16). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302706
9.
CallonM. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1–9. http://igraph.org
12.
CsermelyP.LondonA.WuL. Y.UzziB. (2013). Structure and dynamics of core/periphery networks. Journal of Complex Networks, 1(2), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnt016
13.
Den HartighE.OrttJ. R.Van de KaaG.StolwijkC. C. (2016). Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry. Technovation, 48, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.001
EnrothH. (2011). Policy network theory. In BevirM. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of governance (pp. 19–35). Sage.
16.
FreemanD. J.KuhsT. M.PorterA. C.FlodenR. E.SchmidtW. H.SchwilleJ. R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics?Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1086/461329
HeckathornD. D.CameronC. J. (2017). Network sampling: From snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053556
HenigJ. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. Russell Sage Foundation.
21.
HodgeE. M.SalloumS. J.BenkoS. L. (2016). (Un) Commonly connected: A social network analysis of state standards resources for English/language arts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584166749012332858416674901
22.
HuS.TorphyK. T.OppermanA.JansenK.LoY. J. (2018). What do teachers share within socialized knowledge communities: A case of Pinterest. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-11-2017-0025
23.
JeraldC. D. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring US students receive a world-class education. National Governors Association.
24.
JonesC.HesterlyW. S.BorgattiS. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022109
25.
KhaouidW.BarskyM.SrinivasanV.ThomoA. (2015). K-core decomposition of large networks on a single PC. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 9(1), 13–23. http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p13-khaouid.pdf
26.
KornhaberM. L.BarkauskasN. J.GriffithK. M. (2016). Smart money? Philanthropic and federal funding for the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(93). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2221
27.
KornhaberM. L.BarkauskasN. J.GriffithK. M.SausnerE.MahfouzJ. (2017). The Common Core's promises and pitfalls from the perspectives of policy entrepreneurs and ground-level actors. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9306-z
28.
KornhaberM. L.GriffithK.TylerA. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore–but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014
29.
KudicM.EhrenfeldW.PuschT. (2015). On the trail of core–periphery patterns in innovation networks: measurements and new empirical findings from the German laser industry. Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-015-0679-8
30.
KurantM.MarkopoulouA.ThiranP. (2010, September). On the bias of BFS (breadth first search). In 2010 22nd International Teletraffic Congress (lTC 22) (pp. 1–8). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1729.pdf
31.
LaVeniaM.Cohen-VogelL.LangL. B. (2014). The Common Core State Standards initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption. American Journal of Education, 121(2), 145–182.
LaytonL. (2014). How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution. The Washington Post, 7.
34.
LeskovecJ.KleinbergJ.FaloutsosC. (2007). Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1217299.1217301
35.
LopreatoJ.AlstonL. (1970). Ideal types and the idealization strategy. American Sociological Review, 35(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093855
36.
MalerbaF.VonortasN. S. (Eds.). (2009). Innovation networks in industries. Edward Elgar.
37.
MannaP. (2010). Networked governance in three policy areas with implications for the Common Core State Standards initiative. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
38.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013a). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 001–025. https://doi.org/10.1086.673163
39.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013b). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 488–497. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512676
40.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16649945
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/2648004
National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, & Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring US students receive a world-class education. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/0812BENCHMARKING.pdf
48.
OpferV. D.KaufmanJ.ThompsonL. (2018). Implementation of K–12 State Standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy: Findings from the American Teacher Panel. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1529-1.html
49.
PolikoffM. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in mathematics?American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
PowellW. W.WhiteD. R.KoputK. W.Owen-SmithJ. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132–1205. https://doi.org/10.1086/421508
52.
R Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
53.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607
54.
RhodesR. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. F. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425–447). Oxford University Press.
55.
RombachM. P.PorterM. A.FowlerJ. H.MuchaP. J. (2014). Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM Journal on Applied mathematics, 74(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1137/120881683
56.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021277712833
57.
RussellJ. L.MeredithJ.ChildsJ.SteinM. K.PrineD. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714527341
58.
SalloumS. J.HodgeE. M.BenkoS. L. (2020). State educational agencies in an uncertain environment: Understanding state provided networks of English Language Arts curricular resources. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 125. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4494
59.
SchneiderM. K. (2015). Common Core dilemma: Who owns our schools?Teachers College Press.
60.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2017). Alignment of instructional materials: Trends in state efforts.
61.
SwedbergR. (2017). Colligation. In LeiulfsrudH.SohlbergP. (Eds.), Concepts in action (pp. 63–78). Brill.
62.
ThelwallM. (2006). Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20253
63.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
64.
WattM. G. (2016). The Common Core State Standards and the role of instructional materials: A case study on EdReports.org (ERIC No. ED568694). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568694.pdf
65.
WebbN. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Council of Chief State School Officers.
66.
WebbN. L.HortonM.O’NealS. (2002, April1–5). An analysis of the alignment between language arts standards and assessments in four states[Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, United States.
67.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
68.
6, F. (1997). Webers Ideal Types as models in the social sciences. In A. O'Hear (Author), Verstehen and humane understanding (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, pp. 73–94). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563775.006
69.
WhewellW. (2014). The philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history (2nd ed.). John W. Parker. (Original work published 1847)
70.
YeS.LangJ.WuF. (2010, April). Crawling online social graphs. In 2010 12th International Asia-Pacific Web Conference (pp. 236–242). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/APWeb.2010.10
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
