The Common Core’s promises and pitfalls from the perspectives of policy entrepreneurs and ground-level actors

Abstract

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core) was spearheaded by policy entrepreneurs, unveiled nationally in 2010, and initially received strong support from leaders in state and federal government, philanthropic foundations, the business sector, and teacher unions. However, the reform came into the crosshairs of an ideologically wide set of politicians and interest groups. What is less well understood about the controversy are the responses the reform encountered within states, particularly from ground-level actors, such as parents, local educators, school boards, and community members, as well as their elected representatives. This study uses two data sets to examine how the promises and pitfalls that the reform’s policy entrepreneurs anticipated in 2011 were received by ground-level actors in 10 states between late-2013 and early-2014. The findings suggest ground-level responses to the anticipated promises and pitfalls both spurred and resonated with interest groups to disrupt the reform’s support among state-level leaders. The findings also suggest that political and implementation lessons may be gained from further study of the adoption and implementation of the Common Core in California. Whether the Common Core in California or other states may improve achievement or equity is considered in light of third-wave reforms.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Newspaper articles by state

State	Number of articles
Arizona	48
California	82
Florida	75
Louisiana	36
Massachusetts	49
Michigan	41
New York	83
Pennsylvania	40
South Carolina	42
Wisconsin	27

Appendix 2: Code tree from Common Core policy entrepreneur 2011 interviews

• Rational model

• Rational model revised for Common Core

• Equity Threat 1: school inequities

• Equity Threat 2: students at risk

• Equity solutions

• Conceptions of equity

• Opportunity to learn

• Promises

• Pitfalls

• Economic landscape

• Policy landscape

• Assumptions

Appendix 3: Code tree for local newspaper articles on the Common Core from 8/15/13-2/15/14

Start list generated from interviews:

• Promises

  • Economies of scale

  • More collaboration

  • College and career ready

  • Higher quality standards

  • Greater transparency

  • Improved equity

  • Technology

  • Political buy in

  • K-12/HE collaboration

  • Curriculum/Instruction/Professional Development

• Pitfalls

  • Accountability system

  • Financial strain on states, districts, and schools

  • Upfront technology costs

  • Curriculum/Instruction/Professional Development

  • Assessment

  • Political challenges (e.g., anti-federal)

  • Drop in test scores via common core assessments

Inductive codes:

• Unanticipated promise

  • More financial resources available

  • Assessment

• Unanticipated pitfalls

  • Costs of assessments

  • Teacher union withdrawal or questioning

  • Teacher evaluation tied to student outcomes

  • Quality questions

  • Critique of funding sources

  • Teacher protestation

  • Privacy issues

  • Harm to children

  • Pacing/too much-too soon