Implementation of College- and Career-Readiness Standards: Themes Across Three States

• In Event: College- and Career-Readiness Standards Implementation at the National, State, District, and Classroom Levels

Abstract

Objectives
Our case studies of three states- Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas- surface major themes related to the implementation of the CCR standards, with special attention paid to students with disabilities (SWDs) and English language learners (ELLs). We answer the following research questions: What have we learned about state and district activities to implement the CCR standards? What tensions related to standards-based reform persist today?

Theoretical Framework
Our organizing framework is the policy attribute theory, which posits that the more specific, consistent, authoritative, powerful and stable a policy is, the better implementation will be (Porter, 1994). We explore how state and district policies make implementation of the CCR standards (a) specific, and therefore easier to implement with fidelity, (b) consistent, or aligned with each other, (c) authoritative, to persuade stakeholders to view the reform as legitimate, (d) powerful, to encourage or deter practices using rewards or sanctions, and (e) stable, which affects the fate of these reforms.

Methods and Data
A total of 18 state education administrators across Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas participated in semi-structured interviews. We also selected three districts in each state based on their SWD and ELL populations and their high rates of student achievement, and four central office administrators in each of these districts to participate in interviews. A total of 28 district administrator interviews were conducted across the three states. All the interviews were transcribed and coded for the five policy attributes.

Results
State officials described policies that were low in specificity, power, and consistency, and high in authority due to the constraints of local control. However, district officials note that more specificity is desired from the state, suggesting contradicting viewpoints about the degree to which state supports should be prescriptive. District officials compensated by creating mechanisms that build the specificity of the standards such as instructional coaching or detailed models for professional learning communities. With this specificity may also come consistency, as stakeholders gain more familiarity with aligning instruction to the standards. Power is seldom mentioned in both state and district interviews, which is likely due to the No Child Left Behind backlash of imposing sanctions on schools and teachers.

Local control is less of a deterrent with regards to ELLs. State and district officials alike value the role that national organizations such as WIDA or ELPA21 play in providing the specific ELL infrastructure for implementing the standards.

A persistent tension is the inconsistency between individualizing instruction for SWDs and assessing them on grade level standards, which also undermines the authority of accountability policies for SWDs.

Significance
Standards have only modestly impacted student achievement. The policy attribute theory, applied to an analysis of state and district approaches to systemic instructional reform, helps us see where there are signs of successes, challenges, and persistent tensions in implementing the CCR standards in specific, consistent, authoritative, powerful, and stable ways.

Authors

• Laura M. Desimone, University of Pennsylvania

• Adam Kirk Edgerton, University of Pennsylvania

• Nelson Flores, University of Pennsylvania

• T. Philip Nichols, Baylor University

• Katie Pak, University of Pennsylvania

• Emily Plummer, University of Pennsylvania

• Amy Stornaiuolo, University of Pennsylvania