Standards Implementation on the Ground: Case Study Research of Classrooms and Schools

• In Event: Implementation and Effects of Standards-Based Reform: A Five-Year, Five-State Study of the Multiple Levels and Dimensions of Ambitious Instructional Reforms

Abstract

Though CCR standards were first introduced to teachers nationwide nearly ten years ago, whether those standards have impacted instruction and, subsequently, student learning is still to be determined. Our case study examination of five districts in five states analyzes school-level and classroom-level trends pertaining to standards implementation so we can understand how policy has been translated to practice.

We draw on the policy attributes theory (Porter, 1994), which posits that a policy is more likely to be implemented with fidelity if it is (1) specific in its details about how it should be implemented, (2) authoritative, or able to attain buy-in from its implementers, (3) powerful, or accompanied by rewards and sanctions, (4) consistent with other policies in play, and (5) stable in its tenure. We apply this to on-the-ground trends in schools and classrooms to determine what factors are supporting or prohibiting full implementation.

We took a multiple case study approach, interviewing school and district staff and observing classes in five geographically and demographically different districts—one rural, two urban, and two suburban—in California, Texas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. We interviewed 19 district leaders, 21 principals, 73 teachers, and 13 teacher coaches or teacher leaders across the five districts. Additionally, we conducted 18 focus groups of teachers and observed 44 lessons across grade levels and content areas. All interviews were transcribed and coded for the policy attributes. Class observers used a structured field notes template to record observations. Researchers drafted daily memos after concluding interviews and observations. We then examined trends in school- and classroom-level implementation practices across schools and districts.

Findings: (1) Standards-aligned curricula have more authority when teachers are actively involved in selecting or developing them; when they are consistent with other moving parts (standards, assessment schedule, etc.); and when they are stable over time. (2) Professional development received more buy-in when teachers perceived it to be bottom-up and were provided specific and clear instructions about how processes work. (3) Facing challenges in differentiating instruction in the classroom to help all students work toward grade-level standards with appropriate rigor, teachers expressed the need for additional supports for differentiation.

Despite decades of close attention to the implementation of standards in schools, educators and districts continue to face persistent challenges. This case study research into how five districts are addressing those challenges reveals a consistent pattern: when districts engage in bottom-up strategies for standards implementation, particularly by involving educators in decision-making processes around curriculum and professional learning, educators feel increasingly invested in standards-based reform efforts. However, these investments do not always translate to more rigorous implementation of standards in classrooms, particularly for students needing extra support. Our findings suggest that districts could address this persistent challenge by focusing on developing a consistent and coherent vision for standards implementation that includes specific, aligned models of differentiation with concrete supports for teachers.

Porter, A. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421–449.

Authors

• Amy Stornaiuolo, University of Pennsylvania

• Laura M. Desimone, University of Delaware

• Jillian Harkins, University of Pennsylvania