Networks in New York City: Implementing the Common Core

• In Event: 49.073 - Politics of Education Association Yearbook: Revisiting Education Policy Implementation

Abstract

Background
Widely cited as a forerunner in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), New York has already – and not without controversy – administered Common Core aligned assessments in 2013. To support the accelerated rollout, New York has relied on networks, such as Children First Networks (CFNs) and charter management organizations (CMOs), to bring schools up to speed. In fact, these networks have been the primary vehicle for Common Core implementation in NYC, serving as critical intermediaries between policymakers and street-level bureaucrats.

Rationale & Scholarly Significance
Our research seeks to add to the existing literature on implementation by applying the concepts of “boundary spanning” and “mutual adaptation” to the rollout of the CCSS in New York City. NYC has leveraged its existing school network structures to facilitate this task. We hope that our study deepens the field’s understanding of the use of school networks in the service of major policy initiatives.

Methods We interviewed 15 network leaders, content specialists, and achievement coaches across two CFNs and two CMOs. The CFNs provided operational support for roughly 30 member schools whose student performance varied. We chose our two CMOs in an attempt to incorporate some of the variation present in CMO organizational structures. One CMO is relatively well established and has the support of a national network. The other CMO, which has operated for less than ten years and is exclusively based in NYC.

Findings
Our research generated evidence of varying capacity to implement the Common Core among CFNs and CMOs. First, the organizational design of the CMOs generated more cohesion across multiple member schools, facilitating the implementation of consistent curricular changes. CFNs, which favored individual school autonomy over shared methods, were hindered by their inability to support such a large number of unique schools. Second, among the CMOs, the network that instituted a distinct Curriculum & Instruction Department with exclusively instructional responsibilities was more nimble and effective with regards to generating and implementing CCSS-aligned resources.

The networks we studied referenced the tension between school-level autonomy and network cohesion. To the extent that boundary spanners are meant to disrupt the top down, command and control model of administration by enhancing the decision-making authority of school-level actors, our sample of CFNs and CMOs struggled to navigate this tension in the face of a highly centralized reform such as the Common Core. CFNs, which face accountability pressures from both the central office and principals, were constrained in their responsibility to implement new common standards among schools with varying levels of capacity for change. This dynamic favored already high-performing schools that were more adept at identifying and acquiring scarce network resources. The CMOs experienced a similar dilemma in implementing the CCSS, favoring the network that adopted more centralized curricular and instructional authority over the network that championed school-level entrepreneurialism. On the other hand, the lack of teacher involvement in curricular decisions leaves a number of unanswered questions regarding the effects of mutual adaptation as we continue to explore how CCSS ultimately manifest in classrooms.

Authors

• Priscilla Wohlstetter, Teachers College, Columbia University

• David Houston, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Brandon Buck