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

Kornhaber, Mindy L.; Barkauskas, Nikolaus J.; Griffith, Kelly; Sausner, Erica B.; Mahfouz, Julia

doi:10.1007/s10833-017-9306-z

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Policy entrepreneurs for the CCSS viewed the adoption of common standards as an opportunity to provide greater uniformity in curriculum and potentially instruction. Common standards enable the potential for economies of scale, where states are able to share resources across state lines and textbook companies are able to provide CCSS-aligned materials rather than tailoring materials for a particular state (Kornhaber et al, 2014(Kornhaber et al, , 2017. Our analysis illustrates that the CCSS theory of action is happening to some degree.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

State educational agencies in an uncertain environment: Understanding state provided networks of English Language Arts curricular resources

Salloum¹,

Hodge²,

Benko³

2020

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the Race to the Top (RTTT) competition, and backlash around these policies created widespread uncertainty among state educational agencies (SEAs). SEAs may have not had a clear direction about how to support standards implementation in a new context, and therefore, may have looked to their professional networks, their geographic neighbors or other highly regarded SEAs, or other sources for information and resources to guide their decisions about where to send teachers for information about standards. Drawing on institutional theory (Meyer Rowan, 1977) and isomorphism specifically (DiMaggio Powell, 1983), we posit that coercive forces (primarily due to RTTT application and CCSS status) as compared to mimetic and normative forces influenced the organizations to which SEAs turn for curriculum materials. Using Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure and a data set of over 2,000 state-provided resources for secondary English Language Arts teachers from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., we indeed found that coercive forces had a relationship with shared organizational ties, demonstrating that RTTT application and CCSS adoption influenced resource provision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

State educational agencies in an uncertain environment: Understanding state provided networks of English Language Arts curricular resources

Salloum¹,

Hodge²,

Benko³

2020

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From early on, idea brokers played a key role in framing the policy narrative around the CCSS reforms. Starting around 2006, former governors James Hunt (North Carolina), Robert Wise (West Virginia), and the organizations they lead -the Hunt Institute and the Alliance for Excellent Education, respectively -started organizing with other influential leaders to push standards onto the national policy agenda (Kornhaber et al, 2017;McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013;Rothman, 2011). Hunt, Wise, and other idea brokers shared a common understanding of educational problems, which they believed stemmed from the U.S.'s historically fragmented and decentralized education system and its lack of coherent, high-quality national standards (Cohen & Moffitt, 2010).…”

Section: Example 3: Idea Brokers and The Common Core State Standards mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the civil rights groups, they highlighted the states with low standards and large achievement gaps, while they emphasized the comparatively low achievement of American students amongst global competitors when talking to business groups (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013, 2017. Idea brokers argued common standards addressed these problems and would yield universal readiness for college and a career in a competitive, modern workforce (Kornhaber et al, 2017).…”

Section: Example 3: Idea Brokers and The Common Core State Standards mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using policy network analysis to understand ideological convergence and change in educational subsystems

Galey-Horn

Ferrare

2020

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, education policy scholars have begun to utilize social network concepts and methods to describe contemporary policy changes across P-16 levels. While many insights have emerged from this growing literature base, we argue that a more formal network approach rooted in policy network analysis (PNA) is needed to fulfill its conceptual and analytical ambitions. Policy network analysis integrates concepts from social network analysis with theoretical assumptions developed in the field of political science. Toward this end, we first argue that a more rigorous treatment of policy beliefs is needed to analyze the impact of ideas on the policy agenda. Existing literature on the ideological dimensions of market-based reform movements tends to define them largely within the bounds of neo-liberalism and thus far has failed to systematically explain how policy beliefs emerge and converge in this context. Second, we contend that previous work has generally lacked theoretical grounding in formal policy network analysis (PNA). Although there are clear links between the concepts and findings in traditional PNA literature and educational research – particularly the use of networked governance as a concept for understanding the interconnectedness of educational reform networks – a more diligent application of PNA theory and methods would enable educational policy scholars to gain deeper insights into the explanatory processes of policy change. We pay particular attention to the usefulness of these approaches for examining two-mode network data and for modeling ideological policy change.

show abstract

“…Teacher evaluation programs create a system of metrics and classifications to assign a measurable goal toward judging levels of expertise, professionalism, and effectiveness. The evaluation system reduces teaching, a complex, everevolving process, to a numerical rating of proficiency and efficiency for comparison(Anagnostopoulus et al, 2016;Kornhaber et al, 2017). The release of teacher evaluation results by states to national and local newspapers continues to reinforce the focus and importance of standardized testing as a measure for teacher effectiveness, knowledge, and skill, despite extensive requirements and training before teachers become licensed(Anagnostopoulus et al, 2016;Kornhaber et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evaluation system reduces teaching, a complex, everevolving process, to a numerical rating of proficiency and efficiency for comparison(Anagnostopoulus et al, 2016;Kornhaber et al, 2017). The release of teacher evaluation results by states to national and local newspapers continues to reinforce the focus and importance of standardized testing as a measure for teacher effectiveness, knowledge, and skill, despite extensive requirements and training before teachers become licensed(Anagnostopoulus et al, 2016;Kornhaber et al, 2017). The emphasis on accountability using standardized testing data disregards the education, experience, and knowledge of educators.Accountability in Massachusetts relies on the Department of Education's five-step program for educator evaluation (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Elementary educator job satisfaction in the age of accountability

Germain¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collegial Interactions Become Focused on Adjustments to Pedagogy common assessment measures to evaluate student progress through the generation of data points (CCSS Initiative, 2016). In 2011, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted an accountability system, the Educator Evaluation Framework, which includes the use of data points such as observations, lesson plans, feedback by administrators, and Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2017). The evaluative system is designed to develop excellence in the teaching profession. The intent of the Educator Evaluation Framework is as follows: • The promotion of student education, growth, and achievement through the provision of feedback for improvement, opportunities for professional growth, and clear structures for educator accountability (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2017) • The recording of facts and assessments for personnel decisions (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2017) Accountability measures have been part of educational practices as early as 1838, as educators were involved in the first stages of formal assessments of student achievement (National Education Association, n.d). Formally written testing was conducted to define aptitude in various areas such as intelligence, arithmetic, spelling, drawing, and reading from 1840 until the establishment of multiple-choice tests in 1930 (National Education Association, n.d). The application of high-speed computing methods allowed for the classification of students and Iowa tests became available to schools for student scoring (National Education Association, n.d).

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

State educational agencies in an uncertain environment: Understanding state provided networks of English Language Arts curricular resources

State educational agencies in an uncertain environment: Understanding state provided networks of English Language Arts curricular resources

Using policy network analysis to understand ideological convergence and change in educational subsystems

Elementary educator job satisfaction in the age of accountability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About