University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

1

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS MADE BY PRINCIPALS IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

by

Alexis Cienfuegos Norman

_____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016

Copyright 2016 Alexis Cienfuegos Norman

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my Mom. Her love and independent disposition instilled a
desire in me to be a strong self-sufficient woman. She has always motivated and inspired me to
do what’s right and strive to be the best person I can be.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Within the last three years I have had the privilege to be supported by many caring
individuals that I would like to thank. First, I am indebted to my dissertation chair Dr. Rudy
Castruita for supporting me with the positive encouragement and crucial feedback that I needed
to keep me motivated throughout my course of study. I cannot thank him enough for keeping me
on track, giving me timely feedback, and always letting me know my next steps. My committee
member Dr. Garcia also shared his knowledge and provided me with examples and wise words
that made my dissertation process efficient and straightforward, which I sincerely appreciate. Dr.
Escalante, who I spent two semesters learning from was my third committee member. He always
challenged me, pushing me to be better. I would also like to thank all my professors for being
knowledgeable, caring, and providing me with constructive feedback that ultimately helped me
become the educational leader that I am today.
There were many superintendents and principals that supported my journey, participating
in my study by either consenting to let me work in their school district or participating in the
survey or interview. These contributions made collecting my data an enjoyable experience. I felt
honored to meet educational leaders championing the implementation of the Common Core State
Standards reform.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for all of their encouragement, support,
participation, and patience. My mother and my in-laws were always helpful and supportive. My
father spent many hours discussing my class papers and my dissertation, often shedding light
when I was unable to see it; for this I am forever thankful. My sons put up with an absent mother
and never complained, instead treating this experience like it was a normal part of life. However,
my biggest supporter was my husband. Words could never express how much I appreciate the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

4
support and patience that my husband provided during this process. He encouraged me when I
was tired, he took the kids when I needed to study, he read every paper I wrote and gave me
feedback, but most importantly he was patient. He never complained once about the time I spent
away from my family or my choice to go back to school again.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you! And always, Fight On!

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………………………….....9
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… ...9
Background of the Problem…………………………………………………………. ...12
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...14
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...15
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...15
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………………... ...16
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………... ...17
Delimitations………………………………………………………………………… ...17
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………...18
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………. ...19
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...19
History of Educational Assessment and Evaluation………………………………… ...20
Functions of the Principal………………………………………………………........ ...29
Common Core Implementation……………………………………………………… ...32
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. ...41
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...41
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...42
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...42
Rationale for Utilizing a Mixed-Methods Study Design……………………………. ...43
Sample and Population………………………………………………………………....44
Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………… ...45
Data Collection………………………………………………………………………....47
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………... ...48
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...50
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………… ...51
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...51
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………. ...52
Response Rate……………………………………………………………………….. ...52
Quantitative Demographic Data……………………………………………………......53
Qualitative Demographic Data………………………………………………………....60
Research Question 1…………………………………………………………………....63
Research Question 2…………………………………………………………………....72
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

6
Research Question 3…………………………………………………………………....75
Research Question 4…………………………………………………………………....79
Summary…………………………………………………………………………….. ...83
Chapter 5: Conclusions……………………………………………………………………… ...86
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...86
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...87
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...88
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...88
Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………….. ...88
Findings………………………………………………………………………………...90
Implications………………………………………………………………………….. ...91
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………… ...92
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...93
References…………………………………………………………………………………… ...95
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument………………………………………………….. ...110
Appendix B: Interview Protocol………………………………………………….. ...114
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter………………………………………………….....119
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter………………………………………………….....120
Appendix E: Informational Letter…………………………………………………...121

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate…………………………………………….. ...53
Table 2. Quantitative Survey: Principal Gender………………………………………….. ...54
Table 3. Quantitative Survey: Principal Education……………………………………….. ...55
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Years of Principal Experience……………………………. ...55
Table 5. Quantitative Survey: Grade Levels Principals’ Sites Serve……………………... ...56
Table 6. Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Total Student Enrollment……………………......57
Table 7. Quantitative Survey: Length of Common Core Implementation………………... ...58
Table 8. Quantitative Survey: Position Prior to Becoming a Principal……………………...59
Table 9. Qualitative Demographic Data: School Characteristics…………………………....61
Table 10. Principal Decisions Made During Common Core Implementation……………... ...63
Table 11. Principal Amount of Autonomy Given by the School District………………….. ...64
Table 12. District Instructional Materials Alignment………………………………………....67
Table 13. Technology Availability…………………………………………………………....69
Table 14. Amount of CCSS Communication………………………………………………....72
Table 15. Effectiveness of Off-Site Professional Development……………………………....77
Table 16. Amount of Professional Development Principal Provided……………………… ...79
Table 17. Extent of Evaluation Systems Used……………………………………………... ...80

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

8
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to understand the decisions elementary principals have made
during the Common Core State Standards reform. Specifically, (a) what decisions principals
have made to support Common Core implementation, (b) what strategies elementary principals
have employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards
implementation, (c) what strategies elementary principals are using to build teacher capacity, and
(d) how elementary principals have evaluated the effectiveness of the systems that have been
used to support the Common Core State Standards reform. Thirty-four Southern California
elementary principals participated in this mixed method study. All of the participants completed
a quantitative survey, and of the 34 participants, six met specific criteria and were asked to
participate in a qualitative interview. The qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed and
coded; the subsequent themes emerged. Surveyed principals reported making Common Core
State Standards decisions in the following areas: (a) curriculum, (b) professional development,
(c) communication, (d) materials, (e) technology, (f) evaluation, and (g) leadership. Additionally,
the six interviewed elementary principals added that they had autonomy to decided the CCSS
content focus areas for their school sites, however, the interviewees reported limited capacity
building decision making autonomy. The data from this study implies that there is a difference in
understanding about elementary principal Common Core State Standard implementation
contribution. This mixed method study provides a glimpse into the current variability of
elementary school principals’ degree of participation in Common Core State Standard decision
making.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Educators are charged with meeting the educational needs of every child that they work
with, as well as ensuring that the students they teach attain proficiency in academic subjects
(California Department of Education, 1998). In short, teachers are expected to teach and
safeguard that every child is learning at high levels. The curriculum that teachers teach changed
two years ago. The new standards, or new intended curriculum is very different than the
previous standards (Berry, Daughtrey, Darling-Hammond & Cook, 2012; Kober & Rentner,
2012). Educators are struggling with this change; even so, they are currently entrenched in this
reform process (Kober & Rentner, 2012).
Educational reforms date back to 1837 with the first Board of Education in Massachusetts
whose goal was to promote the advantages of education though common schools, establish year
long school, and make schooling available to all children of proper age (“Massachusetts School
Returns,” 1837). Within the last sixty years there have been many educational reforms.
Beginning in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, the Soviet Union’s artificial earth satellite,
which prompted the first Math and Science reform (Kessinger, 2011). Currently the newest
Math and Language Arts reform is the Common Core Standards Initiative (Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, & Yang, 2011). All reforms in the United States have begun due to concerns that the
instruction children are receiving is not antiquate, and of lower quality than that of like countries
(Kessinger, 2011; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013; Santos, Darling-Hammond, Cheuk, 2012;
Wiener, 2013).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

10
Recent reforms focus on content standards that should be taught to all students. Content
standards define the desirable knowledge, concepts, and skills that elementary and secondary
students should acquire at each grade level (California Department of Education, 1998). In 1997
the first set of Language Arts and Mathematics standards were created and adopted in California,
and the second set of standards are now the Common Core State Standards (California
Department of Education, 1998; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). These reform efforts were
made to improve student achievement by defining the content to be taught in the classrooms
throughout the country (California Department of Education, 1998). The California standards
were developed for every grade level and were thought to create a balanced comprehensive
program. The goal of the California standards was to ensure that every student graduating from
high school was prepared to transition successfully into college or career (California Department
of Education, 1998).
In 2012 the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2012). The nation’s governors and education commissioners developed the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with input from teachers, parents, school administrators,
and educational experts (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The Common Core
State Standards were built on the rigor of the 1997 standards; however, there were major shifts.
For example, the 1997 standards emphasize basic skills, while the CCSS focus on conceptual
knowledge (Wiener, 2013). Forty-two states, including California, have adopted the Common
Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012).
The new standards were created for two main reasons. The first reason was to create a
national set of standards, instead of individual state standards that were often of uneven quality
(McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). The second reason was to create a set of standards that
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

11
would adequately prepare students for college, career, and equip students with the skills they
need to compete globally (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013; Santos et al., 2012; Wiener, 2013).
It is anticipated that with a set of national standards there will be uniformity of curriculum taught
and assessments administered (Porter et al., 2011). In addition, a set of national standards
simplifies collaboration efforts, for example, teachers will not only be able to collaborate with
their colleagues within their state, but they will also be able to collaborate with teachers across
the country (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012).
The 2012 standards differ from the 1997 standards in both English Language Arts and
Math (Kober & Rentner, 2012; Porter et al., 2011). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
were built on the rigor of the 1997 standards; however, many believe that the CCSS are more
rigorous than 1997 standards (Kober & Rentner, 2012). A rigorous lesson can be challenging,
uncomfortable, or difficult. The lesson should also include relevance to real world situations, and
promote the analysis of arguments, weighing evidence, and recognizing biases (Maye, 2013).
Therefore, if the CCSS are more rigorous than the 1997 standards, they should be more
challenging and relevant to real world situations. Researchers agree that the focus areas of the
CCSS are more cognitively demanding, and therefore could be considered more rigorous (Kober
& Rentner, 2012; Porter et al., 2011). For example, the 1997 standards emphasized that students
be able to perform procedures, while the CCSS focus on analytical skills and call for students to
think critically and demonstrate their understanding by problem solving (Berry et al., 2012;
Porter et al., 2011; Wiener, 2013). In addition, the new standards suggest the use of more
informational text, and cite-based reading, writing, and speaking (Santos et al., 2012; Wiener,
2013).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

12
With changes in learning expectations, it follows that teachers will need to adjust their
instruction to support student achievement (Berry et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2012). Local
Education Agencies need systems that will support their teachers’ deeper understanding of the
standards, as well as help teachers master instructional strategies that assist all children in the
attainment of the more rigorous standards (Berry et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2012; Wiener, 2013).
Districts are scrambling to meet the needs of their students while implementing these 2012
standards. Principals have the responsibility to support teachers in the CCSS adoption and yet
there is little research available that guides school leaders on how to successfully transition from
the prior standards to the 2012 CCSS. Direction on how to successfully implement the CCSS is
needed.
Background of the Problem
It has been noted be many researchers and documented by testing data that students from
the United States consistently score lower in Reading and Math than students in counterpart
countries, including Shanghai, Singapore, and other Asian provinces (Johnson, 2012; McDonnell
& Weatherford, 2013). This underachievement is a concern when higher levels of education have
proven to be the predictors of ones future health and livelihood (Echeverria, Short, & Powers,
2006; Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly & Driscoll, 2005; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Rouse 2005).
Research indicates that students with below grade level literacy on state exams are at risk for
extended high school enrollment, academic failure, lower income, dropping out of school, and
criminal activity (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Echeverria et al., 2006; Gandera et al., 2005;
Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Rouse 2005). Accordingly, those who do not complete high school are
more likely to be unemployed, work fewer paid hours and weeks per year, and more likely to
commit crime (Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Rouse, 2005). In addition, due to the lack of human
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

13
capital, United States businesses often hire individuals living in other countries because the
applying US citizens are not adequately prepared, and do not have the desired skills (McDonnell
& Weatherford, 2013). Therefore, without adequate schooling, opportunities become limited.
In addition to underachievement the new standards were expected to address the
achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds (McDonnell &
Weatherford, 2013). The United States is currently ranked one of the most unequal countries as
reflected in student test scores (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). Some researchers suggest that
with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, the internationally benchmarked
standards for Math and Language Arts will ensure that all students are prepared with the
necessary knowledge and skills to compete in a global economy (McDonnell & Weatherford,
2013).
Academic failure and student dropout rates are concerns that educators and parents
struggle with. Many researchers feel that the new CCSS, if taught and learned, will better prepare
students to be critical thinkers and problem solvers (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Santos at el., 2013;
Wiener, 2013). With the 2012 adoption of the new standards, teachers have been expected to
teach the new concepts, however they have been given little training and minimal materials with
which to achieve their intended aims (Kober & Renter, 2012). When teachers receive minimal
preparation and are encouraged to follow their instincts alone, children are at risk of
underachievement (Ball & Forzani, 2012; Johnson, 2012). More importantly, because the
classroom teacher is the single most important school-level factor in students learning, teacher
preparation is essential (Johnson, 2012).
Much of the burden of preparing teachers is left to principals and the teachers themselves
(Wiener, 2013). This creates an implementation problem for teachers with little support.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

14
Research suggests that educators are not enthusiastic about new mandated laws or policies.
Additionally, new policies are not always implemented or are substantially modified during
implementation (Fowler, 2009). This presents a problem for students if they are not taught the
content and prepared for the assessments that they take.
Statement of the Problem
Excellence in student achievement is the goal of all educators, policy makers, and
parents, yet the United States consistently falls behind other countries and scores lower on math
and science international assessments (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). In order to address the
achievement gap between the United States and other comparable countries, states across the
country have adopted the Common Core State Standards in hopes that the new standards will
prepare US students to become global competitors (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2012; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). It is unknown if the new standards will close this
achievement gap, prepare students for college and career, and support students with the skills
they will need to compete in a global market.
How principals are supporting teacher implementation of the new curriculum is yet to be
known. Researchers have found that previous reform efforts require learning by teachers, and
more often that not reforms are resisted and not taught with fidelity (Fowler, 2009; Spillane,
2002). There is minimal research on implementation practices on the CCSS. In addition, there is
little research on the effectiveness of the trainings that teachers have attended; if these trainings
have helped teachers prepare their students with the skills and knowledge that the students need
to achieve proficiency in the Common Core State Standards assessments. What teaching
strategies will promote the more rigorous deeper learning that is required of the CCSS is also
unknown.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

15
Even less research is available on the decisions that principals have made around the
CCSS. The priorities principals have focused on are also unknown, as well as how principals
have built capacity among staff and stakeholders. Also yet to be analyzed are the ways principals
have prioritized their efforts with the Common Core State Standards implementation. In addition,
few studies have been conducted that identify the barriers that principals have faced during the
current standards reform.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand Elementary Principals’ Common Core State
Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Understanding principals’ actions and
decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS could help guide the Common Core
implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The findings from this
study will provide readers with an understanding of current Common Core implementation
systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study.
1. What are the decisions elementary principals make to support Common Core
Implementation?
2. What strategies have elementary principals employed to communicate with
stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation?
3. What strategies are elementary principals using to build capacity in support of the
Common Core State Standards reform?
4. How do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have
been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

16
Importance of the Study
This study will add to the body of scholarly literature on elementary reform processes.
The data collected during this study will be useful to practitioners in the field because it will help
provide them with options or steps that they may follow to implement the CCSS. Practitioners in
the field include principals, teachers, district office administrators, and teachers from teacher
credentialing programs. The data will provide guidance to educators involved with elementary
standards reforms that are currently underway, as well as future reforms.
Policy makers will also benefit from the data gathered in this study. Policy makers need
to understand how principals have supported their teachers during the Common Core State
Standards reform. If we have a clearer understanding of how principals are negotiating the
current realities of implementing CCSS, it will enable policy makers to plan implementation
timelines with greater efficacy, as well as have a greater understanding of the fiscal necessities
for successful implementation, and the systems that will need to be in place to support full
implementation. In addition, policy makers can benefit from understanding if systems employed
by elementary principals effectively supported CCSS implementation.
The data sought after in this study will also be useful to researchers. Researchers could
analyze the data from this study with assessment data and find whether the strategies employed
by the principals interviewed had a positive effect on student achievement. Because student
achievement and college and career readiness are the goals of the CCSS reform, it will be helpful
for researches to find whether or not the systems put in place by the principals studied will
promote 21st century learners who are college and career ready.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

17
Limitations
There a few identified limitations within this study. The first limitation is that the study is
not generalizable because of the small number of principals interviewed and surveyed.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the results obtained from this study, if
replicated, will be successful at similar schools or in different educational contexts. Second, the
timeline of data collection will only span a few months versus a longer study and may not allow
for enough data to be collected to gain deep enough insight into whether or not the strategies
implemented provide academic gains. Third, the qualitative nature of the study and the small
number of participants interviewed only provides individual interpretations that are unique to the
school site and the principal and may not be representative of typical California schools. Next, I
am relying on self-reporting that takes place during an interview and a survey, the validity of the
data, is dependent on the honesty of the participants. Finally, my own researcher bias acts as a
limitation due to the fact that my interview and survey data are interpreted from my own
perspective and may not always reflect the participants true intentions.
Delimitations
There are three delimitations that limit the scope of this study. The first involves school
site selection; I am purposefully sampling principals with on the job experience that live in
southern California, and have been implementing the Common Core Standards. The second
delimitation involves the timeline established for data collection. I plan to spend a few months
collecting data instead of a longer period of time. Third, my instrumentation for data collection
and analysis, such as interview protocols, and survey questions, will be created and fulfilled by
me, and therefore only my interpretation of the data will be used.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

18
Definitions
Adequate Yearly Progress: A measurement that the U.S. Department of Education uses to
determine how public schools in the country are performing academically according to
standardized tests.
Common Core State Standards: A set of academic standards in mathematics and English
language arts/literacy the were developed in 2009 by state school chiefs and governors.
Capacity Building: A conceptual approach to development that focuses on understanding
the obstacles that inhibit people in organizations from realizing their development goals while
enhancing the abilities that will allow them to achieve measurable and sustainable results.
Reform: The improvement of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: A member-led group of individual that
oversee the development of Smarter Balanced assessments aligned to the Common Core State
Standards.
Stakeholders: Anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and its
students. Individuals may include administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents,
families, community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board
members, city councilors, and state representatives.
Title One: A supplementary funding program created by the United States Department of
Education for schools and school districts with high percentages of low-income families.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Authors: Robert Allard, Alexis Norman, Myrtice Rowe
1

Introduction
The following literature review highlights the extant scholarship relevant to the subject of
school leadership, and standards-based reform. The first topic reviewed will address standards-
based reforms—more specifically, past and current reforms including the current Common Core
State Standards reform. Principals and their roles in implementing such reforms to enhance
student achievement will be discussed next. Subsequent sections will address strategies
suggested by the current scholarship, that school leaders have used to support reform
implementation. The overarching themes that emerged from the field literature were: capacity
building, communication, and the availability of resources and evaluation.
Student achievement drives educators in their pursuit of fulfilling the academic needs of
all children. Although educators strive to fulfill this mission, children living in the United States
consistently score lower on exams than children living in other countries (Porter & Polikoff,
2009). The results from the Program for International Assessments (PISA) allow countries to
compare student scores. The PISA assessments measure the performance of 15-year-old students
from 65 different educational systems in mathematics, science, and reading literacy (Kelly, Xie,
Nord, Jenkins, Chan, & Kastberg, 2013).
The PISA results from 2012 show that in mathematics U.S. students scored lower than
students from 27 other education systems, furthermore, 9% of U.S students scored proficient

1
The authors listed, reflecting thee team approach to this project, jointly wrote this
chapter. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

20
while the average proficiency rate of students tested from all the educational systems was 13%
(Kelly et al., 2013). In science U.S. students scored lower than 16 education systems, and had a
proficiency rate of 7% while the average proficiency rate of all test takers was 8%. In reading
literacy the average U.S. student score was lower than the average score of students from 14
other educational systems, and 8% of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at a proficiency level of 5
or above, which was average of all text takers. In addition, within the United States, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show that the achievement gap between
children of color and White children still exists (The Nations Report Card, 2013). The data
indicates that although the United States has ambitious learning goals for all students, there has
been an inability to achieve those goals at the levels aimed for (Adams, 2010).
History of Educational Assessment and Evaluation
The Early Years
Assessment and evaluation for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of
educational programs is not a recent phenomenon. The idea was first conceived in 1894 by Dr.
J. M. Rice from the United States (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Dr. Rice proposed—and was
ridiculed for doing so—to try and use 50 spelling words to compare effectiveness between
schools (Haertel & Herman, 2005). During the years of 1908 to 1916 E.L. Thorndike and his
students developed standardized tests in reading, language, arithmetic, spelling, and drawing
(Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). This was the first time that the validity of a score
would be confirmed through empirical evidence, and deemed reliable and accurate through the
use of multiple measures (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Thorndike recognized that changes in
human beings can be effectively measured as changes in behaviors demonstrated through the
differences in spoken words, acts of performance, and of things created. He believed these
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

21
differences could be measured through assessments. He created his assessments for research
purposes and initially they were not used in schools (Haertel & Herman, 2005).
First Public School Assessments
During the same time period as Thorndike, major school systems across the country
created mechanisms for evaluating public schools. New York, Boston, and Detroit began
incorporating tests to evaluate school effectiveness (Haertel & Herman, 2005). However, these
tests were poorly aligned to learning objectives and were norm-referenced (Haertel & Herman,
2005). From a historical perspective, these efforts are beginnings of present day assessment
attempts. In the 1930’s, E.F. Lindquist form the University of Iowa initiated the first statewide
assessment. The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills tested rudimentary skills, reason, and application of
knowledge—such an approach was a dramatic shift from the previous sort or select tests that
were only used to compare students for placement or selection (Haertel & Herman, 2005). The
primary function of the ITBS, was diagnostic and then remediation (Office of Technology
Assessment, 1992).
The 1940’s ushered in a new era of public school testing with a specific focus on guiding
instruction. Dr. Ralph Tyler of the University of Chicago established a framework for testing
which laid out a strong role for assessment in curriculum development and improvement (Haertel
& Herman, 2005). Based on his framework, Tyler is also credited for chairing the committee
and designing the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In his book titled
“Best Principles of Curriculum and Instruction”, Tyler stressed four main principles for
assessment, which he defined as:
• Define appropriate objectives,
• Establish useful learning experiences,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

22
• Organize learning experiences to have maximum impact, and
• Evaluate whether the objectives have been achieved. (Tyler, 1949)
Tyler would continue to play a role in assessment and evaluation over the next few decades. He
shaped the NAEP and his theories played a role in the Common Core assessment decision-
making process, because of his common learning objective models.
Measurement-Driven Instruction
The work of Tyler continued to influence education through the 1950s and on into the
1960s when educational testing—based on measurement-driven instruction—required material to
be taught in carefully sequenced modules aimed at specific learning objectives (Haertel &
Herman, 2005). Along with the works of psychologist B.F. Skinner, curriculum and tests were
developed in order to teach small and targeted amounts of material, assess those results, and then
provide corrective feedback (Haertel & Herman, 2005). A former student of Tyler’s, Dr.
Benjamin Bloom, developed the Bloom’s Taxonomy which provided the measurement-driven
instructional movement with common language when developing objectives (Haertel & Herman,
2005). The goal of education during this time was to provide small, clearly defined learning
objectives, which were assessed by post-tests to identify whether students mastered the content
or not (Zimmerman & Dibenedetto, 2008). However, up to this point, educational testing was
focused around individual students and did not take into account educational programs in any
cohesive way.
The War of Poverty
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress passed the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Act (ESEA), which greatly expanded the role of the federal government in
education. Title I of ESEA provided schools and districts federal funds to implement extra
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

23
academic support for children from low-income families (Fritzberg, 2004; Haertel & Herman,
2005; Popham et al., 2008). The money received by districts had extensive regulations assuring
appropriate spending (Fritzberg, 2004; Haertel & Herman, 2005). During the years from 1960 to
1970, the amount of federal money flowing into elementary and secondary schools, more than
doubled to over a billion dollars annually (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992).
Furthermore, annual testing was now required for all children within Title I programs, in order to
determine if the programs were meeting the needs of the students that had qualified for those
funds (Haertel & Herman, 2005; Popham et al., 2008). Educational evaluation and assessment
grew at an unprecedented rate during this time because of government involvement.
Minimum Competency Tests of the 1970s and Early 1980s
For the first time in history, during the decades of the 70’s and 80’s, the United States
had nationwide test scores, which provided insight into how children were doing in school.
Unfortunately, as the results revealed, the addition of Title I funds had not closed the
achievement gaps between low socioeconomically disadvantaged students and non-
disadvantaged students (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Furthermore, test scores overall were
declining which was well publicized in the media (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Other reports
stated that students were being promoted through the grades even when their scores were low,
which made the high school diploma worthless (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). This
led to a “back to basics” movement. The movement focused on basic skills tests known as
minimum competency tests (MCT) which students needed to pass in order to receive a diploma
(Office of Technology Assessment, 1992; Haertel & Herman, 2005). By the end of 1979, 29
states had MCTs; the subsequent data indicated a positive growth in student performance
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

24
(Haertel & Herman, 2005). The movement peaked in 1985 with 33 states mandating such tests
and 11 requiring passage for graduation (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992).
Between 1976 and 1979, President Carter ordered a Sustaining Effects Study of the Title
I program evaluating all parts of the program. The results of the study determined that the
overall Title I program failed to be successful at closing the achievement gaps for the severely
disadvantaged students (Fritzberg, 2004). Furthermore, the study also noted that states, districts,
and schools were not held accountable for students’ achievement (Fritzberg, 2004).
A Nation at Risk
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released the report
“A Nation at Risk”. The report outlined declining student achievement based on SAT and NAEP
tests (Nation at Risk, 1983). Additionally the report found that students were taking classes void
of the rigor needed for success in the future (Nation at Risk, 1983). The report highlighted five
major recommendations. They were as follows:
• Increase and strengthen the graduation requirements
• Schools and universities must adopt more rigorous and measurable standards
including higher expectations for academic performance
• Increase the amount of learning time through extension of school year and day
• Recruit and retain qualified instructional staff by providing support and
compensation, and
• Obtain leaders, school leaders, and the public to support the implementation of the
education reforms outlined by the report (Nation at Risk, 1983).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

25
Norm-Referenced Testing
During the 1980s, norm-referenced tests dominated the assessment landscape. The tests
were multiple-choice instruments designed to rank students for sorting and tracking purposes
(Darling-Hammond, 1993). The goal of these tests were to track and sort students rather than
provide support or enhance their instruction (Darling-Hammond, 1993). The tests assessed the
learning of isolated facts and skills and did not connect to previous knowledge (Darling-
Hammond, 1993). The classroom activities and curriculum did not match the standardized
assessment measures being utilized at this time (Wang, Beckett, & Brown, 2006). Furthermore,
states employed various tests with different guidelines for administration, which led to concerns
regarding the validity of the results (Popham, 2008). Additionally, the federal government lacked
clear data on the effectiveness of programs serving disadvantaged students. Many opponents of
Title I had legitimate concerns, one of the concerns being that the fiscal spending had had little
effect, and no discernible “bang for the buck” benefits (Fritzberg, 2004). The result of all this
discontent and confusion was the belief that the federal government needed to provide more
clarity for assessment.
Reauthorization of Title I
In 1988, in order to address the assessment concerns, congress changed Title 1 during the
reauthorization. The federal government required states to develop specific academic
achievement benchmarks for schools receiving Title I funds (Fritzberg, 2004; Popham et al.,
2008). Furthermore, states were required to develop an assessment which enabled the federal
government to receive annual updates on student performance of economically disadvantaged
students (Fritzberg, 2004; Popham et al., 2008). The reauthorization made some improvements
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

26
to Title I but did not address the issue of the type of assessment used for reporting (Darling-
Hammond, 1993).
In 1994, congress reauthorized Title I, renaming it the Improving America’s Schools Act
(IASA). The Improving America’s Schools Act still required states to report on the progress of
low socioeconomically disadvantaged students annually. However, IASA had three key
components that changed the requirements significantly. First, IASA required states to develop
challenging academic and performance standards for all students (Redfield & Sheinker, 2004).
Another major modification was the type of assessment states were required to utilize. The use
of norm-referenced assessments was replaced with criterion-referenced assessments which
mandated states to align their assessments to their academic and performance standards (Popham
et al., 2008; Redfield & Sheinker, 2004). IASA also mandated that districts and schools make
adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on the new standards-based assessments (Fritzberg,
2004). A greater focus on accountability was and still is evident based on academic and
performance standards.
2002 No Child Left Behind
In 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was amended and
renamed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Ravitch, 2010). While the ESEA had focused
on educational assistance for children of the economically disadvantaged, NCLB added seven
additional elements; (a) closing achievement gaps, (b) improving literacy by putting reading first,
(c) reducing bureaucracy, (d) rewarding success and sanctioning failure, (e) promoting informed
parental choice, (f) improving teacher quality, and (g) making schools safer for the 21
st
century
(Porter & Polikoff, 2009). No Child Left Behind is in the process of being reauthorized, in the
meantime it is still the primary source that measures school quality (U.S Department of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

27
Education, 2014; Hilner, 2006; Ravitch, 2010). The 2002 version of NCLB had the ambitious
goal of all students reaching proficiency by 2014; this goal went unmet (Davidson, Reback,
Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2013; Porter & Polikoff, 2009). No Child Left Behind appears to have
had little impact, as students from the United States have proficiency rates under 10% in science,
reading and math as compared to other countries that have proficiency rates at 55% (The Nations
Report Card, 2013). In addition, the achievement gap between students from different
backgrounds within the country has remained consistent since 2011(California Department of
Education, 2013; Kelly et al., 2013).
Individual state standards were the foundation of standards-based reform (Porter et al.,
2009). However, when individual state standards were analyzed, findings indicated that
America’s national standards were unfocused, repetitive, and unchallenging as compared to
those of other countries, and that the standards varied considerably from state to state (Porter et
al., 2009). The majority of the states’ standards consisted of long lists of specific standards rather
than a focus on the big ideas that impact education and student achievement (Porter et al., 2009).
Teachers reported that they had difficulty teaching all the standards and lacked the time needed
to engage students in conversations that fostered a conceptual understanding of the content
(Murphy & Datnow, 2003).
In addition to finding that the standards across the country were unfocused, researchers
also found that most state standards had low to moderate alignment with national professional
standards in mathematics and science (Porter et al., 2009). National professional content
standards identify specific knowledge and skills that support accomplished practice in
mathematics and science (National Science Standards, 2014; National Council for Teachers of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

28
Mathematics, 2014). The national professional standards are thought to be rigorous and of high
quality and outline what students should know and be able to do (Porter et al., 2009).
Another problem with letting states decide their own standards, was the resulting
inconsistency of what is to be taught to students across the country. So many different sets of
standards, individually set by the various states, eventually led education scholars, on multiple
occasions, to request that states agree to teach a voluntary set of national standards and
assessments. However, these types of initiatives fell short until recently (California Department
of Education, 2012; Porter, Polikoff & Smithson, 2009; Ravitch, 2010).
Common Core State Standards
In 2012 the Common Core State Standards, the most recent and current standards-based
reform effort, achieved the closest thing to a set of national standards when 42 states adopted
them. It is hoped that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will promote rigorous
instruction that supports students’ learning and close achievement gaps. Furthermore, researchers
believe that a national curriculum will create consistency across the nation with regard to the
curricula taught (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, Yang, 2011).
Smarter Balanced Assessments
The adoption of Common Core State Standards has required states to develop new
assessments aligned to the standards. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
awarded $350 million dollars to two groups with the goal of designing assessments aligned with
CCSS (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). In order for these two groups to win the government funds they
needed to fulfill the requirements set forth by the (DOE) (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). Consequently, the
comprehensive assessment system had to have the following four principles:
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

29
• Assessments are common across states and aligned to CCSS,
• Assessments must be performance based in nature,
• Assessments must be computer based to ensure quick and reliable scoring and,
• The reporting system is transparent in order to drive instructional decisions (Tomayo,
Jr., 2010).
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium were chosen to reverse the decline in test quality and
rigor that has been perpetuated under NCLB (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). Despite the promises of
improved assessments, both Smarter Balanced and PARCC come short of delivering what was
promised (Conley, 2015). The CCSS calls for students to demonstrate sophisticated knowledge
and skills which require a complex type of test that a couple of hours on a computer fail to
produce (Conley, 2015). The assessment should have a greater emphasis on performance-based
activities like the assessments of top-achieving countries (Conley, 2015; Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Through the years assessment and content standards have evolved and
will continue to do so in order to meet the changing political and cultural demands.
Functions of the Principal
Beginning in 1977 Senate Committee reports have emphasized the importance of
leadership, asserting that the principal is the most important and influential individual in the
school (U.S. Congress, 1970). Researchers have linked effective school leadership with higher
levels of student achievement, hence, the responsibilities of the school principal are important to
understand while undergoing a standards-based reform (Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2003;
Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2004 Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005). While there is no common
definition of school leadership, Northouse (2013) has defined leadership as a process by which
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

30
an individual influences a group of people to achieve a common goal. The role of the principal is
complex and has many dimensions, however, ensuring student growth and student progress is
paramount. Furthermore, the role of the principal becomes ever more critical with federal
policies mandating, and annually measuring, student achievement outcomes (Northouse, 2013;
U.S. Department of Education).
Despite the accepted, critical role of the principal, some educators still insist that more
research needs to be done on school leadership and the effects that school leadership has on
student achievement (Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005; Taylor, 1999; U.S. Census Bureau,
2013). Given the importance of research on leadership, the section of the literature review that
follows, summarizes what academics are saying effective school leadership should look like.
An effective school leader produces change by establishing direction, aligning people,
and then motivating and inspiring them (Northouse, 2013). There are many types of leaders all of
which may be effective: from servant leaders, who desire to help others; to instructional leaders
who provide resources, instructional assistance, communicate clear goals, and maintain high
visibility during the school day (Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005). One of the newest areas of
leadership—authentic leadership—describes a leader who is genuine or “real”, a person who is
transparent and exhibits interpersonal skills (Northouse, 2013). Though there are many different
types of leaders, some believe that individuals are born with specific leadership traits, others
believe that leadership is a process that can be learned (Northouse, 2013). The latter is the more
widely held view.
With the introduction of the Common Core State Standards instructional leadership is the
most popular theme in the educational field (Kober & Rentner, 2012; Marzano, Waters,
McNulty, 2005). The new curriculum requires that teachers make instructional changes, and
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

31
although teachers are excited about the new standards, they do know what to do or what
materials to use (Kober & Rentner, 2012; McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). In order for
principals to be instructional leaders they must ensure that teachers have the materials they need
to perform their duties, support day to day-instructional activities by modeling desired behaviors,
participate in in-service trainings, and consistently give priority to instructional concerns
(Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005). In addition to instructional responsibilities researchers have
found that principals must fulfill many other responsibilities to effectively run a school, those
responsibilities will be highlighted in the next section.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) posit that school leaders are charged with 21
responsibilities that are directly liked to positive student academic achievement. Twelve of the
21 responsibilities should be shared with and delegated to a strong leadership team, however in
order to establish a purposeful school community the other nine responsibilities should be held
by the school leader (Marzano et al., 2005). The nine responsibilities the principal should
implement are:
• Optimizer
• Affirmation
• Ideal/Beliefs
• Visibility
• Situational Awareness
• Relationships
• Communication
• Culture and
• Input.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

32
Research has shown that if the school leader embodies the 9 characteristics—for example,
someone who establishes strong lines of communication with teachers and students—then the
students in the school score demonstrably higher on state exams than a school where the leader
does not perform the nine responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005).
Furthermore, leaders must know which changes to make and which not to make (Elmore,
2003). With new funding systems and in many states new teacher evaluation systems, these new
educational contexts will effect CCSS implementation; consequently, leaders must prioritize
which changes to make (Karp, 2014; McLaughlin, Glaab & Carrasco, 2014). Ultimately, the role
of the instructional leader in the era of the CCSS is a complex one with teachers and principals
alike struggling to make the right choices.
Common Core Implementation
Researchers have shown that there are many aspects to implementation reforms (Fowler,
2009; Spillane, 2002). This is also the case with CCSS implementation practices. Although
implementation in districts serving high English Learner populations looks different than in
districts with high-wealth areas, many teachers are engaging in higher levels of teacher
collaboration (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). Local districts and private and public
organizations are forming partnerships and meeting to discuss changes in their districts and their
progress with CCSS materials. In 2013 the California Legislature appropriated $1.25 billion to
districts to support the CCSS in the areas of technology, instructional materials, and professional
development (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). Even so, not all funds were used
appropriately and some districts started preparing more slowly then others (McLaughlin, Glaab,
Carrasco, 2014).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

33
The sections following will describe (a) the change from the 1997 standards to the
Common Core State Standards, (b) district finding practices, (c) and finally how Local
Educational Agencies have built capacity among their organizations, acquired materials, and
communicated priorities and goals during the Common Core State Standards implementation.
Nature of the Change
The Common Core standards are a shift from disparate state educational systems to a
nationalized alignment of student learning expectations throughout the United States (Porter et
al., 2011). The CCSS for Math, English Language Arts and Literacy are clear on what students
are expected to learn, however, the standards do not provide direction on pedagogy or curricular
materials for teachers to use for instruction (Porter et al, 2011). Instead the authors of the CCSS
provide standards that are focused on developing students’ deeper knowledge of the content,
influence classroom curriculum, and impact student assessments (Porter et al, 2011).
Researchers have examined the nature of the change from past U.S. educational practices
to Common Core standards. The findings indicate that the CCSS represent a significant change
from state’s previous standards (Porter et al., 2011). For example, the Math CCSS are more
focused and there is a greater emphasis on basic algebra, while the state standards emphasize
advanced algebra (Porter et al., 2011). Furthermore, there are more geometric concepts in the
CCSS than the state standards (Porter et al., 2011). The Common Core Math standards require
students to demonstrate understanding more than the state standards did. The CCSS are less
focused on memorizing and performing procedures (Porter et al., 2011). Both sets of standards
place similar importance on estimation (Porter et al., 2011). The mathematics CCSS provide a
modest shift in higher-level cognitive demands as compared to state standards (Porter et al.,
2011).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

34
When assessing the English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) Common Core
standards researchers discovered that there is a stronger shift towards higher-level cognitive
demands. Twenty percent of the state standards were allocated to analysis while approximately
33% of the CCSS are allocated to analysis (Porter et al., 2011). Common Core ELAR
deemphasizes comprehension and underscores language study (Porter et al., 2011). Additionally,
state standards often focused on explaining while CCSS focuses on critical reasoning (Porter et
al., 2011).
The CCSS differ from standards in countries with higher student achievement. Scholars
found that 75 % of Finland, Japan, and Singapore’s eighth grade math content focuses on
performing procedures while the Common Core standards percentage is 38% (Porter et al.,
2011). In English language arts, Finland, Japan, and Singapore’s standards place a greater
emphasis on performing procedures than the Common Core (Porter et al., 2011).
Furthermore, teachers report that the Common Core standards are a change from what
they are currently teaching. When examining cognitive demands in mathematics and English
language arts state standards, teachers with the 1997 standards, were emphasizing memorization
while Common Core standards have less of a focus on memorization (Porter et al., 2011).
Implementation of CCSS will require teachers to place a greater importance on analysis in both
math and English language arts (Porter et al., 2011). Researchers have found that teachers need
to understand how Common Core State Standards vary from the previous state standards.
However, states are making progress towards the new standards and most states plan to be fully
implemented by 2014-2015 (Kober & Rentner, 2012).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

35
State, School, and District Economics
Many states expressed concern in finding sufficient funding to fully implement CCSS
(Kober & Rentner, 2012). With most states providing educational funding at levels far less than
what they were providing seven years ago, implementing new reforms is difficult (Leachman &
Mai, 2014). Upon adopting CCSS, some states have implemented new funding systems giving
local LEAs more spending flexibility (California Department of Education, 2014). The new
funding systems provide additional funds to meet the needs of low-performing subgroups such as
English Language Learners, low socio-economically disadvantaged students, and foster youth
(Berry et al., 2012;Californian Department of Education, 2014). New funding formulas have
freed districts from former categorical programs that had strict spending limitations (Warren &
Murphy, 2014). Less restrictive funding formulas provide districts’ with the opportunity to
determine their priorities with CCSS implementation. While local control is ideal there is a need
for state relationships and structure to implement Common Core (Berry et al., 2012). Researchers
have also found that it is imperative that there is a connection between the state’s resources and
the schools and districts (Berry et al., 2012).
Professional Learning that Matches Needs
The literature indicates that the shifts that have happened in cognitive demands, now
emphasize the student’s analytical abilities (Center for Education Policy, 2012; Porter et al.,
2011). The intent of CCSS is to ensure that students have the skills to be college and career
ready. If implementation of the CCSS is done well, improvements in educational and career
opportunities for students will occur (Martin, 2014). However, CCSS will not have any
consequential meaning if teachers are not successful with implementation (Martin, 2014).
Studies indicate that there is a misalignment between teacher implementation and the Common
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

36
Core (Porter et al., 2012). Teachers are in need of professional development that will meet their
implementation responsibilities (Berry et al., 2012). In addition, researchers have found that
teachers also need collaboration time, understanding of the rationale behind the standards and the
consequent implementation, and tools to enrich instruction (Martin, 2014).
In order for professional development to match the needs of a successful implementation,
teachers and leadership must identify what skills are needed to meet the objectives of Common
Core. Correspondingly, identifying the skills that students need to meet the performance
objectives inherent to the standards, will also assist leaders and teachers in developing clear
professional development goals. Increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation with a focus on
goals are keys to success (Clark & Estes, 2008). Scholars further assert that successful
transformation arises from a systemic analysis of the cause of performance gaps, and then to
address those gaps acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills to increase motivation among
student and teachers, and to make changes that would impact the intended results (Clark & Estes,
2008). Moreover, leadership providing feedback will be key to eliciting teacher growth when the
performance feedback is tied to the organizational and personal goals (Clark and Estes, 2008).
Currently, building teacher capacity to implement CCSS is a primary concern (Berry et
al., 2012). Often professional development is delegated to schools and districts and the goal of
building teacher capacity is not met. Some LEAs have established professional development
systems to support the cognitive demands of the CCSS reform, however scholars believe that
teacher education needs to go beyond the LEA (Berry et al., 2012).
Findings from one study indicated the need to align educator recertification with
professional development opportunities provided by schools, districts, and states while ensuring
that the professional development meets the needs of educators (Berry et al, 2012). Other
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

37
scholars have espoused in partnerships between K-12 and higher education organizations to
make improvements in teacher education that cultivate and draw upon teacher leadership, and
increase higher education’s engagement in Common Core (Berry et al., 2012). Some states are
trying to provide support by organizing Professional Learning Task Force programs to address
capacity building and professional development for the CCSS (Berry et al., 2012). Capacity
building and professional development operate in tandem thus reinforcing the need to invest in
professional development to aide leadership and teachers in the implementation process (Martin,
2014).
Teachers are also concerned that they are not implementing the new standards effectively
(McLaughlin et al. 2014). Researchers have found that teachers agree with parents who were
concerned that teachers are not prepared to implement Common Core (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Moreover, there is a need to connect state resources to practitioners while also aligning resources
with state incentives and opportunities (Berry et al., 2012). While researchers have found that
some LEAs do a great job of collaborating with teacher leaders to develop resources, there is
often no venue to share these resources with other educators (Berry et al., 2012).
Collaboration is a source of professional development that can be leveraged in the
capacity building and implementation process. American teachers spend more time teaching in
the classroom than their peers in high performing countries (Martin, 2014). Additionally,
principal professional development is often neglected (Prothero, 2015). Collaboration can
provide opportunities for educators to reflect, problem solve, and use prior knowledge and
experience to construct new learning (Spillane, 2002). Teachers are in need of additional time to
learn new content and revamp their instructional strategies to embed inquiry based learning skills
(Martin, 2014). Simultaneously, principals are in need of professional learning opportunities that
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

38
incorporate sharing ideas and problem solving with colleagues (Prothero, 2015). As we learn
from Common Core studies, when capacity is developed, there is also a need for forums to
leverage and share the resources (Berry et al., 2012).
As states moves to implement Common Core State Standards (CCSS) there is much to be
learned from the literature. The shift in cognitive demand also creates a corresponding need to
support educators in adopting an appropriate curriculum that will address the increase in rigor
demanded by the new standards. Additionally, teachers and administrators will need support in
acquiring the professional learning needed to implement the change in instruction.
Curriculum and Materials
A major source of concern, when it comes to a successful implementation, is to ensure
that the curriculum materials needed to support the process is ready and available. While
publishers are claiming texts are CCSS aligned, practitioners and researchers question that
particular assertion (McLaughlin et al., 2014). There is a need for having an appropriate system
in place, when judging the quality and appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin,
2014). In one study administrators and teachers expressed their lack of expertise and time to
assess the vendors who send information regarding Common Core implementation supports and
materials (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
In addition, teachers are in need of support with the technology integration aspect of
CCSS implementation. Preparing for the integration of new technologies that will inevitably
occur with implementation, and assistance with related computer assessments is vital (Martin,
2014). There is a need to build teacher capacity for operating the appropriate hardware systems
both operating and applied (McLaughlin et al, 2014). While teachers have expressed some
measure of excitement for the technology integration, many are not prepared to use technology
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

39
to teach, nor are they versed in the data analysis that accompanies it to make formative
instructional changes (McLaughlin et al, 2014).
Teacher responses to CCSS have been positive, however, not surprisingly, a certain level
of anxiety around implementation also prevails (Kober, 2012). The need for professional
development, tools, capacity building, and communication are genuine and resounding concerns
(Kober 2012). In light of the optimism and apprehension, there is a need to examine and learn
from the literature and research (McLaughlin et al, 2014). Research will allow us to learn from
other’s experiences while informing our own and individual processes. As John Hattie asserts,
“It is only when we stop talking—when we engage closely and listen actively—that deep
learning can take place” (Zegerac, 2013).
Community Communications
Communication refers to the lengths that the school goes to facilitate parent and
community communication (Marzano et al., 2005). Principals are a major component of
communication with the community. Researchers have found that for a major positive impact to
occur in student learning, teachers and leaders must inform stakeholders about the new learning
expectations of the Common Core Standards (Zegarac, 2013). Often parents do not understand
what happens in schools, therefore teachers and leaders who establish vehicles for
communication between the school and parents, where academic expectations are highlighted
with parents, will make a big difference in student achievement (Zegarac, 2013). Parents and
community members can support CCSS student achievement by holding high expectations for
their children (Martin 2014). In addition, if the community is not knowledgeable or has
misperceptions about CCSS, implementation and support can be derailed; therefore, parent
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

40
education is critical, and will support student learning and student engagement (McLaughlin et
al, 2014; Zegarac, 2013).
The Common Core Standards were introduced in 2012. This literature review has
synthesized two years of research on Common Core implementation and a brief history of past
and present educational reforms. Many schools began CCSS implementation this year while
other schools started two years ago (Kober, 2012). However, the research indicates that much
still needs to be done for full implementation to be successful (Karp, 2014; Kober, 2012;
McLaughlin et al., 2014).

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

41
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Authors: Robert Allard and Alexis Norman
2

Introduction
The development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) began in 2008 and
eventually led to the 2012 adoption (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). With the
adoption of the new standards, or new curriculum, the goal was to change classroom
instructional strategies. Since the beginning of CCSS implementation, teacher preparation has
been at the forefront of decision-making processes (Berry et al., 2012). Scholars in the field
advise that during the new reform all educational leaders must work together to develop and
implement comprehensive programs that immerse teachers in the new Common Core State
Standards, and then provide ongoing professional development that incorporates classroom
support and feedback (Berry et al., 2012; Kober, 2012; Wiener, 2013).
While research on the common core implementation has shown that teachers are eager to
teach standards that support a deeper learning, the same researchers have found that educators
are lacking resources, knowledge, and sufficient time to prepare to teach the new curriculum
(Karp, 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2014). In order for the CCSS reform to be successful and raise
student achievement, instructional leadership is needed (Hattie, 2015). Principals and district
leaders alike must provide professional development that supports teachers while they work to
strengthen students’ cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills, and techniques
(Conley, 2015). Furthermore, skills such as metacognition and persistence are crucial to the

2
The authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project, jointly wrote this chapter.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

42
development of 21
st
century learning (Conley, 2015). While resources and time are obstacles,
principals can help by providing time for teachers to develop strategies and materials consistent
with the Common Core Standards (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Ultimately, to ensure student
achievement principals need to focus on learning, and the impact of teaching; and believe that
the success or failure of student learning is about what both the teachers and principals do, or do
not do (Hattie, 2015).
The prior chapters reviewed relevant literature on the Common Core Standards while this
chapter describes the methodology used to conduct the study. The following sections address the
purpose of the study as well as the sample population, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand Elementary Principals’ Common Core State
Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Understanding principals’ actions and
decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS can help guide the Common Core
implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The findings from this
study will provide readers with an understanding of current Common Core implementation
systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study.
• What are the decisions elementary principals make to support Common Core
Implementation?
• What strategies have elementary principals employed to communicate with
stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

43
• What strategies are elementary principals using to build capacity in support of the
Common Core State Standards reform?
• How do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that they have
used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
Rationale for Utilizing a Mixed-Methods Study Design
This study used a mixed methods approach collecting both qualitative and quantitative
data. Triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative data sources were the chosen approach
for this study so that the findings would provide a more complete understanding of principals’
Common Core implementation practices, thus adding greater and richer validity to the study.
Quantitative Research Methods
Quantitative research methods were used at the beginning of this study. This method of
research usually involves asking closed-ended questions, or questions that do not required
written responses, and the data are presented in numerical form (Creswell, 2014; Merriam,
2009). Quantitative surveys are used to collect information about knowledge, behaviors, values,
and feelings (Fink, 2013). In order to understand principals’ actions, values, and choices during
the CCSS reform a self-administered survey was used. The intent of using a quantitative survey
was to gather data and note trends or form generalizations from the sample of principals
surveyed to the general population.
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative research methods inductively explore people’s lives, and attempt to
understand and find meaning by learning about human experiences during or after a given
phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). In addition, qualitative researchers are interested in knowing
more about one’s practice as well as improving one’s practice (Merriam, 2009). Interviews in a
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

44
qualitative study are used to explore participant perceptions, and develop detailed descriptions of
what we cannot directly observe (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). We cannot
observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions in any empirically verifiable fashion. Therefore,
interviews were conducted with principals to help understand principals’ behaviors and
experiences during Common Core implementation. Understanding principals’ beliefs, feelings,
and experiences about CCSS will help inform future CCSS decisions. For example, if principals
feel that teacher trainings did not improve instructional practice than individuals preparing and
providing the training would benefit from this information and be able to plan more appropriate
trainings.
The research questions for this study were developed to help find meaning by
understanding and analyzing principals’ behaviors and experiences during the CCSS reform.
With this in mind, understanding principals’ perceptions of Common Core State Standard
implementation strategies has advantageous implications for future curriculum reforms. For
example, if principals are successful at implementing the CCSS reform and student achievement
was verifiably improved, then the successful principals’ employed practices can be duplicated
during future reform efforts.
Sample and Population
The principals in this study were purposefully chosen. Purposeful sampling is when
participants are chosen deliberately because they have knowledge in the area that the researcher
is interested in understanding (Maxwell, 2013). It was necessary to interview principals that
were making decisions in support of Common Core State Standards implementation. However,
the participants were also chosen because the respondents had specific characteristics, including:
(a) employment in a California elementary public school, (b) Common Core State Standards
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

45
implementation experience, (c) principal resource purchase power, and (d) at least two years
experience as a principal. Principal experience was necessary for this study because new
administrators have not yet fully developed an understanding of the day-to-day work on their
campus, they have not received embedded professional development to improve their skills, and
they have not had enough time on the job to form relationships with their teachers and students
that focus on the improvement of teaching and learning (Fink & Rimmer, 2015; Fink &
Silverman, 2014).
The survey was sent via USC Gmail to 50 California elementary school principals that fit
the aforementioned criteria. From the survey responses 6 principals were selected for the
interview process. The selection of the principals’ interviewed was dependent on their survey
answers. For example, if the principal engaged in multiple Common Core implementation
practices, community communications, or accountability actions, this principal was asked for an
interview. Ultimately the five principals selected agreed to be interviewed.
Instrumentation
The aforementioned, 4 research questions that guided this study, required the use of both
the qualitative interview and the quantitative survey, in and effort to find verifiable answers to
those questions. In order to understand Elementary Principals’ Common Core State Standards
implementation and evaluation practices, the interview questions asked directly related to the
behaviors and actions taken during CCSS implementation.
Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative surveys provide numeric descriptions of trends, attitudes or opinions of the
population questioned (Creswell, 2014). The questions asked in the quantitative survey
administered in this study were comprised of four salient themes that were found as a result of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

46
the literature review, namely: (a) decision making, (b) communication, (c) capacity building, and
(d) evaluation. The quantitative survey consisted of 30 Likert-style questions that focused on
demographics, as well as the aforementioned themes found in the literature. The demographic
questions addressed years of service as an educator and as an administrator, as well as experience
with the CCSS. The next set of questions inquired about planning and communication practices,
as well as capacity building actions. The last set of questions reflected in implementation
practices, barriers, and evaluation.
Qualitative Instrumentation
Qualitative inquiry aims to minimize predetermined responses, therefore the questions in
a qualitative study should be open-ended to facilitate the respondents answering the questions in
their own words (Patton, 2002). Unlike the 30 questions asked in the quantitative survey the
questions asked in the qualitative interview where were open-ended. Each of the 20 questions
required a response that did not lend itself to a dichotomous yes or no answer. The questions
were clustered by theme, and each theme began with a transitional sentence introducing the
theme that the section would be addressing. The first theme was background information on the
principal, the second theme was planning and communication, the third theme was capacity
building and program implementation, the last theme addressed barriers and evaluation.
Interview questions generally fall into six categories: experience, opinion, feelings,
knowledge, sensory, and background or demographic (Merriam, 2009). The research questions
in the interview protocol contained experience, sensory, opinion, and knowledge questions.
Pilot Study
In order to obtain the most valuable information, both the qualitative and quantitative
survey questions were tested in a pilot study. The intention of a pilot study is to ensure that the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

47
questions asked provide the information necessary to answer the research questions (Fink, 2013).
In addition, the clarity of the language used in the interview protocol and the online survey were
refined after the pilot study was administered, both the survey and the interview protocol were
modified. This process of improving the questions to make the information attained more
relevant adds to the content validity of the data collected (Creswell, 2014).
Data Collection
The data were collected in two phases. First, the quantitative data was gathered from the
principals that volunteered and completed the survey. The second phase included qualitative
interviews with the principals that were selected based on their willingness to participate in an
interview and their experience with Common Core implementation. The principals that were
selected had experience with the CCSS themes found in the literature: communication, capacity
building, and evaluation. The principals interviewed were notified of their right to privacy and
anonymity in accordance with the Institutional Review Board at University of Southern
California (Appendix D). All participation in the study was voluntary and participant information
was kept confidential.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to 50 principals who met the criteria of experience, location, and
purchase power. The Internet surveys were sent via USC Gmail with a letter explaining the
purpose of the survey and an explanation of the reasons why the study will contribute the body
of knowledge on Common Core implementation. The survey was in the form of a web-based
survey tool called Survey Money; a link to the Survey Monkey software was included in the
email.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

48
Qualitative Data Collection
The interview participants were selected after they returned the survey, met the criteria
for the study, and agreed to participate in the qualitative study. Five principals were interviewed
and the qualitative data collected was analyzed to find correlations with the research questions.
The interviews consisted of a single one-hour session for each of the five participants. The
researcher followed an interview protocol that is included in Appendix C. The interview protocol
ensured that consent from each participant was sought and clearly informed the participant of
their privacy and anonymity. The interviews were recorded for transcription and coding
purposes. A copy of the consent letter is included in Appendix D.
Data Analysis
The research questions were answered by analyzing the data through a qualitative
interview and a quantitative survey. During the data analysis, the findings were triangulated and
themes that answered the research questions were established. This process added to the validity
of the study (Creswell, 2014).
Quantitative Data Analysis
The data from the surveys were used to answer the research questions. Using Microsoft
Excel, the mean was calculated for each question to identify the central tendency. These data
were described and represented in tables in Chapter 4. Furthermore, the results from the
quantitative study were used to plan for the qualitative study. Not only does quantitative data
help answer the research questions, but also the data can inform the direction of the qualitative
study (Creswell, 2014).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

49
Qualitative Data Analysis
Maxwell (2013) stresses the importance of starting data analysis immediately after the
first interview takes place to maintain accuracy of the information provided. Furthermore, data
collection should never occur without simultaneously analyzing it in a systematic way (Maxwell,
2013). The qualitative data analysis for this study was guided by Creswell’s (2014) seven-step
process model for data analysis. The seven steps are as follows:
1. Collection of raw data
a. Interviews, field notes, documents
2. Organizing and preparation of data
a. Transcribe interviews, type up field notes, organize documents
3. Read through data
a. Formulate initial thoughts and meaning of data
4. Coding
a. Chunk the data into categories
b. Codes can be emergent and/or predetermined
5. Create themes and descriptions
a. These are the major findings
b. Supported by multiple perspectives and evidence
6. Interrelate the themes
a. Use a narrative to represent connections among themes
b. Tables and visuals can be used to connect themes
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

50
7. Interpret the meaning of the themes
a. Derive meaning from findings and compare to literature
b. Can also point to new areas of research (Creswell, 2014)
Conclusion
The data collection procedures presented in this methodology chapter, has emphasized
the data collection decisions and processes that are applicable, and were utilized during this
study. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were described as well as the types of
research questions that were employed. The use of surveys and interviews are best suited to
answer the research questions of this mixed-methods study. The methods described in this study
were adhered to in order to ensure validity and reliability (Merriam, 2009). Chapter 4 which
follows, will present the findings of the data collected.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

51
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards became a reality for all
California public school systems during the 2014-2015 school year. Students were assessed on
the CCSS in April of 2015 with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
assessment and the results were available to districts in mid August (California Department of
Education, 2015). The standards that make up the SBAC were adopted in 2010 and educational
organizations have been struggling to find ways to teach the new standards in an effective
efficient way with minimal available resources (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Principals play a
fundamental role in supporting teachers instructionally and making decisions to support the
academic achievement of their students (Alvy & Robbins, 1998; Fullan, 2014; Howe &
Townsend, 2000). This chapter will analyze how principals have transitioned from the old
standards to the new.
Chapter 4 highlights the findings from this mixed-methods study. Thirty-four principals
participated in a qualitative survey and of those 34, six principals contributed their perspectives
through a qualitative interview. The quantitative survey and the qualitative interview aligned
with the following research questions that will guide this research:
1. What are the decisions elementary principals make to support Common Core
Implementation?
2. What strategies have elementary principals employed to communicate with
stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

52
3. What strategies are principals using to build capacity in support of the Common Core
State Standards reform?
4. How do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have
been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to understand elementary principals’ Common Core State
Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Understanding principals’ actions and
decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS could help guide the Common Core
implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The following findings
will provide readers with an understanding of current Common Core implementation systems
and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Response Rate
The criteria for participation in the study required that the elementary principals surveyed
and interviewed had (a) implemented the CCSS, (b) resource purchase power, (c) been employed
in a California public school, and (d) at least two years’ experience as a principal. The goal of the
researcher was to ensure a high response rate to promote confidence in results (Creswell, 2014).
Scholars have noted that higher response rates yield aggregation in a meaningful way and lead to
comparison making (Dillman, 2000).
After obtaining permission from nine Southern California superintendents the
quantitative survey was sent to 51 Southern Californian elementary principals. The participating
districts yielded from Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties. The school sites
represented ranged from low socioeconomic status schools to high socioeconomic status schools.
Thirty-five point three percent of the respondents lead urban schools while 64.7% of the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

53
respondents led suburban schools. Seven district superintendents allowed the researcher to
directly email the principals, two district superintendents required that internal district
administrators email the survey to the principals. As recommended by researchers, multiple
reminder emails were sent to principals in the nine districts where permission was granted
(Dillman, 2000). Ultimately, 34 principals completed the survey resulting in a 66% response
rate. The number of respondents surpassed the 47% average response rate that Internet surveys
tend to generate (Dommeyer, 2004).

Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure
No. Invited to
Participate
No.
Participated
%
Participated
Principals 51 34 66%

Out of the 34 principals that completed the quantitative survey 32 qualified to participate
in the qualitative interview. Fourteen principals responded that they would be willing to be
interviewed and the researcher selected six. Candidates were chosen from a variety of districts.
Additionally, the researcher chose principals that led schools with students from varying
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Quantitative Demographic Data
The quantitative demographic data was gathered to provide an understanding of the
elementary principals surveyed and interviewed. The personal and professional information
provide a foundation on which to better understand the principals reasoning for their decisions,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

54
strategies, and CCSS evaluation practices. The demographic data was limited to information on:
(a) gender, (b) years in education, (c) degree status, (d) principal on the job experience, (e) site
grade levels served, (f) enrollment, (g) length of Common Core implementation, and (h) position
prior to becoming a principal.
Table 2 highlights the gender of the principals that completed the quantitative survey. Of
the 34 principals 76.5% were female and 23.5% were male.

Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Principal Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of Principals 8 26 34
% of Principals 23.5 76.5 100

Kochan (2014) found that 43% of all principals nationwide are female, while 57% are
male. The sample of principals surveyed in this study differed by 33.5% with the national
research. However, because the survey was sent to a low percentage of males, 27%, the gender
survey response rate corresponds with the gender of the surveys received.
Table 3 presents the highest level of education that the principal participants attained. The
findings indicate that all the principals surveyed had a master’s degree. A smaller number, 26.5%
had a doctoral degree.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

55
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Principal Education
Measure Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctoral Degree Total
No. of Principals 0 25 9 34
% of Principals 0 73.5 26.5 100

The minimum education level held by the majority of United States principals is a
master’s degree, nevertheless researchers have found that many charter school elementary
principals only have undergraduate degrees (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). The findings
from this study resemble current research that indicates that the majority of U.S. elementary
school principals hold master’s degrees.
Table 4 specifies the amount of years each surveyed principal has spent as the leader of a
school. The bulk of the surveyed principals, 55.8%, fell into the 4-7-year category. While 20.6 %
had 0-3 years, 8.8% had 8-11 years, and 14.7% had served 12 years or more as a site leader.

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Years of Principal Experience
Measure 0-3 4-7 8-11 12 or More Total
No. of Principals 7 19 3 5 34
% of Principals 20.6 55.8 8.8 14.7 100

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

56
Elementary principals need at least five years to make a difference, transform the school
culture, and implement change (Earley & Weindling, 2007). Additionally, the average tenure of
a principal is also 5 years, and the preponderance of principals surveyed in this study served in
schools between 4-7 years, which corresponds with current research (Fuller, E., & Young, 2008).
Eighty percent of the survey participants had enough time and experience to be able to
communicate the new expectations of the common core, accelerate the CCSS movement, and
create the sense of urgency needed to implement the new common core standards (Kotter, 2012).
Table 5 shows the grade level spans at the school sites of each principal. Most of the
principals surveyed, 35.2%, lead schools serving grades transitional kindergarten (TK) through
five. According to survey results 25% of the principals led schools serving grades TK though six
and grades kindergarten (K) through grade five. Eleven point seven percent of the principals
worked at schools ranging from K thru grade six. Four of the principals served schools with pre-
kindergarten students, seventh, or eighth graders.

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Grade Levels Principals’ Sites Serve
Measure TK-5 TK-6 PreK-5 PreK-6 PreK-8 K-5 K-6 K-8 Total
No. of
Principals
12 7 1 1 1 7 4 1 34
% of
Principals
35.2 20.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 20.5 11.7 2.9 100

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

57
Table 6 highlights total enrollment. The majority of principals, 61.7% surveyed lead
schools with over 500 students. The next highest category was enrollment between 403-503;
23.5% of the principal’s surveys fell into this category. Five principals totaling 14.7% worked at
schools with 302-402 total student enrollment, and none of the principals surveyed had student
enrollment under 302.

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Total Student Enrollment
Measure 100-200 201-301 302-402 403-503
504 or
More Total
No. of Principals 0 0 5 8 21 34
% of Principals 0 0 14.7 23.5 61.7 100

Researchers have found that school size does not have an effect on student achievement,
and that achievement is directly related to socioeconomic status (Lamdin, 1995; McCathren,
2004; Stevenson, 2001). However, conflicting research has shown that smaller schools are likely
to produce higher academic results and provide a better school climate for disadvantaged
students (Ready & Lee, 2006; Stevenson 2006). The majority of principals in this survey led
schools with populations over 500. Size is relative depending upon the researcher, nonetheless,
schools with enrollment over 800 are considered large (Ready & Lee, 2006).
Table 7 represents the length of time the surveyed principals have implemented the
Common Core State Standards. The results indicate that the majority of the principals have been
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

58
implementing the new standards for one to two years. Forty-four percent of the surveyed
principals have been implementing the standards for more than two years.

Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Length of Common Core Implementation
Measure Under a Year 1-2 Years More than 2 Years Total
No. of Principals 0 19 15 34
% of Principals 0 55.8 44.1 100

Change theorists indicate that people often struggle with change and that deep meaning
and quality change takes hard work and time (Fowler, 2009). Systems must be in place to
support any change, while at the same time principals must build human capital during the
transformation in order to sustain the change (Fullan, 2006). The Common Core reform process
is still in the early stages with only a few years of instruction underway. Therefore, to make deep
seeded change leaders may need more time (Earley & Weindling, 2007).
Survey participants were asked what their roles were prior to becoming a principal. The
choices included: (a) elementary teacher, (b) secondary teacher, (c) physical education teacher,
(d) teacher on special assignment (TOSA), (e) special education teacher; (e) counselor; and (f)
assistant principal. The majority, 64.7%, of principals responded that they were elementary
teachers prior to become a principal. The second highest prior assignment, averaging at 58.8%,
was a TOSA. Teachers on special assignment report responsibilities that include student
intervention and teacher curriculum support (California Department of Education, 2014). Forty-
seven percent of principals were assistant principals (AP) prior to their first principalship. The
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

59
least held positions were athletic teacher and special education teacher, drawing responses from
2.9% of the principals surveyed. The secondary teacher position was held by 5.8% of the
principals surveyed. None of the principals surveyed were counselors prior to becoming an
elementary school principal.

Table 8
Quantitative Survey: Position Prior to Becoming a Principal
Measure
Teacher
K-6
Teacher
7-12 TOSA Counselor AP
Athletic
Teacher
Special
Ed.
Teacher Total
No. of
Principals
22 2 20 0 16 1 1 34
% of
Principals
64.7 5.8 58.8 0 47 2.9 2.9 100

Instructional shifts with the common core call for principals to be instructional leaders
(Kober & Rentner, 2012; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). The majority of principals in this
study came directly from the classroom and had an instructional background to inform their
decisions during the CCSS reform. With very little research on Common Core implementation it
is unknown if instructional leadership will raise student achievement, nonetheless, studies have
shown that instructional leadership has positive effects on student achievement (O’Donnell &
White, 2005; Seashore, Dretzke & Wahlstrom, 2010). The next section will describe the
qualitative survey demographic data.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

60
Qualitative Demographic Data
Elementary principals with two or more years of experience, who have control over their
budget, and have been implementing the Common Core State Standards qualified to participate
in the qualitative interview. Out of the 34 principals that completed the quantitative survey 14
volunteered to be interviewed, however only 12 principals responded to phone calls and emails
requesting a time for the interview. Of the 12 principals that responded, the researcher chose six.
The principals that were chosen had characteristics that the researcher was interested in. For
example, individuals interviewed were chosen from different school districts. Additionally, some
principals led schools with students who had high socioeconomic status while other principals
led schools with students in low socioeconomic situations. Another characteristic that led the
researcher to choose to interview a principal was that the individual worked at a school with a
high percentage of minority students, and conversely the other interviewed principals ran schools
with low percentages of minority students. The participants were interviewed during the late
summer and at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year. Smarter Balanced Assessment data
was released in mid August and this data is included in Table 9 along with the qualitative
interviewed principals’ student demographic data.
Half of the principals interviewed were male while the other half were female. One
principal had a Doctoral degree, while the rest achieved Master’s degrees. Two principals had
eight or more years experience, whereas the other four principals had four to seven years
experience. Two of the principals surveyed had been implementing the Common Core Standards
for more than two years and the other four had completed fewer than two years of CCSS
implementation.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

61
Table 9
Qualitative Demographic Data: School Characteristics
Principal Profile School
A Gender: Male
Educational Degree: Master’s
Years as a Principal:12+ years
CCSS implementation:1-2 years
Enrollment: 677
Title 1: No (9% eligible)
Minority: 79% (61% Asian/Pacific Islander)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 83%
2014-15 Math AYP: 76%
Magnet School: Yes
B Gender: Female
Educational Degree: Master’s
Years as a Principal: 4-7
CCSS implementation:1-2 years
Enrollment: 547
Title 1: Yes (71% eligible)
Minority: 84% (63% Hispanic)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 45%
2014-15 Math AYP: 38%
Magnet School: No
C Gender: Female
Educational Degree: Master’s
Years as a Principal: 4-7
CCSS implementation: 2+ years
Enrollment: 622
Title 1: No (4% eligible)
Minority: 30% (19% Hispanic)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 75%
2014-15 Math AYP: 76%
Magnet School: No
D Gender: Male
Educational Degree: Doctoral
Years as a Principal: 8-11
CCSS implementation:1-2 years
Enrollment: 835
Title 1: Yes (41%)
Minority: 94% (83% Asian /Pacific Islander)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 87%
2014-15 Math AYP: 87%
Magnet School: No
E Gender: Female
Educational Degree: Master’s
Years as a Principal: 4-7
CCSS implementation: 2+ years
Enrollment: 703
Title 1: Yes (86% eligible)
Minority: 95% (87% Hispanic)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 34%
2014-15 Math AYP: 23%
Magnet School: No
F Gender: Male
Educational Degree: Master’s
Years as a Principal: 4-7
CCSS implementation:1-2 years
Enrollment: 558
Title 1: Yes (89% eligible)
Minority: 96% (80% Hispanic)
2014-15 ELA AYP: 30%
2014-15 Math AYP: 25%
Magnet School: No

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

62
The selected principals led schools that ranged from 4% of students qualifying for free or
reduced lunch to 89% of the school’s students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. The
demographics amongst the schools also varied widely. The percentage of minority students
served at each school ranged from 30% to 96%. The researcher observed that the two schools
with the highest SBAC AYPs on average had the high percentages of Asian students, and the
schools with the lowest SBAC AYPs had high percentages of Hispanic students. In addition, the
schools that had high percentages of proficient or advanced students also had large percentages
of high socioeconomic status students. Schools with high levels of economically disadvantaged
students had the lowest SBAC scores. Economic factors play a role in the academic performance
of students, with students coming from high socioeconomic status families scoring higher on
standardized tests than students coming from low socioeconomic families (Reardon, 2011). The
findings from this study correspond with current research on academic achievement and
socioeconomic status.
It was found through the research that principals need three to five years to make
significant differences in school culture, achievement, and climate. This study only reports
decisions that active leaders in the field have been engaging in during the last three years (Earley
& Weindling, 2007). Therefore, whether or not the principals’ decisions have affected or will
affect student achievement is difficult to evaluate when only one year of Smarter Balanced
Assessment school data has been collected. The purpose of this study was not to define
successful CCSS implementation, it was to understand the decisions made my elementary school
principals during the CCSS reform. The following section will describe the responses provided
by the interviewees on the topics of decision-making, capacity building, communication, and
evaluation of Common Core implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

63
Research Question 1
What are the decisions elementary principals make to support Common Core
Implementation?
Elementary principals are responsible for implementing educational reforms that are
initiated by individuals other than themselves (Fullan, 2014). Furthermore, principals must meet
bureaucratic accountability demands and ensure that all children are learning in a safe and
welcoming school environment. The answers the interviewed principals gave to research
question 1 help clarify what current leaders are focusing on in order to support Common Core
implementation.
Table 10 depicts principal responses to the question: What decisions have you made to
support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards? The question asked principals
to select all the categories that applied to their decisions. The categories included: (a) curriculum,
(b), professional development, (c) communication, (d), materials, (e) scheduling, (f) planning,
and (g) other.

Table 10
Principal Decisions Made During Common Core Implementation
Measure Curriculum
Professional
Development Communication Materials Scheduling Planning Other
No. of
Principals
26 32 26 27 24 31 3
% of
Principals
76.4% 94.1% 76.4% 79.4% 70.5% 91.1% 8.8%

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

64
The majority of the principals made professional development decisions, and 91% of the
principals made planning decisions. However, at least 70% of all the principals surveyed made
decisions about all of the choices, including communication, materials, scheduling, and
curriculum. The principals’ responses emphasize that there are many facets to CCSS
implementation. Additionally, three of the respondents added comments that they made
technology, assessment, or leadership team and teacher leaders decisions.
Top Down Management
All the principals that completed the quantitative survey responded that they had made
decisions around the 6 previously mentioned themes. However, when the principals were asked
about the amount of autonomy they had to make decisions, some principals felt limited in their
decision-making power. Table 11 highlights quantitative survey responses to the question: How
much autonomy are you given by your school district when implementing the CCSS? A Likert-
type scale was used to measure the amount of autonomy respondents experienced. A score of “1”
indicated a little autonomy, while a score of “5” indicated a lot of autonomy.

Table 11
Principal Amount of Autonomy Given by the School District
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 3 4 7 16 4 3.41 34
% of principals 8.8 11.7 20.5 47 11.7 100

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

65
Eight percent of principals reported that they had a little autonomy, and 11% reported
they had a lot of autonomy. However, 20% of the principals reported a medium amount of
autonomy. The highest percentage, 47%, of principals felt like they had more than medium
amount of decision making autonomy.
These findings conflict with the six qualitative interviewees who commented that they
had limited decision-making power. For example, principal D commented “It’s interesting. In
terms of PD, there’s not a lot of autonomy.” Principal F similarly shared that his district is “a
pretty centralized district,” and principal C mentioned that there is “not a lot” of autonomy with
regards to the Common Core professional development decisions at the site level. It was reported
by the interviewees that they were able to pick focus areas, as well as supplementary materials,
and purchase technology. Four of the six interviewed principals chose to focus on English
Language Arts for the 2014-2015 school year. Within the Language Arts content area two
principals decided to focus on close reading. Additionally, half of the principals added
technology to their foci, and one principal said the focus was on all of the Common Core
Standards. The following paragraphs will describe the interviewed principals’ materials and
resources, technology, and professional development decisions.
Materials & Resources
Curriculum. The math framework was adopted in 2012, while the English Language
Arts (ELA) and English Language Development (ELD) framework was adopted in 2014
(California Department of education, 2014). Since both framework adoptions, Common Core
State Standards curriculums have been created and state adopted, however, many of these
comprehensive curriculums lack the rigorous learning expectations of the CCSS (Hill, 2011).
Therefore, most districts have held off on purchasing comprehensive ELA or math programs
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

66
(Hill, 2011). With minimal textbooks or teacher’s manuals to support Common Core State
Standards instruction educators struggle to find appropriate materials and resources (Kober,
2012).
All six interviewed principals shared their concerns about the lack of instructional
materials and some were apprehensive about their teachers finding and using low quality
resources. Principal A commented “I think lack of instructional materials was big, the thing
probably most alarming for the teachers is the fact that the instructional materials that the district
has given us don’t seem to jive with the Common Core necessarily,” and Principal C stated
“Resources have only been site based.” Principal E reflected about her concerns with teachers
using resources that do not exemplify the Common Core instructional shifts:
Sometimes, when people feel there’s a void, they want to fill it really quickly even if it’s
not good quality. When we’re spending money on resources, we’re trying to make sure
that all of our purchases are really high quality but I know that sometimes, people just
want, they want something so they feel more confident. I actually saw that more in
Manhattan where people were downloading all kinds of things rather than just sitting
down and working with their team through the standards.
Principal D also shared his concern and concluded, “When you don’t have a curriculum that
matches what you’re supposed to be teaching, you’ve thrown this enormous roadblock.”
Nonetheless, while math and ELA curriculums were not purchased for the 2014-2015 school
year, districts provided supplementary instructional materials to the surveyed school sites.
While some districts provided instructional materials as previously mentioned in the
paragraph above, some of the quantitative survey participants agreed with the interviewees and
did not feel that the provided materials were aligned to the Common Core Standards. Table 12
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

67
highlights the principal’s responses to how aligned the district instructional materials were to the
Common Core State Standards.

Table 12
District Instructional Materials Alignment
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 1 9 11 8 5 3.21 34
% of principals 2.9 26.4 32.3 23.5 14.7 100

The above table shows that the majority of the principals felt that their district
instructional materials were moderately aligned to the Common Core. However, 26.4% of the
principals surveyed reported that district materials were less than moderately aligned to the
CCSS. Additionally, one principal said the district materials were aligned a little. A larger
percentage, 23.5% of the respondents felt that district instructional materials were more than
moderately aligned to the CCSS, and 14.7% of principals felt the district materials were aligned
a lot to the Common Core.
For the 2014-2015 school year the principals interviewed choose to focus on English
Language Arts. Within the ELA content area three of the principals made the decision to
purchase supplementary reading and writing workshop materials and one principal purchased
non-fiction text. Principal F and E mentioned buying supplementary ELA intervention resources
materials to support students who had low performance in a particular area. For example,
Principal F revealed:
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

68
We do have more autonomy than before to bring in materials that support gaps that we
have within the programs. In that sense we felt like we were given more lead to be able to
be instructional leaders and implement some of the things our teachers had. Saying there
is a gap here, what can I do? There is a program or resource we can tap into it to see
what’s the best thing to take out of there. We felt that the district is beginning to give a bit
more freedom.
Additionally, principal E, who spent funds on purchasing a leveled literacy intervention program
and paying teachers to tutor stated, “One of the things that I put aside in my budget is that if
teachers are willing to stay after school and want to tutor students, then I will pay them to do
that.”
When asked about math materials and resources the interviewees did not mention
decisions that they had made for math instruction. The district made the math resource and
materials decisions, for example, Principal D commented that “…they (the district) train to make
the old math program meet the new Common Core.” Additionally, he commented “I just spent
$9,000 on materials to use with that (math). I was pretty much told that’s what I needed to use
my money for.” Two of the principals stated that the shift from the old math standards to the new
has been difficult for teachers. For instance, Principal A commented “…math has been a real
concern to the people,” nonetheless, math materials and resources were not involved in the
principal’s decisions. However, for the 2015-2016 school year all the principals interviewed
commented that their districts would be adopting and purchasing a new math curriculum.
Technology
Table 13 depicts principal’s responses the quantitative survey question: How much
technology is available at the school to support SBAC implementation? Principals were asked to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

69
rate the level of the available technology at the site using a Likert-type scale, where “1” indicates
“a little technology” and “5” indicates “a lot of technology.”

Table 13
Technology Availability
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 2 1 9 14 7 3.70 33
% of principals 6 3 27.2 42.4 21.2 100

One principal that completed the survey did not answer this question, however the
majority of the principals responded that they had more than moderate levels of technology
available for SBAC implementation. A few principals thought they had lower than moderate
levels of technology, and 27% of the principals interviewed thought they had moderate levels of
technology available. Twenty-one percent of the principals interviewed felt they had a lot of
technology available.
Even with 90% of the surveyed principals noting they had moderate to more than
moderate technology resources available, all six of the principals interviewed mentioned
increasing the amount of technology at their school sites. Principal D mentioned “my personal
focus as an instructional leader, as the principal, has been implementing technology.” He was the
only principal that decided to dismantle his computer lab and push instead for computers in the
classroom. The other five principals kept their computer lab, however, principal C mentioned
that she and her staff almost did not update the lab but decided in the end to keep it for testing
purposes. Principals A, C, and D mentioned that the their 5
th
graders had one to one iPads and
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

70
the goal was that eventually more iPads would be purchased for the lower grades. Principal D’s
school had the most technology with seven Chrome book carts, totaling 252 chrome books and
two iPad carts with 30 iPads in each cart. His goal for the next two years is to purchase one
chrome book for every two students. The other schools’ technology resources were less,
including Principal B who had one lab and one iPad cart.
Professional Development
All of the capacity building decisions were made at the district level. Capacity building
will be discussed further in the question three section; however, it is mentioned in this section
because all the interviewed principals mentioned that they encouraged and provided time for
their teachers to collaborate and discuss the new Common Core Standards. Collaboration and
data reflection with a focus on learning is a form of professional development (DuFour, 2004).
Therefore, the collaboration form of professional development was a decision that the principals
chose to make. Principal D stated, “Offering time for collaboration and directing those
collaborations to make sure that they’re actually focusing on, for right now, a lot, of our
collaborations’ focused on Common Core.” Additionally, Principal A committed, “Probably one
of the best things I ever did here was getting a teacher, a physical education teacher to teach K
through five physical education, gives them collaboration time, professional development time,
PLC time….”
Discussion
The intention of research question 1 was to understand the decisions made by elementary
school principals. Previous research has shown that principals currently implementing the
Common Core Standards have made decisions about CCSS materials and provided professional
development for teachers (Berry et al., 2012). The quantitative survey respondents reported
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

71
making a more than moderate amount of decisions in the following areas: (a) curriculum, (b),
professional development, (c) communication, (d), materials, (e) scheduling, (f) planning, (g)
technology, and (h) teacher leadership decisions. However, the interviewed principal’s reported
limited autonomy with regard to decision-making.
The research on Common Core implementation reflected that integration of technology is
crucial for CCSS implementation, furthermore, the principals interviewed indicated technology
as the least restricted area of decision-making (McLaughlin et al., 2014). However, four out of
six principals did not discuss technology training and researchers have mentioned that training
on how to implement technology into instruction is essential for teachers (McLaughlin et al.,
2014). Principal D was the only principal who mentioned having a technology focus, and
principal C mentioned the district providing technology training.
There were very few Common Core English Language Arts and math material decision
making among the interviewed principals. Two principals were provided materials by their
school district but the other principals mentioned that their teachers brought in materials, and one
principal mentioned that they modified the old curriculum to meet the demands of the Common
Core. In addition, researchers have found that teachers also need collaboration time to
understand the new standards and how to implement them effectively (Martin, 2014). All the
interviewed principals mentioned providing their teachers with collaboration time to analyze the
new standards, plan, reflect on lessons demonstrations, and pick materials for instruction. The
principal’s CCSS communication practices and professional development will be analyzed in the
next two sections.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

72
Research Question 2
What strategies have elementary principals employed to communicate with stakeholders
about Common Core State Standards implementation?
Family-school connection is important for the academic success of all children (Jeynes,
2007; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). Therefore, communication between school employees and
students’ caregivers about the new Common Core Standards is a way of support student learning
beyond the school, and more importantly in the home (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). The principals
that completed the quantitative survey and the qualitative interview were asked about their
stakeholder communication practices. This section will highlight responses to research question
2.
Table 14 represents the answers the 34 surveyed principals provided to the question: How
much CCSS communication has taken place between stakeholders/community members and the
school staff? Principals were asked to rate the amount of communication between the families
and staff using a Likert-type scale, where “1” indicates “a little communication” and “5”
indicates “a lot of communication.”

Table 14
Amount of CCSS Communication
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 0 7 11 13 3 3.35 34
% of principals 0 20.5 32.3 38.2 8.8 100

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

73
None of the 34 principals thought that a little communication had taken place. In contrast
38.2% of the surveyed principals felt that there was a more than a moderate level of
communication to stakeholders about the Common Core Standards. A moderate level of
communication was the next highest rating, with 32.3% of the surveyed principals marking a
three. Twenty point five percent of the principals felt that there was a less than moderate amount
of communication, and 8.8% of principals felt that there was a lot of CCSS communication to
families.
The elementary principals that participated in the qualitative interview mentioned that
they had all provided parents with information on the Common Core. There were three different
forums in which parent CCSS communication took place: (a) parent meetings including PTA or
PTO meetings, principal coffee meetings, family nights, site level district guided meetings, and
Back to School night events; (b) parent trainings; and (c) media.
All the interviewed principals mentioned hosting events at their school sites where
parents were informed about the Common Core. However, Principal A highlighted his concerns
about current communication practices with stakeholders and commented:
We’ve had some meetings where there has been some presentation on Common Core for
parents, probably could do a little better job in that area because the parents are uncertain
about a lot of it. A lot of it is having to field concerns particularly about math, with math
there have been some kind of confusion about it.
Additionally, Principal A was the only interviewed principal that showed concern in the
stakeholder communication area.
Principal A, F, and B mentioned that Common Core informative parent meetings have
been a site responsibility. However, in principal Bs district some parent groups had been invited
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

74
to district meetings but not all parents. All principals spoke of hosting CCSS parent meetings
throughout the school year. Half of the principals mentioned that district leaders ran their
meetings with prepared materials and PowerPoints. The other half of the principals had the
autonomy to choose the materials that they thought were CCSS relevant to present at their school
site parent meetings.
Principal D and Principal F spoke about Common Core trainings available for parents.
Principal D mentioned that at the district level parents were offered trainings on how they could
support their children. Principal F reflected on his site level parent trainings:
We created different workshops (at each grade level) for parents to come for an hour and
learn about report cards, learn about what Common Core is. Sort of disseminate some of
the views that are out there; it’s the evil thing of the world. We are training parents in
that. For example, third grade chose to do writing for the Common Core, so we put a little
workshop with parents to sit with their students, and what are some of the expectations to
do with writing. Second grade we did foundational skills and what it looked like in
Common Core.
Overall, 2 of the 6 principals hosted CCSS parent trainings.
Principal C mentioned offerings of Common Core State Standard informational media.
She noted that she communicated information about the Common Core through:
…email blasts, and newsletters and things like that. A lot of it, some Common Core
general information, and then a lot of it, too, in regards to CAASPP testing, and the
changes with testing, kind of expectations, too, about scores and what they might look
like, and how it might be different, what your used to seeing, and that kind of stuff. I’m
trying to think. Website. District website, our website, has a lot of information, and also
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

75
all teachers have pages that they share with parents, so that they have information from
teachers, too, about what’s going on. Newsletters, or school websites.
Principal C was the only principal that utilized media as a way to inform and communicate to
parents the CCSS expectations and shifts.
Discussion
The majority of the principals that completed the quantitative survey felt that they had
communicated a moderate to more than moderate amount with community members regarding
the Common Core. Additionally, the interviewed principals reported multiple Common Core
Standards parent learning opportunities. Only one principal reported a need for more
communication between stakeholders and LEAs. Researchers have noted that if parents are
informed and trained to support their children’s education, and have high learning expectations
for their children; positive academic outcomes will follow (Martin 2014; McLaughlin et al, 2014;
Zegarac, 2013).
Research Question 3
What strategies are elementary principals using to build capacity in support of the
Common Core State Standards reform?
Building teacher capacity to implement CCSS is a major concern and goal for Local
Educational Agencies (Berry et al., 2012). However, few states are able to provide meaningful
professional development opportunities and then gauge the capacity of educators’ ability to teach
the more cognitively complex material to all students (Berry et al., 2012; Conley, 2015). Current
research suggests that when there are professional development opportunities for educators, the
opportunities are often delegated to schools and districts and are not accurately representing the
Common Core pedagogical shifts (Berry et al., 2012; Conley, 2015). Because few LEAs have
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

76
established professional development systems that support the cognitive demands of the CCSS
reform some educational scholars believe that teacher capacity building needs to go beyond local
LEAs (Berry et al., 2012). Question three seeks to find if capacity building strategies were used
by the interviewed principals.
All six interviewed principals stated that all professional development opportunities took
place at the district level through district employees or through outside companies. Therefore, the
researcher concluded that no professional development strategies were utilized by the principal
participants for the 2014-2015 school year. These findings correspond with research; capacity
building is taking place at the district level (Berry et al., 2012). The interviewed principals
mentioned many ways in which their districts were increasing human capital, however they did
not mention any strategies that they utilized to build CCSS teacher capacity. Therefore, the rest
of this section will describe the decisions principals made or did not make to develop their
teachers content knowledge or build capacity of the new standards, and principals’ teacher
capacity building strategies will not be mentioned further.
District Level Decisions
District led professional development was discussed by all the interviewed principals.
Principal C mentioned, “Our district has provided a lot of support for our teachers and
principals.” Principal D stated that “almost everything has come form the district offices…”
When Principal A mentioned district professional development he noted “Well it is usually
materials presented by the administration to the group and then there would be time, they do
some activities, we do some PowerPoints associated with it. Usually the district developed most
of the PowerPoints…” During the interview process every principal stated that professional
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

77
development was led, organized, and or took place at the district level. The structure of the
district led professional developments was described by Principal D:
They introduced the Common Core standards and the way the new standards, the way
they’re written, what the differences are and those teachers came back and, during our
staff meetings, we did professional development on the Common Core standards,
identifying the differences between the old standards and the new ones.
Other principals described coaching from teachers on special assignment which included lesson
demonstrations with teachers watching, time to lesson plan, time to practice in their own
classroom, and feedback by the coach or principal. According to all the principals, the district
professional development strategy included some sort of standards review with lesson
demonstration by a coach or administrator, and then practice on the teachers’ part with feedback
by the coach, paid consultant, or administrator.
When asked about the effectiveness of the off-site professional development, Principals
responded to the quantitative survey question: In your opinion, how effective has the off-site
CCSS professional development been? Table 15 highlights the principals’ responses. Principals
were asked to rate the effectiveness of off-site professional development using a Likert-type
scale, where “1” indicates a little effective and “5” indicates a lot effective.

Table 15
Effectiveness of Off-Site Professional Development
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 1 2 10 16 5 3.65 34
% of principals 2.9 5.8 29.4 47 14.7 100
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

78
One principal felt that the off-site PD was a little effective, in contrast, five principals felt
that off site PD was very effective. The majority of the principals felt that the off-site PD was
more than moderately effective, and two principals felt the PD was less than moderately
effective. Ten principals chose to report that off-site PD was moderately effective.
The survey data and the interview data correspond. Of the six interviewed principals, four
mentioned that the district provided PD was very effective. For example, Principal E
commented, “All the training I have attended in city has been very high quality. We’ve worked
with Telegraph which is a group that is a spinoff of Mailbox and they provided a lot of guidance
for principals and teachers.” Additionally, Principal F highlighted, “The district does a fantastic
job with what we call Capacity Week. Capacity week is professional development and we’ll
concentrate on very specific things about the Common Core. I feel our district does a very good
job at that.”
Principal Made Decisions
All 34 principals responded to the qualitative survey question: How much CCSS
professional development or training have you provided to your staff? Table 16 highlights the
principals’ responses. Principals were asked to rate the extent of professional development using
a Likert-type scale, where “1” indicates “a little professional development” and “5” indicates “a
lot of professional development.”

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

79
Table 16
Amount of Professional Development Principal Provided
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 0 5 9 15 5 3.59 34
% of principals 0 14.7 26.4 44.1 14.7 100

The results from the quantitative survey highlight that all 34 principals had conducted
more than a little professional development. However, 5 of the principals felt like they had
conducted a lot of professional development. The majority of the principals surveyed responded
that they had conducted a more than moderate amount of professional development and 14.7% of
the surveyed principals provided a less than moderate amount of professional development.
Twenty-six point four percent of the principals felt they conducted a moderate amount of PD.
Discussion
The survey data shows that principals provided PD, however the qualitative data
highlights that Common Core professional development instructional opportunities were made
available to staff by outside parties. In some instances, these parties were identified as district
level. At other times professional development was more specifically identified as a particular
consultant group contracted by the district, therefore, the survey data and the interview data
conflict.
Research Question 4
How do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been
used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

80
Evaluating the effectiveness of Common Core implementation is key to the success of the
reform (Conley, 2015). However, at the time of data collection for this study state assessment
data had yet to be released, therefore the study participants’ answers to question four were
limited to site and district level evaluation practices. Principals mentioned four ways that they
evaluated CCSS implementation effectiveness: walkthroughs with feedback, new teacher
evaluations, data conferences, and assessments. Not all principals interviewed used all the
aforementioned evaluation practices. Detailed descriptions from the principals on how they
utilized evaluation techniques follow in the paragraphs below.
Table 17 highlights 34 principal responses to the question: To what extent are evaluation
systems used to monitor the effectiveness of CCSS implementation? Principals were asked to rate
the extent of evaluations systems used to monitor CCSS effectiveness using a Likert-type scale,
where “1” indicates “a little amount of evaluation systems in place” and “5” indicates “a lot of
evaluation systems in place.”

Table 17
Extent of Evaluation Systems Used
Element A little 1 2 3 4 A lot 5 Response Mean Total
No. of Principals 3 12 10 7 1 2.73 33
% of principals 9 36.3 30.3 21.2 3 100

The results from the quantitative survey highlight that 36.3% of the principals felt that for
the 2014-2015 school year there were less than moderate amount of evaluation systems in place,
furthermore 9% of the surveyed principals responded that there was “a little” amount of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

81
evaluation systems in pace. Overall this data shows that 45.3% of the principals surveyed
thought that the extent of evaluation systems used to monitor Common Core implementation was
low. Conversely, 3% of the surveyed principals responded that there were a lot of evaluation
systems in place, and 21.2% of the respondents’ thought that a more that moderate amount of
evaluation systems were in place. Thirty point three percent of the survey participants felt there
was a moderate amount of CCSS evaluation systems in place to monitor implementation.
The survey data does correspond with the interview data. All six principals interviewed
reported having evaluation practices in place; however, some leaders utilized more systems than
others. The evaluation practice mentioned by all but Principal A was classroom walkthroughs
with feedback. Additionally, four of the six principals interviewed mentioned district
administrators visiting the site to participate in walkthroughs and evaluate instruction. For
example, Principal E stated:
I am obviously doing walkthroughs all the time and giving teacher feedback. The district
office as far as the superintendent, the chief academic officer, the director of instruction,
and also our superintendent of technology, individually, they all come two to three times
a year and they’ll literally walk every classroom and talk about patterns and trends that
they see, and what kind of support I need. That’s something that’s just part of their
practices that they always do that.
Principal C also mentioned trying to do more walkthroughs for the 2015-2016 school year. She
also mentioned in the following quote about piloting a new computer software program to
support her:
I’ll do better at it this year. I’m piloting software for helping to do just that, like
scheduling walkthroughs and all that. It’s a district pilot, so there are a few of us that are
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

82
piloting the software, and so it’ll help monitor walkthroughs. When you visit classrooms,
how many times, what time of the day, and that kind of stuff. You can do teacher
feedback on it too.
Additionally, three of the interviewed principals mentioned putting together teacher and
administrative advisory groups at the site level to monitor instruction by conducting
walkthroughs, engaging in reflective discussions, and giving feedback on the observed CCSS
lessons.
Teacher evaluations linked to the Common Core standards was another evaluation system
used by principals. However, only Principal A and Principal B spoke about using the Common
Core Standards in teacher evaluations. For example, Principal B revealed:
In my evaluation, I usually tell teachers, “These are things I’d like to see.” Yeah, I would
say, because when we write their goals, their individual goals, so not them, as a whole
group. We would include Common Core issues for them to work on and demonstrate.
Principal A mentioned teacher evaluations as well, stating: “This year they’ve (the district)
changed the whole system around so that’s something. We have a new evaluation system for
teachers.” Two of the school districts where Principals A and B work took recommendations
from researchers and adjusted teacher evaluations for the new CCSS practices (Youngs, 2013).
Some of the interviewed principals implemented district benchmark assessments and
conducted follow-up data discussions with teachers as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of
Common Core implementation. Yet, not all the principals felt that the benchmark assessments
were aligned to the CCSS and the SBAC expectations. A recommendation for schools found in
the research is to implement assessments that measure and gauge CCSS student learning
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

83
(Conley, 2015). However, according to Principal D this recommendation was not followed in his
district:
The benchmarks have been a joke. As far as I’ve seen, they’re completely useless. You
know, we’re like every place else, we’re very data driven in district. I absolutely refuse to
use this data because, as far as I’m concerned, it’s going to destroy our credibility if we
try to use the data from something because it’s not our data. I have gotten in trouble for
that too because, I think, other people recognize it.
Principal C noted that at her site there needed to be a stronger focus on assessment, she stated
“There needs to be more of a focus on the assessment piece, and analyze some student data so
that they can actually reflect and go back and adjust their teaching accordingly.”
Discussion
Overall Common Core State Standard implementation evaluation practices were utilized
by all six of the interviewed principals. Five of the six interviewed principals conducted
classroom walkthroughs as a CCSS evaluation practice. All six principals implemented district
benchmarks, however, two principals mentioned the need to improve assessment practices. One
principal utilized new teacher evaluations and another mentioned including a Common Core
focus for teacher evaluations. As noted in the first paragraph under question four, state
assessment data was released after the principals were interviewed for this study, therefore
evaluation practices might look different during the 2015-2016 school year.
Summary
Principals interviewed and surveyed described many decisions they have made during the
Common Core State Standards reform. The findings from these data are summarized in this
section.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

84
Research question 1 asked, what are the decisions elementary principals make to support
Common Core Implementation? Surveyed principals reported making decisions in the following
areas: (a) curriculum, (b) professional development, (c) communication, (d) materials, (e)
scheduling, (f) planning, (g) technology, (h) assessment, and (i) leadership. However, the
interviewed principals only reported autonomy to choose supplemental materials and pick the
direction in which their school would focus on. For all six interviewed principals this was
English Language Arts.
Research question 2 asked, what strategies have elementary principals employed to
communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation?
Principals in this study communicated CCSS information with stakeholders through parent
education nights and parent informational meetings, which included parent workshops.
Additionally, one principal mentioned utilizing technological media.
Research question 3 asked, what strategies are principals using to build capacity in
support of the Common Core State Standards reform? For question three no data was found that
supported the use of Common Core capacity building strategies among the interviewed
principals.
Research question 4 asked, how do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the
systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform? The
quantitative survey participants responded that evaluation systems were in place, however 45.3%
of the principals noted that a less than moderate amount of CCSS evaluation systems were being
used. The interviewed principals made use of multiple evaluation practices which included:
walkthroughs with feedback, assessments, and revised CCSS teacher evaluations.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

85
In Chapter 5 there will be a discussion of the research, along with further conclusions and
implications for future research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

86
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The Common Core State Standards implementation has been a concern for educators
since the adoption in 2012 (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012; Porter et al., 2011).
Additionally, stakeholder groups are concerned about the rigor of the new standards and the
expectations placed on students to achieve and teachers to meet every child’s academic needs
(Kober & Rentner, 2012; Porter et al., 2011) However, because United States students
consistently score lower than comparable countries on standardized academic achievement tests
researchers have noted the need for a more rigorous set of academic standards that adequately
prepare the nations youth for college and career (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). Therefore,
the new standards are being taught in classrooms across the country.
With the introduction of any new curriculum new learning must take place for teachers
and students (Spillane, 2002). Often when there are changes to the required curriculum
difficulties arise due to new instructional shifts (Flower, 2009). Principals have the responsibility
to navigate through the roadblocks, support all learners including teachers, and ensure student
achievement. Since the Common Core State Standards reform little research has been done on
the decisions that elementary principals have made to ensure Common Core implementation.
Chapter 5 is a summary of the study and will include the statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature. The methodology used
will follow along with findings from the four research questions. The last section will highlight
implications and recommendations for future research.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

87
Statement of the Problem
Excellence in student achievement is the goal of all educators, policy makers, and
parents, yet the United States consistently falls behind other countries and scores lower on math
and science international assessments (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). In order to address the
achievement gap between the United States and other comparable countries, states across the
country have adopted the Common Core State Standards in hopes that the new standards will
prepare US students to become global competitors (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2012; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). It is unknown if the new standards will close the
achievement gap, prepare students for college and career, and support students with the skills
they will need to compete in a global market.
How elementary principals are supporting teacher implementation of the new curriculum
is yet to be known. Researchers have found that previous reform efforts require learning by
teachers, and more often that not reforms are resisted and not taught with fidelity (Fowler, 2009;
Spillane, 2002). There is minimal research on implementation practices on the CCSS. In
addition, there is little research on the effectiveness of the trainings that teachers have attended;
if these trainings have helped teachers prepare their students with the skills and knowledge that
they need to achieve proficiency in the Common Core State Standards assessments. Teaching
strategies that promote the more rigorous deeper learning that is required of the CCSS is also
unknown.
Even less research is available on the decisions that elementary principals have made
around the CCSS. The priorities principals have focused on are also unknown, as well as how
principals have built capacity among staff and stakeholders. Also yet to be analyzed are the ways
principals have prioritized their efforts with the Common Core State Standards implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

88
In addition, few studies have been conducted that identify the barriers that principals have faced
during the current standards reform.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand Elementary Principals’ Common Core State
Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Understanding principals’ actions and
decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS could help guide the Common Core
implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The findings from this
study will provide readers with an understanding of current Common Core implementation
systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study.
• What are the decisions elementary principals make to support Common Core
Implementation?
• What strategies have elementary principals employed to communicate with
stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation?
• What strategies are elementary principals using to build capacity in support of the
Common Core State Standards reform?
• How do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have
been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
Review of the Literature
The literature review began with the history of past and current reforms including the
Common Core State Standards reform, and the reasons for the development of the CCSS. The
next subject analyzed principals and their roles in implementing such reforms to enhance student
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

89
achievement. The subsequent sections of the literature review addressed strategies suggested by
the current scholarship, that school leaders have used to support reform implementation. The
overarching themes that emerged from the field on Common Core implementation were:
capacity building, stakeholder communication, and the availability of resources and materials.
The literature highlights that students form the United States score significantly lower in
math, language arts, and science than children living in other countries (Kelly et al., 2013; Porter
& Polikoff, 2009). Additionally, within the United States, there are large achievement gaps
between children of color and White children (The Nations Report Card, 2013). Although the
United States has ambitious learning goals, the goals have not been met (Adams, 2010).
Therefore, Common Core Standards are being taught in 42 states nation-wide (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2012).
While teachers are teaching the new standards to students in 42 states, principals must
support teachers with new instructional strategies as well as lead the new reform and meet
student achievement targets (Northouse, 2013; U.S. Department of Education). Additionally,
principals are charged with nine responsibilities that have been linked to positive student
academic achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). The responsibilities include: (a) optimizer, (b)
affirmation, (c) ideal/beliefs, (d) visibility, (e) situational awareness, (f) relationships, (g)
communication, (h) culture, and (i) input.
Little Common Core research has highlighted how elementary principals are supporting
the Common Core reform. Researchers have found some themes in the engaged CCSS practices
of LEAs. For example, capacity building is taking place across the country, yet the relevancy of
the capacity building to the new Common Core standards is a concern (Berry et al., 2012). The
research also highlights that principals’ professional development has been neglected (Prothero,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

90
2015). The importance of CCSS stakeholder communication was also found in the literature,
however, principals’ involvement and district practices is unknown (Zegarac, 2013). The
availability of materials and curriculum was the biggest concern due to a lack of available and
relevant materials and resources (Kober, 2012). Additionally, there is a limited amount of
Common Core research and elementary principal inquiry has been even less.
Findings
Research question 1 asks, what are the decisions elementary principals make to support
Common Core Implementation? Surveyed principals reported making decisions in the following
areas: (a) curriculum, (b) professional development, (c) communication, (d) materials, (e)
scheduling, (f) planning, (g) technology, (h) assessment, and (i) leadership. Ninety-four percent
of the elementary principals surveyed reported making professional development decisions.
However, the six interviewed elementary principals did not report similar findings. The
qualitative interviewees all mentioned that the district provided the professional development or
provided the materials for the professional development. Leaving the interviewed principals with
no capacity building autonomy. The interviewed principals did report that they were able to
choose supplemental materials and pick the academic content direction their school would focus
on. All six interviewed elementary principals focused on English Language Arts.
Research question 2 asked, what strategies have elementary principals employed to
communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation? Of the 34
principals that participated in the quantitative survey, 27 of them felt that a moderate to more
than moderate amount of CCSS communication practices took place between the staff and
stakeholders. The six principals that participated in the qualitative interview reported that they
communicated CCSS information with stakeholders through parent education nights and parent
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

91
informational meetings, which included parent workshops. Additionally, one principal
mentioned utilizing technological media.
Research question 3 asked, what strategies are principals using to build capacity in
support of the Common Core State Standards reform? All the quantitative survey participants
reported making capacity building decisions, however, when this topic was further investigated
through the qualitative interviews there was no evidence found that supported the use of
Common Core capacity building strategies among the six interviewed principals. The
interviewed principals reported that capacity building decisions and strategies were made at the
district level.
Research question 4 asked, how do elementary principals evaluate the effectiveness of the
systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform? The
quantitative survey participants responded that evaluation system were in place, however 45.3%
of the principals noted that a less than moderate amount of CCSS evaluation systems were being
used. The interviewed principals reported making use of multiple evaluation practices, these
included: walkthroughs with feedback, student CCSS benchmark assessments, and revised CCSS
teacher evaluations.
Implications
The significant findings discovered in this study contribute to research on the decisions
that elementary school principals have made regarding Common Core implementation. The
information found in the study will be helpful for all educators as well and curriculum
developers. However, principals, policy makers, and district leaders will find the data useful for
future Common Core State Standards implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

92
This study examined elementary principal CCSS implementation decisions in the
following areas: capacity building, evaluation, stakeholder communication, and materials and
supplies. The data from this study implies that elementary principals are making evaluation,
content direction, technology, as well as curriculum decisions. However, the findings also
suggest that capacity building decisions are not collaborated decisions made by site
administrators and teachers; these decisions are made at the district level. The educational world
speaks to the importance of collaboration among educators, nevertheless, this study found that
capacity building for the CCSS is not a collaborated event between site administrators and their
teachers. Therefore, discussions about the relevance of principal involvement in Common Core
State Standards capacity building decisions is worthy of further inquiry.
There also seems to be a difference in understanding about principal Common Core State
Standard implementation contribution. The majority of the quantitative surveyed principals felt
they had made CCSS professional development decisions. Although, when six of the surveyed
elementary principals were interviewed and queried about their involvement in professional
development, they all noted limited involvement. The inconsistency between the responses from
the qualitative interviews and the quantitative survey highlight the need for future research on the
topic of elementary principals and Common Core implementation. Future CCSS research
recommendations follow in the section below.
Recommendations
In order to better understand principals Common Core implementation decisions and the
impact that principals have on CCSS implementation practices, the researcher recommends the
following areas for future research:
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

93
1. This study suggests that principals are not involved in capacity building decisions for
their staff. Inquiry into principals that are involved in teacher capacity building would
highlight how principals determine the types of capacity building that should take
place. Further inquiry would help educators understand the relevance in including
elementary principals in capacity building decisions.
2. There is a need for educators to identify CCSS implementation practices of highly
successful principals. This is difficult to determine with only one-year of Smarter
Balanced Assessment Data and less than three years of CCSS implementation.
Further study is recommended when multiple years of data are available.
3. Two interviewed elementary principals discussed learning alongside of their teachers
during capacity building experiences. The literature on recommendations for
successful Common Core implementation suggests more principal training. Further
study into the training experiences of elementary principals who have been able to
support high levels of student achievement would help future principals and current
principals know what capacity building experiences they should participate in.
4. The need for instructional leadership has been suggested by researchers, however
with the shift in the standards, it is unknown if instructional leadership is the best
leadership style for Common Core implementation. Future research on leadership
styles of successful CCSS elementary principals would help educators understand
what leadership styles to focus on for Common Core implementation.
Conclusion
The Common Core State Standards are being taught in classrooms across the nation.
Even with a new set of standards in place and minimal principal training, principals are expected
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

94
to support teachers CCSS instructional needs, ensure student achievement, meet academic
targets, and create a school environment conducive to learning (Alvy & Robbins, 1998).
This mixed method study provides a glimpse into the current variability of elementary
school principals’ degree of participation in decisions related to evaluation, communication
practices, content/focus areas, and materials/resources in service to the common core. This study
of a small sample of principals also suggests that this variability does not extend to decisions
related to capacity building, which remain the province of district administrators.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

95
REFERENCES
ACT (2013). The condition of college and career readiness 2013. Retrieved from
www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr13/
Alvy, H. & Robbins, P. (1998). If I only knew: Success strategies for navigating the
principalship. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.
Autor, D. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99
percent”. Science, 843- 850, 344.
Assessment, O. of T. (n.d.). Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions –
9236.PDF. Retrieved from
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1992/9236.PDF
Assessment, O. of T., & Congress, U. (1992). Testing in American Schools : Asking the Right
Questions February 1992. Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions ….
Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Testing+in+American+Schools+%3AAsking+the+R
ight+Questions+1992+office+of+technology+assessment&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yl
o=1992&as_yhi=1993#2
Baker, L. (2009). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition
Ball, D., & Forzani, F., (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting
professional learning to practice. American Educator, 17-39.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. education
policy analysis archives, 8, 51.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

96
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook, C. (2012) Transforming professional
learning in Kentucky: meeting the demands of the common core state standards.
Learning Forward to Stanford University for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Bidwell, A., (2014, February 27). A Guide to common Core. US News. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-
common-core-state-standards
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Kowalski, T. J. (2014). The Superintendent and
Educational Reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
13(March 2015), 444–465. doi:10.1080/15700763.2014.945656
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-Responsive Leadership:
Examining Superintendent Leadership in Context. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
19(18), 1–29.
Bunch, G., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S., (2012). Realizing opportunities for English language
learners in the common core English language arts and disciplinary standards.
Understanding Language, 1-16.
Bushaw, W.J. (2013). Which way do we go? Retrieved from
https://www.bloomfield.org/uploaded/Community/2013_PDKGallup.pdf
California Department of Education. (1998). English–language arts content standards for
California public schools- kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento: California
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

97
California Department of Education (2014). Local Control Funding Formula. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). 2015 Test results for English language arts/literacy
and mathematics. Retrieved from http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2015/default
Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J. (2012). Great teaching: measuring its effects on
students’ future earnings. Education Next.
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Conley, D. T. (2015). A new era for educational assessment. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 23(8). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1983.
Cotton, K. (2001, December). New small learning communities: Findings from recent research.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
(4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Federal Policy Options for Chapter 1: An Equity Agenda for
School Restructuring (p. 32). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62801680?accountid=13042
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No child left behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational
Review 76.4642-667,725.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. education policy analysis archives, 22(86), 1.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

98
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H., (2013). Fifty ways to leave a child
behind. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~ekd2110/Fifty_Ways_4_5_2013.pdf
Dewing, R., Perini, M. J., & Silver, H. F. (2012). The core six: Essential strategies for achieving
excellence with the common core. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2). New
York: Wiley.
Dommeyer, C.J., P. Baum, R.W. Hanna, and K.S. Chapman. 2004. Gathering faculty teaching
evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and
evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29, no. 5: 611–623.
Doorey, N. (2013). Coming soon how two common core assessment consortia were created-and
how they compare. Educational Leadership.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a” professional learning community”? Educational
leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Duncan D. Nulty (2008) The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can
be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:3, 301-314, DOI:
10.1080/02602930701293231
Earley, P., & Weindling, D. (2007). Do school leaders have a shelf life? Career stages and head
teacher performance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 73-
88.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

99
Echeverria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: a
model for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research. 195-210, 256.
Education, N. C. on E. in. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. The
Elementary School Journal, 26(2), 467–478. doi:10.1145/358150.358154
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
Farrand, Scott. 2014. Response to “State Adopts New Math Textbooks Aligned to Common
Core.” Edsource, January 15. http://edsource.org/2014/new-math-textbooks-aligned-to-
common-core-up-for-state-board-vote/56346%23.Uyjgl86a-08#.VNmaYsZ4Fek.
Fensterwald, J. (2013). California committed to move forward with common core tests as
planned. EdSource. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/2013/california-committed-to-
move-forward-with-common-core-tests-as-planned/36791#.VLq1YcbrblI
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Fink, S. & Rimmer, J. (2015). Building a better principalship supporting principals as
instructional leaders. Principal Leadership. 40-43. Retrieved from
http://www.nasspconference.org/images/uploads/documents/Building_a_Better_Principal
ship.pdf
Fink, S. & Silverman, M. (2014). Principals as instructional leaders. School Administrator. 71(4),
23-26. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=32744
Fowler, F., (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders. (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat [updated and expanded]: A brief history of the twenty-
first century. Macmillan.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

100
Fritzberg, G. J. (2004). No child left behind?: Assessing president Bush’s assessment law.
Educational Foundations, 18, 7–24.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Columbia, Teachers College.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Fuller, E., & Young, M. D. (2008, April). Principal attrition: Where do principals go after they
leave the principalship. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). A survey listening to teachers of English
language learners.
Gilbert, J., & Griebling, S. (2013). Essential elements for preparing future teachers in early
childhood education using common core standards research. Kentucky Journal of
Excellence in College Teaching and Learning. 47-54. Retrieved from
http://kjectl.eku.edu/sites/kjectl.eku.edu/files/files/Journal%2013/GilbertGriesbling_Sum
mer13.pdf
Haertel, E., & Herman, J. (2005). A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for
Accountability Testing. Uses and Misuses of Data in Accountability Testing. Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(310), 1–34. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
7984.2005.00023.x
Hattie, J. (2015). High Impact Leadership. Educational Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb15/vol72
Hill, R. (2011). Common core curriculum and complex texts. Teacher Librarian, 38(3), 42.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking Charge of Change.
Austin: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

101
Jerald, C. D. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-Class
Education. National Governors Association.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary
school student academic achievement a meta-analysis. Urban education, 42(1), 82-110.
Johnson, S. M. (2012). Having it both ways: Building the capacity of individual teachers and
their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 107-122.
Karp, S. (2014). The problems with common core. Retrieved from
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/24/problems-common-core
Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C.W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J.Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013): Performance of
U.S 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an
international context: first look at PISA 2012: US department of education. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014024rev.pdf
Kessinger, T. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958 a review
of seven major initiatives. American Educational History Journal. 38 (2). 263-276.
Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-284325077.html
Kim, J., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measures academic proficiency under the no child left
behind act: implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher. 34(8), 3-13.
doi:10.3102/0013189X034008003
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the common core state standards:
states’ progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy.
Kochan, F. K., Spencer, W. A., & Mathews, J. G. (2014). Gender-based perceptions of the
challenges, changes, and essential skills of the principalship. Jsl Vol 10-N4, 10, 290.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

102
Kotter, J. (2012). How the most innovative companies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategic
challenges–and still make their numbers. Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 43-58.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the School Superintendent as Communicator.
Communication Education, 54(March 2015), 101–117. doi:10.1080/03634520500213322
Lamdin, D. J. (1995). Testing for effect of school size on student achievement within a school
district. Education Economics, 3, 33-42.
Leachman, M. & Mai, C. (2014). Most states still funding schools less than before the recession.
Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-16-14sfp.pdf
Legislative Analysis Office. (2013). An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula.
Sacramento, CA: Taylor, M.
Liston, D., Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator’s role in enhancing teacher
quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 111.
Liu, G. (2006). Interstate inequality in educational opportunity. NYUL Rev., 81, 2044.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: evidence from prison
inmates, arrests and self-reports. American Economic Review, (94), 89-155.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results
in Science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
Martin, C. (2014). Common Core Implementation Best Practices.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

103
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works from research to
results. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL RETURNS FOR 1837. (1838, Jan 21). Christian Register and
Boston Observer (1835-1843), 17, 10. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/89781679?accountid=14749
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Maye, D. (2013). Hitting the mark: Strategic planning for academic rigor. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 79(4), 29-36. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1399970091?accountid=14749
McCathern, D. A., Jr. (2004). The relationship between prek-5 and k-5 elementary school size
and student achievement of grade 5 students on the MAT7 in South Carolina for the
school years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I.H. (2014). Implementing common core state standards
in California: a report from the field. Retrieved from
http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/implementing-common-core-state-standards-
california-report-field
McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, S. (2013). Organized interests and the common core.
Educational Researcher. doi:10.3102/0013189X13512676
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. (2
nd
ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
National Center for Education and the Economy. (2014). About NCEE. Retrieved from
http://www.ncee.org/about-ncee/
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

104
National Center for Education Statistics (2015). CCD Public school data 2013-2014 school year.
Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&SchoolID=0640150066
33&ID=064015006633
National Council of Teaches of Mathematics. (2014). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org
National Research Council. (2014). National science education standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership theory and practice. (6
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
O’Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP bulletin,
89(645), 56-71.
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHER ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT (TOSA).
(2014) Retrieved from http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/hr/certificated/job_desc/TOSA-
STEMVAPA.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2014). Implementing common core state standards in
California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., Carrasco,
I.
Popham, W. J., Glass, G., Grissmer, D., Jones, L., Kaestle, C., Riddle, W., … Truby, R. (2008).
The Role of Assessment in Federal Education Programs.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

105
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New
U.S. Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
doi:10.3102/0013189X11405038
Porter, A.C., & Polikoff, M.S. (2009). National curriculum. In T.L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century
Education: A Reference Handbook, (pp. 434-442). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S. & Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended
curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31(3), 238-268
Prothero, A. January 21, 2015. For Principals, Continuous Learning Critical to Career Success.
Education Week, 34. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/21/for-
principals-continuous-learning-critical-to-career.html
Purinton, T. (2011). Six degrees of school improvement: Empowering a new profession of
teaching. IAP.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system, how testing and
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Ready, D. D & Lee, V. (2006) Optimal elementary school size for effectiveness and equity:
disentangling the effects of class size and school size. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/bpepconference/readylee_paper.pdf
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor:
New evidence and possible explanations. Whither opportunity, 91-116.
Redfield, D., & Sheinker, J. (2004). Framework for Transitioning from IASA to NCLB (pp. 1–
26).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

106
Reynolds, T., Murrill, L. D., & Whitt, G. L. (2006, June). Learning from organizations:
Mobilizing and sustaining teacher change. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 70, No. 2, pp.
123-133). Taylor & Francis Group.
Rouse, C. E. (2005). The labor market consequences of an inadequate education. In symposium
on the Social Costs of Inadequate Education, Teachers College Columbia University.
Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L. & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher Development to support English
language learners in the context of the common core state standards. Understanding
Language, 104-114.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2003). Information Processing Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory
Seashore Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School effectiveness and school
improvement, 21(3), 315-336.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. Crown Business.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships
and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196-207.
Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and
programs. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 377-420.
Stevenson, K. R. (2006). School size and its relationship to student outcomes and school climate:
A review and analysis of eight South Carolina state-wide studies. D.C. National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

107
Stevenson, K. R. (2001). The relationship of school facilities conditions to selected student
academic outcomes: A study of South Carolina public schools. Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina, Department of Educational Leadership and Policies.
Taylor, L. (1999). Government’s Role in Primary and Secondary Education. Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, Economic Review. First Quarter, 1999
The Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Standards in your state. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
The Nations Report Card. (2013). Results for 2013 NAEP mathematics and reading assessments
are in. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/executive-summary
Tomayo, Jr., J. (2010). Assessment 2.0: “Next Generation” Comprehensive Assessment systems
(p. 12). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED517202.pdf
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of
Chicago …. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com.libproxy.usc.edu/scholar?q=basic+principles+of+curriculum+a
nd+instruction+ralph+tyler+1949&hl=en&as_sdt=0,36#3
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Median earnings in the past 12 months by sex educational
attainment for the population 25 years and over. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_1
3_5YR_B20004&prodType=table
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity. (1970). Toward equal
educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

108
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Obama administration’s education reform plan
emphasizes flexibility, resources and accountability for results. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administrations-education-reform-plan-
emphasizes-flexibility-resources-and
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/esea
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). The occupational outlook handbook. St. Paul, MN: Jist.
Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=twhrCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA41&ots=_8g2GZHKM&d
q=how%20many%20principals%20have%20a%20doctorate%20degree&pg=PA41#v=on
epage&q=how%20many%20principals%20have%20a%20doctorate%20degree&f=false
Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in
school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence.
Applied Measurment in Education, 19(June), 305–328. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1904
Warren, P., & Murphy, P. (2014). California’s Transition to the Common Core State Standards.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership what 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/products-and-services/products/product-listing/01_99/product-82
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning research that
effective school leadership can substantially boost student achievement. Retrieved from
http://leadership-and-learning
communitie.www.esu13.org/modules/locker/files/get_group_file.phtml?fid=7222300&gi
d=1519815
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

109
Weiner, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating implementation of common core and
teacher effectiveness policies. Washington: The Aspen Institute, Education and Society
Program.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and methods of qualitative interview
studies. New York: First Free Press.
Youngs, P. (2013). Using Teacher Evaluation Reform and Professional Development to Support
Common Core Assessments. Center for American Progress.
Zegerac, G. (2013). Know thy impact: teaching, learning and leading. In Conversation, volume
IV issue 2. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/implementing-
common-core-state-standards-california-report-field.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery Learning and Assessment:
Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the
Schools, 45(3), 206–216. doi:10.1002/pits

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

110
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
1. What is your gender?

a. Male b. Female

2. What is your highest degree earned?

a. Bachelors Degree
b. Masters Degree
c. Doctoral Degree

3. How would you describe your school?

a. Urban
b. Rural
c. Suburban

4. How many years in education?

a. 0-10
b. 11-21
c. 22-32
d. 33+

5. How many years as a principal?

a. 0-3
b. 4-7
c. 8-11
d. 12+

6. Prior to becoming an principal what was your position? Circle all that apply.

a. Teacher K-6
b. Teacher 7-12
c. Teacher on special assignment
d. Counselor
e. Assistant principal
f. Athletic teacher
g. Special education teacher

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

111
7. What grade levels does your site serve?

a. TK-5
b. TK-6
c. TK-8
d. Preschool- 5
e. Preschool- 6
f. Preschool- 8
g. K-5
h. K-6
i. K-8
j. Other

8. What is the total enrollment at your school?

a. 100-200
b. 201-301
c. 302-402
d. 403-503
e. 504+

9. How long have you been implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at your
site?

a. 0-6 months
b. 7-12 months
c. 1-2 years
d. 2+ years

10. What decisions have you made to support the implementation of the CCSS? Select all that
apply.

a. curriculum
b. professional development
c. communication
d. materials
e. scheduling
f. planning

11. Tell me about your CCSS training. How have you learned about the CCSS? Select all that
apply.

a. Training and professional development
b. Research
c. Peers and colleagues
d. Media
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

112
12. Where have you attended training? Select all that apply

a. On site training at school
b. Off site training district office
c. Off site training county office
d. Off site conferences

13. Describe the CCSS professional developments you have attended. Select all that apply.

a. Standards study
b. Instructional strategies
c. Framework study
d. CCSS Assessment
e. CCSS shifts

1
A little 2 3 4
5
A lot
14. How familiar are you with the Math
Common Core State Standards?

15. How familiar are you with the Language
Arts Common Core State Standards?

16. How much autonomy are you given by
your school district when implementing the
Common Core State Standards?

17. How much planning did your school
engage in before implementing the CCSS?

18. How prepared do you feel to lead the
staff in CCSS implementation with all
students?

19. How prepared do you feel to lead the
staff in Common Core implementation with
EL students?

20. How prepared do you feel to lead the
staff in CCSS implementation with students
with disabilities students?

21. How prepared do you feel to lead the
staff in CCSS implementation with students
living in poverty?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

113
1
A little 2 3 4
5
A lot
22. How much professional development
and training have you provided your staff?

23. The district materials are aligned with
the CCSS.

24. How much CCSS materials has the
district provided you with?

25. How much technology is available at the
School to support CAASPP
implementation?

28. To what extent have barriers hindered
CCSS implementation?

29. To what extend are evaluation systems
used to monitor the effectiveness of CCSS
implementation?

30. How aligned do you feel your schools
curriculum and instructional focus is with
CCSS?

31. How familiar are you with the Math
Smarter Balanced assessment?

32. How familiar are you with the Language
Arts Smarter Balanced assessment?

Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview? ☐ Yes. If yes, please write
your contact information below. Your information will remain confidential throughout and after
the study. Your name and other identifiable information will be replaced with pseudonyms.

Contact Information:_______________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

114
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction

I appreciate you providing time for me to interview you. Your perspective will help me gain
insight about CCSS leadership practices, decisions, and experiences. This work is important to
me because I am interested in finding how the Common Core reform has been implemented in
school districts around southern California. I believe that your knowledge in this area will be
very useful for my study. Thank you for volunteering and agreeing to be interviewed. It is
important to record the interview so that if I forget to write something down I can go back and
listen to the recording. May I record the interview? Please note that this is a confidential
interview, no one else will here anything you say. If at any time you feel uncomfortable please
let me know and I will turn the recorder off. I brought a copy of your consent form for your
records. Do you have any questions for me?

Interview Questions
I. Background
Before we get start discussing your leadership practices with Common Core State Standard
implementation I would like to ask you some questions about your background and experience.

1. Please tell me about your school site?

a. Possible probes
i. Mission?
ii. Vision?
iii. Demographics?

2. How many years have you been in education?

3. Can you describe all the positions you have held in this field?

4. How long have you been a principal?

5. What are your duties as a principal?

a. What are your priorities?
b. What part does instruction play in to your leadership?

6. Tell me about any opportunities you’ve had to learn about the CCSS?

Next, we are going to talk about what happens at the professional developments that you have
attended and your opinion of those professional developments.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

115
1. Please describe the types of Common Core State Standards professional development that
you have attended at your school district?

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Lesson demonstrations

2. Please describe the types of Common Core State Standards professional development that
you have attended at the county office?

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Lesson demonstrations

3. Please describe the any other Common Core State Standards professional development that
you have attended?

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Lesson demonstrations

4. Tell me about how a typical Common Core professional development is structured?

5. What is your opinion of the professional developments that you have received? Probe-
Strengths? & Weaknesses?

6. What would an ideal CCSS training look like for your school?

7. What do you think the next steps should be with regard to CCSS professional development?

II. Teacher Capacity

Teacher capacity will be the next topic.

1. How prepared do you feel your teachers are to teach the CCSS?

2. How are teachers preparing for CCSS instruction?

3. What types of professional developments has your site provided to the teachers? Resource
teacher?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

116
4. What types of professional development has the district provided for the teachers at your
site?

a. Standards
b. Strategies
c. Lesson demonstrations

5. Describe the professional developments that teachers have attended outside of the district or
county office?

III. Decisions

1. How much autonomy has the district given you to make decisions with regard to CSSS
decisions?

a. PD?
b. Materials?
c. Programs?
d. Instructional strategies?

2. Describe any areas of focus with regard to the ELA standards? Math?

IV. Resources

I am interested in learning more about the CCSS resources you have used. The next few
questions will focus of materials and technology.

1. What CCSS materials does your cite use for:

a. Math?
i. Books?
ii. Non-fiction?
iii. Fiction?
iv. Technology?
b. ELA?
i. Books?
ii. Non-fiction?
iii. Fiction?
iv. Technology?
c. ELD?
i. Books?
ii. Non-fiction?
iii. Fiction?
iv. Technology?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

117
2. Describe the access to technology the students at your site have?

a. Lab?
b. Classroom computers?
c. Carts?

3. Describe how technology is used currently at your site?

V. Communication

In this section of the interview I am interested in learning about your CCSS communication
practices.

1. Tell me about the CCSS communication practices at your school?

a. With teachers?
b. With students?
c. With Parents?
d. Community members?

2. Describe any types of CCSS community education your district has provided?

a. Your site?
VI. Facilitation, Barriers, & Evaluation

The last section of the interview will focus on CCSS facilitation, and barriers practices.

1. What types of barriers are hindering Common Core State Standard implementation?

2. Who is facilitating the implementation of CCSS at your school?

3. Tell me about the CCSS monitoring practices you have employed?

a. Teacher evaluations?
b. Data analysis?
c. Walkthrough feedback?
d. Coaching feedback?

4. What feedback has been provided about the effectiveness of CCSS implementation?

a. District?
b. Parents?
c. Students?
d. Teachers?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

118
Is there anything else you would like to share with me today?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

119
APPENDIX C
RECRUITMENT LETTER
June 18, 2015

Dear (Principal),

Greetings, I am doctoral candidate working on my dissertation at USC. The focus of my
dissertation is Common Core State Standards decisions made by elementary principals.

My committee members have knowledge and years of experience working with educational
leaders nationwide. My committee members include: Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Michael Escalante,
and Dr. Pedro Garcia. Each is a USC professor and educational leader. With their guidance and
support, I wish to examine your Common Core State Standard leadership practices.

The purpose of this study is to identify and understand elementary principal’s decisions while
implementing the CCSS standards. I hope to learn about your leadership practices along with the
practices of other instructional leaders. My hope is to identify trends and best practices to share
with the educational field when the study is complete.

The process begins with a survey. If the answers to the survey questions indicate you’re available
for an interview, you may be called and invited to participate in an interview. Participation in the
interview is voluntary and all responses as well as identifying indicators will be kept
confidential. To be eligible to participate in the follow-up interview, you must meet the
following criteria:

a. Employment in a California elementary public school,
b. Common Core State Standards implementation experience,
c. Principal resource purchase power, and
d. At least two years experience as a principal.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns please email Alexis Norman at
acnorman@usc.edu. Your information will remain confidential and pseudonyms will be used
during this process.

Thank you in advance for your time. If you decide to participate your prompt response is
appreciated. To begin the survey please click on the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/C8QJYFV

Sincerely,

Alexis Norman

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

120
APPENDIX D
RECRUITMENT LETTER
Dear (Superintendent),

I hope this email finds you well. I appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I would like
to invite the elementary principals in your school district to participate in a USC study on
Common Core implementation. Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate in this
endeavor.

The study is Common Core Implementation: Decisions Made by Superintendents, Principals,
and Teachers. Robert Allard will focus on Superintendents. I will study Elementary Principals
and Myrtice Rowe will concentrate on Middle School English Language Arts Teachers. The
proposed survey and interview timeline is: Superintendents and Principals June–August, 2015
and Teachers July-September, 2015.

Our dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, will be guiding the study. The data will be
confidential at all times and no identifying characteristics will be described in the final report.
Your district’s participation would be greatly appreciated.

The study details are attached. If you have requirements, recommendation, and/or guidelines for
administering the survey and conducting interviews, please advise.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Here is the link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/C8QJYFV

Sincerely,

Alexis Norman

USC Doctoral Candidate

Fight On!

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

121
APPENDIX E
INFORMATIONAL LETTER
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Philips Hall
347 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Common Core Implementation: Decisions made by Elementary School Principals

You are invited to participate in a research study because you are a principal currently in the
field. Your participation is voluntary. Please read the information below and ask questions about
anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a copy of this form. You are eligible to participate in the study if you meet the following
criteria:

1. Common Core State Standards implementation experience.
2. You have resource purchase power.
3. You have at least two years experience as a principal.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to understand leadership practices and decisions employed by
principals during the implementation of the Common Core State Standards.

STUDY PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey. The
survey should take no more then 15 minutes. The second part of the study involves an interview.
The interview should take approximately 30 minutes. We will ask that the interview may be tape
recorded so that we may capture everything you say and refer to it if written notes fail to
highlight your exact words. The tape recording will be kept confidential; no one else will hear
your words.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

Please note that anything you say will not be used against you but instead these data could
possible be used to guide other educational organizations in future Common Core
implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

122
CONFIDENTIALITY

We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. The data will be stored in
the researchers’ private folders and in the researchers’ computer. The data collected during this
process will be coded, stored, and available to Alexis Norman and Dr. Rudy Castruita only. All
unauthorized personal will not be allowed access to the data. The data will be kept for three
years so the researchers may use it to help guide future research.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Alexis
Norman or the dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita.

• Alexis Norman 714-420-0106, acnorman@usc.edu 945 East Nearfield, Azusa, CA
91702
• Dr. Rudy Castruita, rcastrui@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

123
AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS

□ I agree to be audio -recorded
□ I do not want to be audio -recorded

Name of Participant ______________________________

Signature of Participant ___________________________

Date _______________________

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent ___________________________

Date _______________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand the decisions elementary principals have made during the Common Core State Standards reform. Specifically, (a) what decisions principals have made to support Common Core implementation, (b) what strategies elementary principals have employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards implementation, (c) what strategies elementary principals are using to build teacher capacity, and (d) how elementary principals have evaluated the effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform. Thirty-four Southern California elementary principals participated in this mixed method study. All of the participants completed a quantitative survey, and of the 34 participants, six met specific criteria and were asked to participate in a qualitative interview. The qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed and coded

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

A Catholic school dilemma: Adopt Common Core State Standards?

PDF

Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools

PDF

Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities

PDF

Best practices of school districts in the recruiting, retaining, and mentoring of principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Leadership characteristics, factors and tools that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Norman, Alexis Cienfuegos (author)

Core Title Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 02/08/2016

Defense Date 12/14/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag common core,elementary principals,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Escalante, Michael (committee member), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member)

Creator Email acnorman@usc.edu,anorman268@att.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-206239

Unique identifier UC11278304

Identifier etd-NormanAlex-4087.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-206239 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NormanAlex-4087.pdf

Dmrecord 206239

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Norman, Alexis Cienfuegos

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA