University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

1

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS: IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS MADE BY
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHERS

by

Myrtice Salmond

________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Myrtice Salmond

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my committee Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Pedro Garcia
and Dr. Michael Escalante. Your guidance in the dissertation and learning process has been
instrumental in my growth as an educator. Dr. Artineh Samkian I appreciate your contagious
excitement about research, which contributed to entering the dissertation journey on an
optimistic note. Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, thank you for developing a classroom culture, amongst me
and my fellow cohort members, which made us a supportive and empowered community.
Thursday night cohort, I am grateful for our connection and encouragement through the process.
I also want to thank the teachers who participated in the survey and interviews. Your
open and honest feedback will provide valuable insight as we enter a new journey in education.
Thank you to my writing partners Alexis Norman and Robert Allard who helped me start
the dissertation writing process. Our collaboration laid the foundation for the research. Starting
as a team gave me a boost towards completion. To my friend and classmate Denise Harshman, I
appreciate the collaboration, encouragement, and support through our Doctoral program.
Mom, Katrine Salmond, thank you for being the example of tenacity and perseverance; it
is the key to my accomplishments. Daddy Bob, Robert Henry, your support in my Masters
Degree and timely words of encouragement were priceless. My brother, Quintin Salmond, for
many years you have been the loudest voice of encouragement in pursuit of this Doctorate –
thank you! To my sisters Belinda, Stephania, and Camille I am grateful for your role in my
growth. Thank you to my companion, Robert Dabney, for your support, encouragement, and
patience. Most importantly, thank you Lord for guiding me along this journey and providing me
with the persistence needed to learn and grow through this process. It is because you live in my
heart that I prosper today.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...2
List of Tables ...5
List of Figures ...6
Abstract ...7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ...8
Background of the Problem ...8
Statement of the Problem ...10
Purpose of the Study ...15
Importance of the Study ...15
Assumptions, Delimitations, Limitations ...16
Definition of Terms ...16
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...17
Introduction ...17
History of Educational Assessment and Evaluation ...18
Standards-Based Reforms ...23
Common Core Implementation ...25
Functions of the Teacher ...31
Conceptual Framework ...33
Chapter 3: Methodology ...37
Introduction ...37
Purpose of the Study ...37
Research Questions ...38
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design ...38
Sample and Population ...40
Instrumentation ...41
Data Collection ...43
Data Analysis ...44
Conclusion ...45
Chapter 4: Findings ...46
Participants ...48
Research Question 1 ...53
Research Question 2 ...64
Research Question 3 ...66
Research Question 4 ...72
Summary ...74

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

4
Chapter 5: Conclusions ...76
Statement of the Problem ...76
Purpose of the Study ...77
Research Questions ...78
Review of the Literature ...78
Methodology ...80
Findings ...81
Implications ...84
Recommendations for Future Study ...85
Conclusion ...86
References ...87
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ...92
Appendix B: Interview Questions ...96
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter ...99
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form ...100

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. School Demographics ...53
Table 2. How Much Technology is Available at the School to Support CCSS and ...59
CAASPP Implementation?
Table 3. How Much Planning Did Your School Engage in Before Implementing ...64
the CCSS?
Table 4. Describe the CCSS Professional Developments You Have Attended ...71
Table 5. To What Extent is Feedback Used to Assess the Effectiveness of CCSS ...74
Implementation?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. How many years have you been a teacher? ...49
Figure 2. How long have you been implementing the Common Core State Standards? ...49
Figure 3. What decisions have you made to support the implementation of the ...55
Common Core State Standards?
Figure 4. How much CCSS communication has taken place between stakeholders/ ...66
community members and the school staff?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

7
ABSTRACT
As a result of California’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards, it is important to
understand the Common Core State Standards implementation process. Students’ ability to
acquire the skills that are embedded within the standards will rely upon teacher learning and
instruction around the Common Core. The rationale for developing the Common Core is
substantial, however, the capacity to implement CCSS is a concern. This study utilized a mixed-
methods design to answer four research questions related to middle school English Language
Arts teachers’ implementation of the Common Core. Data was collected via a quantitative survey
of 38 middle school ELA teachers. Additionally, a qualitative interview of six survey
respondents was used to support the four research findings. Teachers are in need of additional
time to learn how to support the Common Core shifts and revise their instructional strategies to
embed inquiry based learning skills. In addition, online assessments and the technological
demands of the 21
st
Century create a need for support with technology integration. Moreover,
teachers are in need of assistance with identifying and implementing instructional materials that
support the CCSS. Furthermore, educators are a major component of communication with the
community; therefore it is important that they become the voice of Common Core.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Robert Allard, Alexis Norman, and Myrtice Salmond
1

Background of the Problem
Common Core State Standards were developed on the heels of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). No Child Left Behind was enacted to eliminate the achievement gap amongst various
student groups. Historically, the gaps in performance of African-American and Latino students
and their White and Asian counterparts persist. Between 1971 and 1990, the performance gap
between African-American versus White student performance decreased on the NAEP reading
assessment, however, the gap was not closed. In 1971, 13-year-old White students scored 261 on
the NAEP while African-Americans scored 222 and, in1990, African-Americans and White 13
year olds scored 242 and 262 respectively (O’Day & Smith, 1993). In addition, the NAEP
Reading scores revealed persistent performance gaps between economically advantaged and
economically disadvantaged students (O’Day & Smith, 1993). In 1990, there was a 29-point
difference in NAEP Reading Scores between 13-year-old advantaged versus disadvantage
students (O’Day & Smith, 1993).
Moreover, the variation in standards from state to state resulted in varied performance
and expectations nationwide. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
provides a basis for comparing student achievement across states. When comparing the NAEP to
state assessments data revealed that most states are less rigorous. For example, in 2005, 83% of
Alabama fourth graders were proficient on the state’s reading test and 22% scored proficient on

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

9
NAEP math (Goodwin Liu, 2006). In addition, 87% of Tennessee’s fourth graders were
proficient on the state math test and only 28% scored proficient on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (Goodwin Liu, 2006). Meanwhile states such as Maine, Massachusetts,
South Carolina, and Wyoming reveal less discrepancy in the NAEP test results and the state
standards. Maine students were 40% proficient on NAEP and state math assessments while
Massachusetts’s students were 48% proficient on state reading assessments and 44% proficient
on NAEP (Goodwin Liu, 2006). Highly mobile students and families were impacted by the
diversity in state standards that were highly dependent on zip code (McDonnell & Weatherford,
2013).
While NCLB was an effort to meet the needs of all students and standardize education,
gaps in student achievement continued to persist depending on the student’s race, social class,
and the community in which the student resides. Determining a nationwide definition of
proficiency became a challenge for the United States, therefore determining what it means for
students to be sufficiently educated varied across the nation
(http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/). The NGA and the
CCSSO used this data as premise for developing a multistate effort to align expectations
nationwide-the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). The
CCSSS development process was divided in to two categories, college and career-readiness and
the K-12 standards. The focus of the CCSS is to ensure that all students are college and career
ready.
With no federal mandate, states chose their own process to develop how they will
implement the CCSS to meet the upcoming federal assessments. Simultaneously, California
implemented a new funding system for schools, Local Control Funding Formula. The goal of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

10
California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is to give more flexibility to districts and to
provide additional funding to meet the needs of low-performing subgroups such as English
Language Learners, low socio-economically disadvantaged students, and foster youth. The
LCFF frees districts from categorical programs and their strict limitations used to regulate
districts (Warren & Murphy, 2014). LCFF provides districts with the opportunity to determine
their priorities with CCSS implementation. These priorities will be outlined in each district’s
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The intention of the LCAP and LCFF is to reduce
spending requirements while giving districts guidance to design fiscal and academic plans to
improve student performance based on their local context (LAO, 2013). As a result of these key
decisions it is important to understand the Common Core State Standards implementation
process. More importantly, the complex change in instruction associated with reform will
require substantial learning by teachers (Spillane, 2002). Students’ ability to acquire the skills
that are embedded within the standards will rely upon teacher learning and instruction around the
CCSS.
Statement of the Problem
As Thomas Friedman explains in The World is Flat (2006), to prepare students for global
competitiveness educators must prepare children for jobs that will exist in the future. Friedman
further explains that it is more important to focus on how we educate our children rather than the
quantity of education. Educators will need to assist students with learning how to learn and the
development of additional, relevant qualities such as flexibility, curiosity, and passion
(Friedman, 2006). Friedman’s assertions asks for a transformation in education to focus on the
quality of the teaching and learning while engaging students in the habits of mind to be
competitive in a global marketplace.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

11
Additionally, The National Governors Association (NGA) and The Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) report explore the need to address the economic competitiveness
of students (Jerald, 2008). The report highlighted a concern about students’ global
competitiveness as a result of U.S. students falling behind on international assessment signifying
a decrease in human capital - the collective skills and knowledge that can be used to create
economic value (Warren and Murphy, 2014). When measuring the progress of students in the
nation using the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), U.S. performance was stagnant
compared to international counterparts (McDonnell and Weatherford, 2013). The 2012 PISA
exam data results indicate that 9% of U.S. 15-year-old students performed at PISA mathematics
literacy proficiency levels 5 and above. Meanwhile, countries such as Shanghai China,
Switzerland, and Finland outperformed the U.S. with a 55%, 21%, and 15% math literacy
proficiency rate. U.S. students’ TIMMS performance did not demonstrate competitiveness in a
global economy. U.S. student performance on the Science portion of the TIMMS has improved,
however, East Asian, Russian, and English eighth grade students outperformed their U.S.
counterparts. Eighth grade students in Singapore were 40% proficient while U.S. students’
proficiency rate was 10% (Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012). Furthermore, ACT data
illustrates that American students entering postsecondary education are not ready for college
level coursework and lack the skills necessary for career proficiency and success (McDonnell &
Weatherford, 2013). In 2013, 61% of ACT test takers met two or fewer benchmarks for college
readiness (ACT, 2013). This data further supports the need for teachers to transform their
instructional practice to further support the demands of the global economy.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

12
While the premise for developing the Common Core is substantial, the capacity to
implement CCSS is a concern. The community recognizes the need to prepare students for the
21
st
Century and education is a key to student readiness (Core, 2013). Teachers are key in the
attainment of the vision of Common Core. In order for Common Core State Standards to be
successful, it is important for teachers to have a coherent infrastructure that include professional
development, and resources to support implementation (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014).
Investment in professional development is needed to aid teachers in the implementation
process (Martin, 2014). California teachers agreed with a poll of parents who were concerned
that teachers are not prepared to implement Common Core (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Teacher
collaboration is a source of professional development that can be leveraged in the
implementation process. Collaboration can provide opportunities for teachers 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 pedagogy and revamp their instructional
strategies to embed inquiry based learning skills (Martin, 2014).
Furthermore, the online assessments create a need for support with technology
integration. Preparation for new technology integration and assistance with computer
assessments is vital (Martin, 2014). According to Becker (2000), computers serve as a “valuable
and well-functioning instructional tool” in schools and classrooms in which teachers are
adequately prepared. Ertmer (2005) asserts that while studies indicate teacher use of technology,
higher levels of use are still in the minority. Low-level technology use is teacher centered while
high levels of technology use are student centered (Ertmer, 2005). In order for teachers to
transform their practice to a student centered technology approach, it is necessary for teachers to
experience support that introduces technology as a tool to accomplish tasks already valued (e.g.,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

13
communicating with parents, locating relevant instructional resources). Once the technology is
valued, the support should transition to its potential for accomplishing additional or new tasks,
including those that are more student centered (Ertmer, 2005).
In addition to support with technology, teachers are in need of assistance with identifying
and implementing instructional materials that support the CCSS. This apprehension arrives, as
there is concern that in states such as California, math adoptions occurred too early and many
textbooks were adapted from the 1997 standards (Farrand, 2014). While there are publishers
claiming texts are CCSS aligned, practitioners and researchers question their assertion
(McLaughlin et al., 2014). There is a need for systems when judging the quality and
appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin, 2014). Since many states have adopted the
Common Core, there is opportunity for textbooks to move from a state market to a national
market (Warren & Murphy, 2014). This means that states could leverage the work of early
adopter’s textbook analysis to determine which instructional materials will support teacher
implementation of the CCSS. Additionally, a national model could provide opportunity for states
to collect data on impact of instructional materials on student success in school (Warren &
Murphy, 2014). In the McLaughlin et al. (2014) 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.
Amidst educators’ apprehension is the public’s lack of awareness and understanding of
the CCSS (Core, 2013). According to PDK/Gallup Poll, two out of three Americans have never
heard of the Common Core and, of those who know about CCSS, there is a lack of understanding
and acceptance (Core, 2013). Because educators are a major component of communication with
the community, it is important that they become the voice of Common Core. John Hattie asserts
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

14
that parents do not often understand what happens in schools therefore educators’ sharing the
language of school with parents makes a big difference (Zegarac, 2013). Hattie’s research
supports Martin’s (2014) findings that parents and the community need to understand the
importance of high expectations that CCSS has for students. Of the third of PDK/Gallup Poll
participants who had heard about Common Core, 60% said that the standards would make
students in the U.S. less globally competitive or have no effect (Core, 2013). Since more than
70% of Americans have trust and confidence in public school teachers, teacher communication
about the CCSS will build community awareness thus supporting student learning and
engagement (Core, 2013; Zegarac, 2013). In the new system of accountability, public
transparency is key to assist the community in developing a comprehensive understanding of
student expectations and performance (Hammond, Wilhoit & Pittenger, 2014).
Consequently, there has been a focus on explaining the types of changes that are required
by CCSS (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). While the NGA and the CCSO were strategic in
the development of the Common Core State Standards, its’ success is dependent on the
effectiveness of the teacher implementation. If implementation of the CCSS is done well,
improvements in opportunities for students will occur (Martin, 2014). However, these standards
do not have meaning if teachers are not successful in their implementation (Martin, 2014).
According to Martin (2014) and Reynolds et al. (2008), teachers are in need of capacity building
via professional development with collaboration time and understanding of curriculum, tools,
and assessment to enrich instruction. Moreover, the public’s lack of awareness and
understanding of Common Core will elicit a need for teachers to assist with informing the public
of its purpose and implementation steps.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

15
Purpose of the Study
The focus of this dissertation will be to examine decisions made by middle school
English Language Arts (ELA) teachers as they implement Common Core State Standards. In
order for CCSS to be successful it is important for teachers to have an infrastructure with
resources to support implementation (McLaughlin, Glaab & Carrasco, 2014). Understanding of
middle school teachers’ implementation processes can assist with coherence. The following
research questions will guide the study:
• What decisions do middle school English Language Arts teachers make when
implementing Common Core State Standards?
• What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers employ to
communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards?
• What capacity building systems do middle school English Language Arts teachers
experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
• What strategies and tools do middle school English Language Arts teachers use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
Importance of the Study
As educators are in their initial stages of Common Core implementation, this study will
add to the literature on best practices around Common Core and teacher implementation. The
findings of this research study will contribute to educators’ understanding of how teachers will
assist in effective implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Moreover, the
implications of this study will provide information to influence future reform implementation
efforts.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

16
Assumptions, Delimitations, Limitations
An underlying assumption of this study is that middle school teachers are implementing
Common Core State Standards. While Common Core has been adopted, some teachers may
choose not to implement because of their belief that the current practice or standards already
support students with college and career readiness. In addition, it is assumed that those who are
implementing are making decisions about how to implement the standards. Finally, there is an
assumption that districts are employing systems of communication and support for teacher
implementation of the Common Core.
This research uses a case study approach, therefore is not generalizable. All data will be
self reported and the time constraints may limit the amount of data collected thus limiting the
capacity to make connections to student achievement. A delimitation of the study includes the
geographic region, Southern California with a purposeful sample—middle schools.
Definition of Terms
Common Core State Standards - set of high quality academic expectations in English-
language arts (ELA) and mathematics that define the knowledge and skills all students should
master by the end of each grade level in order to be on track for success in college and career.
Capacity Building - The process by which individuals, groups, organizations, institutions
and societies increase their abilities to: perform core functions, solve problems, define and
achieve objectives.
Stakeholders - anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and its
students.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

17
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Authors: Robert Allard, Alexis Norman, and Myrtice Salmond
2

Introduction
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
consecutively score lower on exams than children living in other countries (Porter & Polikoff,
2009). The Program for International Assessments (PISA) is an assessment that allows 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
(Dana Kelly, Holly Xie, Christine Winquist Nord, Frank Jenkins, Jessica Ying Chan, David
Kastberg, 2013).
The PISA results from 2012 show that U.S students’ mathematics scores are lower than
students from 27 other education systems. Furthermore, 9% of U.S students scored proficient
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, an average of all test takers. In addition, within the United States, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show that the achievement gap between children of color

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

18
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 (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 trying to 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). The importance of the assessment was the key to the outcomes of the data.
This is the first time that the validity of measures must be confirmed with empirical evidence that
is reliable and accurate from multiple measures (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Thorndike
recognized that education is concerned in the changes of human being and its effectiveness could
be judged by the differences in spoken words, acts of performance, and of things created; these
differences can be measured from one point to another (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Thorndike
created these assessments at the university setting for research purposes and was not used
initially in schools.
First Public School Assessments
During the same time period as Thorndike, major school systems created mechanisms for
evaluating public schools. New York, Boston, and Detroit began incorporating tests to evaluate
school effectiveness (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Unfortunately these tests were poorly aligned to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

19
learning objectives and were norm-referenced (Haertel & Herman, 2005). These are the seeds
that current day assessments sprout from. In the 1930’s E.F. Lindquist form the University of
Iowa initiated the first statewide assessment. The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills tested basic skills,
reason, and application knowledge a shift from the sorting and selecting type tests (Haertel &
Herman, 2005). The tests primary function was used for diagnostic and remediation (Office of
Technology Assessment, 1992).
The 1940s 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 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 the
“Best Principles of Curriculum and Instruction”, Tyler (1949) stressed four main principles for
assessment, which he defined as:
• Define appropriate objectives
• Establish useful learning experiences
• Organize learning experiences to have maximum impact
• 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.
Tyler shaped the NAEP and his theories played a role in decision-making based on assessment.
Measurement-Driven Instruction
The work of Tyler influenced the 1950s through the 1960s which ushered in educational
testing based on measurement-driven instruction requiring material to be taught in carefully
sequenced learning objectives (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Along with the works of psychologist
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

20
B.F. Skinner, curriculum and tests were developed in order to teach small amounts of materials,
assess, and then provided feedback for correctives (Haertel & Herman, 2005). A former student
of Tyler’s, Dr. Benjamin Bloom, developed the Bloom’s Taxonomy that provided the
measurement-driven instructional movement with the opportunity to have a common language
when developing objectives (Haertel & Herman, 2005). During this era, the goal was to provide
small, clearly defined learning objectives, which were assessed by post-tests to see if students
mastered the content (Zimmerman, & Dibenedetto, 2008). Furthermore, educational testing
focused on individual students and did not look at educational programs.
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 district federal funds to provide extra academic
support for children from low-income families (Fritzberg, 2004; Haertel & Herman, 2005). The
funding had extensive regulations to assure that districts expended the money appropriately
(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 more than a
billion dollars annually (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). Furthermore, the requirement
for annual testing was added for all children within Title I programs. These annual exams were
designed to determine if district programs were meeting the needs of students who qualify for
Title I (Haertel & Herman, 2005; Popham et al., 2008). The government’s involvement resulted
in the unprecedented growth in educational evaluation and assessment.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

21
Minimum Competency Tests of the 1970s and early 1980s
For the first time in history, the United States had nationwide test scores, which provided
insight into how children were doing. The picture was bleak. The addition of Title I funds did
not seem to close any achievement gaps (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Additionally, the overall
decline in test scores was well publicized (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Media reports indicated
that students were just being moved from grade to grade which made the high school diploma
worthless (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). The negative publicity led to a shift 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 data indicating a positive growth in student performance (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).
Title I Evaluation
Between 1976 and 1979, President Carter ordered a Sustaining Effects Study of the Title
I program, which evaluated 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 the 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
test (Education, 1983). Furthermore the report found that students were taking classes void of the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

22
rigor needed for success in the future (Education, 1983). Amongst the reports five major
recommendations was the call for schools to adopt more rigorous and measurable standards
including higher expectations for academic performance (Education, 1983).
Norm-Referenced Testing
During the 1980s norm-referenced tests dominated the assessment landscape. These tests
were multiple-choice instruments designed to rank students cheaply and efficiently (Darling-
Hammond, 1993). The goal of these tests was to track and sort students rather than provide
support or enhance 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 of this time
(Wang, Beckett, & Brown, 2006). Furthermore, as Popham (2008) explained, states employed
various tests with different guidelines for administration, which led to concerns about the validity
of the results. Additionally, the federal government lacked clear data on the effectiveness of
programs serving disadvantaged students. Many opponents of Title I had legitimate concern that
the monies were having little “bang for the buck” (Fritzberg, 2004). The federal government
needed to provide more clarity for assessment.
1988 Reauthorization of Title I
In order to address the assessment concerns, congress made some important
improvements to 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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

23
disadvantaged students (Fritzberg, 2004; Popham et al., 2008). The reauthorization made some
improvements to Title I but did not address the issue of the type of assessment used for reporting.
1994 Reauthorization of Title I
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, which changed the requirements significantly. 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 employ. The use
of norm-referenced assessments was replaced with criterion-referenced assessments, which
mandated states to align their assessments with 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 these new standards-based assessments (Fritzberg,
2004). Moreover, accountability was linked to academic and performance standards.
Standards-Based Reforms
The standards movement began in the mid-1980s after earlier reform efforts failed to
produce significant changes in student achievement (Kessinger, 2011). The educational goals
during this era included raising student achievement by raising standards and holding educators
accountable for the results. Professional organizations such as the National Center for Education
and Economy backed the standards movement in hopes that standards would provide clear
expectations and prepare students for high school graduation and college or career (National
Center for Education and the Economy, 2014). Shortly after the standards-based reform began
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

24
individual states took over, crafting their own standards and creating assessments aligned to their
state standards (Porter & Polikoff, 2009).
In order to hold school systems accountable and measure student learning of each
individual states standards, the federal government initiated accountability reform (Kessinger,
2011; Ravitch, 2010). 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 focused on educational aide to children of the poor, 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 however
it is still the primary source that measures school quality (U.S Department of Education, 2014;
Hilner, 2006; Ravitch, 2010).
The 2002 version of No Child Left Behind required that all the states create assessments
aligned to their content standards in reading, mathematics, and science. The state exams were to
be taken annually by all students, monitoring their academic growth or lack thereof (Porter &
Polikoff, 2009). The target of NCLB was that all students reach 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 children from different backgrounds within the country has remained consistent
since 2011(California Department of Education, 2013; Kelly et al., 2013).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

25
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 standards were unfocused, repetitive, and unchallenging as compared to other
countries, and that the standards varied from state to state (Porter et al., 2009). The majority of
the states’ standards consisted of long lists of standards instead of focusing on big ideas (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
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
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).
State standards were an indication of the inconsistency of teaching and learning across
the country. The variety of state standards encouraged scholars, on multiple occasions, to attempt
to request that states agree to teach a voluntary set of national standards and assessments;
however, these types of initiatives fell short until more 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 current standards-based reform,
achieved the closest thing to national standards when 47 states adopted the standards. It is hoped
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

26
that the CCSS standards will promote rigorous instruction that supports students’ learning and
closes achievement gaps. Furthermore, researchers believe that a national curriculum will create
consistency across the nation with regard to the curriculum taught (Porter, McMaken, Hwang,
Yang, 2011).
Appropriate preparation for life in a complex democratic society requires that individuals
have problem solving skills that go beyond the basics of reading, writing and mathematics
(Murphy & Datnow, 2003). Educators must teach children how to work in teams, apply
academic knowledge to novel situations, use technology, and speak well in public arenas
(Murphy & Datnow, 2003). This is the intent of Common Core. If teachers are to be successful at
teaching the Common Core State Standards, school leaders must support current implementation
barriers, such as lack of time to attend professional development, lack of relevant professional
developments offered, and lack of CCSS materials or textbooks (Fensterwald, 2013;
McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). Most importantly, strong leaders must lead schools by
developing strategies and materials consistent with the CCSS (Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005;
McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014).
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 districts, all 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 and in their districts and
progress with CCSS materials. In 2013 the Californian Legislature appropriated $1.25 billion to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

27
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). The following section will describe what the research says about the nature of
the CCSS change, capacity building, materials and resources, communication, and evaluation
during the Common Core State Standards implementation.
Nature of Change
The Common Core standards are a shift from disparate state educational systems to
alignment of student learning expectations throughout the United States (Porter et al., 2011). The
Common Core standards for Math and English Language Arts and Literacy are clear on what
students are expected to learn, however, it does not direct educators on the pedagogy and
curriculum (Porter et al., 2011). It is the intention of the Common Core standards to provide
more depth, influence the classroom curriculum, and impact student assessments (Porter et al.,
2011).
In Porter et al. “Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum”, the
authors examine the nature of the change from past U.S. educational practices to Common Core
standards. The authors assess the CCSS against the previous state standards. Porter et al., 2011
provide comparisons between the CCSS intended curriculum and the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics while further contrasting previously administered state assessments,
selected countries assessments, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress to the
Common Core Standards. Furthermore, the study measures estimates of the implemented
curriculum with the Common Core.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

28
The Porter et al. (2011) study finds that the CCSS represent significant change from
state’s previous standards. The CCSS are more focused in the area of Math. The CCSS place a
much greater emphasis on basic algebra while the state standards emphasize advanced algebra
(Porter et al., 2011). Furthermore, CCSS places emphasis on geometric concepts unlike state
standards (Porter et al., 2011). The Common Core Math standards emphasize students
demonstrating understanding more than the state standards did; 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). In the area of Math, the Common Core standards
provide a modest shift in higher-level cognitive demands as compared to state standards (Porter
et al., 2011).
When assessing the English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) Common Core
standards Porter et al. (2011) discovers that there is a stronger shift towards higher-level
cognitive demands. State standards allocated 20% of its content to analysis while the CCSS place
a greater emphasis on analysis by allocating approximately 33% of its content 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 are different from countries with higher student achievement. Porter et al.
(2011) revealed that 75 % of Finland, Japan, and Singapore’s eighth grade math content focuses
on performing procedures while the Common Core standards percentage is 38%. In ELAR, it is
discovered that these countries place a greater emphasis on performing procedures than the
Common Core (Porter et al., 2011).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

29
Furthermore, the Common Core standards are different from what teachers reported that
they are currently teaching. When examining cognitive demands in mathematics and ELAR,
teachers emphasized memorizing while Common Core standards have less focus on this aspect
of thinking (Porter et al., 2011). Implementation of CCSS will require teachers to place a greater
importance on analysis in math and ELAR (Porter et al., 2011).
Kentucky and the Common Core
Because of Kentucky’s effort to implement ambitious Common Core teaching and
learning reforms, Berry, Daughtrey, Darling-Hammond and Cook’s (2012) report presents
findings from a review of Kentucky’s professional development policy. The researchers
observed and participated in the state’s Professional Learning Task Force meetings, examined
documents and reports and interviewed local and state administrators. The report describes
Kentucky’s system of professional development; state strategies employed, and offer initial
recommendations that will allow for Kentucky to progress (Berry, Daughtrey, Darling-
Hammond & Cook, 2012).
Upon examining Kentucky’s system of support for CCSS, Berry et al. (2012) noted
several findings. In a state where professional development is delegated to schools and districts,
there is a need to build new structures and relationships with districts to implement Common
Core (Berry et al., 2012). Additionally, there is a need to align educator recertification with the
CCSS professional development opportunities provided by schools, districts, and states while
ensuring that the professional development meets the needs of educators (Berry et al., 2012). A
partnership of K-12 and higher education is necessary to make improvement in teacher education
that cultivates and draws upon teacher leadership and increase higher education’s engagement in
Common Core (Berry et al., 2012). Moreover, there is a need to connect state resources to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

30
practitioners while also aligning resources with state incentives and opportunities (Berry et al.,
2012). While Kentucky does a great job of collaborating with teacher leaders to develop
resources, there is no venue to share these resources with other educators (Berry et al., 2012).
Year Two of Implementing
Over a two-year period the Center on Education Policy (CEP) tracked states’ process in
implementing the Common Core State Standards. Progress was tracked via surveys of state
superintendents of education or their designees. The surveys revealed that states view the CCSS
as more rigorous than the previous state standards (Kober & Rentner, 2012). Additionally, states
are making progress towards the new standards. Most states planned to be fully implemented by
2014-2015 (Kober & Rentner, 2012). However, many states expressed concern in finding
sufficient funding to fully implement CCSS (Kober & Rentner, 2012).
Porter et al. (2011) and Center for Education Policy (2012) studies examine the Common
Core Standards. Additionally, CEP explores the implementation of the standards while Berry et
al. (2012) explores Kentucky’s professional development as a resource to meet the demands of
the Common Core. These studies demonstrate the need for educators to understand how
Common Core varies from previous state standards. The aforementioned literature reveals that
Common Core represents an increase in the cognitive demand. Educators must move from the
previous standards’ focus on procedural understanding to curriculum and instruction that
emphasizes analysis. The Kentucky study reveals how the state has executed an ambitious
professional development system to support teaching and learning reforms brought on by
Common Core. Kentucky is incorporating a system of professional learning to support the
cognitive demand of Common Core.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

31
State and School/District Connections
As California moves to implement Common Core State Standards (CCSS) there is much
to be learned from the literature. The shift in cognitive demand will elicit a need to support
educators in the appropriate curriculum to address the increase in rigor. Additionally, teachers
and administrators will need support in acquiring the professional learning needed to implement
the change in instruction.
Upon adopting CCSS, California implemented a new funding system for schools. The
goal was to give more flexibility to districts and to provide additional funding to meet the needs
of low-performing subgroups such as English Language Learners, low socio-economically
disadvantaged students, and foster youth. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has freed
districts from categorical programs and their strict limitations used to regulate districts (Warren
and Murphy, 2014). LCFF provides districts with the opportunity to determine their priorities
with CCSS implementation. While Kentucky also provided the similar local control, it was
discovered that there was a need for state relationships and structure to implement Common Core
(Berry et al., 2012). As the review of Kentucky’s implementation reveals, it is imperative that
there is a connection between state’s resources and the schools and districts (Berry et al., 2012).
Functions of the Teacher
Since the late 1970s a variety of researchers have noted the way in which educators
implement policy. Early researchers have connected challenges in implementation to lack of
educators’ skill and drive or the use of policy to meet a personal goal or agenda (Coburn, 2005).
However, more recent research found that this implementation process is normal. According to
Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer (2002) teachers understand new policy through the lens of prior
knowledge and experiences.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

32
When thinking about Common Core implementation it is clear that teachers play a
critical role in the success of the implementation process. According to Purinton (2011), efforts
to reform the profession of teaching previously failed because schools and districts became
responsible for the practice of teaching. Currently, teaching has been placed back in to the hands
of teachers, without sufficient resources to address the complex task of teaching (Purinton,
2011). To help students develop analytical skills teachers must learn to teach in ways that
develop higher order thinking and performance (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
In 2001, No Child Left Behind enacted a policy to define highly qualified teaching. Much
of the criteria of NCLB focused on teacher qualification based on education, certification, and/or
state licensing examinations (Liston, Borko & Whitcomb, 2008). However, with Common Core
the shift will move towards developing effective teachers, thus emphasizing teachers’ ability to
foster student achievement (Liston, Borko & Whitcomb, 2008).
According to Senge (1990) it is necessary for teachers to be a part of a learning
organization. The characteristics of learning organizations include systems thinking; personal
mastery; mental models; building a shared vision, and team learning (Senge, 1990). Darling-
Hammond and Richardson (2014) assert that high quality professional development is necessary
for teachers to develop personal mastery and mental models. High quality professional
development provides teachers with intensive, content rich, and collegial learning opportunities
that improve teaching and student learning (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2014). This is a
shift from the previous paradigm of one time, non-contextual workshop that focuses on teacher
techniques. Purinton (2011) further asserts that reforms will not be successful if teachers are not
empowered to do their work well and teachers will not be equipped to do their work if the system
does not recognize teachers’ need to collaboratively share ways of thinking about their practice.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

33
Conceptual Framework
Professional Learning that Matches Needs
Research indicates that the shifts in cognitive demands emphasize students need to
analyze (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 opportunities for students will occur (Martin, 2014).
However, these standards do not have meaning if teachers are not successful in their
implementation (Martin, 2014). Porter et al. (2012) reveals that there is a misalignment between
teacher implementation and the Common Core. The report on Kentucky’s implementation
discloses the importance of ensuring that the professional learning meets the needs of the
educators (Berry et al., 2012). According to Martin (2014), teachers are in need of professional
development, collaboration time, understanding of the rationale, and tools to enrich instruction.
In order for professional development to match the needs, teachers and leadership must
identify what skills are needed to meet the objectives of Common Core. The need will assist
leadership and teachers in developing clear professional development goals. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation with a focus on goals are keys to
success. Clark and Estes (2008) further assert that transformation arises from a systemic analysis
of the cause of performance gaps accompanied by the necessary knowledge and skills to increase
the motivation to change and impact results. Furthermore, 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).

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

34
Capacity
The capacity to implement CCSS is a concern. Capacity building and professional
development operate in tandem thus reinforcing the need to invest in professional development
to aid leadership and teachers in the implementation process (Martin, 2014). California teachers
agreed with a poll of parents who were concerned that teachers are not prepared to implement
Common Core (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Collaboration is a source of professional development
that can be leveraged in the capacity building and implementation process. U.S. teachers spend
more time teaching in the classroom than their peers in high performing countries (Martin,
2014). Additionally, Prothero (2015) asserts that, principal professional development is often
neglected. 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 incorporate sharing ideas and problem solving with
colleagues (Prothero, 2015). As we learn from the Kentucky study, when capacity is developed,
there is a need for forums to leverage and share the resources (Berry et al., 2012).
Curriculum and Materials
A major source of concern is the curriculum materials to support the implementation
process. While there are publishers claiming texts are CCSS aligned, practitioners and
researchers question their assertion (McLaughlin et al., 2014). There is a need for systems when
judging the quality and appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin, 2014). In the
McLaughlin et al. (2014) study, administrators and teachers expressed their lack of expertise and
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

35
time to assess the vendors who send information regarding Common Core implementation
supports and materials.
In addition, teachers are in need of support with technology integration. Preparation for
new technology integration and assistance with computer assessments is vital (Martin, 2014).
There is a need to build capacity for the appropriate hardware and teacher training (McLaughlin
et al., 2014). While teachers express excitement for technology integration, many are not
prepared to use technology to teach nor the data it provides to assess (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Teacher responses to CCSS have been positive, yet the anxiety around implementation is
prevailing. The need for professional development, tools, capacity building, and communication
are resounding. In light of the optimism and apprehension, there is a need to examine and learn
from the literature and research. Research will allow us to learn from other’s experiences while
informing our 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
Teachers are a major component of communication with the community. According to
John Hattie’s research on major impacts of student learning, teachers and leaders must inform all
about the language of learning (Zegarac, 2013). Hattie discovered that parents do not often
understand what happens in schools therefore teachers’ sharing the language of school with
parents makes a big difference (Zegarac, 2013). Hattie’s research supports Martin (2014)
findings that parents and the community need to understand the importance of high expectations
that CCSS has for students. Parent enlightenment will help student learning and engagement
(Zegarac, 2013). If the community is not knowledgeable or has misperceptions about CCSS,
implementation and support can be derailed (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

36
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 BY ELA TEACHERS

37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Authors: Robert Allard, Alexis Norman, and Myrtice Salmond
3

Introduction
In 2010, the State of California, along with states throughout the nation, adopted a new
set of state standards, which have become known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
(McLaughlin, Glaab & Carrasco, 2014). With no federal mandate, states were on their own to
develop how they will implement the CCSS to meet the upcoming federal assessments.
Simultaneously, California implemented a new funding system for schools. The goal was to give
more flexibility to districts and to provide additional funding to meet the needs of low-
performing subgroups such as English Language Learners, low socio-economically
disadvantaged students, and foster youth. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has freed
districts from categorical programs and their strict limitations used to regulate districts (Warren
and Murphy, 2014). LCFF provides districts with the opportunity to determine their priorities
with CCSS implementation. As a result of these key decisions, it is important to understand the
Common Core State Standards implementation process.
Purpose of the Study
The complex change in instruction associated with reform requires substantial learning
by teachers (Spillane, 2002). Students’ ability to acquire the skills that are embedded within the
standards will rely upon teacher learning and instruction around the CCSS. This study examined
instructional decisions made by middle school teachers as they implement CCSS.

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

38
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
• What decisions do middle school English Language Arts teachers make when
implementing Common Core State Standards?
• What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers employ to
communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards?
• What capacity building systems do middle school English Language Arts teachers
experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
• What strategies and tools do middle school English Language Arts teachers use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design
This research provided an opportunity to learn how teachers construct the world of
Common Core and make meaning of the Common Core State Standards (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). To build an understanding of teacher implementation processes, this study used
a mixed methods approach and collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Triangulation of
qualitative and quantitative data added to the validity of the study.
Qualitative Research Methods
Teacher interviews and classroom observations were used to provide immediate
opportunity to acquire understanding through human interactions (Merriam, 2009). Using the
research questions as a guide for the interview questions provided, valuable insight towards
successes and challenges of CCSS implementation. Since understanding teachers’ thinking
around Common Core State Standards implementation is important, interviews are necessary
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

39
(Patton, 2002). The interviews provided an opportunity to learn about teachers’ experience in the
profession and their past opportunities for professional development (Patton, 2002). Also,
interviews aided in understanding the decisions teachers make in their instruction (Patton, 2002).
Moreover, interviews delivered opportunities to gain teachers’ perspectives on CCSS
implementation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Researchers cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and
intentions. Therefore, interviews were conducted with teachers to help understand teachers’
behaviors and experiences during Common Core implementation. Understanding teachers’
beliefs, feelings, and experiences about CCSS will help inform future CCSS decisions. For
example, if teachers feel that the various trainings did not improve their instructional practice,
then leadership and 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 teachers’ behaviors and experiences during the CCSS reform. With
this in mind, understanding teachers’ perceptions of Common Core State Standard
implementation strategies has advantageous implications for future curriculum reforms. For
example, if teachers are successful at implementing the CCSS reform and student achievement is
accomplished than the successful teacher employed practices can be duplicated during future
reform efforts.
Quantitative Research Methods
Quantitative research methods were used at the beginning of this study. This method of
research involves asking closed-ended questions, 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 teachers’
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

40
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 teachers surveyed to the general population.
Sample and Population
The interview respondents selected were from participating Orange County district’s
middle schools. These schools participated in professional learning that supported Common Core
State Standards. Considering the idea of purposeful sampling, selected teachers were
implementing Common Core State Standards in their classrooms (Merriam, 2009). Additionally,
much of the researchers work is in the area of English Language Arts (ELA), therefore the focus
was ELA teachers. However, the participants were also chosen because the respondents had
specific characteristics, including: (a) employment in a California public middle school, (b)
Common Core State Standards implementation experience, and (c) at least three years
experience as teachers.
The survey was emailed to 165 Orange County, California middle school English
Language Arts (ELA) teachers that fit the aforementioned criteria. Twelve teachers agreed to an
interview. In order to acquire teachers from a variety of school districts, eight teachers were
contacted via email for an interview. Additionally, the selection of the teachers interviewed was
dependent on their survey answers. For example, if the teacher engaged in multiple Common
Core implementation practices, community communications, or accountability actions, this
teacher was asked for an interview. Ultimately six of the eight teachers emailed responded with
an interview date and time.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

41
Instrumentation
The questions asked for both the qualitative interview and the quantitative survey were
developed to find the answer to the purpose of the study. In order to understand middle school
ELA teachers’ Common Core State Standards implementation and evaluation practices,
questions were asked that directly related to the behaviors and actions taken during CCSS
implementation.
Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative surveys provided numeric descriptions of trends, attitudes or opinions of the
population questioned (Creswell, 2014). The questions asked in the quantitative survey
administered in this study comprised four themes found in the literature reviewed: (a) decision
making, (b) communication, (c) capacity building, and (d) evaluation. The quantitative survey
consisted of 30 Likert-style questions that included questions focusing on demographics, as well
as the aforementioned themes found in the literature. The demographic questions addressed years
of service as an educator, 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 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 15 questions
required a response that did not lend itself to a dichotomous, or yes or no answer. The questions
were clustered by theme, and each theme began with a transitional sentence introducing the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

42
theme that section would be addressing. The first theme was background information on the
teacher, the second theme was planning and communication, the third theme was capacity
building and program implementation, and the last theme-addressed barriers to implementation
and evaluation.
Interview questions were comprised of 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. The
purpose of the study was to understand middle school ELA teachers’ Common Core State
Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Therefore, understanding the teachers’
experiences during CCSS implementation is key to understanding practices and strategies that
were utilized. In addition, understanding teachers’ actions is helpful when evaluating
effectiveness of the strategies implemented. Lastly, educational practitioners could use the data
collected in this study to structure effective reform application.
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
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).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

43
Data Collection
The data were collected in two phases. First, the quantitative data was gathered from the
38 teachers that volunteered and completed the survey. The second phase included qualitative
interviews with the six teachers that were selected based on their willingness to participate in an
interview and their experience with Common Core implementation. The teachers selected had
experience with the CCSS themes found in the literature: communication, capacity building, and
evaluation. The teachers 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 165 teachers who met the criteria of experience and location. 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. The email included a letter explaining the purpose
of the survey and an explanation of the reasons why the study will contribute to the body of
knowledge on Common Core implementation.
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. Six teachers 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 B. The interview protocol
ensured that consent from each participant was sought and clearly informed the participant of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

44
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 gathered through qualitative
and quantitative research methods. During the data analysis, the findings were triangulated and
themes 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. 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).
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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

45
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
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 report presented emphasized the data collection decisions and
processes made 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). The following chapter includes the findings of the data collected.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

46
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter will provide the results of the data analysis, which aimed to explore English
Language Arts teachers’ implementation processes of Common Core State Standards at Middle
School. The focus of this study will be to examine instructional decisions made by middle school
English Language Arts teachers as they implement CCSS. More specifically exploration of
teachers’ curriculum decisions, communication, capacity building, and evaluation of
effectiveness of implementation are examined.
When exploring the research regarding Common Core implementation, educators
indicated the need for support in determining the appropriate curriculum for implementation
(McLaughlin et al., 2014). Because textbooks have not been adopted and there are many
publishers advocating for texts that support Common Core, educators are seeking assistance with
determining what curriculum will best support students (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Teachers are
in need of assistance with the use of materials and technology to support Common Core
implementation.
Additionally, community support and perceptions are key to the Common Core
implementation processes. Educators will need the support of stakeholders to maximize student
learning (Zegarac, 2013). Teachers are important in the community’s perceptions of education
(Martin, 2014). As a result they are a vital part of the Common Core communication processes.
Moreover, building teacher capacity adds value to teacher and student learning. As
teachers become better equipped to implement the Common Core Standards, student
achievement will be effected. Collaboration is key to teacher capacity building. It provides
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

47
teachers with the opportunity to have collegial conversations that enrich their profession
(Spillane, 2002). Teacher facility leads to student capability.
Furthermore, opportunities to evaluate and reflect on implementation practices will elicit
teacher growth. Teachers are in need of time to reflect and provide feedback to assess the
effectiveness of their practice and process (Spillane, 2002). According to John Dewey, greatest
learning occurs in the reflection. This means that opportunities to be observed, to discuss
observation, and to think metacognitively are a vital part of the cycle of continuous
improvement.
To examine middle school English Language Arts teachers’ implementation practices,
the findings will be presented in connection with the research questions and the survey data.
Each research question will be presented with a summary of the research that supports the
rationale for the question. Next, I will provide survey data that will give a quantitative view of
respondents. Finally, I will provide qualitative data from the interviews triangulated with the
research questions, the survey, and the interview responses. Findings will be presented in the
order of the following research questions:
1. What decisions do middle school English Language Arts teachers make when
implementing Common Core State Standards?
2. What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers employ to
communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards?
3. What capacity building systems do middle school English Language Arts teachers
experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

48
4. What strategies and tools do middle school English Language Arts teachers use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
This chapter will begin with a description of the study participants. The description will include
the survey and interview demographics. Interviewees and their schools will be identified using
pseudonyms. Next, I will discuss the findings for each research question. Finally, I will conclude
with a summary of the findings.
Participants
The gender distributions of the survey respondents were slightly higher than that of the
national average of public educators in the United States. Eighty nine percent of survey
respondents were female and 10% were male while nationally 84% of public educators are male
and 16% female (Feistritzer, Griffin, & Linnajarvi, 2011). The highest level of education that
survey participants completed was a Doctoral Degree 5%. Additionally, 68% of survey
participants earned a Masters Degree and 26% had a Bachelors Degree. A trend that is higher
than the national average of 1% with Doctoral Degrees and 43% of teachers with Masters
Degrees (Feistritzer, et al., 2011). The proportion of teachers nationally have 15-24 years of
teaching experience compared to 55% of the survey respondents with1-21 years of teaching
experience, 24% of survey respondents averaged 3-10 years and 21% have 22-32 years of
experience (Feistritzer, et al., 2011).
The majority of survey respondents, 34 of 38, were from suburban school settings. Urban
and rural schools represented 4 and 1 respondent respectively. While the total enrollment ranged
from less than 600 to 1401 or more students, the majority of survey participants’ student
population ranged from 1001-1200. The respondents’ schools supported students in grades 6-8.
When asked about the duration of their Common Core Standards implementation 20 have been
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

49
implementing for more than two years, 17 had 1-2 years of implementation, and one had less
than one year of implementation.

Figure 1. How many years have you been a teacher?

Figure 2. How long have you been implementing the Common Core State Standards?

How many years have you been a teacher?
0-2
3-10
11-21
22-32
33 or more
How long have you been implementing the Common Core
State Standards?
under a year
1-2 years
more than 2 years
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

50
Interviewees were purposefully selected because of their school setting, teaching
experience and their participation in Common Core State Standards implementation. Six survey
respondents from three suburban Orange County districts participated in the interviews. One
district is comprised of secondary schools while two of the districts are kindergarten through
twelfth grade.
Tanya is from Oceans Middle School, a 6
th
– 8
th
grade school that serves approximately
1057 students. Tanya’s school is 26% Hispanic and 67% White with the remaining 7% from a
variety of ethnic groups. Eleven percent of the Ocean’s population is students with disabilities,
8% of the students are English Language Learners, and 30% are socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Tanya describes her school by saying, “so you have kids that go home to nannies
and private tutors and get picked up in a Bentley and then we have kids that ride the city bus
home and make dinner for their siblings. It’s a unique challenge.” Tanya has a Masters Degree
and she has been teaching for 22 years with 20 years at the same school site. Tanya has taught
Read 180, English Language Arts, English Language Development, Drama and Special
Education. Additionally, she has been department chair for many years, served on district
committees, and she recently acquired her Computer Application credential. According to Tanya,
her school has been implementing Common Core for 3-4 years.
Kelly has a Masters Degree. She has worked in education for 15 years, five years as a
librarian and 10 years as a teacher. Kelly teaches English Language Arts, Social Studies, and
AVID. Additionally, she is a technology fellow—a teacher who pilots new technology. She has
been implementing Common Core for three years at King Middle School. The student
enrollment at King Middle School is approximately 960 sixth, seventh, and eights graders. The
two major ethnic subgroups are Hispanic/Latino 74% and White 14%. Thirty percent of the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

51
school’s population is English Language Learners, 71% are socioeconomically disadvantaged
and 11.5% are students with disabilities.
Denise is a teacher at Rolling Hills Middle School, a grade 6-8 school that has been
implementing Common Core for three years. Denise has a Masters Degree and she has been
teaching 25 years. Currently, Denise teaches English grade 8 and AVID grades 7-8. Rolling Hills
has approximately 1192 students who are 63% White, 24% Hispanic or Latino, 22%
socioeconomically disadvantaged, 11% students with disabilities and 8.2% English Language
Learners. Denise is part of the school’s leadership team and she has previously served on the
School Site Council and coordinated the English Learner program.
Danny and Cathy are at the same school, Pepper Street Middle School; however, their
profiles vary. Danny has been in education for 14 years, four years as a private school principal
and 10 years as a teacher in elementary and middle school. Danny is currently pursuing a
doctorate in education. While his experience in California schools began this year, Danny’s
experience out of state included Common Core implementation. Currently Danny is teaching 7
th

grade Core—English Language Arts and Social Science. Cathy has a Doctoral degree and she
has been teaching for 17 years. She began her teaching career in elementary school and
eventually moved to middle school where she has experience teaching all grade levels of
Language Arts, Social Studies, and AVID. Additionally, Cathy previously served as the district
AVID Coordinator for four years. Currently, Cathy is teaching 6
th
grade Core and AVID. Pepper
Street Middle School student population is 41% White and 14% Hispanic/Latino. Twelve
percent of the population is socioeconomically disadvantaged, 4% English Language Learners,
and 5% Students with Disabilities.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

52
Carrie has been a teacher for twelve years. Much of her teaching experience has been in
the area of English Language Development in grades 6
th
-8
th
. Carrie has been the Lesson Design
Specialist providing coaching and supports to teachers. Additionally, the last few years she
taught support classes and 8
th
grade English. Currently, she is teaching ELD I and II and 8
th

grade English. Carrie has a Masters Degree and currently teaches at Dallas Junior High School a
grade 7-8 school. Dallas Junior High students are 69% Hispanic or Latino and 12% White.
Eighty seven percent of Dallas Junior High students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 29%
are English Language Learners and 13% are Students with Disabilities.
The interviewees school populations’ range from one school at 800-1000 students, two
schools with 1200-1400 students, and three schools with an enrollment of 1001-1200. Two
schools are designated as school wide Title I, two schools have a 25-30% free/reduced lunch
population, and two interviewees are teaching at a school that serves families from mid to high
socioeconomic households. Five of the six interviewees are teaching at schools that serve grades
6-8, while one teacher is at a school that supports grades 7-8. Their teaching experience ranges
from 12-22 years with an average of 17.5 years of teaching experience amongst them. One
teacher has a doctorate degree and 5 have earned masters degrees.
When asked about how long they have been implementing Common Core State
Standards, three interviewees indicated 1-2 years, and three indicated 2 or more years. All of the
interviewees indicated that the Common Core State Standards implementation decisions they
made were primarily around curriculum and professional development. Communication,
materials, and planning decisions were made by 5 out of 6 of the interviewees while 3 teachers
mentioned scheduling as a factor. All interviewees indicated that they attended Common Core
professional development that emphasized instructional strategies. Five interviewees indicated
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

53
that their professional learning focused on CCSS assessments and shifts, four indicated trainings
centered on standards study and three participated in framework study. All interviewees
indicated use of technology to support student learning.

Table 1
School Demographics
Interviewees
Grade
Levels Enrollment
Largest Ethnic
Subgroups
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
English
Language
Learner
Students with
Disabilities
Dallas JHS
Carrie
7-8 1199 Hispanic/Latino
69%
White 12%
87% 29% 13%
Pepper
Street MS
Cathy
Danny
6-8 1248 Hispanic/Latino 14
%
White 41%
12% 4% 5%
Rolling Hills
MS
Denise
6-8 1192 Hispanic/Latino
24%
White 63.3%
22% 8% 11%
King MS
Kelly
6-8 938 Hispanic/Latino 75
%
White 14%
71% 30% 11%
Oceans MS
Tanya
6-8 1021 Hispanic/Latino
26%
White 67%
30% 8% 11%

Research Question 1
The first research questions provides a general overview of the types of decisions that
middle school English Language Arts teachers are making when implementing Common Core.
According to research, much of the key decisions around Common Core will be in the area of
curriculum, professional development, communication, and planning (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

54
As a result the initial question will focus on decision teachers make around the themes of
curriculum, professional development, communication, and planning. The first key research
question is:
What decisions do middle school English Language Arts teachers make when
implementing Common Core State Standards?
Middle School English Language Arts teachers’ decisions around Common Core
implementation center around curriculum. Thirty-seven of 38 survey respondents indicated that
they have made decisions about curriculum to support the implementation of Common Core
State Standards. According to McLaughlin et al., 2014, administrators and teachers expressed
their lack of expertise and time to assess the vendors who send information regarding Common
Core implementation supports and materials. As a result, it is necessary to understand the
curriculum and materials decisions teachers are making when implementing Common Core State
Standards.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

55

Figure 3. What decisions have you made to support the implementation of the Common Core
State Standards?

37
34
24
31
11
31
1
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

What decisions have you made to support the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards? Select all that apply.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

56
Curriculum and Materials
A major source of educator concern is the need for curriculum and materials to support
the Common Core implementation process. While publishers claiming texts are CCSS aligned,
practitioners and researchers question their assertion (McLaughlin et al., 2014). There is a need
for systems when judging the quality and appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin,
2014). Furthermore, educators indicated that they do not have the time or expertise to assess the
Common Core materials vendors send (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Carrie asserts,
I personally have been a part of different trainings that relate to Common Core thinking
and strategies, so it's kinda hard to tell because a lot of times people just repackage what
they're doing and put in the verbiage that they need and go, ‘Okay, this is Common Core
because we have these things, right?’ So that's what I see a lot of. So it’s like, ‘Well, is
that specifically PD related to Common Core or is that an agency trying to get on the
Common Core you know pocketbook.’
When delving into the decisions teachers make around curriculum and materials,
interviewees explained that they are collaborating with other teachers to determine how to embed
the skills that Common Core embodies. Teachers are sharing lesson ideas and resources via
virtual drives, collaboration time and professional development. Kelly proclaimed,
They’ve set up a site where we can all reach information on Haiku through the district
and there are always samples lesson, anything you can download ready to go. And they
set up the standards and then lately, just recently, they’ve broken every single bit of
minutia on it so that you can go and look at every single standard broken down to the
sentence frames that you could use when your forming assessments and when you’re
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

57
trying to make DOK [depth of knowledge] tune rethinking in your classroom for your
students.
Kelly continues by describing how teachers have been offered on-line subscriptions to nonfiction
resources along with support for implementation if needed. Tanya commented, “Almost all of
our common core stuff has come from within”. Tanya further asserts that the English textbooks
are old and lack connection to the Common Core. The outdated materials and their disconnection
to Common Core have provided a level of independence for English teachers to make curriculum
implementation decisions. According to Danny, “We have a high level of autonomy on how
we’re gonna plan our lesson. No one’s providing materials.” While teachers have been provided
with opportunity to make curriculum decisions, Denise declared, “The district should provide
materials for teachers so that they're not scrambling to find their own materials.” Moreover,
Cathy explains that it is the materials from trainings “that are gonna more quickly and
immediately translate into what you’re doing”. Carrie asserts that their school uses Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt for middle school, however “it has a computer component I have not been
trained on.”
The survey indicates that 31 of the 38 survey respondents are making decisions about
materials to support CCSS implementation. Teachers are collaborating to develop materials and
rethink the use of existing materials while determining what new resources may add value to
their lessons. Cathy comments, “I use 75% of the stuff I used to use before, I just maybe use it a
little differently and then I’ve got some new stuff.” Tanya indicates,
We've taken what we're doing and tweaked it to the common core standards. We have
thrown out stuff that just didn't fit at all. We liked it, but we have to throw it out because
it just doesn't fit. So, pretty much everything comes from personal level and within.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

58
In regards to materials Danny shares, “We’ll just create our own lessons to cover standards that
aren't in the curriculum.” Casey indicates, “I pull a lot from more of outside resources.”
Meanwhile, Kelly asserts, “They've [the district] set it all up on a site where we can all reach
information on Haiku through the district.” Conversely, Denise retorts, “there were all these
things that she [district director) expected us to have done but there was no money to buy these
materials. So we started scrambling to come up with money and we were able to buy some
novels but no support materials at all of any kind.”
Much of the future curriculum and materials will incorporate the use of technology as
previously alluded to by Carrie. Additionally the assessments will be on computers. According to
Martin (2014), preparation for new technology integration and assistance with computer
assessments is vital (Martin, 2014). This implies that teachers will need to assist students with
how to use technology as a tool for learning. Building teacher capacity for the appropriate
hardware and teacher training is key to student use of technology as a learning tool (McLaughlin
et al., 2014).
Technology is an important part of the discovery of materials, collaboration and sharing a
variety of resources. The survey data reflects 20 out of 38 respondents indicated that there is a lot
of technology available to support Common Core. When inquiring about curriculum and
technology, all of the interviewees expressed that they have access to and/or students use
computers in their classrooms. When asked about technology at their schools, Carrie, Denise and
Tanya indicated that their classrooms have Chrome Carts. “I do have a Chrome Cart.” Carrie
asserted in her response. Denise responded, “We have Chrome Carts.” Tanya revealed,
I would say with each unit we try to add as much technology as we can because we've
noticed that especially with this age group that the, you know, they're just not passive
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

59
when there's a Chromebook sitting in front of them. And it's funny because even though
they're doing the exact same thing that they would do in a workbook or whatever, and
they we’re adding to it, you know, um, it's kind of funny. It's just the, the buy in is
completely different.
Cathy, Danny, and Kelly are located in districts where each student has a computer device. Cathy
explains, “They all have an iPad cause we have one-to-one.” To further explore the technology
connection to middle school ELA teacher implementation, next, I will explore how professional
development, to include technology support and learning, are part of teachers’ Common Core
implementation processes.

Table 2
How Much Technology is Available at the School to Support CCSS and CAASPP
Implementation?
Answer Options
1 (a little) 2 3 4 5 (a lot) Rating Average Response Count
1 5 6 6 20 4.03
38
Answered question: 38
Skipped question: 0

Professional Learning
The report on Kentucky’s implementation of Common Core reveals the importance of
ensuring that the professional learning meets the needs of educators (Berry et al., 2012).
According to Martin (2014), teachers are in need of professional development, collaboration
time, understanding of the rationale, and tools to enrich instruction. Technology is a large
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

60
component of the tools that enhance and engage student learning. Teachers are excited about
technology integration; however, many are unprepared to use technology to teach and the data it
provides to assess (McLaughlin et al., 2014). To prepare teachers for technology integration,
they will need professional learning in purposeful ways to embed technology into their
classrooms. According to Carrie, “I don’t just put kids in front of a computer. It’s gotta be with
intent on something very specific.” Tanya asserts,
It's frustrating for us when people who, who haven't been in the classroom in the last
decade are talking about what kids are like and what strategies will work when we know
very well that they wouldn't. I think that's always my biggest criticism is that, you know,
I can tell you that kids have changed dramatically in the last 5 years because of
technology and just their, the way that their brains are structured are different than ours,
you know. I mean, there's all this brain research about how they learn differently because
of technology and yet we're still hearing strategies from 20 years ago, being said that,
‘This is going to be amazing in the classroom!’ and we know, yeah (laughs) unless you
want spit wads on the ceiling, that's probably not the world’s best thing.
Teacher professional learning about technology varies amongst interviewees. Carrie
explains, “the district adopted curriculum for middle school and it (chuckles), it has a computer,
um, component. I have not yet been trained on it. I’ve been asking since May to be trained.”
When discussing technology Denise shares, “We have Chrome Carts. I’ve gone to staff training
for that. Which is ridiculous. They don’t believe in handouts so you have to go online, open a
window, to see what the handout is, close the window and then try to remember what they said to
follow directions.” Carrie describes her technology professional development by explaining,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

61
And so I haven't been able to ... for me probably, incorporate enough technology - again
back at training.... What I, what I'm given at is when I go to PD, "Try this site, try this
site. Oh, this is a great site." You know, and I'm writing down going, "Okay, so I need to
find a time to research that site, understand what it is and things like that.”
Cathy asserts, “we’ve had a lot of little in-services where teachers just inform other teachers of
cool apps they found that help with implementing Common Core State Standards.” Kelly
proclaims, “We have a digital coach and we have an instructional coach. And both are working
to help us either use technology or to provide us with particularly Common Core tied lessons that
they offer up to us for vocabulary development or for you know...tied lessons – lessons tied to
the curriculum”. When thinking about how the technology is used to assess Danny states,
Well I think we're at the, the point now where we're starting to get assessment data in the
CASP and what not. So the logical next step would be to reassess and see, okay, is this
working? Is this the types of, uh, skills that we want our kids to be producing, uh, is it
doing what it was intended to do.
As previously stated, teachers are in need of professional development, to enhance
instruction Martin (2014). More importantly, professional development must match the needs of
teachers (Berry et al., 2012). In order for professional development to match the needs, teachers
and leadership must identify what skills are needed to meet the objectives of Common Core. The
need will assist leadership and teachers in developing clear professional development goals.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation with a focus
on goals are keys to success.
Survey respondents indicate that professional development has been part of the Common
Core implementation decisions. Thirty-four survey participants indicated that they made
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

62
decisions about professional development to support their implementation processes.
Interviewees indicate that they have attended various forms of professional development. These
experiences include teacher led professional learning, collaboration, and professional
development facilitated by county office and various educational agencies. Denise indicated,
“We meet with the staff once a month and then we have collaborative time to meet with our
departments. Sometimes it’s vertical teaming, sometimes it’s just 8
th
grade planning. We have
(district wide) professional development day with all middle school teachers.” Cathy asserted,
“We’ve had a lot of trainings, district trainings and in-services and things of that nature.”
Interviewees expressed that the majority of their professional learning has occurred within the
district and/or at the school site. Survey respondents indicated that professional development
occurred at district office (35 or 92 %) or at the school (33 or 87 %). One interviewee explains,
“we have not had a lot of money for professional development…so we have honestly done most,
almost everything on site.”
Planning
Martin (2014) asserts that teachers are in need of additional time to collaborate, learn new
content, and revamp their instructional strategies to embed inquiry based learning skills (Martin,
2014). In addition, providing release time for teachers and instructional leaders to collaboratively
plan, observe classrooms, develop Common Core-aligned classroom assessments, and work with
content area experts opens up opportunities for teacher professionalism and creative potential
(Education Trust West, 2013). Moreover, technology can provide opportunity for teachers to
plan and collaborate beyond their school, district and the state (Education Trust West, 2013).
When survey respondents were asked, “How much planning did your school engage in
before implementing CCSS?” On a scale of 1 (a little) to 5 (a lot), respondents’ average rating
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

63
was 3.11. Conversely, Figure 3 reveals that 31 of respondents indicated that they made decisions
around planning when implementing the Common Core. Danny explains departmental
collaboration and planning when sharing,
Once a quarter we will plan and modify a plan for the upcoming quarters’ curriculum.
When we meet as a team we just make sure that we are covering the standard. How are
we gonna assess the standard? What is the performance task attached to the standard?
Conversely, when Denise is asked to describe a typical Common Core professional development
she answers, “ They throw data at you, they throw different theories on education, they then
throw in some videos to pump you up and then it's primarily break out groups where you, meet
with people from your site and discuss how you're going to implement the strategies in the focus
area…” Many of the interviewees expressed that there were opportunities for planning during the
collaboration time. However, the planning time was seemingly brief, as previously described by
Denise, or intermittent as Kelly explained when she stated, “We're given two planning days a
year where we can plan as a team.”

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

64
Table 3
How Much Planning Did Your School Engage in Before Implementing the CCSS?
Answer Options
1 (a little) 2 3 4 5 (a lot) Rating Average Response Count
3 8 14 8 5 3.11
38
Answered question: 38
Skipped question: 0

Research Question 2
What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers employ to communicate
with parents and students about the implementation of common core state standards?
Martin (2014) asserts that parents and the community need to understand the importance
of high expectations that CCSS has for students. Parent enlightenment will help student learning
and engagement (Zegarac, 2013). If the community is not knowledgeable or has misperceptions
about CCSS, implementation and support can be derailed (McLaughlin et al, 2014).
Community Communication
When asked on the survey, “How much CCSS communication has taken place between
stakeholders/community members and the school staff?” the results indicate that on a scale of 1-
5, with 1 being a little and 5 representing a lot, communication between stakeholders/community
and staff had an average rating of 2.66. In my conversation with Kelly, she reveals that she is
“putting herself behind it (CCSS)” so that parents understand that the CCSS is “requiring depth
of knowledge, thinking skills, and collaboration. They’re (students) responsible for learning.”
Moreover, Tanya’s interview indicated that she incorporated Common Core information
regarding “the educational shifts” and the direction of her classroom at Back to School Night.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

65
Cathy shared the role of the Counselors by stating: “Our counselors have this thing called Coffee
with the Counselors. I think it’s once a month and they’d even had some special evening
meetings on understanding common core and what it means for your child.”
When examining the data provided from the teachers interviewed, Back to School Night
appeared to be the main source of teacher communication with parents regarding Common Core.
Carrie explains, “With the community members, it's back to school night, open house and they
do have some parent nights.” Danny describes his Back to School Night presentation by
explaining, “we actually did talk about CASP results just briefly and, mainly to refer them to
administration, if they had questions at that point in time.” In addition to Back to School Night,
Denise indicates that she communicates Common Core via her syllabus. Furthermore, one
interviewee indicated that parent communication is an area in which the school is attempting to
grow, others indicated that they know that there is communication from the district and site
leadership to parents regarding CCSS via websites, newsletters, and parent meetings. According
to Carrie, “They (schools) talk about being really focused on career and college ready. That’s
really the district’s big push and, you know, our big push as well.”
Staff communication often occurs in the form of collaboration time that is embedded
within the school day. Carrie explains opportunities to communication peers by indicating, “We
do get, uh, we have our late start day.” Christine states, “We discuss it a lot in our departments.
But we’re always talking about the standards especially if they’re gonna inject something new or
different.” Additionally, Kelly explains how the technology is used for staff communication.
“Everything is put centralized on a central page…. And it’s broken down in staff meetings. So it
will start at the staff meeting first, on a whole group level, and then will break into our PLC
groups and continue to work on it.”
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

66
When asking about staff to student communication Carrie explains, “It is Common Core
but I don't tell the kids, ‘You're doing Common Core in English and we're doing you know the
four Cs.’ Like, I don't talk like that because it's not real.” Additionally, Tanya explained that she
communicates the purpose of the various activities in her classroom to students so that they
understand “Why?” Denise indicates that she communicates to students via her white board. She
declares, “I put down the objective, the essential question, all that stuff.” Kelly asserts, “I also
explain to them their need to be responsible for their learning, and that we're going to have them
think deeper and talk about their critical learning.”

Figure 4. How much CCSS communication has taken place between stakeholders/community
members and the school staff?

Research Question 3
What capacity building systems do middle school English Language Arts teachers
experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
2.66
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
How much CCSS communication has taken place between
stakeholders/community members and the school staff?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

67
Collaboration is a source of professional development that can be leveraged in the
capacity building and implementation process (Education Trust West, 2013). According to the
Education Trust West brief (2013), through professional learning communities, teachers need
opportunities to collaborate within and across departments. Collaboration can provide
opportunities for educators to reflect, problem solve, and use prior knowledge and experience to
construct new learning (Spillane, 2002). Additionally, capacity building and professional
learning operate simultaneously therefore reinforcing the need to invest in professional
development to aid leadership and teachers in the implementation process (Martin, 2014).
Capacity Building
All of the interviewees supported the research, which indicated that collaboration was a
part of capacity building. Additionally, interviewees’ responses supported the online survey,
which indicated that 37 of 38 survey respondents are making decision to support Common Core
via curriculum, 34 professional development and 31 materials. According to California
Education Code Section 60010 (h). the definition of instructional materials is “all materials that
are designed for use by pupils and their teachers as a learning resource and help pupils to acquire
facts, skills, or opinions or to develop cognitive processes. Instructional materials may be printed
or non-printed, and may include textbooks, technology-based materials, other educational
materials, and tests.” Carrie’s comments supports the survey and the research when she indicates,
“We've had a lot of district PD that's been provided by the district reviewing/ studying, habits of
mind, analyzing the framework, looking at how that changes or affects our curriculum or the way
we teach.” Like Carrie, the interviewees addressed capacity building in the form of collaboration
and professional development that often focused on curriculum, materials, and instructional
strategies. Cathy indicates,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

68
They [the district] had literacy, they call it literacy institute this summer and the previous
summer… half of the trainers were professionals from outside of the districts who came
in with, some very valid information … they had materials that they published that they
could give you and that was useful too but then the other half of the trainers were
teachers… that a lot of us knew and who just had a very hands-on, ‘Here is what I
do’…and we just loved that.
When discussing collaboration Danny explains, “We meet as a team. We just make sure that we
are covering the standard? How are we gonna assess the standard? What is the, you know
performance task attached to the standard?”
When examining the interviewees’ comments about capacity building around curriculum
and materials, remarks vary. To build capacity some interviewees expressed their efforts to find
resources that support the implementation of Common Core Standards while others expressed
that they are adapting existing lessons and materials. Carrie proclaims,
So I'll go to like Newszilla, and I'll pull down, um, articles from, from there…and I'll pull
up scholastic information depending upon what we're doing, what's going on in the
world, the standards that we're addressing, or what's going on in our community.
Danny asserts, “We've taken the existing ones [materials] and modify them.” Denise explains
that she collaborates with her colleagues to design “units with my 8
th
grade team that meet all the
standards.” Tammie states, “We spend a lot of time trying not to reinvent the wheel but find new
things that are already done that fit perfectly into what we're trying to do too. But we have
created a lot.” While Danny, Denise, and Tammie share their experience of collaborating to
adapt materials, Kelly describes how she is building her own capacity by “plugging in new
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

69
things, not just throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. Just kind of refine what I've got ... or keep
adding in new things and just so I'll have my own records and I can see how it goes.”
All interviewees indicated that professional development played a role in building
capacity. Carrie explained, “Once a month, we have some sort of in-house PD. We have a late
start and there's usually something that we are doing. So tomorrow's PD is examining a
performance task assessment and analyzing it in mixed content area groups.” Cathy indicates, “I
review the standards and I meet with my team on a regular basis.” When describing the capacity
building at Pepper Street Middle School, Danny asserts,
I think the most beneficial thing the school provides is the time for our site, specifically
our Core 7 team to sit down and talk about how it [Common Core] looks. Where the gaps
are in our curriculum. How are we gonna fill those gaps? How do we need to, to pace the
curriculum? How are we going to assess? What does that look like? And so I think that's
the, the most beneficial, item in implementing common core state standards.
Furthermore, Denise indicates that much of her learning about Common Core derived from the
schools collaboration time and professional development.
We meet with the staff once a month and then we have collaborative time to meet with
our departments. Sometimes it's vertical teaming; sometimes it's just 8th grade planning.
We have release days as well to meet with our 8th grade team and we had a professional
development day with all middle school teachers earlier this month.
Kelly declares that collaboration was key to building capacity when she explains, “Working with
my team is really important, because when we all sit down and look at 'em [Common Core State
Standards], we can all say, ‘What does that look like for you? What does that look like in your
classroom?’”
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

70
Moreover, of the 30 respondents 38 (78.9%) indicated that CCSS professional
development focused on instructional strategies, and 24 (63.2%) selected framework study. The
focus of the professional development is intertwined with building teacher capacity. In Denise’s
interview she described the professional development day with all middle school teachers.
The morning was on presenting a couple of strategies that they wanted teachers to
become familiar with, depth of knowledge in the questions, the rigor of the questions for
test taking, understanding the new testing…Then we meet in teams to go over the latest
common core testing results.
When describing the opportunities to learn more about CCSS, Kelly said, “We've been getting
targets and SBAC information that gives us exact strategies and target statements to work on.
We're always offered best practices and we always share around.” Carrie explained that her
district provided a lot of PD that included “analyzing the framework … to look at how the
changes affect our curriculum and the way we teach.” Danny indicated that the district has
designed a framework that focuses on selected quarterly standards, “Well they've broken down
the standards that we're gonna focus on by quarter. And within that, uh, we have have a high
level of autonomy on how we're gonna plan our lesson just to be able to cover that material.”
One interviewee voiced trepidation that the focus on strategies may be at the risk of
compromising the content. Her concern was that we might be “throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.” Despite this concern, capacity building via professional development that includes
collaboration, instructional strategies, framework study and curriculum planning is evident in the
survey and interview data collected.
Furthermore, when asked how prepared teachers were to teach Common Core State
Standards, Kelly indicated, “We get a lot of professional development. We've been building the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

71
Common Core curriculum strategies techniques for at least 3 years now and it was in our best
interest to get in front of the ball so I signed up for every PD I could get ahold of.” Carrie
responded, “I think it’s the way I’ve always taught…. The way I've taught English has always
been through the four Cs. It's always been through the Habits of Mind. I'm like, ‘This is what I
do.’” Cathy responded, “Well, in my subject area and because of my AVID background I feel
pretty comfortable.” Denise and Danny indicated that they felt “Very prepared” to teach
Common Core. Tammie explains, “I would say, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm probably a 7 or 8 right
now. Um, slowly moving, not slowly, but every year moving more and more towards that.”

Table 4
Describe the CCSS Professional Developments You Have Attended
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Standards study 55.3% 21
Instructional strategies 78.9% 30
Framework study 63.2% 24
CCSS assessment 55.3% 21
CCSS shifts 55.3% 21
Other (please specify) 0.0% 0
Answered question: 38
Skipped question: 0

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

72
Research Question 4
What strategies and tools do middle school English Language Arts teachers use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
According to Clark and Estes (2008), increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation with a
focus on goals are keys to success. Clark and Estes (2008) further assert that transformation
arises from a systemic analysis of the cause of performance gaps accompanied by the necessary
knowledge and skills to increase the motivation to change and impact results. Moreover,
leadership providing feedback will be key to eliciting teacher growth when the performance
feedback is tied to the organizational and personal goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Evaluating Effectiveness
When asked to what extent feedback is used to assess the effectiveness of the CCSS
implementation respondents indicated an average of 2.42 on a scale of 1 (a little) to 5 (a lot).
Carrie stated, “data analysis would be nice to have…I’m interested to see how is this Smarter
Balance going to help me be a better teacher.” Cathy commented, “So when they do their walk-
throughs they’re gonna compare what your goals and objectives were with what they see
happening when they walk through which may not be a perfect process but, at least it’ll … it’s
something.” Tanya explained,
As far as the administration goes, they check on it [strategies and practices]. They will
walk on our classrooms and they have some things that they want to see happening. But
once they realize that you're doing that, they don't really bug you about it.
When asked what feedback has been provided about the effectiveness of implementation,
the responses varied. Cathy explained, “when they’ve done informal walk-throughs they’ll
usually tell me ‘I liked that I saw this or that on your wall, I liked that your kids … your students
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

73
were doing this or that.’” When describing the CCSS monitoring practices and the feedback on
implementation effectiveness, Danny indicates that,
We get feedback from the administration through meetings, our faculty meetings. I get
specific feedback when I'm observed and follow up meetings…. They [Administration]
will bring up CASP results or Illuminate result. Illuminate results we actually go over
with the team. We have a team meeting with administration.
Conversely, Tanya, Carrie and Denise asserted that site and/or district leadership has provided no
feedback on implementation effectiveness. Tanya asserted, “I would say that's a big fat zero on
all that.” Carrie responded, “I don't even know how to answer that question. Um, you know,
truthfully I don't feel like we get any feedback.” However, while Denise initially indicated she
received no feedback, later she explained, “Well, we have, we have a TOSA (Teacher on Special
Assignment) at our site; so I guess, she offers coaching to people who need it.” Similar to
Denise, interviewees referenced coaches who provide support and feedback in the
implementation process. Kelly explains, “The learning coach comes through on a regular basis
and she will pinpoint it right in your lesson”. Resembling the survey, interviewees’ comments
regarding feedback vary. Three of the six indicated that feedback was provided on
implementation effectiveness. However, of the three remaining interviewees’ one response was
inconsistent and two indicated no feedback was provided on implementation effectiveness.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

74
Table 5
To What Extent is Feedback Used to Assess the Effectiveness of CCSS Implementation?
Answer Options
1 (a little) 2 3 4 5 (a lot) Rating Average Response Count
9 10 13 6 0 2.42
38
answered question: 38
skipped question: 0

Summary
Interviewees expressed a variety of implementation decisions that they are making to
support Common Core State Standards implementation. The data suggests the following findings
as it related to the four research questions.
Research question 1 asks, What decisions do middle school English Language Arts
teachers make when implementing Common Core State Standards? Middle School English
Language Arts teachers are primarily making decisions about curriculum, professional
development, materials, and planning. Many of these decisions are being made because
textbooks have not been adopted therefore teachers must adapt current curriculum and/or find
resources to meet their current needs. Much of these decisions are being made collaboratively.
The professional development often occurs amongst teams of teachers who gather to learn
together, develop curriculum, refine current materials, and/or refine their practice.
Research question 2 asks, What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers
employ to communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards? Teachers primarily communicate with parents via Back to School Nights.
Additionally, some teachers provide explicit communicate with students about CCSS through
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

75
their lessons. Moreover, some indicate that counselors, administrators, and district personnel are
also communicating with parents regarding Common Core. Much of the school and district
communication occurs via their websites. One interviewee indicated that parent communication
is an area that the district continues to work on improving.
Research question 3 asks, What capacity building systems do middle school English
Language Arts teachers experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards
reform? Capacity building is connected to the first research question regarding teacher decisions.
Teachers decide to build capacity through professional development and collaboration with
colleagues. Often the professional development is inclusive of collaboration that is embedded in
the professional learning opportunity or it is part of the professional development collaboration
time scheduled by the district or school.
Research question 4 asks, What strategies and tools do middle school English Language
Arts teachers use to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State
Standards? To evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation, teachers primarily receive
feedback from walkthroughs and coaching. The walkthrough is focused on a particular area.
When coaching is offered, it is provided by TOSA’s (teacher on special assignment) whose focus
is to support teachers with their practice.
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the research study including conclusions and
implications.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

76
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
In 2010, the State of California, along with states throughout the nation, adopted a new
set of state standards, which have become known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
(McLaughlin, Glaab & Carrasco, 2014). Since federal mandates did not exist, states were on
their own to develop how they will implement the CCSS to meet the upcoming federal
assessments. Simultaneously, California implemented a new funding system for schools, Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The goal of LCFF was to give more flexibility to districts
and their communities and to provide additional funding to meet the needs of low-performing
subgroups such as English Language Learners, low socio-economically disadvantaged students,
and foster youth. The Local Control Funding Formula has freed districts from categorical
programs and their strict limitations used to regulate districts (Warren & Murphy, 2014).
Because of LCFF, districts have the opportunity to determine their priorities with CCSS
implementation. Consequently, these key decisions make it important to understand the
Common Core State Standards implementation process.
This chapter is comprised of a summary of the study, including a statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and
methodology used. Subsequently, findings related to the four research questions will be
discussed. Finally, implications and recommendations for future study will be detailed.
Statement of the Problem
As Thomas Friedman explains in The World is Flat (2006), to prepare students for global
competitiveness educators must prepare children for jobs that will exist in the future. Friedman
further explains that it is more important to focus on how we educate our children rather than the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

77
quantity of education. Friedman’s assertions asks for a transformation in education to focus on
the quality of the teaching and learning while engaging students in the habits of mind to be
competitive in a global marketplace. Additionally, The National Governors Association (NGA)
and The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) report highlighted a concern about
students’ global competitiveness as a result of U.S. students falling behind on international
assessment (Jerald, 2008). The decrease in US student performance relative to other nations
signifies a decrease in human capital—the collective skills and knowledge that can be used to
create economic value (Warren & Murphy, 2014).
While the premise for developing the Common Core is substantial, the capacity to
implement CCSS is a concern. Teachers are key in the attainment of the vision of Common Core.
In order for Common Core State Standards to be successful, it is important for teachers to have a
clear infrastructure that includes professional development, and resources to support
implementation (McLaughlin, Glaab &Carrasco, 2014). Additionally, the online assessments
create a need for support with technology integration. Moreover, teachers are in need of
assistance with identifying and implementing instructional materials that support the CCSS.
Furthermore, educators are a major component of communication with the community therefore
it is important that they become the voice of Common Core. While the NGA and the CCSO were
strategic in the development of the Common Core State Standards, its’ success is dependent on
the effectiveness of the teacher implementation. If execution of the CCSS is done well,
improvements in opportunities and global competiveness will ensue (Martin, 2014).
Purpose of the Study
The complex change in instruction associated with reform will require substantial
learning by teachers (Spillane, 2002). Students’ ability to acquire the skills that are embedded
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

78
within the standards will rely upon teacher learning and instruction around the CCSS. The focus
of this study will be to examine instructional decisions made by middle school English Language
Arts teachers as they implement CCSS.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
• What decisions do middle school English Language Arts teachers make when
implementing Common Core State Standards?
• What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers employ to
communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards?
• What capacity building systems do middle school English Language Arts teachers
experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
• What strategies and tools do middle school English Language Arts teachers use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to capture relevant knowledge as it related to the
background, and context. Additionally, the rationale and current research on the progress and
perceptions of Common Core implementation are detailed. Four major themes, related to
implementation of Common Core State Standards, emerged from the literature: (1)
implementation decisions, (2) community communication, (3) capacity building, and (4)
feedback to evaluate effectiveness.
Since the late 1970s a variety of researchers have noted the way in which educators
implement policy. Early researchers have connected challenges in implementation to lack of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

79
educators’ skill and drive or the use of policy to meet a personal goal or agenda (Coburn, 2005).
However, more recent research found that this implementation process is normal. According to
Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer (2002) teachers understand new policy through the lens of prior
knowledge and experiences. When thinking about Common Core implementation it is clear that
teachers play a critical role in the success of the implementation process. According to Purinton
(2011), efforts to reform the profession of teaching previously failed because schools and
districts became responsible for the practice of teaching. Currently, teaching has been placed
back in to the hands of teachers, without sufficient resources to address the complex task of
teaching (Purinton, 2011).
The Common Core shift will move education towards developing effective teachers, thus
emphasizing teachers’ ability to foster student achievement (Liston, Borko &Whitcomb, 2008).
According to Senge (1990) it is necessary for teachers to be a part of a learning organization. The
characteristics of learning organizations include systems thinking; personal mastery; mental
models; building a shared vision, and team learning (Senge, 1990). Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2014) assert that high quality professional development is necessary for teachers to
develop personal mastery and mental models. High quality professional development provides
teachers with intensive, content rich, and collegial learning opportunities that improve teaching
and student learning (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2014). Purinton (2011) further asserts
that reforms will not be successful if teachers are not empowered to do their work well and
teachers will not be equipped to do their work if the system does not recognize teachers’ need to
collaboratively share ways of thinking about their practice.
A major source of concern is the curriculum materials to support the implementation
process. While publishers claim texts are CCSS aligned, practitioners and researchers question
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

80
their assertion (McLaughlin et al., 2014). There is a need for systems when judging the quality
and appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin, 2014). In the McLaughlin et al. (2014)
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.
Additionally, teachers are in need of support with technology integration. Preparation for
technology integration and assistance with computer assessments is vital (Martin, 2014). There is
a need to build capacity for the appropriate hardware (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Teachers
convey excitement for technology integration, yet many are not prepared to use technology to
teach nor the data it provides to assess (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Moreover, teachers are a major component of communication with the community.
According to John Hattie’s research on major impacts of student learning, teachers and leaders
must inform all about the language of learning (Zegarac, 2013). Parents do not often understand
what happens in schools therefore teachers sharing the language of school with parents makes a
big difference (Zegarac, 2013). Hattie’s research supports Martin’s (2014) findings that parents
and the community need to understand the importance of high expectations that CCSS has for
students. If the community is uninformed or has misperceptions about CCSS, implementation
and support can be derailed (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 38 quantitative surveys and
six qualitative interviews completed by middle school English Language Arts teachers
implementing Common Core in Orange County, California. This method was selected for
increased rigor, as it allows for comparisons among findings and provides greater depth and
complexity to the data collected (Patton, 2002).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

81
The data was collected in two phases. First, the quantitative data was gathered from the
38 teachers that volunteered and completed the survey. The second phase included qualitative
interviews with the 6 teachers that were selected based on their willingness to participate in an
interview and their experience with Common Core implementation. The teachers selected are
implementing Common Core and they had experience with the CCSS themes found in the
literature: communication, capacity building, and evaluation.
The quantitative data surveyed demographic information, willingness to be interviewed,
four multiple-choice questions regarding CCSS implementation, and 27 Likert-style survey items
concerning CCSS experiences. The qualitative data analysis was guided by Creswell’s (2014)
seven-step process model for data analysis. Interviews were conducted by using a 20-question
protocol with follow up questions to clarify responses. All interviews were recorded and
transcribed for accuracy.
The scholarly research informed the survey design and interview protocol. These
instruments were subsequently aligned to the research questions in order to enhance validity.
Data gathered through surveys and interviews were analyzed and used to support the significant
research findings as they related to each of the four research questions. The research questions
were answered by analyzing the data gathered through qualitative and quantitative research
methods. During the data analysis, the findings were triangulated and themes were established.
This process added to the validity of the study (Creswell, 2014).
Findings
Research question 1 asks, What decisions do middle school English Language Arts
teachers make when implementing Common Core State Standards? The survey and the interview
revealed that Middle School English Language Arts teachers are primarily making CCSS
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

82
implementation decisions regarding curriculum, professional development, materials, and
planning. Of the 38 survey respondents, 37 indicated curriculum decisions were made, 34 made
decisions regarding professional development and 31 made decisions regarding materials and
planning. All of the interviewees expressed some form of decision making within these areas.
When discussing these decisions, interviewees expressed the need to make these decisions
because there has been no textbook adoption. As a result, teachers are planning together,
adapting current curriculum and/or finding materials to meet their instructional needs.
Additionally 38 survey respondents and all interviewees indicated they learned about
CCSS via training or professional development. When sharing their level of familiarity with the
English Language Arts Standards, survey respondents averaged 3.92 on a scale of 1-5 with 1
being a little and 5 being a lot. Meanwhile all of the interviewees felt they where well prepared
to implement and survey respondents averaged 3.61 in their level of preparation. Moreover, 30
survey respondents and all of the interviewees expressed that they are attending professional
development to acquire instructional strategies that will support the Common Core. When asked
about the autonomy they have when implementing Common Core the rating average was 3.82
out of 5. All of the interviewees expressed that they had autonomy when implementing CCSS.
However, two clarified by specifying that the autonomy was within the confines of the district
and/or school goals.
These data points indicate a high level of readiness and engagement in implementing the
Common Cores State Standards. This is true despite the interviewees’ expression of frustration
about the lack of materials and curriculum to support the implementation. Also, while all
interviewees indicated that they have collaboration time and survey respondents’ average rating
for planning time was 3.11, the limited work time allocated to plan was a frustration expressed
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

83
by two of the interviewees. While interviewees expressed these concerns, the quantitative and
qualitative data indicates that teachers were familiar with the Common Core ELA standards at a
3.92 rating, they were prepared at 3.61 rating, and six of six interviewees indicated they felt
prepared to teach Common Core.
Research question 2 asks, What actions do middle school English Language Arts teachers
employ to communicate with parents and students about the implementation of common core
state standards? When asked how much communication occurs between stakeholders and
members of the school staff, the response rated a 2.66. This was one of the lowest rated
questions. Additionally, interviewees’ comments regarding communication supported the low
rating on this indicator. Interviewees indicate that they primarily communicate with parents via
Back to School Nights regarding Common Core. While interviewees indicated that the school
and/or district via websites delivers communication, only one interviewee provided an example
of other staff communicating with parents regarding Common Core. As one interviewee
indicated and the data reflects, there is a need to increase community communication.
Research question 3 asks, What capacity building systems do middle school English
Language Arts teachers experience and implement to support the Common Core State Standards
reform? The interviews demonstrated a strong connection between collaboration and
professional development to build capacity. The survey’s respondents indicated participation in
CCSS professional development at a 3.38. When asked about professional development all
interviewees expressed that they attended some form of Common Core professional learning.
They further described that much of the professional learning was occurring in collaboration
with their colleagues. Capacity building is connected to the first research question regarding
professional development. However, when asked how effective was the off site professional
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

84
development the survey respondents rated it’s effectiveness at a 2.97 on a Likert scale of 1-5.
Interviewees often spoke of the collaboration opportunities in a positive manner. However, when
discussing professional development provided by other educational entities, it was not given the
same level of positive commentary. Four out of six interviewees indicated a need for
improvement in the professional learning offered by off site educational organizations.
Research question 4 asks, What strategies and tools do middle school English Language
Arts teachers use to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Common Core State
Standards? The data revealed that feedback is an area of growth. When survey respondent were
asked to what extent feedback is used to assess the effectiveness of CCSS implementation the
rating was 2.42, the lowest rating of all of the Likert scale questions. Interviewees supported the
survey data regarding feedback. One interviewee expressed that she receives no feedback. One
interviewee shared that feedback is provided, however, when it is discovered that you are doing
what is expected, the feedback is no longer delivered. Another indicated that walkthrough data is
used as a tool for feedback. Three interviewees expressed that there are a variety of ways that
they measure their effectiveness to include data assessment, walkthroughs, and coaching from
other teachers. While there was a range of responses from interviewees, all expressed an interest
in further evaluating the effectiveness of their implementation. Furthermore, they expressed an
interest in the impact of the SBAC on teaching and learning.
Implications
The findings associated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying teacher implementation practices around Common Core State Standards. The insights
are beneficial to schools and districts implementing the Common Core. Additionally, these
insights will benefit educational organizations providing support in the CCSS implementation
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

85
processes. This research provides an understanding of decisions that teachers are making when
implementing initiatives, while also providing an indicator of the areas of growth for successful
implementation.
While classrooms may vary, the data collected in this research supports what other
researchers are saying about teacher needs when implementing CCSS. Researchers indicate that
professional development and collaboration is key. This research indicates that teachers are
receiving these opportunities. However, researchers also indicate that teachers are in need of
assistance with curriculum, technology, and materials to support CCSS implementation. This
study reveals that this is an area that still needs to be addressed.
If professional learning and collaboration is not a factor in school and district
implementation processes, this study provides insights about what others are doing. For those
who provide these opportunities, these findings can be used to examine how to refine the
professional learning and collaboration that currently exists. Additionally, this study is the
impetus for examining how to support teachers with curriculum, technology, and materials that
will aid in CCSS implementation. Furthermore this study reveals a need to examine school and
district community communication around CCSS.
Recommendations for Future Study
In order to gain a better understanding of teacher implementation decisions around CCSS
the researcher recommends the following be considered for future study:
1. Since curriculum is key to implementation, a closer examination of the impact of
curriculum adoptions on teacher implementation may inform practice.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

86
2. The research suggests that community understanding of CCSS is significant to the
implementation processes therefore a case study regarding school-district-community
communication would further clarify it’s importance in implementation.
3. According to the research, time to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation is
key. Upon adopting curriculum and receipt of SBAC data results, exploration of how
schools and districts are measuring their effectiveness will benefit educator practice.
Conclusion
Teachers are key to the learning process. With the adoption of Common Core State
Standards teacher implementation processes are important to ensuring that students are globally
competitive. As a result, teachers must be strategic in their decision making while also being
resourceful in their implementation. Ultimately, what teachers choose to do in their classrooms
will impact our nation’s human capital therefore it is vital that teachers are provided the
appropriate support and resources to ensure that students flourish in the global marketplace.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

87
REFERENCES
ACT (2013). The condition of college and career readiness 2013.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. education
policy analysis archives, 8, 51.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon, A Viacom Company, 160 Gould St., Needham
Heights, MA 02194; Internet: www. abacon. com.
California Education Code, EC Section 60010 (h)
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Core, C. (2013). Which way do we go?
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., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
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.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation.
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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

88
The Education Trust-West,. The One Billion Dollar Question: How Can Districts And Schools
Equitably Implement The Common Core?. Oakland: The Education Trust West, 2016.
Web. 25 Jan. 2016.
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.
Fritzberg, G. J. (2004). No child left behind?: Assessing president Bush’s assessment law.
Educational Foundations, 18, 7–24.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat [updated and expanded]: A brief history of the twenty-
first century. Macmillan.
Feistritzer, C. E., Griffin, S., & Linnajarvi, A. (2011). Profile of teachers in the US, 2011.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
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
Jerald, C. D. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-Class
Education. National Governors Association.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

89
Kelly, D., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of US 15-
Year-Old Students in Mathematics, Science, and Reading Literacy in an International
Context. First Look at PISA 2012. NCES 2014-024. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Legislative Analysis Office. (2013). An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula.
Sacramento, CA: Taylor, M.
Liu, G. (2006). Interstate inequality in educational opportunity. NYUL Rev., 81, 2044.
Liston, D., Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator's role in enhancing teacher
quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 111.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703
North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
Martin, C. (2014). Common Core Implementation Best Practices.
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.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: An Interactive
Approach. Sage.
McDonnell, L. M., & Weatherford, M. S. (2013). Organized Interests and the Common Core.
Educational Researcher, 42(9), 488-497.
McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I. H. (2014). Implementing Common Core State
Standards in California: A Report from the Field.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

90
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley
& Sons.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. Crown Business.
Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and
programs. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 377-420.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition. New
directions in educational policy implementation, 47-64.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

91
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
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American
schools: Asking the right questions (Vol. 22). United States Govt Printing Office.
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in
school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence.
Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 305-328.
Warren, P., & Murphy, P. (2014). California’s Transition to the Common Core State Standards.
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 highstakes testing. Psychology in the Schools,
45(3), 206-216.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

92
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 as a teacher?
a. 0-3
b. 4-7
c. 8-11
d. 12+
5. What grade levels does your site serve? Select all that apply.
a. 6
b. 7
c. 8
6. What is the total enrollment at your school?
a. 600-800
b. 801 -1000
c. 1001-1200
d. 1201-1400
e. 1401+

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

93
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

94
1
(A little) 2 3 4
5
(A lot)
12. How familiar are you with the Language
Arts Common Core State Standards?

13. How much autonomy are you given by
when implementing the Common Core
State Standards?

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

15. How prepared do you feel to implement
CCSS implementation with all students?

16. How prepared do you feel to implement
CCSS with EL students?

17. How prepared do you feel to implement
CCSS with students with disabilities?

18. How prepared do you feel to implement
CCSS with students living in poverty?

19. How much CCSS professional
development and training have you
participated in?

20. In your opinion, how effective has the
off-site professional development been?

21. To what extent has CCSS communication
between stakeholders/community
members and the school staff has taken
place.

22. To what extent are the classroom
materials aligned with the CCSS.

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

24. How much technology is available at the
School to support CCSS and/or CAASP
implementation?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

95
25. To what extent have barriers hindered
CCSS implementation?

26. To what extent is feedback used to assess
the effectiveness of CCSS
implementation?

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

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

Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview? ☐ Yes ☐ No.

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.

Name: _______________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
Phone: _______________________________________________________
Email Address: _______________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the survey.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

96
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I. Background
1. Please tell me about your school site?
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 teacher?
5. Tell me about any opportunities you've had to learn about the CCSS?

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

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

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

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?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

97
III. Teacher Capacity
1. How prepared are you to teach the CCSS?

2. How are you preparing for CCSS instruction?

3. What types of professional developments has your site provided for teachers?

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

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

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

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

V. Resources
I am interested in learning more about the CCSS resources you have used. The next few
questions will focus on materials and technology.
1. What CCSS materials does your site use for:

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

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

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

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

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

98
VII. Facilitation, Barriers, & Evaluation
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’re school has employed?

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

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

99

APPENDIX C
RECRUITMENT LETTER
August 24, 2015

Dear Fellow Educator,

Greetings, I am doctoral candidate working on my dissertation at USC. The focus of my
dissertation is Common Core State Standards decisions made by middle school English
Language Arts Teachers.

Participation in the study is voluntary; to be eligible, you must be employed in a California
public middle school and must have Common Core State Standards implementation experience,
with at least three years’ experience as a teacher.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey anticipated to take no
more than 15 minutes to complete. You may also be asked to participate in an interview.

All responses will be kept confidential; data will be reported in the aggregate.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns please email Myrtice Rowe at mrowe@usc.edu.

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

Sincerely,

Myrtice Rowe

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

100
APPENDIX D
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
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 Middle School English Language Arts
Teachers

You are invited to participate in a research study because you are a Middle School English
Language Arts teacher 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 at least two years experience as a teacher.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand leadership practices and decisions employed by
teachers 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 BY ELA TEACHERS

101
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 Myrtice Rowe 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 Myrtice
Rowe or the dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita.
• Myrtice Rowe 714-454-7367, mrowe@usc.edu P.O. Box 4427 Mission Viejo, CA 92690
• 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.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS

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

Name of Participant

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION BY ELA TEACHERS

102

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 As a result of California’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards, it is important to understand the Common Core State Standards implementation process. Students’ ability to acquire the skills that are embedded within the standards will rely upon teacher learning and instruction around the Common Core. The rationale for developing the Common Core is substantial, however, the capacity to implement CCSS is a concern. This study utilized a mixed-methods design to answer four research questions related to middle school English Language Arts teachers’ implementation of the Common Core. Data was collected via a quantitative survey of 38 middle school ELA teachers. Additionally, a qualitative interview of six survey respondents was used to support the four research findings. Teachers are in need of additional time to learn how to support the Common Core shifts and revise their instructional strategies to embed inquiry based learning skills. In addition, online assessments and the technological demands of the 21st Century create a need for support with technology integration. Moreover, teachers are in need of assistance with identifying and implementing instructional materials that support the CCSS. Furthermore, educators are a major component of communication with the community

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

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

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A Catholic school dilemma: Adopt Common Core State Standards?

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

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

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Salmond, Myrtice (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/20/2016

Defense Date 03/28/2016

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,English language arts,implementation,instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teachers

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 mrowe@usc.edu,myrticerowe@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-254537

Unique identifier UC11279601

Identifier etd-SalmondMyr-4452.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-254537 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SalmondMyr-4452-1.pdf

Dmrecord 254537

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Salmond, Myrtice

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