University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

1

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION: DECISIONS MADE BY SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENTS OF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS

by

Robert George Allard, Jr.

_______________________________________________________________________

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 Robert George Allard, Jr.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my grandpa, Colonel Henry Allard. Grandpa served his
family and country with great love and dedication. Everyday I strive to be like him.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The thought of going back to school and writing a dissertation is daunting. I appreciate
the support I have received from my USC Rossier School of Education family. The supportive
Thursday night cohort helped make going to school after a long day possible. The faculty in the
program was invaluable in preparing me to write a dissertation. My dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita, provided support and encouragement. He pushed me when I needed it most. The
other two committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Michael Escalante, also supported my
development and supported me through the process. It was Dr. Escalante’s class that inspired
me to focus on superintendents in my study.
Education has always been a focus in my family. I had the opportunity to watch my wife
complete her dissertation, and I still went ahead with it myself. She is a great role-model for me
and has been supportive through the process. She gave me the time I needed to read the endless
articles on the weekends. Through it all she has been there to support me and I thank her for her
love and understanding.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....6
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study……………………………………………………………. ...8
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… ...8
Background of the Problem…………………………………………………………. ...10
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...12
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...12
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...13
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………………... ...13
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………... ...14
Delimitations………………………………………………………………………… ...14
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………...15
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………. ...16
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...16
History of Educational Assessment and Evaluation………………………………… ...17
Superintendent Leadership…………………………………………………………... ...26
Common Core Implementation……………………………………………………… ...28
Chapter 3:Methodology………………………………………………………………………...36
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...36
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...37
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...37
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design………………………………………... ...38
Sample and Population………………………………………………………………....39
Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………....40
Data Collection………………………………………………………………………....42
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………... ...43
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...45
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………… ...46
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...46
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………. ...47
Response Rate……………………………………………………………………….. ...47
Quantitative Demographic Data…………………………………………………….. ...48
Qualitative Demographic Data………………………………………………………....51
Research Question 1…………………………………………………………………....54
Research Question 2…………………………………………………………………....59
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

5
Research Question 3…………………………………………………………………....62
Research Question 4…………………………………………………………………....66
Summary…………………………………………………………………………….. ...71
Chapter 5: Conclusions……………………………………………………………………… ...74
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. ...74
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...75
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...75
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….. ...76
Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………….. ...76
Findings………………………………………………………………………………...78
Implications………………………………………………………………………….. ...81
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………… ...81
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….. ...83
References…………………………………………………………………………………… ...84
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument…………………………………………………… ...96
Appendix B: Interview Protocol………………………………………………….. ...101
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter…………………………………………………. ...106

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender……………………………………....48
Table 2. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education Level………………………….. ...49
Table 3. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Degree by Gender………………………... ...49
Table 4. Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Years of Experience………………………...50
Table 5. Quantitative Survey: District Size……………………………………………….....50
Table 6. Quantitative Survey: District Type………………………………………………....51
Table 7. Superintendent and District Characteristics……………………………………... ...52
Table 8. Number of Professional Development Hours Attended within District………… ...55
Table 9. Number of Professional Development Hours Attended outside District………... ...55
Table 10. Quantitative Survey: Professional Development Attended……………………... ...57
Table 11. Quantitative Survey: Decisions Made……………………………………………...58
Table 12. Alignment of Curriculum………………………………………………………... ...63
Table 13. Years of CCSS Implementation…………………………………………………. ...66

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

7
ABSTRACT
This study examines the decisions made by Southern California Superintendents of unified
school districts as they lead the implementation of the California Common Core State Standards.
There were four research questions that guided the study which are: (a) what decisions have
Southern California superintendent’s made to support Common Core Implementation, (b) what
actions have taken place in order to communicate with stakeholders the implementation of
common core state standards, (c) what capacity building systems have been developed to support
the Common Core State Standards reform, and (d) how do Southern California superintendents
evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State
Standards reform. The study was a mixed methods study in which thirty-nine Southern
California superintendents participated in the qualitative portion. From the thirty-nine that
participated in the surveys, five were purposefully selected to complete the qualitative portion
and were interviewed. The qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed and coded; the
subsequent themes emerged about decisions Southern California Superintendents make:
curriculum, professional development, communication, materials, technology, evaluation, and
leadership. The superintendents in the interviews indicated that professional development was
the most important part of CCSS implementation. Furthermore a number of superintendents
indicated that they needed to build teacher-leaders to lead implementation of the CCSS.
Additionally the evaluation of CCSS varies by district; however there is a common thread for
evaluation which includes using standardized test scores.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Educators are charged with meeting the educational needs of every child that they work
with, as well as ensuring that the students they teach attain proficiency in academic subjects
(California Department of Education, 1998). In short, teachers are expected to teach and
safeguard that every child is learning at high levels. The curriculum that teachers teach changed
two years ago. The new standards or new intended curriculum is very different than the previous
standards (Berry, Daugherty, Darling-Hammond & Cook, 2012; Kober & Rentner, 2012). The
new standards are focused on the “what” and not on the “how” content is taught (Porter,
McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Educators are struggling with this change; even as, they are
currently entrenched in this reform process (Kober & Rentner, 2012).
Educational reforms date back to 1837 with the first Board of Education in Massachusetts
whose goal was to promote the advantages of education through common schools, establish year
long schools, and make schooling available to all children of proper age (“Massachusetts School
Returns,” 1837). Within the last 60 years there have been many educational reforms. Beginning
in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, the Soviet Union’s artificial earth satellite, which
prompted the first Math and Science reform (Kessinger, 2011). Currently the newest Math and
Language Arts reform is the Common Core Standards Initiative (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, &
Yang, 2011). All reforms in the United States have begun due to concerns that the instruction
children are receiving is not adequate, and of lower quality than that of like countries (Kessinger,
2011; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013; Santos, Darling-Hammond, Cheuk, 2012; Wiener,
2013).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

9
Recent reforms focus on content standards that should be taught to all students. Content
standards define the desirable knowledge, concepts, and skills that elementary and secondary
students should acquire at each grade level (California Department of Education, 1998). In 1997
the first set of Language Arts and Mathematics standards were created and adopted in California,
and the second set of standards are now the Common Core State Standards (California
Department of Education, 1998; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). These reform efforts were
made to improve student achievement by defining the content to be taught in the classrooms
throughout the country (California Department of Education, 1998). The California standards
were developed for every grade level and were thought to create a balanced comprehensive
program. The goal of the California standards was to ensure that every student graduating from
high school was prepared to transition successfully into college or career (California Department
of Education, 1998).
In 2012 the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2012). The nation’s governors and education commissioners developed the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with input from teachers, parents, school administrators,
and educational experts (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The Common Core
State Standards were built on the rigor of the 1997 standards; however there were major shifts.
For example, the 1997 standards emphasized basic skills, while the CCSS focus on conceptual
knowledge (Wiener, 2013). Forty-three states, including California, have adopted the Common
Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012).
Districts across the nation are facing the need to implement the new Common Core State
Standards. The responsibility of this shift from previous standards falls on the shoulders of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

10
superintendents that lead the districts. Mac Iver and Farley (2003) describe the importance of
having strong superintendents and central offices to provide leadership.
The common core state standards have caused state governments and districts to grapple
with implementing a “new” way of educating students. The standards are highly politicized
because of the origins from the federal government. They require higher levels of reasoning
skills to meet the expectations of the 21
st
century (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). In
California, implementation looks different from site to site. It is important to identify roadblocks
as a result of national standards implementation, and identify the best practices for implementing
the standards.
Background of the Problem
Over the years there have been attempts to create a national curriculum. They have failed
until the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The need for the CCSS
has many reasons. The first reason is students in the United States score consistently lower on
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) when compared to US global competitors
(McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). Another reason is US students’ lack of preparation for
postsecondary education or employment, otherwise known as college and career ready
(McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). Friedman (2005) asserts that the US is not educating
students in math, science and engineering at the levels needed to remain competitive in the
global market. American students do not perform as well as their counterparts in other countries.
President Obama introduced the CCSS in February of 2010. The President said
economic achievement and educational achievement go hand in hand and that every American
needs to be prepared for college and the changing work force (Obama, 2010). There is no
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

11
research that states that national standards increase student achievement because there have
never been national standards (Mathis, 2010). The Obama Administration states that common
standards are necessary for economic competitiveness in a global economy.
The CCSS adoption comes with many critics. Some say the government has overstepped
their bounds by implementing national standards (Mathis, 2010). Still others contend that the
government bullied states into adopting the standards by tying $2.5 billion for states to adopt the
standards and another $400 million to create national assessments (Mathis, 2010). Opponents
contend that the federal government has unprecedented influence over curriculum and pedagogy
(Mathis, 2010). CCSS has become a political football that is being kicked around at both the
federal and state levels.
In 2010, the National Council of Governors Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers released the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for language arts and math.
To date, 43 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories have adopted the standards
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). In California, the standards are a shift from the
previous content standards. The CCSS are internationally benchmarked with the aim of having
more students become college and career ready (Porter et al., 2011). The CCSS would offer
several benefits in language arts and math. Porter et al. (2011) identify four of these benefits:
shared expectations among states creating consistency, a greater focus on rigorous curricula for
all students, more efficient in developing curriculum guides and assessment, and quality
assessments aligned to the standards that are administered on-line. In the study by Porter et al.
(2011), it was concluded that with a single curriculum, it will now be possible to develop
carefully aligned standards-based curriculum for all the states instead of having different
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

12
curriculum for each state. Common Core State Standards have the potential to increase student
achievement and the college and career readiness of students.
Statement of the Problem
The need for successful common core implementation in districts is paramount for many
reasons. The first and foremost is for students to achieve the proposed benefits of common core
and to be prepared for college or career. The second is the external accountability from state and
local government. Leadership has never been more important than it is now with the shift to
CCSS. Superintendents are making decisions that will impact implementation, but more
importantly will affect student achievement for the next generation.
California has also seen a shift in how schools are funded. Governor Brown has created a
large-scale deregulation of state funds and enacted a local-control funding formula to provide
additional support to students who need it most (Kirst, 2013). In California, this has led to a
great opportunity for districts to implement the CCSS; as well as a creating great challenges that
must be overcome (Kirst, 2013).
The leadership from the superintendent in the area of common core implementation and
the assessment of the effectiveness of implementation has never been more important. There is
little research in this area of implementation. Furthermore the decision making process of
superintendents has not been assessed around CCSS.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand the decisions superintendents make with the
implementation of Common Core State Standards. Understanding superintendents’ actions and
decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS could help guide the Common Core
implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The findings from this
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

13
study will assist superintendents with an understanding of current Common Core implementation
systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study.
• What decisions have superintendents made to support Common Core
Implementation?
• What actions have taken place in order to communicate with stakeholders the
implementation of common core state standards?
• What capacity building systems have been developed to support the Common Core
State Standards reform?
• How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been used
to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
Importance of the Study
This study will add to the body of scholarly literature on education reform processes. The
data collected during this study will be useful to practitioners in the field; it will help provide
options or steps that may be followed to implement the CCSS. Practitioners in the field include
principals, teachers, district office administrators, and teachers from teacher credentialing
programs. The data will provide guidance to Superintendents involved with standards reforms
that are currently underway.
Policy makers will also benefit from the data gathered in this study. The data gathered
will help policy makers understand how superintendents have supported their staffs during the
Common Core State Standards implementation. If policy makers understand superintendents’
current realities with CCSS, they will be able to plan more accordingly regarding implementation
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

14
timelines, monies that will be necessary for successful implementation, and the systems that will
need to be in place to support full implementation.
Limitations
There are four identified limitations within this study. The first limitation is that the study
is not generalizable because of the small amount of superintendents interviewed and surveyed.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the results obtained from this study, if
replicated, will be successful at similar districts or in different educational contexts. Second, the
timeline of data collection will only span a few months versus a longer study and may not allow
for enough data to be collected to gain deep enough insight into whether or not the strategies
implemented provide academic gains. Third, the qualitative nature of the study and the small
number of participants interviewed only provides individual interpretations that are unique to the
districts and the superintendents and may not be representative of typical California schools.
Next, I am relying on self-reporting that takes place during an interview and a survey, the
validity of the data, is dependent on the honesty of the participants. Finally, my own researcher
bias acts as a limitation due to the fact that my interview and survey data are interpreted from my
own perspective and may not always reflect the participants true intentions.
Delimitations
There are three delimitations that limit the scope of this study. The first involves district
selection, as I am purposefully sampling districts for my study. The second delimitation involves
the timeline established for data collection. I plan to spend a few months collecting data instead
of a longer period of time. Third, my instrumentation for data collection and analysis, such as
interview protocols, and survey questions, will be created and fulfilled by me, and therefore only
my interpretation of the data will be used.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

15
Definitions
Common Core State Standards: A set of academic standards in mathematics and English
language arts/literacy the were developed in 2009 by state school chiefs and governors.
Capacity Building: A conceptual approach to development that focuses on understanding
the obstacles that inhibit people in organizations from realizing their development goals while
enhancing the abilities that will allow them to achieve measurable and sustainable results.
Reform: The improvement of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory.
Stakeholders: Anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and its
students. Stakeholders may include administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents,
families, community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board
members, city councilors, and state representatives.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Authors: Robert Allard, Alexis Norman, Myrtice Rowe
1

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) are assessments that allow countries
to compare student scores. The PISA assessments measure the performance of 15-year-old
students from 65 different educational systems in mathematics, science, and reading literacy
(Kelly, Xie, Nord, Jenkins, Chan, & Kastberg, 2013).
The PISA results from 2012 show that in mathematics U.S. students scored lower than
students from 27 other education systems; furthermore 9% of U.S students scored proficient
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 scores were lower than the average score of students from 14
other educational systems, and 8% of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at a proficiency level of 5
or above, which was the 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 and White children still exists (The Nations Report Card, 2013). The data

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

17
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). This is the first time that the validity of a measure would be confirmed with
empirical evidence that is reliable and accurate from multiple measures (Haertel & Herman,
2005). Thorndike recognized that changes in human beings can be effectively measured in
changes in behaviors in 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 used the assessments he created for research purposes and they were not used in
schools initially.
First Public School Assessments
During the same time period as Thorndike, major school systems across the country
created mechanisms for evaluating public schools. New York, Boston, and Detroit began
incorporating tests to evaluate school effectiveness (Haertel & Herman, 2005). However, these
tests were poorly aligned to learning objectives and were norm-referenced (Haertel & Herman,
2005). These, however, are the beginnings from which current day assessments evolved. In the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

18
1930’s E.F. Lindquist form the University of Iowa initiated the first state-wide assessment. The
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills tested rudimentary skills, reason, and application knowledge were a
dramatic shift from the sorting and selecting type tests of previous years (Haertel & Herman,
2005). The tests primary function was used for diagnostic and remediation (Office of
Technology Assessment, 1992).
The 1940’s ushered in a new era of public school testing with a specific focus on guiding
instruction. Dr. Ralph Tyler of the University of Chicago established a framework for testing
which laid out a strong role for assessment in curriculum development and improvement (Haertel
& Herman, 2005). Based on his framework, Tyler is also credited for chairing the committee
and designing the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In his book titled
“Best Principles of Curriculum and Instruction”, Tyler stressed four main principles for
assessment, which he defined as:
• Define appropriate objectives,
• Establish useful learning experiences,
• Organize learning experiences to have maximum impact, and
• Evaluate whether the objectives have been achieved. (Tyler, 1949)
Tyler would continue to play a role in assessment and evaluation over the next few decades. He
shaped the NAEP and his theories played a role in decision making based on assessments related
to the Common Core State Standards because of their common learning objectives.
Measurement-Driven Instruction
The works of Tyler influenced the 1950s through the 1960s which ushered in educational
testing based on measurement-driven instruction which required material to be taught in
carefully sequenced learning objectives (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Along with the works of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

19
psychologist B.F. Skinner, curriculum and tests were developed in order to teach small amounts
of materials in classess, and then provide corrective feedback for correctives (Haertel & Herman,
2005). A former student of Tyler’s, Dr. Benjamin Bloom, developed the Bloom’s Taxonomy
which provided the measurement-driven instructional movement with the opportunity to have a
common language when developing objectives (Haertel & Herman, 2005). The whole goal at
this time was to provide small, clearly defined learning objectives, which were assessed by post-
tests to identify whether students mastered the content or not (Zimmerman & Dibenedetto,
2008). Up until this point however, educational testing was focused around 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 districts federal funds to implement extra
academic support for children from low-income families (Fritzberg, 2004; Haertel & Herman,
2005; Popham et al., 2008). The money received by districts had extensive regulations assuring
appropriate spending (Fritzberg, 2004; Haertel & Herman, 2005). During the years from 1960 to
1970, the amount of Federal money flowing into elementary and secondary schools more than
doubled to over a billion dollars annually (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992).
Furthermore, annual testing was now required for all children within Title I programs to
determine if the programs were meeting the needs of those students (Haertel & Herman, 2005;
Popham et al., 2008). Educational evaluation and assessment would grow in unprecedented
ways during this time because of government involvement.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

20
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 addition of Title I funds did not close achievement
gaps between low socioeconomically disadvantaged students and non-disadvantaged students
(Haertel & Herman, 2005). Furthermore, test scores overall were declining which was well
publicized in the media (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Other reports stated that students were being
promoted through the grades even when their scores were low, which made the high school
diploma worthless (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). This led to a “back to basics”
movement. The movement focused on basic skills tests known as minimum competency tests
(MCT) which students needed to pass in order to receive a diploma (Office of Technology
Assessment, 1992; Haertel & Herman, 2005). By the end of 1979, 29 states had MCTs; the data
indicated 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 evaluating all parts of the program. The results of the study determined that the
overall Title I program failed to be successful at closing the achievement gaps for the severely
disadvantaged students (Fritzberg, 2004). Furthermore, the study also noted that states, districts,
and schools were not held accountable for students’ achievement (Fritzberg, 2004).
A Nation at Risk
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released the report
“A Nation at Risk”. The report outlined declining student achievement based on SAT and NAEP
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

21
tests (Nation at Risk, 1983). Additionally the report found that students were taking classes void
of the rigor needed for success in the future (Nation at Risk, 1983). The report highlighted five
major recommendations. They included the following:
• increase and strengthen the graduation requirements,
• schools and universities must adopt more rigorous and measurable standards
including higher expectations for academic performance,
• increase in the amount of learning time through extension of the school year and day,
• recruit and retain qualified instructional staff by providing support and compensation,
• elected leaders, school leaders, and the public were asked to support implementation
of the education reforms outlined by the report.
Norm-Referenced Testing
During the 1980s, norm-referenced tests dominated the assessment landscape. The tests
were multiple-choice instruments designed to rank students for sorting and tracking purposes
(Darling-Hammond, 1993). The goal of these tests were to track and sort students rather than
provide support or enhance their instruction (Darling-Hammond, 1993). The tests assessed the
learning of isolated facts and skills and did not connect to previous knowledge (Darling-
Hammond, 1993). The classroom activities and curriculum did not match the standardized
assessments of this time (Wang, Beckett, & Brown, 2006). Furthermore, states employed
various tests with different guidelines for administration, which led to concerns regarding the
validity of the results (Popham, 2008). Additionally, the federal government lacked clear data on
the effectiveness of programs serving disadvantaged students. Many opponents of Title I had
legitimate concerns, one of the concerns being that the monies were having little “bang for the
buck” (Fritzberg, 2004). The federal government needed to provide more clarity for assessment.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

22
1988 Reauthorization of Title I
In order to address the assessment concerns, congress changed Title 1 during the
reauthorization. The federal government required states to develop specific academic
achievement benchmarks for schools receiving Title I funds (Fritzberg, 2004; Popham et al.,
2008). Furthermore, states were required to develop an assessment which enabled the federal
government to receive annual updates on student performance of economically disadvantaged
students (Fritzberg, 2004; Popham et al., 2008). The reauthorization made some improvements
to Title I but did not address the issue of the type of assessment used for reporting (Darling-
Hammond, 1993).
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 that changed the requirements significantly. First, IASA required states to develop
challenging academic and performance standards for all students (Redfield & Sheinker, 2004).
Another major modification was the type of assessment states were required to utilize. The use
of norm-referenced assessments was replaced with criterion-referenced assessments which
mandated states to align their assessments to their academic and performance standards (Popham
et al., 2008; Redfield & Sheinker, 2004). IASA also mandated that districts and schools make
adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on these new standards-based assessments (Fritzberg,
2004). A greater focus on accountability was and still is evident based on academic and
performance standards.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

23
2002 No Child Left Behind
In 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was amended and
renamed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Ravitch, 2010). While the ESEA 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 NCLB had the ambitious goal of all students reaching proficiency by
2014; this goal went unmet (Davidson, Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2013; Porter & Polikoff,
2009). No Child Left Behind appears to have had little impact, as students from the United
States have proficiency rates under 10% in science, reading and math as compared to other
countries that have proficiency rates at 55% (The Nations Report Card, 2013). In addition, the
achievement gap between children from different backgrounds within the country has remained
consistent since 2011(California Department of Education, 2013; Kelly et al., 2013).
Individual state standards were the foundation of standards-based reform (Porter et al.,
2009). However, when individual state standards were analyzed, findings indicated that
America’s 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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

24
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).
Another problem was the inconsistency of what is to be taught to students across the
country. So many different sets of standards by all the different states 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
that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

25
(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).
Smarter Balanced Assessments
The adoption of Common Core State Standards has required states to develop new
assessments aligned to the standards. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
awarded $350 million dollars to two groups with the goal of designing assessments aligned with
CCSS (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). In order for these two groups to win the government funds they
needed to fulfill the requirements set forth by the (DOE) (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). The
comprehensive assessment system must have the following four principles:
• Assessments are common across states and aligned to CCSS,
• Assessments must be performance based in nature,
• Assessments must be computer based to ensure quick and reliable scoring and,
• The reporting system is transparent in order to drive instructional decisions. (Tomayo,
Jr., 2010)
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium were chosen to reverse the decline in test quality and
rigor that has been perpetuated under NCLB (Tomayo, Jr., 2010). Despite the promises of
improved assessments, both Smarter Balanced and PARCC come short of delivering what was
promised (Conley, 2015). The CCSS calls for students to demonstrate sophisticated knowledge
and skills which require a complex type of test that a couple of hours on a computer fail to
produce (Conley, 2015). The assessment should have a greater emphasis on performance-based
activities like the assessments of top-achieving countries (Conley, 2015; Porter, McMaken,
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

26
Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Through the years assessment and content standards have evolved and
will continue to do so in order to meet the changing political and cultural demands.
Superintendent Leadership
The last two decades have brought many types of educational reform to districts and
schools from both state and federal levels. Superintendents are required to balance the needs of
students as well as walk the political tightrope of implementing educational reforms. There are
five general characteristics that summarize the role the superintendent plays which describes the
breadth and depth of an effective superintendent (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014).
The roles are as follows:
• Superintendent as a teacher-scholar,
• Superintendent as a manager,
• Superintendent as a political leader,
• Superintendent as a applied social scientist, and
• Superintendent as a communicator. (Björk et al., 2014)
The work of a superintendent is complex, thus more than one role may be present at any given
time depending on the situation.
Superintendent as a Teacher-Scholar
The superintendent is not only the head of the district; they are the master teachers of the
district. Superintendents must mange reform and are expected to act as an instructional leader
(Björk et al., 2014). Furthermore superintendents must ensure that mandated curriculum is
effectively implemented (Kowalski, 2005). Common core implementation will need strong
instructional leadership to ensure proper alignment with instructional practices and standards.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

27
Superintendent as a Manager
As a manager, the superintendent has many responsibilities that aid in the everyday
function of the district. State and federal mandates fall into this category (Björk et al., 2014).
The superintendent is also responsible for ensuring district finances are in order (Björk et al.,
2014). Common core will require professional development and technology in order to be
implemented. As a superintendent, allocating resources to meet these needs will be paramount.
Superintendent as a Political Leader
There are two lenses when describing the superintendent as a political leader. The first is
how superintendents navigate the political waters within the district. They have to be able to
galvanize internal stakeholders to support district initiatives (Björk et al., 2014). Outside of the
district, the superintendent is a key figure in the community. It is in this role that superintendents
impact local and state politics. The superintendent shapes the message for the public which is
then shared by the public to state and local leaders (Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011). The
CCSS are politically charged and the need for a political leader has never been more important.
Superintendent as an Applied Social Scientist
Education and society are interrelated and we need a deep understanding of the
interconnectedness between the two. As superintendent, looking at and understanding data on
changing demographics, poverty, and race is important because of the impact on student
achievement (Björk et al., 2014). Under NCLB and CCSS implementation, superintendents are
engaging in evidence-based practice and data-informed decision making (Björk et al., 2014).
Superintendent as a Communicator
The role a superintendent has as the communicator is great. Kowalski (2010) found that
the communication was the single most important role superintendents play. They are the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

28
primary source of communication for board members and frequently engage the public in
sharing district objectives (Kowalski, 2005). As CCSS implementation moves along, the need
for effective communication to stakeholders will continue to be an important part of
superintendent’s job.
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 populations, many teachers are engaging in higher levels of teacher
collaboration (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). Local districts and private and public
organizations are forming partnerships and meeting to discuss changes in their districts and their
progress with CCSS materials. In 2013 the California Legislature appropriated $1.25 billion to
districts to support the CCSS in the areas of technology, instructional materials, and professional
development (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). Even so not all funds were used
appropriately and some districts started preparing more slowly than others (McLaughlin, Glaab,
Carrasco, 2014). The following sections will describe (a) the change from the 1997 standards to
the Common Core State Standards, (b) district finding practices, (c) and finally how Local
Educational Agencies have built capacity among their organizations, acquired materials, and
communicated priorities and goals during the Common Core State Standards implementation.
Nature of 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
CCSS for Math, English Language Arts and Literacy are clear on what students are expected to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

29
learn, however, the standards do not provide direction on pedagogy or curricular materials
(Porter et al, 2011). The authors of the CCSS provide standards that are focused on developing
students’ deeper knowledge of the content, influence classroom curriculum, and impact student
assessments (Porter et al, 2011).
Researchers have examined the nature of the change from past U.S. educational practices
to Common Core standards. The findings indicate that the CCSS represent a significant change
from states’ previous standards (Porter et al., 2011). For example, the Math CCSS are more
focused and there is a greater emphasis on basic algebra, while the state standards emphasize
advanced algebra (Porter et al, 2011). Furthermore, there are more geometric concepts in the
CCSS than the state standards (Porter et al, 2011). The Common Core Math standards require
students to demonstrate understanding more than the state standards did. The CCSS are less
focused on memorizing and performing procedures (Porter et al, 2011). Both sets of standards
place similar importance on estimation (Porter et al, 2011). The mathematics CCSS provide a
modest shift in higher-level cognitive demands as compared to state standards (Porter et al,
2011).
When assessing the English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) Common Core
standards researchers discovered that there is a stronger shift towards higher-level cognitive
demands. Twenty percent of the state standards were allocated to analysis, while approximately
33% of the CCSS are allocated to analysis (Porter et al, 2011). Common Core ELAR
deemphasizes comprehension and underscores language study (Porter et al, 2011). Additionally,
state standards often focused on explaining while CCSS focuses on critical reasoning (Porter et
al, 2011).
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

30
The CCSS differ from standards in countries with higher student achievement. Scholars
found that 75 % of Finland, Japan, and Singapore’s eighth grade math content focus on
performing procedures while in the Common Core standards that percentage is 38% (Porter et
al., 2011). In English language arts, Finland, Japan, and Singapore’s standards place a greater
emphasis on performing procedures than the Common Core (Porter et al, 2011).
Furthermore, teachers report that the Common Core standards are a change from what
they are currently teaching. When examining cognitive demands in mathematics and English
language arts state standards, teachers with the 1997 standards, were emphasizing memorization
while Common Core standards have less of a focus on memorization (Porter et al, 2011).
Implementation of CCSS requires teachers to place a greater importance on analysis in both math
and English language arts (Porter et al, 2011). Studies have found that teachers need to
understand how Common Core State Standards vary from the previous state standards. However,
states are making progress towards the new standards and most states plan to be fully
implemented by 2014-2015 (Kober & Rentner, 2012).
State, School, and District Economics
Many states expressed concern in finding sufficient funding to fully implement CCSS
(Kober & Rentner, 2012). With most states providing educational funding far less than they
were providing seven years ago, implementing new reforms is difficult (Leachman & Mai,
2014).Upon adopting CCSS, some states have implemented new funding systems giving local
LEAs more spending flexibility (California Department of Education, 2014) The new funding
systems provide additional monies to meet the needs of low-performing subgroups such as
English Language Learners, low socio-economically disadvantaged students, and foster youth
(Berry et al., 2012Californian Department of Education, 2014). New funding formulas have
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

31
freed districts from former categorical programs that had strict spending limitations (Warren &
Murphy, 2014). Less restrictive funding formulas provide districts’ with the opportunity to
determine their priorities with CCSS implementation. While local control is ideal there is a need
for state relationships and structure to implement Common Core (Berry et al, 2012). Researchers
have also found that it is imperative that there is a connection between the state’s resources and
the schools and districts (Berry et al, 2012).
Professional Learning that Matches Needs
The literature indicates that the shifts in cognitive demands emphasize students’ need to
analyze (Center for Education Policy, 2012 and 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, CCSS do not have meaning if teachers are not successful with implementation
(Martin, 2014). Studies indicate that there is a misalignment between teacher implementation and
the Common Core (Porter et al., 2012). Teachers are in need of professional development that
meets their needs (Berry et al., 2012). In addition, research has found that teachers also need
collaboration time, understanding of the rationale and tools to enrich instruction (Martin, 2014).
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. Identifying skills that
students need to meet performance objectives will assist leaders and teachers in developing clear
professional development goals. Increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation with a focus on
goals are keys to success (Clark & Estes, 2008). Scholars further assert that transformation arises
from a systemic analysis of the cause of performance gaps and then be accompanied by the
necessary knowledge and skills to increase the motivation to change and impact results (Clark &
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

32
Estes, 2008). Moreover, leadership providing feedback will be key to eliciting teacher growth
when the performance feedback is tied to the organizational and personal goals (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Currently building teacher capacity to implement CCSS is a concern (Berry et al., 2012).
Often professional development is delegated to schools and districts. When this happens there is
a need to build new structures and relationships with districts to implement Common Core
(Berry et al, 2012). Some LEAs have established professional development systems to support
the cognitive demands of the CCSS reform. Scholars believe that teacher education needs to go
beyond the LEA (Berry et al., 2012).
Berry (2012) indicated that the needs to align educator recertification with professional
development opportunities provided by schools, districts, and states while ensuring that the
professional development meets the needs of educators. Other scholars espouse it is necessary to
form partnerships between K-12 and higher education organizations to make improvements in
teacher education that cultivate and draw upon teacher leadership and increase higher
education’s engagement in Common Core (Berry et al, 2012). Some states are trying to provide
support by organizing Professional Learning Task Force programs (Berry et al, 2012) to address
capacity building and professional development for the CCSS. 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).
Teachers are also concerned that they are not implementing the new standards effectively
(McLaughlin et al. 2014). Researchers have found that teachers agree with parents who were
concerned that teachers are not prepared to implement the Common Core (McLaughlin et al,
2014). Moreover, there is a need to connect state resources to practitioners while also aligning
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

33
resources with state incentives and opportunities (Berry et al, 2012). While researchers have
found that some LEAs do a great job of collaborating with teacher leaders to develop resources,
there is often no venue to share these resources with other educators (Berry et al, 2012).
Collaboration is a source of professional development that can be leveraged in the
capacity building and implementation process. American teachers spend more time teaching in
the classroom than their peers in high performing countries (Martin, 2014). Additionally,
principal professional development is often neglected (Prothero, 2015). Collaboration can
provide opportunities for educators to reflect, problem solve, and use prior knowledge and
experience to construct new learning (Spillane, 2002). Teachers are in need of additional time to
learn new content and revamp their instructional strategies to embed inquiry based learning skills
(Martin, 2014). Simultaneously, principals are in need of professional learning opportunities that
incorporate sharing ideas and problem solving with colleagues (Prothero, 2015). As we learn
from Common Core studies, when capacity is developed, there is also a need for forums to
leverage and share the resources (Berry et al, 2012).
As states move 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.
Curriculum and Materials
A major source of concern is the curriculum materials to support the implementation
process. While publishers are claiming texts are CCSS aligned, practitioners and researchers
question their assertion (McLaughlin et al, 2014). There is a need for systems when judging the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

34
quality and appropriateness of Common Core materials (Martin, 2014). In one study
administrators and teachers expressed their lack of expertise and time to assess the vendors who
send information regarding Common Core implementation supports and materials (McLaughlin
et al, 2014).
In addition, teachers are in need of support with technology integration. Preparation for
new technology integration and assistance with computer assessments is vital (Martin, 2014).
There is a need to build teacher capacity for operating the appropriate hardware (McLaughlin et
al, 2014). While teachers express excitement for technology integration, many are not prepared
to use technology to teach nor assess the data it provides to analyze and make formative
instructional changes (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 apparent. 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 others’ 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
Communication refers to the lengths the school goes to facilitate parent and community
communication (Marzano et al., 2005). Principals are a major component of communication with
the community. Researchers have found that for major impact on student learning to take place,
teachers and leaders must inform stakeholders about the language of learning (Zegarac, 2013).
Often parents do not understand what happens in schools, therefore teachers and leaders who
establish vehicles for communication between the school and parents, where the language of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

35
school is highlighted with parents, will make a big difference in student achievement (Zegarac,
2013). Researchers have found that parents and community members can support CCSS student
achievement by holding high expectations for their children (Martin 2014). In addition, if the
community is not knowledgeable or has misperceptions about CCSS, implementation and
support can be derailed; therefore parent education will support student learning and student
education engagement (McLaughlin et al, 2014; Zegarac, 2013).
The Common Core Standards were introduced in 2012. This literature review has
synthesized two years of research on Common Core implementation and a brief history of past
and present educational reforms. Many schools began CCSS implementation this year while
other schools started two years ago (Kober, 2012). However, the research indicates that much
still needs to be done for full implementation to be successful (Karp, 2014; Kober, 2012;
McLaughlin et al, 2014). The following section will describe the study that will be conducted.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

36
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Authors: Robert Allard and Alexis Norman
2

Introduction
The development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) began in 2008 and
eventually led to the 2012 adoption (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). With the
adoption of the new standards, or new curriculum, the goal was to change classroom
instructional strategies. Since the beginning of CCSS implementation, teacher preparation has
been on the forefront of decision-making processes (Berry et al., 2012). Academics advise that
during the new reform, all educational leaders must work together to develop and implement
comprehensive programs that immerse teachers in the new Common Core State Standards, and
then provide ongoing professional development that incorporates classroom support and
feedback (Berry et al., 2012; Kober, 2012; Wiener, 2013).
While research on the common core implementation has shown that teachers are eager to
teach standards that support a deeper learning, the same researchers have found that educators
are lacking resources, knowledge, and sufficient time to prepare to teach the new curriculum
(Karp, 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2014). In order for the CCSS reform to be successful and raise
student achievement, instructional leadership is needed (Hattie, 2015). District leaders alike
must provide professional development that supports teachers while they work to strengthen
students’ cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills, and techniques (Conley, 2015).
Furthermore, skills such as metacognition and persistence are crucial to the development of 21
st

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

37
century learning (Conley, 2015). While resources and time are obstacles, leaders can help by
providing time for teachers to develop strategies and materials consistent with the Common Core
Standards (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Ultimately, to ensure student achievement principals need
to focus on learning, and the impact of teaching; and believe that the success or failure of student
learning is what both the teachers and principals do, or do not do (Hattie, 2015).
The prior chapters reviewed relevant literature on the Common Core Standards while this
chapter describes the methodology used to conduct the study. The following sections address the
purpose of the study as well as the sample population, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand Superintendents’ of unified school districts
Common Core State Standards implementation and evaluation practices. Understanding
superintendents’ actions and decision-making processes since the adoption of CCSS can help
guide the Common Core implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education.
The findings from this study will provide readers with an understanding of current Common
Core implementation systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the decisions superintendents from unified school districts make to support
Common Core Implementation?
2. What strategies have superintendents of unified school districts employed to
communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards
implementation?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

38
3. What strategies are superintendents of unified school districts using to build capacity
in support of the Common Core State Standards reform?
4. How do superintendents of unified school districts evaluate the effectiveness of the
systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform?
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design
This study used a mixed methods approach collecting both qualitative and quantitative
data. Triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative data sources were the chosen approach of
study so that the findings would provide a more complete understanding of decisions made by
superintendents of unified school districts Common Core implementation practices and add to
the validity of the study.
Quantitative Research Methods
Quantitative research methods were used at the beginning of this study. This method of
research usually involves asking open-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 the
actions, values, and choices of superintendents of unified school districts 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 superintendents surveyed
to the general population.
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative research methods inductively explore people’s lives, and attempt to
understand and find meaning by learning about human experiences during or after a given
phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). In addition, qualitative researchers are interested in knowing
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

39
more about one’s practice as well as improving one’s practice (Merriam, 2009). Interviews in a
qualitative study are used to explore participant perceptions, and develop detailed descriptions of
what we cannot directly observe (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). We cannot
observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. Therefore, interviews were conducted with
superintendents to help understand their behaviors and experiences during Common Core
implementation. Understanding superintendents’ beliefs, feelings, and experiences about CCSS
will help inform future CCSS professional development providers.
The research questions for this study were developed to help find meaning by
understanding and analyzing the behaviors and experiences of superintendents of unified school
districts during the CCSS reform. With this in mind, understanding superintendents’ perceptions
of the Common Core State Standard implementation strategies has advantageous implications for
future curriculum reforms.
Sample and Population
The superintendents of unified school districts in this study were purposefully chosen.
Purposeful sampling is when participants are chosen deliberately because they have knowledge
in the area that the researcher is interested in understanding (Maxwell, 2013). It was necessary
to interview superintendents from unified school districts that were making decisions in support
of Common Core State Standards implementation. However, the participants were also chosen
because the respondents had specific characteristics, including: (a) employment in a California
unified school district, (b) Common Core State Standards implementation experience, (c)
superintendents of unified school districts resource purchase power, and (d) at least two years
experience as a superintendent. Administrative experience was necessary for this study because
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

40
new superintendents have not developed an understanding of the day-to-day work in their district
and they have not had enough time on the job to form relationships (Fink & Silverman, 2014).
The survey was sent via email to 60 California superintendents from unified school
districts that fit the aforementioned criteria. The target was to receive 40 responses; of the 40
responses 5 superintendents were selected for the interview process. The selection of the
superintendents interviewed was dependent on their survey answers. For example, if the
superintendent engaged in multiple Common Core implementation practices, community
communications, or accountability actions, this superintendent was asked for an interview.
Ultimately five superintendents from unified school districts were selected and those selected
accepted to be interviewed.
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 superintendents’
implementation and evaluation practices of Common Core State Standards, questions were asked
that directly led to answers that describe behaviors and actions taken during CCSS
implementation.
Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative surveys provide numeric descriptions of trends, attitudes or opinions of the
population questioned (Creswell, 2014). The questions asked in the quantitative survey
administered in this study were comprised of four 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
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

41
addressed years of service as an administrator. While the next set of questions queried
knowledge of the Common Core State Standards. The third set of questions inquired about
planning and communication practices, as well as capacity building actions. The subsequent set
of questions reflected on implementation practices, training follow-up practices, and evaluation.
The last set questions probed for attitudes and opinions of implementation practices.
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 10 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
theme that section would be addressing. The first theme was communication, the second theme
was capacity building, the third theme was evaluation, and the last theme addressed the
respondent’s attitudes and opinions of Common Core State Standards implementation.
Interview questions fall into six categories: experience, opinion, feelings, knowledge,
sensory, and background or demographic (Merriam, 2009). The research questions in the
interview protocol contained experience, sensory, opinion, and knowledge questions. The
purpose of the study was to understand superintendents’ implementation and evaluation practices
of Common Core State Standards. Therefore, understanding the superintendents’ experiences
and observations during CCSS implementation is key to understanding practices and strategies
that were utilized. In addition, understanding superintendents’ actions is helpful when evaluating
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

42
effectiveness of the strategies implemented. Lastly, future superintendents 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).
Data Collection
The data were collected in two phases. First, the quantitative data was gathered from the
superintendents of unified school districts that volunteered and completed the survey. The
second phase included qualitative interviews with the superintendents that were selected based
on their willingness to participate in an interview and their experience with Common Core
implementation. The superintendents that were selected had experience with the CCSS themes
found in the literature: communication, capacity building, and evaluation. The superintendents
interviewed were notified of their right to privacy and anonymity in accordance with the
Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California. All participation in the study
was voluntary and participant information was kept confidential.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to 60 superintendents from unified school districts who met the criteria
of experience, location, and purchase power. The surveys were sent via email with letter
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

43
explaining the purpose of the survey and an explanation of the reasons why the study will
contribute the body of knowledge on Common Core implementation. The survey was in the form
of a web-based survey tool called Survey Monkey; a link to the Survey Monkey software was
included in the email.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data was collected by conducting interviews with five superintendents from
unified school districts. The participants were selected after they returned the survey, met the
criteria for the study, and agreed to participate in the qualitative study. 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 also clearly informed the participant of their privacy and
anonymity. The interviews were recorded for transcription and coding purposes.
Data Analysis
In order to answer the research questions, data was gathered and analyzed using
qualitative and quantitative research methods. During analysis, the findings were triangulated
using the appropriate methodology of research for validation.
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 the data can inform the direction of the
qualitative study (Creswell, 2014).

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

44
Qualitative Data Analysis
Maxwell (2013) stresses the importance of starting data analysis immediately after the
first interview takes place. Furthermore data collection should never occur without
simultaneously analyzing it using a systematic approach (Maxwell, 2013). The qualitative data
analysis for this study was guided by Creswell’s (2014) seven steps for data analysis. They are
as follows:
1. Collection of raw data
a. Interviews, field notes, documents
2. Organizing and preparation of data
a. Transcribe interviews, type up field notes, organize documents
3. Read through data
a. Formulate initial thoughts and meaning of data
4. Coding
a. Chunk the data into categories
b. Codes can be emergent and/or predetermined
5. Create themes and descriptions
a. These are the major findings
b. Supported by multiple perspectives and evidence
6. Interrelate the themes
a. Use a narrative to represent connections among themes
b. Tables and visuals can be used to connect themes
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

45
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 analysis and findings of the data collected.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

46
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The California Common Core State Standards have been implemented over the last few
years. The level of implementation varies depending on the decisions made by superintendents
and their teams. Chapter 4 reports the findings of a mixed-method study targeting
superintendents of unified school districts in Southern California. There were 39 superintendents
participating in the quantitative portion and five superintendents in the qualitative portion of the
study. The quantitative study was a survey focused on the research questions. Using the data
from the surveys, questions emerged from the interviews of the qualitative portion to help guide
the research. The research questions were as follows:
1. What are the decisions superintendents from unified school districts in Southern
California make to support Common Core Implementation?
2. What strategies have superintendents of Southern California unified school districts
employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards
implementation?
3. What strategies are superintendents of Southern California unified school districts
using to build capacity in support of the Common Core State Standards reform?
4. How do superintendents of Southern California unified school districts evaluate the
effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State
Standards reform?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

47
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify what leadership decisions superintendents are
making in response to the California Common Core State Standards. As the implementation of
the standards continues, this study will also identify current actions taken by superintendents at
various sized districts. Furthermore superintendents play a central role in communicating the
implementation of the standards as well as evaluating the effectiveness of implementation.
Response Rate
The superintendents of Southern California unified school districts in this study were
purposefully chosen. It was necessary to interview superintendents from unified school districts
that were making decisions in support of Common Core State Standards implementation.
However, the participants were also chosen because the respondents had specific characteristics,
including; (a) employment in a Southern California unified school district, (b) Common Core
State Standards implementation experience, (c) superintendents of unified school districts
resource purchase power, and (d) at least two years experience as a superintendent.
The survey (quantitative phase) was sent via email to the all 93 Southern California
superintendents from unified school districts that fit the aforementioned criteria in Orange, Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The response rate was 41.9% or 39
superintendents. The quantitative results informed the types of questions asked in the qualitative
phase (Creswell, 2013). Of the 39 superintendents that completed the survey, 18 were open to
participating in the interview process. Once the data from the quantitative phase was analyzed,
five unified school district superintendents were selected for the interview process (qualitative
phase) after verification of meeting the criteria.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

48
Quantitative Demographic Data
The survey created for the quantitative portion of the study asked many demographic
type questions. The questions ranged from personal data about the respondent to information
about the districts they led.
Table 1 represents the gender breakdown of the respondents that completed the survey.
There were twice as many male respondents at 66.6% versus 33.3% of female respondents.

Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Male Female Total
Number of Superintendents 13 26 39
Percent of Superintendents 33.3% 66.6% 100%

The percentage of women that responded to the survey is greater than the 24%-30% of female
superintendents representing nationwide data (Sperandio & Devdas, 2015).
Table 2 describes the level of education the participants in the survey have earned. The
number of superintendents that hold a doctorate is 26 or 66.6% of the total. There are 13
superintendents or 33.3% that hold a masters degree of those who participated in the survey.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

49
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education Level
Masters Degree Doctorate Degree Total
Number of Superintendents 13 26 39
Percent of Superintendents 33.3% 66.6% 100%

Table 3 highlights the percentages of male and female superintendents by the degree they
hold. The breakdown between male and female with doctorates is 69.2% or 18 male
superintendents; while there are 8 female superintendents or 30.8% with doctorates. Females
hold a higher percentage of master’s degrees. Of the females participating in the study, 38.5% or
5 hold a masters degree. Conversely, 61.5% or 8 males hold masters degrees.

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Degree by Gender
Male Female Total
Doctorate 69.2% 30.8% 100%
Masters 61.5% 38.5% 100%

The 39 participants in the study have a wide range of experience. Table 4 represents that
experience of the participants.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

50
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Years of Experience
0-1 Years 2-5 Years 6-8 Years 9+ Years Total
Number of Superintendents 4 18 10 7 39
Percent of Superintendents 10.26% 46.15% 25.64% 17.85% 100%

The participants mirror what research has shown about the longevity of superintendents.
The average tenure of most superintendents is from two to six years (Williams & Hatch, 2012).
The research also indicates that 12 years is the “gold standard” for superintendent tenure which
allows for implementation and the opportunity for the initiative to cycle through the change
process twice (Williams & Hatch, 2012). The surveyed group potentially has seven
superintendents that fit the “gold standard.”
The districts the superintendents surveyed come from varying sizes. Table 5 highlights
the sizes of the districts from the respondents and the sizes. The majority of the surveyed
districts have enrollment greater than 20,000 students accounting for 41.2% of the data.

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: District Size
2,001-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-20,000 20,000+ Total
Number of Superintendents 6 9 8 16 39
Percent of Superintendents 15.3% 23% 20.5% 41.2% 100%

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

51
However, according to the California Department of Education (2014), only 17.4% or 60
districts are greater than 20,000 students within California.
The survey asked for the type of district the respondents were from. Table 6 represents
whether the districts were urban, suburban, or rural. The data indicates that at least 41% of the
respondents came from either urban or suburban districts with over 20,001 students.

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: District Type
Rural Suburban Urban Total
Number of Superintendents 2 22 15 39
Percent of Superintendents 5.1% 56.4% 38.5% 100%

Qualitative Demographic Data
The superintendents selected for this study have had two or more years of experience as
superintendent of a unified district in Southern California, have been implementing Common
Core State Standards, and make decisions on how resources are being allocated. Results from
the survey indicated that 18 superintendents volunteered to be interviewed for the study. The
researcher identified five of the superintendents to be interviewed. The five selected represented
some of the following characteristics: gender, type of district, size of district, and varying
socioeconomic levels. Furthermore the five that were interviewed also possessed varying
experience with common core implementation. Additional characteristics the researcher used for
criteria to interview the superintendents was the amount of minority students. Table 7 outlines
the superintendents and the districts they represent.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

52
Table 7
Superintendent and District Characteristics
Superintendent Personal Characteristics District Characteristics
A Gender: Female
Education: Doctorate
Years as a superintendent: 3
Years implementing common core: 3
ADA: 2,013
District type: rural
Title I: 64.7%
Ethnicity: 46% minority
B Gender: Male
Education: Doctorate
Years as a superintendent: 4
Years implementing common core: 3
ADA: 22,698
District type: urban
Title I: 74.7%
Ethnicity: 94.7% minority
C Gender: Male
Education: Doctorate
Years as a superintendent: 8
Years implementing common core: 3
ADA: 21,905
District type: urban
Title I: 48.2%
Ethnicity: 54.2% minority
D Gender: Male
Education: Doctorate
Years as a superintendent: 3
Years implementing common core: 2
ADA: 7,046
District type: suburban
Title I: 41%
Ethnicity: 64.6% minority
E Gender: Female
Education: Doctorate
Years as a superintendent: 5
Years implementing common core: 1
ADA: 10,024
District type: suburban
Title I: 15.1%
Ethnicity: 48.4% minority

All five of the superintendents interviewed had a doctorate and at least three years of
experience as a superintendent. Of the five interviewed, 40% or 2 were female and 60% or 3
were male. Three of the superintendents had three years of implementing Common Core State
Standards. The other two had two or less years with implementation.
The districts that each of the interviewed superintendents represent, vary in size and
socioeconomic status. The smallest district had just over 1,000 students while the largest district
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

53
had over 22,000 students. Furthermore the district that received the highest amount of Title I
funds had 74.7% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In contrast, the district that
received the least amount of Title I funds had only 15.1% who qualify as socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Additionally, one of the superintendents comes from a district that was a basic
aid district. The difference between a traditionally funded district and a basic aid district is that
the basic aid district receives no state funds and relies solely on property taxes to fund the public
schools (Joanis, 2013).
An additional characteristic that the researcher took into account when selecting
superintendents was the percentage of minority students that the district serves. The districts
range from serving 46% minority students to 94.7% minority students. The district with the
highest number of minority students is also the same district that receives the most Title I funds.
Overall the districts represent the various types of districts in California.
The Common Core State Standards are still relatively new. Glaab and Carrasco (2014)
state that there is good will with CCSS implementation but the human infrastructure, resources to
support professional development, and materials pose challenges to the nearly 1000 school
districts in California. The purpose of this study is to look at the decisions Southern California
superintendents are making in regards to implementation and evaluation. The first round of
Smarter Balanced assessments occurred in the 2014-2015 school year. At this point, districts are
not able to measure effectiveness of implementation with one year’s worth of data. The
upcoming sections will reflect on the survey data and interviews conducted to demonstration the
decisions superintendents are making.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

54
Research Question 1
What are the decisions superintendents from Southern California unified school districts
make to support Common Core Implementation?
Superintendents play a role in making decisions on instruction. With the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards, superintendents not only have made decisions about
implementation, but have also had to be instructional leaders in order to bring about curricular
change. Superintendents have a profound impact on student achievement when they address
specific responsibilities linked to student learning (Waters, J. Timothy & Marzano, 2006). Using
the responses from the surveys and the interviews, the decisions superintendents make becomes
apparent in shaping implementation.
Superintendents Prepare for the Common Core Shift
All five of the superintendents that participated in the interview or the survey attended
Common Core professional development in one way or another. Some participated within the
district while others utilized their local county of education or professional organizations such as
the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). Table 8 highlights the amount of
professional development within the district the superintendents reported within the surveys.
The data indicates that 56.41% of superintendents attended 0-20 hours of professional
development within the district. Additionally, 28.21% of the superintendents participated in 41
or more hours of district provided professional development.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

55
Table 8
Number of Professional Development Hours Attended within District
% of Superintendents # of Superintendents
0-10 Hours 25.64% 10
11-20 Hours 30.77% 12
21-30 hours 7.69% 3
31-40 hours 7.69% 3
41+ hours 28.21% 11

Superintendents also have opportunities to travel outside of the district for professional
development. Many county office of education provide training on a plethora of topics such as
Common Core. Furthermore, superintendents belong to professional organizations which serve
as a resource too. Table 9 describes the amount of professional development outside the district.

Table 9
Number of Professional Development Hours Attended outside District
% of Superintendents # of Superintendents
10 Hours 42.11% 16
11-20 Hours 28.95% 11
21-30 Hours 13.16% 5
31-40 Hours 0.00% 0
41+ Hours 15.79% 6

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

56
When asked about the outside professional development opportunities, Superintendent A
stated that “I attended LA (Los Angeles) County workshops and ACSA (Association of
California School Administrators) but they were kind of hit or miss.” Superintendent B
described the LA County trainings as “looking at big picture, very big picture and more of
what’s coming down the pike.” Superintendent B continued by saying that “the specific
implementation-type strategies has been relegated to us as the districts, I feel, so that’s great,
that’s the way it should be.” Superintendent C had a different take on professional development:
Both the superintendent’s conferences through ACSA and then the California City
Superintendent’s conferences that are twice a year also provide some valuable
information. I don't think that's enough, I think a superintendent needs to step outside and
do a lot of outside reading and make sure they're engaged in any of the scholarly work
coming out and to fully, to completely, understand the dynamics that we are being held
accountable to provide students in this new curriculum.
The use of scholarly work has not been mentioned by any of the other interviewees except by
Superintendent C.
Superintendent D has had multiple years experience in training outside of the district in
two different county offices of education. There was a clear difference between the offerings of
the two counties and Superintendent D felt the reason was “the size of the county office of
education”. When asked if the county office of education was providing any support now,
Superintendent D responded with “no”. The trainings offered to superintendents varied by
location and multiple superintendents indicated they were superficial.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

57
Types of Professional Development
The superintendents surveyed attended various types of professional development
covering a wide range of topics. Table 10 illustrates the types of professional development the
cohort attended.

Table 10
Quantitative Survey: Professional Development Attended
Standards
Study
Instructional
Strategies
Framework
Study
CCSS
Assessments
CCSS Shifts
in instruction
Number of
Superintendents
23 32 16 28 22
Percent of
Superintendents
58.9% 82% 41% 71.7% 56.4%

According to the data, 82% of the superintendents attended workshops targeting
instructional strategies and 71.7% have attended workshops focused on the new CCSS
assessments. This would suggest that the superintendents focus is on how to teach the CCSS and
how will it be assessed.
Superintendent Role as an Instructional Leader
Superintendents have the final say when it comes to running the district and the
responsibility to ensure success. In the survey, superintendents were asked the following
question: What decisions have you made to support the implementation of the Common Core
State Standards? Table 11 illustrates the results from the questions using predetermined options.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

58
Table 11
Quantitative Survey: Decisions Made

Curriculum
Professional
Development Communication Materials Planning
Number of
Superintendents
33 39 33 31 28
Percent of
Superintendents
84.6% 100% 84.6% 79.4% 71.7%

The data indicated that 100% of the surveyed superintendents had a role in selecting the
types of professional development for the district. However, only 71.7% had any role in
planning implementation. When looking more closely at the data, of the superintendents who
rated that they were not part of the planning process (28.3%), 55% of the respondents came from
districts greater than 20,000 students. Superintendent B and C are both from districts greater
than 20,000 students. They were asked how much of their week was spent on instructional
planning. Superintendent B stated that “20-50% of an average week is spent on instructionally
related activities and to be honest it all depends on the time of the year”. Superintendent C also
supported that claim by stating that “less than 50% of my week is spent with instruction”. Both
superintendents B and C stated that their days are spent “supporting the board and attending
functions within the schools and community”. Conversely, the superintendent from a district
with just over 1,000 students spent about the same amount of time on curriculum.
Superintendent A stated that on an average week “30% of their time is spent working on
curricular matters”. The data would suggest that the size of the district has little impact on
superintendents’ support of Common Core implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

59
Research Question 2
What strategies have superintendents of Southern California unified school districts
employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards
implementation?
The focus of this question is on what superintendents are doing in order to communicate
CCSS implementation and disseminating information regarding effectiveness to students,
parents, the school board, and community at large. Based on the survey results, on the scale of
1-5, superintendents rated that their boards of education knowledge of CCSS averaged 3.85.
This shows that much effort was provided to boards of education in educating them about CCSS.
Superintendent A however, had concerns about sharing the message with students as well as the
community. Superintendent A said that “I have to be able to explain (it) to a kindergartener
(and) what they have to learn. We all know that that's good practice. The old standards, you have
those child friendly standards. We even had superintendent friendly standards.” Superintendent
A continued by stating the following:
What I see happening is you know the content of it. I know there's a depth of knowledge
component. I know that you have to read informational text. Make sure you have those
kinds of books available. I know that there's higher level of thinking. What does that look
like? People know the pieces, but they could not tell you what they were. I think that
will be one of common core’s downfalls if we don't get that part together.
The complexity of common core is great and poses a challenge. Superintendent C commented
on the first steps that were taken; “right away we started educating everybody about the first
wave of standards”. Superintendent A described the process of training principals to take the
message of CCSS implementation to the teachers and through parent teacher conferences the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

60
teachers disseminate the information. Furthermore, Superintendent A reflected on how the
information was shared with the community:
Superintendents don't [want to share], we want to hide things. It was not going to reflect
good on us, it was in the newspaper. Here was our challenge areas. Here are our
challenges. Our math scores are low; math scores had been low for 15 years. So here's
what we're going to work on. Looking at it, making it public. It's called, a really big one,
deprivatizing practice. I try not to hog the newspaper, but typically I'm in there three or
four times in a week. Making it public that I know are areas of challenges, not weakness,
but challenges. Then it let’s people start talking about it.
Superintendent A puts the challenges front and center for all to see. The interviews suggest that
common core communication changed the previous approaches to sharing information both
within the district and outside of it.
New questions emerged from the interview portion of the study when trying to ascertain
what in particular superintendents were doing to communicate with their boards and the
community at large. The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) was initially not part of
the conversation. The researcher stumbled onto the LCAP and communication connection when
asking about evaluation.
The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) was signed into law in May of 2013
which changed the way California Schools were funded. The essence of the LCAP was to
empower districts to allocate money and resources to best serve the varying needs of each district
(Humphrey & Koppich, 2014). Furthermore under the LCAP, districts are mandated to engage
parents and other stakeholders in identifying how the state monies are spent in support of all
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

61
students (Humphrey & Koppich, 2014). With the confluence of the mandates of LCAP and the
transition to CCSS, superintendents took the opportunity to communicate with its stakeholders.
Superintendents interviewed shared how LCAP played a role in common core
implementation. Superintendent A commented on how CCSS is built into the LCAP. When
asked if monitoring common core is built-in to the teacher evaluation cycle, Superintendent A
stated “it’s part of the LCAP and is monitored through lesson plans collected by principals” as
well as “we monitor what they do during PLC time”. “No one ever held them accountable to
what was being taught”, Superintendent A confessed. Superintendent A also connected the
LCAP to the communication of implementation. When questioned by the board and community
about what was being done to address the challenges, Superintendent A stated “I have an LCAP
with the most goals in the county, and this is how we are going to do it”. This is one example of
how the LCAP influenced CCSS implementation.
Superintendent C had another take on the LCAP and how it related to CCSS
implementation:
The LCAP process required us to get a lot of feedback and we got a ton of feedback from
all of our stakeholder groups. I think district wide, every meeting that happened at every
school and here at the district, we had over 300 meetings in the district with parents, with
staff, with community members, and so it really became a good opportunity to talk and
speak about what we were going to do with the LCAP and how we were attaching our
funding to our priorities and how we were expecting this to come out and how we were
going to report back to the community our results as we went along. It's been a good
conversation tool; we used it with our district wide PTA group. We give it to our schools;
they use it with their families, and their community. We use (the LCAP) when we talk to
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

62
the board about or progress and how we're moving forward implementing common core
and then we use it to make sure we're spending our money in the ways it's intended to.
The use of the LCAP as the structure for communicating to all the stakeholders is how
Superintendent C shared CCSS implementation.
A third point-of-view was provided from Superintendent B. This approach was more
direct and to the point. “We used the fact that common core was coming to leverage the
implementation of common core. Bottom line, its coming”, Superintendent C stated. “What the
LCAP did was it gave us another opportunity to make sure that it was completely funded,”
Superintendent C added.
Superintendents used a wide-range of communication techniques to share their plans for
CCSS implementation. Multiple superintendents used the news media to get out their messages.
Still others used the more traditional structures within the school sites.
Research Question 3
What strategies are superintendents of Southern California unified school districts using
to build capacity in support of the Common Core State Standards reform?
The Common Core State Standards represent a shift from the old standards. The goal of
CCSS is to increase the amount of students being college and career ready (Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Superintendents are having to provide support and build capacity in
their staffs to address the needs to implement the new standards. Question three aims to identify
what superintendents are doing to build the capacity of their staffs.
The survey questions focused on identifying what superintendents focused on when
preparing for Common Core implementation. When asked how much professional development
was provided in their districts, superintendents responded with an average score of 4.48 on a
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

63
scale of 1-5. This indicates that a high priority was placed on providing much needed
professional development. Conversely when asked about the alignment of resources,
superintendents responded with a much lower rating. Table 12 highlights the responses of both
Math and English Language Arts curriculum on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being closely aligned.

Table 12
Alignment of Curriculum
Average Response
English Language Arts 3.39
Math 3.76

Superintendents surveyed identified building capacity as the main focus for implementation.
The interviews supported the data with each superintendent stating that professional
development is the key to implementation. Superintendent C describes the development of
teacher leaders:
We really invested our resource into our teacher leaders. When we trained, we have about
1,200 teachers in our district, but we started this at the elementary school alone, there
were 120 teachers involved with the writing of the units of study at all grade levels and
pretty much in the secondary level, because teachers are content specific, we could have
groups of 60 working on our units of study that would be taught across the district. Our
real goals have been to have our teachers be the decision makers of what is appropriate
within the new standards that we've articulated from kindergarten to twelfth grade in both
language arts and math.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

64
Superintendent C’s description of their practices is supported by recent literature on
implementation. Teachers are leading the way into implementation and in fact the success
hinges on the success of professional development (Marrongelle, Sztajn, & Smith, 2013).
Superintendent C is using their teacher-leaders to create curriculum and implement with fidelity.
On the other hand, Superintendent B is hiring consultants to provide professional
development within the district. They describe their approach at the elementary level:
We have hired 2 consultants. One that focuses on elementary curriculum for ELA. We
have one that focuses on ELA at the elementary level, specifically a balanced literacy
approach. Then the second one, or the second part of that for elementary math, we have
been working for the past 4 years on using CGI math. Every one of our elementary
teachers has gone through training in CGI math.
Superintendent B describes a systematic approach to provide support for implementation for all
teachers and ensure a common language for instruction.
In Superintendent D’s district, professional development is created by a team of teachers
and administrators. The committee is comprised of representative teachers from each school site
making up 2/3 or 24 members and the remaining 1/3 or 12 members are administrators.
Together “they helped us create our three year plan of professional development” Superintendent
D said. There was a sense of pride regarding the effectiveness of the committee and
Superintendent D described the role it played:
We are not a district, administrative team, that sits here and mandates from up on high the
professional development for how we are going to do that. It's we clearly get input, and
from our staff, from the rank and file, from those on the front lines, and what they need.
Then we also...we came up with a three-year professional development plan. We've got a
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

65
nice document of what we are going to focus on. We were able to add back professional
development days that we had not had any professional development days in the district
for years, and my first year back, or beginning of my second year we implemented a
professional development days required that was focused on Common Core, and then we
did a lot of release days.
Superintendent D illustrates how the district collectively developed and created the professional
plan and implementation cycle for all teachers. Superintendent D pointed out that the assistant
superintendent of instruction was key to implementation.
Superintendent A has taken a different approach to building capacity in the teachers. A
coach has been hired for 18 days throughout the year to work with different groups.
Superintendent A describes the model using a coach for implementation:
We do one day of whole day with administrative team, principals. They need to ask each
other questions. I know the presenter well enough to where she'll challenge my
principals and get the conversations going. She meets a whole day. Now we're into the
instructional part of it. How do you implement instructional strategies that support
common core standards? We'll take a standard and work through it, not just what is the
standard, but what's the practice that goes with the standard. Then we do a whole day
with the football coach, my social studies teachers, my AP chemistry, everybody looking
at the standards and instructional practices. Then the third day is walkthroughs with the
principals. [They] go into classrooms to look for implementation of strategies. The
results of our work, we've developed signature practices. Then we go in classrooms
again, looking for the strategies, within the context of their Common Core state
standards.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

66
Superintendent A uses a coach to lead the conversations as well as work with teachers to identify
strong instructional strategies to support CCSS. Furthermore, Superintendent A has a strong
relationship with the coach to ensure the message fits the district’s goals. Additionally all of the
principals and instructional staff is involved in the discussions. Capacity building is the key to
implementation of the CCSS.
Research Question 4
How do superintendents of Southern California unified school districts evaluate the
effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards
reform?
The Common Core State Standards are still relatively new despite being released in 2010.
California, as a state, has chosen the Smarter Balance Consortium for the testing model. The
first year of formal testing with scores did not occur until the 2014-2015 school year. According
to the survey data, districts have been implementing the last few years. Table 13 explores the
length of time districts have been implementing:

Table 13
Years of CCSS Implementation
Under 1 Year 1 to 2 Years More Than 2 Years
% of Districts Surveyed 2.5% 30.8% 66.7%
# of Districts Surveyed 1 12 26

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

67
The majority of the districts have implemented the CCSS for more than two years,
however as was pointed out earlier, only the 2014/2015 school year had an official state test to
assess student achievement. Districts have been left with finding ways to evaluate their progress
towards implementation. Question four looks to explore the different avenues and decisions
superintendents are taking in order to evaluate CCSS effectiveness.
The State of California has chosen the Smarter Balanced Consortium Assessment
(SBAC) as one of the tools to assess how students are doing on meeting the CCSS standards.
The Smarter Balanced Assessment is a mixed methods assessment administered for grades third
through eighth and once in the high school, used to gauge the student’s discrete knowledge of the
standards (Conley, 2015).
The interviews have provided a myriad of approaches for evaluation of effectiveness. All
of the superintendents interviewed stressed the importance of seeing what is working and what is
not. The Smarter Balanced Assessment played a role in this evaluation process, but not a large
role. When asked about the role the Smarter Balanced Assessment played, Superintendent D
said “We didn’t put a lot of weight into the first one; we have to look at it as baseline data.” The
researcher asked further about how the district’s implementation plan was being evaluated,
Superintendent D stated “that it’s really through the interim assessments”. The interim
assessments are produced by the Smarter Balanced assessment and are administered in the same
manner as the main Smarter Balanced assessment. Superintendent D’s district is not the only
district using the Smarter Balanced assessment as an evaluation tool.
The Smarter Balanced assessment is one tool used in Superintendent C’s district. “When
the (Smarter Balanced assessment) results came back, it came back better than we expected”
Superintendent C commented. When the district’s research department analyzed the data, they
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

68
found that “the results depended on the schools fidelity to the new (district made) units of study”.
However Superintendent C added the following:
We try to do as much authentic assessment as well as summative and formative
assessment to give us as much information we can about the students. We also for our
struggling readers are using the independent reading level assessment and Accelerated
Reading program.
The district not only uses the Smarter Balanced assessment, but uses additional formative and
summative assessments for analyzing effectiveness. Superintendent C also describes the writing
and grading process, “We do a writing sample in all grade levels so that our teachers do two
wiring samples each year and come together as a district to grade, then come back to learn from
those assignments.” The addition of multiple measures has provided this district with more
insight into CCSS implementation.
In another example of implementation evaluation, Superintendent B shared their plan for
evaluating their new common core curriculum. As stated by the other interviewees, the results
from the Smarter Balanced assessments have not been enough to use for evaluatory purposes and
have only been in use for one year. Superintendent B has taken a different approach:
We have hired a company, a research company, since we don't have our own research
wing, to do an implementation study and our first one is going to be on CGI math at the
elementary level. We're actually starting now the process of doing implementation
studies. We've literally poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into training and to the
implementation of curriculum over the last 4 or 5 years. Now we're going to invest some
money in determining through independent observations.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

69
Superintendent B has a clear goal on the evaluation of effectiveness. Three times during the
interview, Superintendent B mentioned the “investment of time and money [in curriculum]” and
how it would be evaluated for effectiveness. There is a clear goal to assess the implementation.
Superintendent B described the evaluation process. The evaluation will consist of two
parts. Superintendent B showed the interviewer the draft version of the teacher self-evaluation
tool. Unfortunately at the time of the interview, the superintendent’s Board had not seen nor
heard from the teachers union, thus a copy was not provided. The first part is the teacher self-
observation kit which has “some basic info” about “where you are and grade level”. The survey
instrument then moves into the self-evaluation section. Questions are on a Likert Scale from 0-4
based on instructional practices with the frame of “to what extent am I doing certain things”.
The survey will have hard copies and electronic versions within a two and a half to three month
window. In order to ensure that this is a transparent process, “the assistant superintendent of
human resources and the union president will go out and meet with the staffs at the school sites”
to explain “this is what we’re doing and why” Superintendent B said. The message would be:
District has spent...We've invested huge amount of time and money in this, and we just
want to see how it's working. Again, this is our first one, but our plan is to continue on
with ELA in the future years, and then try to implement them for all of our district
initiatives to manage progress and see where we need to shore things up.
The second part of the evaluation is having outside observers go class to class with a similar
evaluation tool to see to what extent implementation is observed. Superintendent B is in
alignment with Waters and Marzano’s (2006) work by stating that having an instructional
evaluation program that monitors the district’s instructional programs has a positive effect on
student achievement. Furthermore systematically managing the instructional change also has a
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

70
positive effect on instruction (Waters, J. Timothy & Marzano, 2006). Superintendent B has
described an evaluation system to evaluate CCSS implementation for the district.
Superintendent E had a different response to the evaluation of CCSS implementation.
“The district has been doing certain things for many years and they have been working”
Superintendent E said. To evaluate their instructional program, Superintendent E gave the
following criteria:
We do have the interim assessments that we get from SBAC. We have some of our own
benchmarks that we do. It’s going to take time to look at the assessments, get teachers to
use them. Compare the results with how they do on the actual SBAC and see if there is
even a correlation. Does it even matter? If there isn’t, doesn’t necessarily mean they are
worthless, does it still have value? But we are still doing some of the other work that has
nothing to do with SBAC.
Superintendent E does feel that the assessments can be used to evaluate effectiveness of CCSS,
but also feels that a greater assessment is needed to measure student growth. The idea that there
is just one indicator for success troubles Superintendent E. A more complete picture is needed
which Superintendent E describes:
If you are a high school kid, yes proficiency matters, of course it does. But what really
matters is that I complete A-G, because I just opened up opportunities for my future. Not
one employer or college is going to ask for your SBAC results, not one. The SBAC
results should have a positive correlation with how kids do on PSAT, SAT, EAP, A-G,
AP, you would hope if kids did well on these other assessments that we highly value,
then they should also do well on the SBAC. It would be sad if a kid scored over 1500 on
the SAT, passed an AP, got into college and then found out that the kid scored in the
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

71
middle on the SBAC. To me, I’m not going to shake things up. I don’t know if I value
SBAC more than these other things. Three through eighth is different, you kind of have
to go by the assessment, and it’s your only assessment. But once they hit ninth grade, it’s
not the primary assessment for our kids, families, or their future.
Superintendent E uses readily available assessments that have been used for many years to
evaluate the instructional program. The replacement from the old California Standards Test has
been replaced with the new Smarter Balanced Assessment, but as was stated, “it’s only a piece of
the larger picture for our students” Superintendent E said. “If you ask any parents, they want
their child to get a good job, buy a house in a nice neighborhood, go to college, and be
productive, find the next cure for cancer; they never say that they want their child to score
proficient on the SBAC” Superintendent E said. The assessments are nothing more than an
indicator to the education of whole child.
Summary
The superintendents interviewed in the study represented a wide-range of demographics
from low numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged and English Language Learners to high
numbers. The sizes of the districts also ranged in size. Common Core implementation also
varied by district with many examples of implementation explored. The following four research
questions are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Research question 1 asked, What are the decisions superintendents from unified school
districts make to support Common Core Implementation? Superintendents surveyed stated that
they helped make decisions in the following areas:
• Professional Development
o Within the district and outside the district
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

72
• Planning
• Curriculum
• Materials
• Communication
o To the staff, board, parents, and community
All of the interviewed superintendents indicated that they had a team comprised of various
stakeholders that helped make decisions about implementation.
The second research question asked what strategies have superintendents of unified
school districts employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State
Standards implementation? The superintendents interviewed all had similar methods to
communicating with stakeholders. They all did presentations to the board, at schools, and using
the media. The messages varied by district but had one common theme, the assessment changed.
Superintendent E told the board “our kids didn’t get dumb in one year, the assessment changed”.
This was the same sentiment with each superintendent interviewed.
The third research question asked What strategies are superintendents of unified school
districts using to build capacity in support of the Common Core State Standards reform? The
surveyed as well as the interviewed superintendents overwhelmingly felt that professional
development was the key to implementation. The larger districts interviewed brought
professional development to the district. While the smaller districts sent teachers out to
professional development and then brought coaching in. Teacher coaching was a theme that was
also brought up as focus for capacity building.
The final research question asked How do superintendents of unified school districts
evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

73
Standards reform? All of the superintendents interviewed stated that the SBAC results play a
role in evaluating effectiveness. However, the two districts interviewed that were high
performing already on the old California Standards Test (CST) were also considered high
performing on the SBAC assessment, but not with as high of a proficiency. These two districts
focused on the other assessments (AP, SAT, ect.) as indicators for success. The other three
superintendents from lower performing districts used SBAC assessments as well as other
benchmarks created to evaluate effectiveness. One superintendent indicated using an outside
group to evaluate implementation of CCSS.
Chapter 5 will discuss the finding of the research associated with the study as well as
additional conclusions. There will also be recommendations for future research included as part
of Chapter 5.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

74
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Preparing the future generations to be productive in society has been the goal for all
educators. The last 20 years have seen recent reforms focused on developing content standards
that should be taught to all students. Content standards define the desirable knowledge, concepts,
and skills that elementary and secondary students should acquire at each grade level (California
Department of Education, 1998). In 1997 the first set of Language Arts and Mathematics
standards were created and adopted in California, and the second set of standards are now the
Common Core State Standards (California Department of Education, 1998; McDonnell &
Weatherford, 2013). These reform efforts were made to improve student achievement by
defining the content to be taught in the classrooms throughout the country (California
Department of Education, 1998).
In 2012 the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2012). The nation’s governors and education commissioners developed the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with input from teachers, parents, school administrators,
and educational experts (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The Common Core
State Standards were built on the rigor of the 1997 standards; however there were major shifts.
For example, the 1997 standards emphasize basic skills, while the CCSS focused on conceptual
knowledge (Wiener, 2013).
Districts across the nation are facing the need to implement the new Common Core State
Standards. The responsibility of this shift from previous standards falls on the shoulders of
superintendents that lead the districts. Mac Iver and Farley (2003) describe the importance of
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

75
having strong superintendents and central offices to provide leadership. It is important to
identify roadblocks that national standards implementation breeds and best practices for
implementing the standards.
Chapter 5 will summarize the statement of the problem, purpose of the study, the research
questions, and a review of the literature. There will also be a summary of the findings and
implications for future research.
Statement of the Problem
Along with the new Common Core State Standards comes a new wave of accountability
measures from both the state and federal governments. Furthermore the goal of CCSS
implementation is to ensure our students are college and career ready. California has added a
new wrinkle to the accountability piece, a new way of funding schools. This has led to a great
opportunity for districts to implement the CCSS; as well as a creating great challenges that must
be overcome (Kirst, 2013).
The leadership from the superintendent in the area of common core implementation and
the assessment of the effectiveness of implementation has never been more important. There is
little research in this area of implementation. Furthermore the internal and external
accountability play a role in how effectiveness is viewed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand the decisions Southern California
superintendents make with the implementation of Common Core State Standards.
Understanding superintendent’s actions since the adoption of CCSS could help guide the
Common Core implementation practices of other practitioners in the field of education. The
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

76
findings from this study will assist superintendents with an understanding of current Common
Core implementation systems and how employed systems have been evaluated for effectiveness.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used in guiding this study.
1. What are the decisions superintendents from unified school districts in Southern
California make to support Common Core Implementation?
2. What strategies have superintendents of Southern California unified school districts
employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State Standards
implementation?
3. What strategies are superintendents of Southern California unified school districts
using to build capacity in support of the Common Core State Standards reform?
4. How do superintendents of Southern California unified school districts evaluate the
effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State
Standards reform?
Review of the Literature
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards is new. Thus the literature is
sparse on what it is and how it has been effective. The literature review in this study looked at
education reform throughout the years. Reform has typically been based on assessment and
evaluation of students and not on curriculum or standards. Additionally, the leadership of the
superintendent plays a large role in how any reforms are executed.
The superintendent, as the leader of the district, must be able to go in and out of roles
depending on the audience. Leaders traverse through various frames which gives them the
opportunity to look at the same situation from multiple lens giving them a powerful tool to gain
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

77
clarity, generate new options, and find new strategies to make a difference (Bolman & Deal,
2008). There are five general characteristics that summarize the role the superintendent plays
which describes the breadth and depth of an effective superintendent (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno,
& Kowalski, 2014). The roles are as follows:
• Superintendent as a teacher-scholar,
• Superintendent as a manager,
• Superintendent as a political leader,
• Superintendent as a applied social scientist, and
• Superintendent as a communicator. (Björk et al., 2014)
The work of a superintendent is complex, thus more than one role may be present at any given
time depending on the situation. As superintendents transition districts into the Common Core
era, these characteristics will be needed for success.
Common Core implementation will require a paradigm shift from pervious practices.
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 populations, many teachers are engaging in higher levels of teacher
collaboration (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014). In 2013 the California Legislature
appropriated $1.25 billion to districts to support the CCSS in the areas of technology,
instructional materials, and professional development (McLaughlin, Glaab, Carrasco, 2014).
The literature has identified what has been set aside for implementation; little research has
focused on what districts are doing in order to meet the CCSS implementation needs and
evaluation of effectiveness.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

78
Findings
Research Question 1
The first research questions asked what the decisions superintendents from Southern
California unified school districts make to support Common Core Implementation?
In order to fully understand the superintendents own knowledge of CCSS, they were
asked about their own preparation for CCSS implementation. Superintendents in the survey
responded that they received professional development from various sources. Of the 39 that
responded, 56.4% reported they received zero to twenty hours of professional development
within the district. Additionally, 71% reported that they received zero to twenty hours of
professional development outside of the district at trainings held by the county offices of
education, ACSA, or other meetings targeting superintendents. The interviews confirmed these
findings; however three of the superintendents felt the trainings outside of the district were hit or
miss and not too valuable.
The types of trainings offered to superintendents also varied. The superintendents from
the survey responded that they attended trainings on the following: standards study, instructional
strategies, framework study, CCSS assessment, CCSS shifts in instructions. Instructional
strategies (82%) and CCSS assessments (71.7%) were the types of trainings most attended by the
surveyed cohort.
The superintendents interviewed were asked about the role they played in selecting
professional development for the district. All of the surveyed group and interviewed group
stated that professional development for the district was something they had a role in selecting.
Of the 39 surveyed, 84.6% indicated that curriculum was something they played a role in
selecting for the district. The findings indicate that the superintendent is playing a role in
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

79
instruction for the district. However, when asked during the interviews, three superintendents
indicated that they spend on average less than 50% of their day participating in curricular
matters. The professional development varied by district and question three provides insight into
the types of professional development that occurred.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked what strategies have superintendents of Southern California
unified school districts employed to communicate with stakeholders about Common Core State
Standards implementation?
The superintendent’s role is to communicate the message of the district internally and
externally. The implementation of the Common Core State Standards is no different.
Superintendents in the survey rated the knowledge of their boards of education an average of
3.85 on a scale of 1-5. This is an indication that superintendents have spent extensive time
educating their boards about CCSS.
All five of the interviewed superintendents indicated that they used the structures built
within the context of the school. Superintendents used principals to disseminate information to
parents and students through parent/teacher conferences, parent trainings and meetings. Three
superintendents indicated that they used the media, specifically the newspaper, to share
information about the district.
The surprise from the interviews was the role the Local Control and Accountability Plan
(LCAP) played in sharing information. The LCAP mandates sharing information and seeking
input from stakeholders. Three of the superintendents shared that their LCAPs became part of
their mechanism for communicating progress in CCSS implementation. One superintendent
indicated that the LCAP ensured that CCSS implementation was completely funded.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

80
Research Question 3
The third research question asked what strategies are superintendents of Southern
California unified school districts using to build capacity in support of the Common Core State
Standards reform?
The superintendents surveyed were asked about the curriculum alignment within their
districts. They reported, on a scaled of one to five, that their English Language Arts curriculum
alignment averaged a 3.39 and that Math averaged a 3.79. However when they were asked about
the amount of professional development they were providing, the superintendents responded
with an average score of 4.48. This indicates that professional development had a higher rating
in terms of what decisions superintendents were making. Furthermore this supports what the
literature has said about CCSS implementation.
The types of professional development provided varied by district. All five of the
interviewed superintendents indicated that a coaching model was used to build the capacity of
teachers. Two of the superintendents indicated that they trained current teachers, as teachers on
special assignment (TOSAs), in CCSS instructional strategies and programs. These TOSAs were
used as coaches within schools to support the implementation of CCSS. A third superintendent
indicated that a representative teacher and administrator from each school site made up the
committee to develop a three year professional development plan which included coaching.
Another superintendent brought in a coach to work with their teachers and administrators on best
instructional practices for CCSS implementation.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

81
Research Question 4
The final research question was how do superintendents of Southern California unified
school districts evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the
Common Core State Standards reform?
The evaluation of the effectiveness of CCSS implementation looked different at each of
the districts interviewed. Two of the superintendents interviewed shared that the Smarter
Balanced Assessment played a role in evaluation, but it was not the sole indicator. The
superintendents said they used the PSAT, SAT, EAP, AP Tests, and A-G completion as
indicators for program effectiveness in the high school. This is interesting because these two
districts are also the highest performing districts with the least amount of socio-economically
disadvantaged students.
The other three districts rely more on the Smarter Balanced Assessment as a form of
evaluation. The district benchmarks consist of the interim assessments created by SBAC as well
as district created benchmarks and writing assessments.
One district hired an outside company to conduct a teacher self-assessment of
implementation and an observation tool that will be used by outside observers to see to what
extent implementation is occurring within the classrooms. The feeling from this superintendent
was there are extensive amounts of financial and human capital resources being expended into
implementation of CCSS and it is important to see how implementation is going.
Implications
The findings from this study support the importance research has placed on professional
development as the key to implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Furthermore,
the study found that the state’s requirements within the Local Control and Accountability Plan
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

82
have a role in implementation by ensuring districts are accountable for the monies being spent
toward implementation.
The study also focused on leadership of superintendents. Even though the study found
that regardless of the size of the district, superintendents spent less than 50% of their time on
curricular matters; however they still need to function as instructional leaders in order to carry
out curricular change. All of the superintendents indicated that they attended some form of
professional development themselves, the interviews brought to light the fact that the
professional development for superintendents was hit or miss.
Recommendations
The following recommendations for future research are suggested by the researcher in
order to better understand the decisions made by superintendents in the following areas:
1. Evaluation of implementation practices was all over the board. Identifying best
practices to evaluate implementation, which is not solely based on state assessments,
would help all districts determine the effectiveness of their educational programs.
2. Professional development for superintendents varied by the superintendent’s
relationship to the county offices of education and professional organizations.
Furthermore research indicated that much of the professional development was
superficial. Identifying what types of professional development for superintendents
positively impacts student achievement would help provide organizations that provide
professional development with a better focus on effective professional development.
3. The findings indicated that districts are using outside consultants to provide coaching;
while others are developing coaches from within the district. Further study on which
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

83
method provides the greatest impact on student achievement can be conducted. Also
identifying an evaluation for effective coaching will be helpful.
Conclusions
The superintendents participating in this study have shared a multitude of options districts
are facing as they implement the Common Core State Standards. The findings indicated that
professional development is the focus for implementation; however evaluation of effectiveness
remains a common problem. Superintendents play a large role in guiding the instructional focus
of the district, and like the others in the organization, need support to make sound instructional
decisions.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

84
REFERENCES
ACT (2013). The condition of college and career readiness 2013.
Assessment, O. of T. (n.d.). Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions -
9236.PDF. Retrieved from
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1992/9236.PDF
Assessment, O. of T., & Congress, U. (1992). Testing in American Schools : Asking the Right
Questions February 1992. Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions ….
Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Testing+in+American+Schools+%3AAsking+the+R
ight+Questions+1992+office+of+technology+assessment&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_yl
o=1992&as_yhi=1993#2
Autor, D. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99
percent”. Science, 843- 850, 344.
Baker, L. (2009). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition
Ball, D., & Forzani, F., (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting
professional learning to practice. American Educator, 17-39.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. education
policy analysis archives, 8, 51.
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook, C. (2012) Transforming professional
learning in Kentucky: meeting the demands of the common core state standards.
Learning Forward to Stanford University for Opportunity Policy in Education.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

85
Bidwell, A., (2014, February 27). A Guide to common Core. US News. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-
common-core-state-standards
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Kowalski, T. J. (2014). The Superintendent and
Educational Reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
13(March 2015), 444–465. doi:10.1080/15700763.2014.945656
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-Responsive Leadership:
Examining Superintendent Leadership in Context. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
19(18), 1–29.
Bunch, G., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S., (2012). Realizing opportunities for English language
learners in the common core English language arts and disciplinary standards.
Understanding Language, 1-16.
California Department of Education. (1998). English–language arts content standards for
California public schools- kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento: California
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf
California Department of Education (2014). Local Control Funding Formula. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J. (2012). Great teaching: measuring its effects on
students’ future earnings. Education Next.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

86
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Conley, D. T. (2015). A new era for educational assessment. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 23(8). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1983.
Core, C. (2013). Which way do we go?
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
(4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Federal Policy Options for Chapter 1: An Equity Agenda for
School Restructuring (p. 32). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62801680?accountid=13042
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No child left behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational
Review 76.4642-667,725.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. education policy analysis archives, 22(86), 1.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H., (2013). Fifty ways to leave a child
behind. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~ekd2110/Fifty_Ways_4_5_2013.pdf
Dewing, R., Perini, M. J., & Silver, H. F. (2012). The core six: Essential strategies for achieving
excellence with the common core. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

87
Doorey, N. (2013). Coming soon how two common core assessment consortia were created-and
how they compare. Educational Leadership.
Echeverria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: a
model for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research. 195, 210,
256.
Education, N. C. on E. in. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. The
Elementary School Journal, 26(2), 467–478. doi:10.1145/358150.358154
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
Farrand, Scott. 2014. Response to “State Adopts New Math Textbooks Aligned to Common
Core.” Edsource, January 15. http://edsource.org/2014/new-math-textbooks-aligned-to-
common-core-up-for-state-board-vote/56346%23.Uyjgl86a-08#.VNmaYsZ4Fek.
Fensterwald, J. (2013). California committed to move forward with common core tests as
planned. EdSource. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/2013/california-committed-to-
move-forward-with-common-core-tests-as-planned/36791#.VLq1YcbrblI
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications
Fink, S. & Rimmer, J. (2015). Building a better principalship supporting principals as
instructional leaders. Principal Leadership. 40-43. Retrieved from
http://www.nasspconference.org/images/uploads/documents/Building_a_Better_Principal
ship.pdf
Fink, S. & Silverman, M. (2014). Principals as instructional leaders. School Administrator. 71,
(4), 23-26. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=32744
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

88
Fowler, F., (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders. (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat [updated and expanded]: A brief history of the twenty-
first century. Macmillan.
Fritzberg, G. J. (2004). No child left behind?: Assessing president Bush’s assessment law.
Educational Foundations, 18, 7–24.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). A survey listening to teachers of English
language learners.
Gilbert, J., & Griebling, S. (2013). Essential elements for preparing future teachers in early
childhood education using common core standards research. Kentucky Journal of
Excellence in College Teaching and Learning. 47-54. Retrieved from
http://kjectl.eku.edu/sites/kjectl.eku.edu/files/files/Journal%2013/GilbertGriesbling_Sum
mer13.pdf
Haertel, E., & Herman, J. (2005). A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for
Accountability Testing. Uses and Misuses of Data in Accountability Testing. Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(310), 1–34. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
7984.2005.00023.x
Hattie, J. (2015). High Impact Leadership. Educational Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb15/vol72..
Hord, S.M., Rutherford W.L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E.(1987). Taking Charge of Change.
Austin: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jerald, C. D. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-Class
Education. National Governors Association.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

89
Johnson, S. M. (2012). Having it both ways: Building the capacity of individual teachers and
their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 107-122.
Karp, S. (2014). The problems with common core. Retrieved from
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/24/problems-common-core
Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C.W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J.Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013): Performance of
U.S 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an
international context: first look at PISA 2012: US department of education. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014024rev.pdf
Kessinger, T. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958 a review
of seven major initiatives. American Educational History Journal. 38 (2). 263-276.
Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-284325077.html
Kim, J., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measures academic proficiency under the no child left
behind act: implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher. 34(8), 3-13.
doi:10.3102/0013189X034008003
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the common core state standards:
states’ progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the School Superintendent as Communicator.
Communication Education, 54(March 2015), 101–117. doi:10.1080/03634520500213322
Leachman, M. & Mai, C. (2014). Most states still funding schools less than before the recession.
Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-16-14sfp.pdf
Legislative Analysis Office. (2013). An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula.
Sacramento, CA: Taylor, M.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

90
Liston, D., Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator's role in enhancing teacher
quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 111.
Liu, G. (2006). Interstate inequality in educational opportunity. NYUL Rev., 81, 2044.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: evidence from prison
inmates, arrests and self-reports. American Economic Review, (94), 89-155.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results
in Science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
Martin, C. (2014). Common Core Implementation Best Practices.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works from research to
results. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL RETURNS FOR 1837. (1838, Jan 21). Christian Register and
Boston Observer (1835-1843), 17, 10. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/89781679?accountid=14749
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Maye, D. (2013). Hitting the mark: Strategic planning for academic rigor. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 79(4), 29-36. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1399970091?accountid=14749
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

91
McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I.H. (2014). Implementing common core state standards
in California: a report from the field. Retrieved from
http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/implementing-common-core-state-standards-
california-report-field
McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, S. (2013). Organized interests and the common core.
Educational Researcher. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13512676
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. (2
nd
ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
National Center for Education and the Economy. (2014). About NCEE. Retrieved from
http://www.ncee.org/about-ncee/
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org
National Research Council. (2014). National science education standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership theory and practice. (6
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2014). Implementing common core state standards in
California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., Carrasco,
I.
Popham, W. J., Glass, G., Grissmer, D., Jones, L., Kaestle, C., Riddle, W., … Truby, R. (2008).
The Role of Assessment in Federal Education Programs.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

92
Porter, a., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New U.S.
Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
doi:10.3102/0013189X11405038
Porter, A.C., & Polikoff, M.S. (2009). National curriculum. In T.L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century
Education: A Reference Handbook, (pp. 434-442). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, A.C., Polikoff, M.S. & Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended
curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31(3), 238-268
Prothero, A. January 21, 2015. For Principals, Continuous Learning Critical to Career Success.
Education Week, 34. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/21/for-
principals-continuous-learning-critical-to-career.html
Purinton, T. (2011). Six degrees of school improvement: Empowering a new profession of
teaching. IAP.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system, how testing and
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books
Redfield, D., & Sheinker, J. (2004). Framework for Transitioning from IASA to NCLB (pp. 1–
26).
Reynolds, T., Murrill, L. D., & Whitt, G. L. (2006, June). Learning from organizations:
Mobilizing and sustaining teacher change. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 70, No. 2, pp.
123-133). Taylor & Francis Group.
Rouse, C. E. (2005). The labor market consequences of an inadequate education. In symposium
on the Social Costs of Inadequate Education, Teachers College Columbia University.
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

93
Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L. & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher Development to support English
language learners in the context of the common core state standards. Understanding
Language, 104-114.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2003). Information Processing Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. Crown Business.
Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and
programs. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 377-420.
Taylor, L. (1999). Government’s Role in Primary and Secondary Education. Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, Economic Review. First Quarter, 1999
The Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Standards in your state. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
The Nations Report Card. (2013). Results for 2013 NAEP mathematics and reading assessments
are in. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/executive-summary
Tomayo, Jr., J. (2010). Assessment 2.0: “Next Generation” Comprehensive Assessment systems
(p. 12). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED517202.pdf
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of
Chicago …. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com.libproxy.usc.edu/scholar?q=basic+principles+of+curriculum+a
nd+instruction+ralph+tyler+1949&hl=en&as_sdt=0,36#3
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

94
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Median earnings in the past 12 months by sex educational
attainment for the population 25 years and over. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_1
3_5YR_B20004&prodType=table
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity. (1970). Toward equal
educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Obama administration's education reform plan
emphasizes flexibility, resources and accountability for results. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administrations-education-reform-plan-
emphasizes-flexibility-resources-and
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/esea
Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in
school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence.
Applied Measurment in Education, 19(June), 305–328. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1904
Warren, P., & Murphy, P. (2014). California’s Transition to the Common Core State Standards.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership what 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/products-and-services/products/product-listing/01_99/product-82
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

95
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning research that
effective school leadership can substantially boost student achievement. Retrieved from
http://leadership-and-learning
communitie.www.esu13.org/modules/locker/files/get_group_file.phtml?fid=7222300&gi
d=1519815
Weiner, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating implementation of common core and
teacher effectiveness policies. Washington: The Aspen Institute, Education and Society
Program.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and methods of qualitative interview
studies. New York: First Free Press
Zegerac, G. (2013). Know thy impact: teaching, learning and leading. In Conversation, volume
IV issue 2. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/implementing-
common-core-state-standards-california-report-field.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery Learning and Assessment:
Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the
Schools, 45(3), 206–216. doi:10.1002/pits

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

96
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
2. What is your highest degree earned?
a. Bachelors Degree
b. Masters Degree
c. Doctoral Degree
3. How would you describe your school?
a. Urban
b. Rural
c. Suburban
4. How many years in education?
a. 0-10
b. 11-21
c. 22-32
d. 33+
5. How many years as a superintendent?
a. 0-1
b. 2-5
c. 6-8
d. 9 or more
6. Prior to becoming an superintendent what was your position? Circle all that apply.
a. Assistant Superintendent, Business
b. Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
c. Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum
d. Director, Business
e. Director, Human Resources
f. Director, Curriculum
g. Other

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

97
7. What is your total enrollment?
a. 0-2000
b. 2,001-5,000
c. 5,001-10,000
d. 10,001-20,000
e. 20,001+
8. How long have you been implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in
English Language Arts?

a. Under a year
b. 1-2 years
c. More than 2 years
9. How long have you been implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in math?
a. Under a year
b. 1-2 years
c. More than 2 years
10. How many formal hours of Common Core training have you been through inside the district?
a. 0-10
b. 11-20
c. 21-30
d. 31-40
e. 40+
11. How many formal hours of Common Core training have you been through outside the
district?

a. 0-10
b. 11-20
c. 21-30
d. 31-40
e. 40+

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

98
12. 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
13. 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
e. other
14. 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
f. other

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

99
1
A little 2 3 4
5
A lot
15. How familiar are you with the Math Common Core State
Standards?

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

17. How much autonomy have you given your school district
when implementing the Common Core State Standards?

18. How much planning did your district engage in before
implementing the CCSS?

19. How prepared do you feel your district is in Common
Core implementation with EL students?

20. How prepared do you feel your district is in CCSS
implementation with students with disabilities students?

21. How much CCSS professional development and training
have you provided your staff?

22. How much CCSS professional development and training
have you provided to the school board?

23. How closely aligned are the district’s ELA instructional
materials?

24. How closely aligned are the district’s Math instructional
materials?

25. How much CCSS materials have you provided to the
elementary schools?

26. How much CCSS materials have you provided to the
middle schools?

27. How much CCSS materials have you provided to the high
schools?

28. How much technology is available at the school to
support CAASPP implementation?

29. To what extent are evaluation systems used to assess the
effectiveness of CCSS implementation?

30. How aligned do you feel your district’s curriculum and
instructional focus is with the CCSS?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

100
1
A little 2 3 4
5
A lot
31. How familiar are you with the Math Smarter Balanced
assessment?

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

33. How much communication have you provided the school
board regarding Smarter Balanced results?

34. Would you be willing to be contacted for an interview?
Yes or No?

Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview? ☐ Yes.

If yes, please write your contact information below. Your information will remain confidential
throughout and after the study. Your name and other identifiable information will be replaced
with pseudonyms.

Contact Information:_______________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

101
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction
I appreciate you providing time for me to interview you. Your perspective will help me gain
insight about CCSS leadership practices, decisions, and experiences. This work is important to
me because I am interested in finding how the Common Core reform has been implemented in
school districts around southern California. I believe that your knowledge in this area will be
very useful for my study. Thank you for volunteering and agreeing to be interviewed. It is
important to record the interview so that if I forget to write something down I can go back and
listen to the recording. May I record the interview? Please note that this is a confidential
interview, no one else will hear anything you say. If at any time you feel uncomfortable please
let me know and I will turn the recorder off. I brought a copy of your consent form for your
records. Do you have any questions for me?

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

1. Please tell me about your district?
a. Possible probes
i. Mission?
ii. Vision?
iii. Demographics?
2. With all of the various responsibilities with the board, community, and general duties of
running the district, how much does instruction play in to your day to day leadership?

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

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

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Material implementation?
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

102
2. Please describe the types of Common Core State Standards professional development that
you have attended at the county office?

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Material implementation?
3. Please describe the any other Common Core State Standards professional development that
you have attended? ACSA? Etc.

• Standards reviews?
• Strategies?
• Planning?
• Material implementation?
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 do you think the next steps should be with regard to CCSS professional development?

II. Teacher Capacity
Teacher capacity will be the next topic.
1. How prepared do you feel your teachers are to teach the CCSS in ELA and Math?
2. How are teachers prepared for CCSS instruction?
3. What types of professional development has the district provided for the teachers at your
site?

a. Standards
b. Strategies
c. Materials
d. Technology
4. Describe the professional developments that teachers have attended outside of the district or
county office?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

103
III. Decisions
1. How much autonomy have you given your Ed. Services department to make decisions with
regard to CSSS decisions?

a. PD?
b. Materials?
c. Programs?
d. Instructional strategies?
e. Technology?
2. How much autonomy have you given your schools to make decisions with regard to CSSS
decisions?

a. PD?
b. Materials?
c. Programs?
d. Instructional strategies?
e. Technology?
3. Describe your areas of focus with regard to the ELA standards? Math?

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

1. What CCSS materials does your district use for:

a. Math?
i. Books?
ii. Non-fiction?
iii. Fiction?
iv. Technology?
b. ELA?
i. Books?
ii. Non-fiction?
iii. Fiction?
iv. Technology?
c. Is there a difference at the middle or high schools?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

104
2. Describe the access to technology the students have within the district?

a. Lab?
b. Classroom computers?
c. Carts?
d. 1:1?

3. Describe how technology is used currently in the district?
V. Communication
In this section of the interview I am interested in learning about your CCSS communication
practices.

1. Tell me about how CCSS was communicated to the teachers?
a. With students?
b. With Parents?
c. With the board?
2. As the CAASPP results have become available, how have you been communicating them to
the board?

a. Greater community?
b. Staff?
VI. Facilitation, Barriers, & Evaluation
The last section of the interview will focus on CCSS facilitation, and barriers practices.
1. What types of barriers are hindering Common Core State Standard implementation?
2. Who is facilitating the implementation of CCSS within the district?
3. Tell me about the CCSS monitoring practices you have employed?
a. Teacher evaluations?
b. Data analysis?
c. Walkthrough feedback?
d. Coaching feedback?
e. CAASPP?

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

105
4. What feedback has been provided about the effectiveness of CCSS implementation?
a. Board?
b. District?
c. Parents?
d. Students?
e. Teachers?
Is there anything else you would like to share with me today?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

106
APPENDIX C
RECRUITMENT LETTER
November 18, 2015

Dear (Superintendent),

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

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

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

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

• Employment in a Southern California unifieddistrict,
• Common Core State Standards implementation experience,
• Resource purchase power, and
• Currently a superintendent.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns please email Robert Allard at allard@usc.edu.
Your information will remain confidential and pseudonyms will be used during this process.

Thank you in advance for your time. If you decide to participate your prompt response is
appreciated. To begin the survey please click on the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/USCallard

Sincerely,
Robert Allard

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the decisions made by Southern California Superintendents of unified school districts as they lead the implementation of the California Common Core State Standards. There were four research questions that guided the study which are: (a) what decisions have Southern California superintendent’s made to support Common Core Implementation, (b) what actions have taken place in order to communicate with stakeholders the implementation of common core state standards, (c) what capacity building systems have been developed to support the Common Core State Standards reform, and (d) how do Southern California superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of the systems that have been used to support the Common Core State Standards reform. The study was a mixed methods study in which thirty-nine Southern California superintendents participated in the qualitative portion. From the thirty-nine that participated in the surveys, five were purposefully selected to complete the qualitative portion and were interviewed. The qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed and coded

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

A Catholic school dilemma: Adopt Common Core State Standards?

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

The superintendency in a California school district: preparation, recruitment, and career longevity

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

High-performing school district superintendents: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Perception of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of California school district superintendents

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Allard, Robert George, Jr. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/06/2016

Defense Date 03/08/2016

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendents

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 allard@usc.edu,allard76@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-250120

Unique identifier UC11280647

Identifier etd-AllardRobe-4423.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-250120 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AllardRobe-4423.pdf

Dmrecord 250120

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Allard, Robert George, Jr.

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