University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 1

A CASE STUDY OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER’S ROLE IN LEADING CHANGE:
PREPARING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

by

Sinae Lee Chang

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 2014

Copyright 2014 Sinae Lee Chang
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 2

Dedication
“It always seems impossible until it is done." - Nelson Mandela
This has been a huge chapter of my life. Being a first year principal and going through
the dissertation process would have been impossible without the support and encouragement that
I received from my family, friends, colleagues, and classmates. Thank you for your continuous
encouragement, prayers, and support.
I would like to thank my husband, Scott for believing in me and encouraging me to work
on my dissertation; my sons, Kyle and Cole for being amazing kids; and my parents for
continually encouraging me to reach for the stars and being proud of my endeavors. I am
thankful that you are both alive to celebrate this accomplishment with me. I would also like to
thank my brother, Peter and his wife, along with my cousins and extended family for their
prayers, words of encouragement, and free babysitting. Finally, I would like to thank my Eun
Sung Church members for encouraging me and providing me with prayers and coffee gift cards
for my long days and nights of data collection and writing.
Thank you to my family and friends for being a village for my boys during this process.
As I close this chapter of my life, I look forward to the new adventures that will come my way.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Paula Carbone for her valuable
contributions to my work. Dr. Carbone was an amazing chair with great insight and expertise as
an educator and researcher. I appreciated her prompt feedback and encouragement throughout
the rigorous process. I also give appreciation to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Darline
Robles and Dr. Gabriela Mafi for the use of their time and expertise to make valuable
contributions to improve my work. It was an honor to have such highly qualified experts as my
committee members. Finally, I would like to thank my participants for their willingness to share
their insights as instructional leaders. I feel better equipped as a leader through the knowledge
that I have gained from this study. It is my hope that it will provide important information to
other educational leaders in their practice.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Chapter Three: Methodology 60
Chapter Four: Findings 84
Chapter Five: Discussion 108
References 125
Appendices
Appendix A: Certified Information Sheet for Leaders 137
Appendix B: Interview Protocol- Instructional Leaders 139
Appendix C: Certified Information Sheet for Teachers 141
Appendix D: Teacher Survey Protocol 143
Appendix E: Observation Protocol 146

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Stages of Concern and Interventions
Table 2: Levels of Use
Table 3: Data Collection Timeline

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 6

List of Figures
Figure A: 2013 XYZ School District Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report
Figure B: 2013 Hawks Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report
Figure C: Main School District’s Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report
Figure D. 2013 Hill Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 7

Abstract
This study applies the leadership and instructional leadership theories to understand the role of
the instructional leader in leading change through a case study of instructional leaders who
prepared for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In addition, the
study is grounded in Hall and Hord’s (1987) conceptual framework known as the Concerns-
Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The overarching conceptual framework served as the lens
through which to view the important educational change efforts of implementing the CCSS. The
purpose of this study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders
lead change by providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary
schools in California from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. Qualitative
data were collected from interviews and observations of three instructional leaders, along with
teacher surveys, and document analysis to triangulate the data. Findings from this study indicate
that implementing change is a process that requires collaborative work amongst and between the
instructional leaders and teachers with varying leadership styles from the instructional leader.
Collaboration, situational leadership, and understanding of the change process were seen as
essential components to implementing CCSS. These findings imply the need for instructional
leaders to participate in ongoing collaborative learning opportunities to learn about CCSS and to
provide teachers time to collaborate with one another. This study showed that having a well-
planned centralized implementation process starting from the district level was an effective way
to implement change. Data analysis provides implications for creating teacher planning time for
teachers to collaborate with one another within the local context to find or create teacher-
materials that are aligned to CCSS. The findings of this study yield implications for research in
the challenge areas that were reported by instructional leaders and teachers of the study.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this study, qualitative research was conducted to investigate the role of the
instructional leader in leading change through a case study of instructional leaders preparing for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and to characterize the leadership
styles and strategies that were used to prepare for implementation. The focus of this study was to
add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a
detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the
perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. This study aimed to increase
understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders were approaching the efforts of
preparing for CCSS implementation and why they were taking particular approaches in the
process. The lessons learned from early implementers had potential to provide valuable
information that can help guide later implementers in the process.
Background of the Problem
In 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National
Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) committed to developing a
common set of expectations across states for what K–12 students are expected to know and be
able to do in English Language Arts and Math (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). The CCSS set
requirements not only for Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) but also for literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects; these 6–12 literacy standards are not meant
to replace content standards in those areas but rather to supplement them (NGA Center &
CCSSO, 2014). States may incorporate these standards into their standards for those subjects or
adopt them as content area literacy standards (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released in June 2010 and as of
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 9

September 2012, all states with the exception of Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, and Virginia adopted
the English Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State Standards. In addition, the
District of Columbia, four territories of Guam, American Samoa Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands,
and Northern Mariana Islands, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have opted to
implement and align assessments to them (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Minnesota adopted
the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards (Post, 2013). In March
2014, Indiana withdrew from the CCSS (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014).
On August, 2, 2010, California State Board of Education voted to adopt the CCSS with
the plan to administer the operational summative assessment in spring 2015 (CDE, 2013). With
the enactment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school leaders in California played
a vital role in implementing the new education policy in their school sites (Elmore, 2000:
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Leaders utilized various
leadership styles and strategies to implement Common Core State Standards. However, little was
known about the instructional leader’s role in the implementation process during the early stages
of CCSS. In addition, when the CCSS were initially developed and adopted, there was a lack of
empirical research that showed the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS implementation
process in elementary schools in Southern California.
Statement of the Problem
Leadership is considered to be vital to the successful functioning of many aspects of
school (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill,
2007; Horsford & Brown, 2011; Levine, 2005; Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005). An
effective principal or school leader is thought to be a necessary precondition for an effective
school and student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2006; Gray, Fry, Bottoms, &
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 10

O'Neill, 2007; Marzano et al., 2005). Leadership is an overarching variable that impacts the
effective implementation of the school-level factors, teacher-level factors, and the student-level
factors that make schools work (Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Youngs & Kings, 2002).
With the enactment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school leaders were called to
lead the change in implementing the new education policy. Research showed that teachers were
concerned about implementing the CCSS (Cosmah & Saine, 2013). In order for the CCSS to be
implemented effectively to achieve the intended outcomes of preparing our children for college
and the workforce, principals, teachers, and other educators needed to have adequate supports
and guidance (Achieve, 2011; Achieve, 2012; Reed, 2013). For elementary principals and
instructional leaders this meant having supports for planning, capacity building, and
implementation (Reed, 2013). Supporting implementation was an important function of
leadership (Hall & Hord, 2010; Hord, 1990; Horsford & Brown, 2011). The leader needed to
create the system to make implementation take place effectively (Hall & Hord, 2010).
Understanding and acknowledging the change process is important in moving schools
toward desired improvement (Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall & Hord, 2010; Hord, 1990). Many
challenges can arise when implementing changes for improvement. It is important to understand
that making improvements is a developmental course that proceeds in stages (Elmore, 2000; Hall
& Hord, 2010). Schools can encounter challenges in implementation when they are impatient
and expect improvement too quickly (Datnow, 2005). Implementation can also be challenging
when teachers do not have buy-in or if ongoing support is not provided (Hall & Hord, 2010).
Teachers also abandon the changes when regulations and mandates are not clear. They put
reform-related activities aside to prepare students for the state tests, therefore making fidelity in
implementation an issue (Anderson et al., 2012). Other challenges can arise due to limitations on
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 11

budgets (Mathis, 2010). According to Hord (1990), the leader must understand that
improvement will take a change process and that teachers will be at different stages of
implementation.
The literature on leadership shows qualities of effective school leaders when
implementing change in schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000). In order for schools to successfully
increase student learning outcomes, instructional leadership should emanate from and be a
shared value of all stakeholders (Marzano et al., 2005; Southworth, 2002). Ideally, the principal
provides structure, and supports and monitors progress with the support of the site leadership
team; the staff as a whole work together as a professional learning community to implement
research-based strategies in order to maximize student achievement. It is important that the site
leader advocates, monitors, and evaluates the instructional implementation and guides the
teachers as needed through collaborative learning opportunities such as Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) and Professional Development (PD) (Marzano, 2003; Stronge, 1993).
Although we knew how school leaders have implemented educational policies in the past,
we did not know how school leaders were implementing CCSS given that this was a new
education policy. Furthermore, when the CCSS were initially developed and adopted, there was a
lack of empirical research that showed the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS
implementation process in elementary schools in California. It was imperative to gather data on
the instructional leader’s role in implementing CCSS to increase the success of the
implementation process knowing that school leaders will play a vital role in implementing the
new education policy in their school sites (Elmore, 2000; Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005;
NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014).
Current literature shows effective ways school leaders might implement change.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 12

However, there was a gap in the literature on the instructional leader’s role in the CCSS
implementation process during the infancy of CCSS. This study increased understanding of how
elementary school instructional leaders were approaching the efforts of CCSS implementation
and why they were taking particular approaches in the implementation process. The focus of this
study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by
providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California
from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. This perspective increased
understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders approached these efforts and why
they took particular approaches in the implementation of CCSS, and in implementing new
mandates for change in general.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how school leaders prepared for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards and to characterize the leadership styles
and strategies that were used to implement the enactment. While each state’s transition from its
current education standards to the CCSS was different, policymakers and educators at all levels
benefitted from preparing for the changes that occurred during the beginning years of
implementation (NGA Center & CCSS, 2012). In California, school leaders were trying to
figure out the best transitional process to make it as seamless as possible for teachers and
students. Some districts piloted the CCSS earlier than others; learning from these early
implementers may have helped the schools that implemented the enactment later on.
School performance can be enhanced with the systematic implementation of the best
practices (Clayton, 2011). The major work of implementing the CCSS took place after the
standards were adopted, as states undertook changes in curriculum, assessment, professional
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 13

development, and other areas (Kober & Rentmer, 2011, 2012). Elementary school principals
needed assistance to ensure that they understood the requirements and had the resources for
providing professional development to teachers, had access to the needed curriculum, and had a
chance to contribute to assessment protocols and procedures (Achieve, 2012; Haycock & Trust,
2012; Kober & Rentmer, 2012). The understanding and leadership of principals was essential to
the success of the CCSS.
Effective change leadership requires a deep understanding of the change process which is
complex, non-linear, and recursive (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Successful implementation of
change requires effective management and monitoring of the implementation, evaluating the
quality, consistency, fidelity, and intensity of implementation (Waters et al., 2003). School
leaders had the responsibility of deciding how best to meet the CCSS by moving faculty and staff
to uncharted territory (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). School leaders were called upon to lead their
teacher leaders through a process of examining their curricula and instruction and making
adjustments so that students achieve at higher levels and were better prepared for middle and
high school (Kober & Rentmer, 2012). Beyond knowing about the standards, school leaders
benefitted from knowing how schools should change to successfully implement the CCSS
(Haycock & Trust, 2012).
Leaders should engage in and facilitate systematic change processes to create new ways
of conducting schooling throughout the K-12 systems (Reed, 2013); they should have a practical
understanding of the school-wide changes made necessary by the CCSS and how to lead those
changes to create a culture of success in schools (Anderson, Harrison, & Lewis, 2012). Such
change does not happen by itself in schools (Haycock & Trust, 2012). It results from changes in
attitudes encouraged by new information, reflection and changes in practice (Achieve, 2011;
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 14

Reed, 2013). School leaders will need to engage in both instructional leadership and systemic
leadership to affect the necessary changes (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012; Southworth, 2002; Stronge,
1993). This study sought to find data that informed elementary school instructional leaders on
leadership styles and strategies to help them as they implement CCSS in their school sites.
Research Design and Methodology
A case study was conducted to examine the role of the instructional leader in
implementing CCSS in three elementary schools in a single district in Southern California. This
study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. What is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary schools?
2. What is the role of the instructional leader in implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in elementary schools in Southern California?
3. What leadership styles and strategies are used to implement CCSS in elementary
schools in Southern California?
4. What are the challenges of implementation of CCSS?
5. What are the lessons learned from the implementation of CCSS?
The nature of the research questions of this study lent itself to a qualitative research design since
a qualitative study is the most appropriate in situations where the researcher has little control
over the events in the context surrounding the phenomenon (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Corbin &
Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009).
The research questions of this study required data collection of instructional leaders’ experiences,
opinions, feelings, and knowledge obtained through interviews. Thus, qualitative research was
the best methodological approach for this study.
The phenomenon of instructional leadership in real-life context of a school setting was
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 15

analyzed to increase understanding of what factors about the context seemed to influence
instructional leaders in preparation for the CCSS implementation process (Creswell, 2009;
Maxwell, 2013). Research shows that multiple sources of information should be sought to
validate and cross-check findings. Hence, a combination of semi-structured interviews,
observations, teacher surveys, and document analysis were used to triangulate the data (McEwan
& McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009). Triangulation of the data through multiple sources increased
validity because the strengths of one approach compensated for the weakness of another
approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002).
By using different methods as a check on one another, a more secure understanding of the
investigated issues was obtained (Maxwell, 2013).
The unit of analysis for this study was the leadership style and strategies of three
elementary school instructional leaders. Purposeful sampling was the strategy used to identify
participants for this study because it is an appropriate method that leads to the rich data that is
needed to answer the research questions (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). This study focused on
instructional leaders of three different schools in one district in Southern California that were
selected based on purposeful sampling. The criteria for the selection were instructional leaders
that:
1) Work with elementary school teachers and students
2) Are at least in their second year preparing for implementation of CCSS
3) Have at least three years of experience as an instructional leader
4) Have successfully led their schools to meet all the Growth Academic Performance
Index (API) Targets for the past three years
These criteria were selected because there was a gap in literature in the instructional leader’s
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 16

roles in implementing CCSS at the elementary level. As an elementary school principal and
instructional leader, my goal was to increase knowledge about this topic for myself as well as
other leaders through this study of experienced elementary school instructional leaders as well as
add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change. The fourth
criterion was representative of the instructional leader’s effectiveness. Instructional leaders that
have successfully led their schools to meet all the Growth Academic Performance (API) Targets
for the past three years were selected as effective instructional leaders for this study.
This study is grounded in leadership theory and instructional leadership theory as the
focus is on leadership and instructional leadership. In addition, the study is grounded in Hall and
Hord’s (1987) conceptual framework known as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM).
The interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements will be explored to define how they
can lead to successful educational reform. This overarching conceptual framework serves as a
lens through which to view the important educational change efforts of implementing the CCSS.
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of the instructional leader in
implementing the Common Core State Standards and to characterize the leadership strategies and
styles that were used to prepare for implementation. The focus of this study was to add to the
knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a detailed look at
the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the perspective of
instructional leaders of the school sites. This study aimed to increase understanding of how
elementary school instructional leaders are approaching the efforts of CCSS implementation and
why they are taking particular approaches as they prepared for the implementation process for
practical information on implementing change. This perspective raised understanding of how
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 17

elementary school instructional leaders approached these efforts and why they took particular
approaches in the implementation of CCSS.
The current study has promise in being able to contribute to the literature on school
leaders implementing change. The study also has the potential to contribute to the ongoing
search for what works as it pertains to instructional leaders and the implementation of Common
Core State Standards. The implications and findings of the study may provide valuable
information and guidance to school leaders as they go through the implementation process of
CCSS and implementing change in general.
Limitations
The study was limited to three instructional leaders of three different elementary schools
in a small district in Southern California so that intensive data collection could be undertaken.
The unit of analysis was the individual instructional leader and as such their experiences,
knowledge, personalities, and values varied. Other issues of leadership and implementation of
Common Core State Standards may exist that may not be addressed in this study. These factors
will undoubtedly affect the outcome of this study and will provide limited applicability and
transferability of the study to other individuals. However, this study has the potential to provide
useful information for the implementation process due to the widespread adoption of CCSS. The
insights gained from the study have potential to add to the general knowledge about the role of
instructional leaders in leading change through the implementation of CCSS and provide
valuable information to implementers of CCSS as well as change in general.
Delimitations
The study used a qualitative case study format. The sample for the study was
purposefully selected by the researcher to include three elementary school instructional leaders in
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 18

California schools that are currently preparing for implementation of the Common Core State
Standards. The focus on three instructional leaders helped to gain data collection of the
phenomenon of interest (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The unit of analysis was the individual
instructional leader and as such their experiences, knowledge, personalities, and values varied.
This was listed as a limitation; however gaining insight into the instructional leader’s
experiences, knowledge, and personalities was also a delimitation and provided insight into the
challenges and how they were or were not overcome in a way that would not be possible in a
large scale study. The instrumentation and measures for data collection was created by the
researcher to focus on the research questions of this study. In addition, data collection spanned
five months to get a comprehensive study of the instructional leaders. Furthermore, the data were
triangulated with two interviews per instructional leader, observations, teacher surveys, and
document analysis.
Assumptions
It was assumed that strong leaders are needed to implement the new educational policy of
CCSS and that they will influence the effectiveness of the policy. In regards to data collection, it
was assumed that the data gathered from the interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and
document analysis were valid and true. It was assumed that the individual interviews represent
honest answers and that the observations of the instructional leader are typical behaviors of the
leader and staff. Triangulation tested this assumption by using different methods as a check on
one another and allowed for the researcher to gain a more secure understanding of the issues that
were being investigated (Maxwell, 2013). It was also assumed that the leaders followed district
mandates and plans. Any deviation of the district’s plans and rationale for it is noted in the
findings. The data collected was used to identify instructional leadership practices of schools that
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 19

are utilizing the Common Core State Standards in a single district to prepare for the enactment.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined for the purposes of this study:
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). A set of standards for what K-12 students should
know and be able to do in the content areas of English Language Arts and Math. The CCSS were
developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and content experts, to provide a
clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce (NGA
Center & CCSSO, 2014). These standards were designed to define the knowledge and skills
students should have within their K-12 education so that they will graduate high school able to
succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training
programs (Anderson et al., 2012). The standards: are aligned with college and work expectations;
are clear, understandable and consistent; include rigorous content and application of knowledge
through high-order skills; build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; are
informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our
global economy and society; and are evidence-based (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014).
Instructional Leader. Role held by the principal, assistant principal, or other educational leader
that focuses on curriculum and instruction and works with teachers directly to guide instructional
improvement (Blase & Blase, 1999; Blase & Blase, 2000; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, 2005;
Jenkins, 2009; Stronge, 1993). The instructional leader is not the transmitter of knowledge, but
one who takes responsibility for understanding the learning needs of individuals; understands
how to design tasks that support and encourage learning; employs a strategic mix of incentives
and sanctions; and ensures there are adequate resources available to support learning. Successful
instructional leadership requires skillful planning and management, as well as understanding the
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 20

complexities of the social system of the organization (Southworth, 2002; Stein & Nelson, 2003).
Leadership. Process in which an individual influences a group of people to achieve a common
goal (Northouse, 2010). Leadership is significant to the success of any institution or endeavor
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2010). In the context of schooling, this
goal is often identified as improving student-learning outcomes. For the purpose of this study,
leadership will be defined as a process of influencing, a process viewed from a knowledge and
behavior or practice perspective; and a process focused on instructional improvement leading to
increased student learning (Elmore, 2000; Northouse, 2010).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One presents an overview of the study
with a background of the problem and research questions being answered. Chapter Two will
present a review of the literature on leadership and the enactment of Common Core State
Standards on instructional leadership. Chapter Three will describe the methodology, population
and sample selection process, instrumentation, data analysis process, validity, and ethical
considerations, and unit of analysis in the design of the study. Chapter Four will present the
analysis and interpretation of the findings. Finally, Chapter Five will close with a discussion of
the findings, possible impact on practice, and implications for future research.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 21

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership is considered to be vital to the successful functioning of many aspects of
school (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill,
2007; Horsford & Brown, 2011; Levine, 2005; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005). An effective principal or school leader is thought to be a necessary precondition for an
effective school and student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2006; Gray, Fry,
Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007; Horsford & Brown, 2011; Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005).
Leadership is an overarching variable that impacts the effective implementation of the school-
level factors, teacher-level factors, and the student-level factors that make schools work
(Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Youngs & Kings, 2002). With the enactment of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school leaders will play a significant role in
implementing the new education policy in their school sites (Achieve, 2012; Elmore, 2000;
Marzano et al., 2005; NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Supporting implementation is an important
function of leadership (Hall & Hord, 2010; Hord, 1990; Horsford & Brown, 2011). The leader
will need to create the system to make implementation take place effectively (Cobb & Jackson,
2011). Without guidance from a skilled leader, teachers and students are likely to experience
frustration and failure (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). School leaders have the responsibility of
deciding how to best meet these standards. Implementing CCSS requires that leaders engage in
and facilitate systemic change processes to create new ways of conducting schooling throughout
K-12 systems (Achieve, 2012; Reed, 2013).
The following is a review of literature on the Common Core State Standards Initiative
(CCSSI) and effective leadership practices that are utilized for implementation of change to
demonstrate the instructional leader’s role in leading change during the implementation of
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 22

CCSSI. Because the CCSS have been recently developed and adopted, there is a lack of
empirical research that shows the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS implementation
process in elementary schools in Southern California. The background information on CCSS will
be presented along with research on leadership and instructional leadership. The conceptual
framework will also be presented to provide a lens to view the study.
Current literature shows effective ways school leaders can implement change. However,
there is a gap in the literature on the instructional leader’s role in the CCSS implementation
process. This study increased understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders are
approaching the efforts of CCSS implementation and why they are taking particular approaches
in the implementation process. The focus of this study was to add to the knowledge base of
leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a detailed look at the CCSS
adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the perspective of instructional
leaders of the school sites. This perspective increased understanding of how elementary school
instructional leaders are approaching these efforts and why they are taking certain approaches in
the implementation of CCSS.
Background
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led collaborative effort to establish
a common set of expectations across states for what K–12 students are expected to know and be
able to do in English Language Arts and Math (Conley, Drummond, Gonzalez, Rooseboom, &
Stout, 2011; Porter, McMacken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011b; National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012). The Common Core
State Standards Initiative is coordinated through the National Governors Association Center for
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 23

Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released in June 2010 and all states with the
exception of Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, Virginia, and Indiana have adopted the English Language
Arts and Mathematics Common Core State. In addition, the District of Columbia, four territories
of Guam, American Samoa Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the English Language Arts and
Mathematics Common Core State Standards to implement and align assessments to them (NGA
Center & CCSSO, 2014). Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not
the Mathematics standards (Carmichael, Martino, Porter-Magee & Wilson, 2010; Post, 2013).
The CCSS were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators,
researchers, and content experts drawn from schools, state education agencies, and institutions of
higher education to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college
and the workforce (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). The CCSS set requirements not only for
Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) but also for literacy in history/social studies,
science, and technical subjects. These 6–12 literacy standards are not meant to replace content
standards in those areas but rather to supplement them. States may incorporate these standards
into their standards for those subjects or adopt them as content area literacy standards (NGA
Center & CCSSO, 2014).The Mission Statement for the CCSS initiative states:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what
students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help
them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting
the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.
With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 24

positioned to compete successfully in the global economy (NGA Center & CCSSO,
2014).
These standards were designed to define the knowledge and skills students should have
within their K-12 education so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level,
credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs (Anderson et al.,
2012; Conley et al., 2011). The standards: are aligned with college and work expectations; are
clear, understandable and consistent; include rigorous content and application of knowledge
through high-order skills; build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; are
informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our
global economy and society; and are evidence-based (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Each state
adoption of the common standards means that “the standards authorizing body within the state
has taken formal action to adopt and implement the common core” (NGA Center & CCSSO,
2014). In other words, the state formally establishes the Common Core State Standards as the set
of statewide goals for teaching and learning in K–12 English Language Arts and Math. The
common standards become the state’s expectations for what students should know and be able to
do, for what teachers should be teaching, and for what students will be assessed on.
An analysis by Fordham Institute determined that the new Common Core standards are
stronger than the English standards in 37 states and the Math standards in 39 states (Carmichael
et al., 2010). For thirty-three states, the Common Core was found to be superior in both Math
and Reading and in most others, the report found that the existing standards are similar enough to
those proposed (Carmichael et al., 2010). States like Virginia and Texas have decided that their
own standards are preferable. Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but
not the Mathematics standards because they believed their Mathematics standards are stronger.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 25

Alaska opted out of the standards project in June 2009, citing concerns about costs and federal
mandates associated with Race to the Top grants.
While the majority of states have adopted the standards, approval has not been without
controversy. Some of the Common Core’s critics are raising the alarm that the Common Core is
an intrusion of the federal government into affairs that are supposed to be handled by the state
according to the Constitution that governs that balance, there is supposed to be state and local
control of school matters (Mathis, 2010; Tienken & Canton, 2009). Critics see the CCSS as the
first step down a fast slide toward the federal government telling teachers what should go on in
their classrooms (Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2012; Tienken & Canton, 2009). However, the United
States Department of Education (USDE) was not directly involved in creating the standards
although developing and adopting a common set of standards was included among the criteria in
the Race to the Top competition (Porter et al., 2011b; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). In
addition, USDE awarded $330 million in Race to the Top funds to the two consortia,
representing the majority of states, to help develop assessments aligned with the common
standards. The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Coalition, representing 31 states, received
$160 million, and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College Careers (PARCC),
representing 26 states received $170 million (Mathis, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2011;
Zhao, 2009).
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) both aim to design an assessment system
aligned to the common standards that will provide educators and the public with information
about whether students are college and career ready. However, there are some differences
between the two consortia, including their approaches to the design and delivery of assessment
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 26

tools and the states that have chosen to participate in each consortium. Forty-four states and the
District of Columbia are members of at least one of the two consortia. PARCC consists of 23
states and the District of Columbia. SBAC consists of 29 states including California (Center for
K–12 Assessment and Performance Management at ETS, 2011). The funding and attention that
is given to CCSS and related assessments may make it “one of the largest social and political
experiments in the recent history of the United States” (Tienken & Canton, 2009, p. 3).
The adoption process differed across states, depending on the context in each state such
as governance structures and local decision-making processes (CCSSI, 2012). The adoption
process may have included more than the culminating, formal administrative adoption procedure.
It might have also included time for disseminating information about the common standards to
stakeholders and time for gathering feedback and building public support before the final, formal
adoption procedure (Anderson et al., 2012). In adopting the common standards, states agreed that
they will not pick and choose which standards to adopt but will adopt and implement the full set.
States may, however, include an additional 15 percent of state-specific standards beyond the
common standards (Anderson et al., 2012). The reasons for deciding to include additional
standards may vary. For example, a state may include additional standards to comply with a state
law mandating that a certain concept or skill be taught or to include knowledge or skills that
local stakeholders feel are essential for students in the state but are not included in the Common
Core Standards (Anderson et al., 2012).
Adoption of the standards did not bring immediate changes in the classroom (Cobb &
Jackson, 2011). Implementation was a long-term process as states rethought their teacher training,
textbooks, and testing. After adoption, states determined the first year that the common standards
will be taught in classrooms and devised a process to prepare for that implementation. The
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 27

process included preparing and disseminating curriculum and instructional materials and
providing professional development on the standards for educators (Achieve, 2011; Anderson et
al., 2012). In addition, states determined how and when they aligned their state assessment
system with the common standards to ensure that assessments effectively measured students’
mastery of the standards (Achieve, 2011; Beach, 2011).
Origination of CCSS. The Common Core State Standards stemmed from concerns about
U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and students exiting classrooms not prepared for
success in postsecondary education (Baldi, Jin, Skemer, Green, & Herget, 2007; Brown & Rocha,
2005; Cronin, Dahlin, Adkins, & Kinsbury, 2007; Finn, Petrilli, and Julian 2006; Massell, 2008;
National Research Council, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2011; Wiseman, 2012).
International assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) showed that U.S. students
compare poorly to students from other countries. (Baldi et al., 2007; Brown & Rocha, 2005;
Cronin et al., 2007; Finn et al., 2006; Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007; Massell, 2008; National
Research Council, 2008; Schmidt & Houang, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, each state established its own standards and
assessments. As a result, there has been substantial variation in the knowledge and skills that
students must learn and the level of mastery they must show on assessments to be considered
proficient (Brown & Rocha, 2005; Cronin et al., 2007; Hunt, Rizzo, & White 2008). In addition,
research shows that many high school graduates are not prepared for success in postsecondary
education and do not have the appropriate skills and abilities needed for today’s jobs (Wiseman,
2012). The national discourse about the demand to improve state standards and assessments has
intensified in response to variations in state standards and student achievement outcomes and the
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 28

poor performance of U.S. students on international assessments compared with students in other
developed countries (Baldi et al., 2007; Brown and Rocha, 2005; Cronin et al., 2007; Finn et al.,
2006; Massell, 2008; National Research Council, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
The movement toward national standards has been interpreted by many as the logical step
in the effort to promote excellence and equity in the American school system and to prepare the
students to succeed in the global economy and society (Achieve, 2011; Achieve, 2012; Anderson
et al., 2012; Hunt et al., 2008; Schmidt & Houang, 2011). The authors of the CCSS borrowed
from the direction other countries have taken by creating fewer standards that are meant to be
investigated deeply through critical thinking, using textually-based evidence to support
arguments/opinions/ interpretations, and to avoid the type of coverage of topics resulting in
lower order thinking such as recall of factual information (Drew, 2012; Hollenbeck & Saternus,
2013; NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010). Being “fewer, clearer, higher” (Phillips & Wong, 2010),
the standards provide a roadmap for K–12 curriculum and instruction, not a curriculum or guide
for lesson planning (Rust, 2012). They were designed for states to adopt by choice, with large
financial incentives from the federal government to adopt the standards.
Critics and Proponents. As mentioned earlier, there was considerable pushback against
the CCSSI by those who opposed the expanded federal role in education, raising the alarm that
the Common Core is an intrusion of the federal government into affairs that are supposed to be
handled by the state according to the Constitution (Mathis, 2010; Tienken & Canton, 2009).
Critics saw the CCSS as the step toward the federal government interfering in what should go on
in their classrooms (Tienken, 2012; Mathis, 2010). They also contended that Common Core
Standards mirrorred a national curriculum and that there was a lack of empirical evidence that
supported the idea that a national curriculum for America was needed to remain economically
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 29

competitive (Mathis, 2010, 2012; Tienken & Canton, 2009; Zhao, 2009). Tienken and Canton
(2009) state that “there is no methodologically sound empirical evidence that supports a cause
and effect or even a strong relationship between any of the G8
1
or G14
2
countries’ rankings on
international tests of academic skills and knowledge and those countries’ economic vitality and
competitiveness” (p. 6). Other researchers support this claim that the international tests are not
related to the countries’ economic status (Baker, 2007; Partelow & Miller, 2005; Ramirez, Luo,
Schofer, & Meyer, 2006; Tienken, 2008). Tienken’s (2008) analysis indicated that the strongest
17 economies in the world actually show a negative relationship between their ranking on
international tests and economic strength (Tienken, 2008). Zhao (2009) states, “Adopting
common standards and holding teachers and schools accountable for improving their students’
test scores on common assessments may have great political appeal, but it will unlikely make
them globally competitive” (p. 55). Additionally, some leaders were concerned over the funding
that will be needed to begin or continue the implementation process such as Michigan who
moved to pause the implementation of the Common Core Standards until the issues surrounding
fiscal impact and education policy could be fully considered as of June 2013 (Ritz, 2013).
However, CCSSI (2012) asserts that common standards will provide a greater
opportunity to share experiences and best practices within and across states that will improve our
ability to best serve the needs of students and will ensure that America will maintain its
competitive edge, so that all students are well-prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary
to compete with not only their peers here at home, but with students from around the world.
Sahlberg (2006) confirms the value of investing in education, providing evidence that shows how

1
The G8, or "Group of Eight," consists of eight large world economic powers: Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States (Partelow, & Miller, 2005)
2
The G8 countries were joined by the leaders of China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Egypt, forming the
G14 in 2009 (Baker, 2007).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 30

both primary and secondary education significantly contributes to economic development and
growth. Moreover, “better quality education increases average earnings and productivity and
reduces the likelihood of social problems that, in turn, are harmful for economic development”
(Sahlberg, 2006, p. 260).
Other proponents of CCSS believed that Common Core standards represent an
opportunity to create a national curriculum in Mathematics and in English Language Arts and
Reading (Hunt et al., 2008; Porter et al., 2011b). Although the creators of CCSS do not consider
the Common Standards to be a national curriculum, a curriculum that is implemented in most of
the nation would offer several benefits. First, a curriculum that is implemented across the nation
such as CCSS would offer consistency and shared expectations on what is to be taught and
learned. Second, the Common Standards may represent greater focus than state standards,
especially in Mathematics (Porter, McMaken, Hwang & Yang, 2011a). Third, under CCSS it
would not be necessary for each state to develop its own content standards, assessments, and
curriculum guides, thereby creating efficiency in education. This could lead to increased
efficiency levels in developing curriculum materials, professional development, and pre-service
teacher education (Porter et al., 2011a). Finally, the quality of assessments can be improved with
the focus on one or two aligned assessments rather than fifty different state assessments.
Through standardization, resources can be pooled together and educators can collaborate across
the nation.
On the other hand, standardization may ignore the local context, and create a large
bureaucracy and give control to it in defining what is important to know. Loveless (2013) claims
that the Common Core Initiative represents a form of national standards and they “will have little
effect on student achievement” (p. 61). Loveless (2012) investigated the quality of state
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 31

standards in relation to past gains in student achievement using the data from the Reading and
Math portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) at both 4
th
and 8
th

graders and determined that the two were not related; higher quality standards did not lead to
higher student achievement gains, thereby claiming that the CCSS will not lead to higher student
achievement even if the standards are higher. In addition, Mathis (2012) claims that since CCSS
are currently focused on English Language Arts and Mathematics, the instructional attention
given to non-test areas have decreased, moving instructional time away from the arts, character
education, and citizenship education (Mathis, 2012). Critics worry that standardization moves
America away from its traditional strengths in cultivating a diverse and creative population from
the various states. They caution against locking children into a one-size-fits-all model of
education and diminishing the local states’ roles in determining the best education for their own
students (Mathis, 2010, 2012; Zhao, 2009). Nonetheless, Carmichael et al., (2010) believe CCSS
present a significant improvement and a rare opportunity and “is a critical starting point in our
effort to drive outstanding student achievement” (p. 21).
Implementation of CCSS
The major work of implementing the CCSS took place after the standards were adopted,
as states tackled complementary changes in curriculum, assessment, professional development,
and other areas (Kober & Rentmer, 2011, 2012). Research showed that teachers are concerned
about implementing the CCSS (Cosmah & Saine, 2013). In order for the CCSS to be
implemented effectively to achieve the intended outcomes, principals, teachers, and other
educators needed adequate supports and guidance (Achieve, 2011; Achieve, 2012; Reed, 2013).
For elementary principals and instructional leaders this means having supports for planning,
capacity building, and implementation (Reed, 2013). Elementary school principals should have
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 32

assistance to ensure that they understand the requirements and have the resources for providing
professional development to teachers, have access to the needed curricula, and have a chance to
provide input into assessment protocols and procedures (Achieve, 2012; Haycock & Trust, 2012;
Kober & Rentmer, 2012). The understanding and leadership of principals was essential to the
success of the CCSS. The school leader provides structure, support and monitors progress, with
the support of the site leadership team; the staff as a whole works together as a professional
learning community to implement research-based strategies in order to maximize student
achievement (Achieve, 2011; Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers & D’Amico, 2012; Waters &
Cameron, 2007).
With CCSS, elementary, middle, and high school teachers are linked together in a
continuous process of preparation for college and careers (Achieve, 2012). Therefore,
implementation of the CCSS required school leaders to think across grades, to consider not only
learning at a specific grade level, but the progression of mathematical and literacy skills across
grades (Haycock & Trust, 2012; Kober & Rentmer, 2011). For the individual student, teachers
and leaders will be guided by a picture of each student’s skill progression; moreover, to prepare
students to be college and career ready, teachers and leaders should consider plans for learning
across grades for individual students. Vertically aligned standards encourage school leaders to
engage in more frequent conversations with their colleagues and promote vertical articulation
among their PK-12 peers. Elementary school principals set a critical foundation for later learning
and success for all students. As a result, there is a focus on deeper levels of student
understanding and more academic rigor during a child’s early years in school with CCSS
(Achieve, 2012; Haycock & Trust, 2012).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 33

School leaders have the responsibility of deciding how best to meet the CCSS by moving
faculty and staff to uncharted territory (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). School leaders are called upon
to lead their teacher leaders through a process of examining their curricula and instruction and
making adjustments so that students achieve at higher levels and are better prepared for middle
and high school (Kober & Rentmer, 2012). Beyond knowing about the standards, school leaders
need to know how schools should change to successfully implement the CCSS (Haycock & Trust,
2012). Leaders need to engage in and facilitate systematic change processes to create new ways
of conducting schooling throughout the K-12 systems (Reed, 2013); they should have a practical
understanding of the school-wide changes made necessary by the new CCSS and how to lead
those changes to create a culture of success in schools (Anderson et al., 2012). Such change does
not happen by itself in schools (Haycock & Trust, 2012). It results from changes in attitudes
encouraged by new information, reflection and changes in practice (Achieve, 2011; Reed, 2013).
School leaders will need to engage in both instructional leadership and systemic leadership to
affect the necessary changes (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012).
According to an Action Brief by Achieve (2012) titled “Implementing the Common Core
State Standards: The Role of the Elementary School Leader,” the school leader will be the key to
the success of the CCSS. Ideally, school leaders set the tone for a climate of trust and a culture
that is open to innovation and focused on improvement, with staff who are ready to work hard
for common goals (Achieve, 2012). The shift in teaching prompted by CCSS will require
ongoing professional learning; hence, school leaders will benefit from building collaborative
communities of learners at their school sites (Overturf, 2011). Instructional leaders will be
responsible for ensuring that the curriculum and instruction meet CCSS requirements, that
teachers have the professional development and supports they need for these instructional shifts,
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 34

and that parents and community stakeholders understand expectations for the CCSS and how
they can best support their students (Achieve, 2012; Overturf, 2011). Through this study, the role
of the instructional leaders will be examined noting the specific styles and strategies utilized for
implementation of CCSS.
Implementation of CCSS in California. In California, the CCSS systems
implementation plan was developed by the California Department of Education (CDE) under the
leadership of state Superintendent of Public instruction Tom Torlakson and by the common core
integration action team under the direction of Richard Ziegler, Chief Deputy Superintendent of
Public instruction (CDE, 2013). Full implementation of CCSS systems will occur over several
years and in the context of a continuous learning process. Accordingly, the plan exists within a
framework of phases of the change process- the awareness phase, the transitional phase, and the
implementation phase (CDE, 2013). The awareness phase represents an introduction to the
Common Core Standards, the initial planning of systems implementation, and establishment of
collaborations. The transitional phase is a concentration on building foundational resources,
implementing needs assessment, establishing new professional learning opportunities, and
expanding collaborations between all stakeholders. The implementation phase expands the new
professional learning support, fully aligned curriculum, instruction and assessment, and
effectively integrates these elements across the field (CDE, 2013).
The plan is grounded in seven guiding strategies for implementation as a structural
framework for activities. According to “Common Core State Standards Systems Implementation
Plan for California” (2013), the seven guiding strategies for implementation are:
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 35

1. Facilitate high quality professional learning opportunities for educators to ensure
that every student has access to teachers who are prepared to teach to the levels of
rigor and depth required by the CCSS.
2. Provide CCSS-aligned instructional resources designed to meet the diverse needs
of all students.
3. Develop and transition to CCSS-aligned assessment systems to inform instruction,
establish priorities for professional learning, and provide tools for accountability.
4. Collaborate with parents, guardians, and the early childhood and expanded
learning communities to integrate the CCSS into programs and activities beyond
the K–12 school setting.
5. Collaborate with the postsecondary and business communities and additional
stakeholders to ensure that all students are prepared for success in career and
college.
6. Seek, create, and disseminate resources to support stakeholders as CCSS systems
implementation moves forward.
7. Design and establish systems of effective communication among stakeholders to
continuously identify areas of need and disseminate information (CDE, 2013).
The seven guiding strategies of the CCSS implementation plan require strong instructional
leadership in every school (CDE, 2013). The knowledge, skills, and leadership of principals and
instructional leaders are essential to the success of the CCSS. The school leader provides
structure, support, and monitors progress (Achieve, 2011; Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers &
D’Amico, 2012; Waters & Cameron, 2007). CDE states,
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 36

In order for any standards-based system to be successful, educators must possess a
thorough understanding of what students are expected to know and be able to do, as well
as an array of instructional strategies designed to support every student in meeting those
expectations. There are a number of differences between the California content standards
adopted in 1997 and the CCSS. It is critical to the success of the CCSS system that every
educator, at every stage of his or her career, has access to high quality professional
learning opportunities that develop facility with the new standards and a variety of
instructional strategies that will support student attainment of them (CDE, 2013, p. 6).
Each of California’s local educational agencies (LEAs) developed its own local plan for CCSS
systems implementation based on local needs and resources. Strong instructional leadership was
required to carry out the CCSS implementation plans that were developed by the local LEAs
(CDE, 2013).
Leadership
For centuries, people have assumed that leadership is significant to the success of any
institution or endeavor (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Horsford & Brown, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005;
Northouse, 2010). Leadership is a highly sought out commodity by business organizations and
academic institutions (Northouse, 2010). There is a wide variety of different theoretical
approaches to explain the complexities of the leadership process (Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2010). As a result, inconsistencies and variation surround the
definition of what leadership should look like; however, there is a clear research base of effective
leadership practices that are translated to knowledge and skills that can be learned (Northouse,
2010). Northouse (2010) defines leadership as a process in which an individual influences a
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 37

group of people to achieve a common goal. The goal component is critical because it drives the
force of individuals as they move toward the attainment of the goal.
In the context of schooling, this goal is often identified as improving student-learning
outcomes. For the purpose of this study, leadership will be defined as a process of influencing, a
process viewed from a knowledge and behavior or practice perspective; and a process focused on
instructional improvement leading to increased student learning (Elmore, 2000; Northouse,
2010). Several leadership theories and frameworks exist to explain the various leadership styles.
Leadership research gives considerable attention to the relationship between style and leadership
success or effectiveness (Hall & Hord, 1987).
Instructional Leadership. The role of the instructional leader is a concept that emerged
in the early 1980s (Jenkins, 2009). As the push for more effective schools increased, principals
became responsible for the instructional effectiveness of their schools, and their role evolved to
that of instructional leader (Hallinger, 1992; Hallinger, 2005; Jenkins, 2009; Marks & Printy,
2003; Stronge, 1993). Instructional leadership, narrowly defined, focuses on leadership functions
directly related to teaching and learning (Murphy, 1988). In a broader view, instructional
leadership also refers to all other functions that contribute to student learning, including
managerial behaviors (Donmoyer & Wagstaff, 1990; Murphy, 1988). Such an action orientation
theoretically encompasses everything a principal does during the day to support the achievement
of students and the ability of teachers to teach (Sebring & Bryk, 2000).
In a review of the literature on instructional leadership, Murphy (1988) noted that
principals in productive schools- that is, schools where the quality of teaching and learning were
strong- demonstrated instructional leadership both directly and indirectly. Although these
principals practiced a conventional rather than a shared form of instructional leadership, they
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 38

emphasized four sets of activities with implications for instruction: (a) developing the school
mission and goals; (b) coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; (c) promoting a climate for learning; and (d) creating a supportive work environment
(Murphy, 1988). Enabling principals to put instructional leadership first requires realignment in
schools districts of the practices, responsibilities, and duties assigned to principals (Marks &
Printy, 2003). The principal who hopes to be an effective instructional leader should become
familiar with the theory of change that underlies the movement to standards-based programs,
including changes in the way schools are staffed and how they operate (Marks & Printy, 2003).
This role requires the principal to be knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction and to
work with teachers directly to guide instructional improvement (Cross & Rice, 2000; Hallinger,
1992). “Indeed, where schools are successful, one will find a principal who places academics
first and who knows how to motivate staff and teachers” (Cross & Rice, 2000, p. 62).
Principals were considered the primary source of knowledge; suggesting that others
should follow and those teachers were not knowledgeable enough to provide instructional
leadership for school staff (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Hallinger, 1992; Hallinger, 2005). The
principal manager view persists as the principal takes on the responsibility of managing the
instructional improvement of teachers; while policy continues to pressure instructional reforms
from outside the school building (Hallinger, 1992; Jenkins, 2009). High expectations for teachers
and students, close supervision of classroom instruction, coordination of the school’s curriculum,
and close monitoring of student progress became synonymous with defining the principal as an
instructional leader (Hallinger, 1992; Hallinger, 2005).
One of the problems with this model of leadership is that it does not address how
principals gain the content knowledge needed to accomplish the tasks outlined by the theory
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 39

(Stein & Nelson, 2003). Stein and Nelson (2003) conducted a study that looked at how leaders
might address the need to understand subject matter content. They argue that instructional
leaders, who are responsible for improving teaching and learning in their schools, should be able
to recognize strong instruction when they see it, to encourage it when they do not, and to set the
conditions for continuous academic learning among their professional staff (Stein & Nelson,
2003). This type of knowledge is defined as leadership content knowledge and described as the
intersection of subject matter knowledge and the practices that define leadership.
One of the greatest strengths instructional leaders bring to this practice is the
accountability they bring to the reform process as evaluators (Stein & Nelson, 2003). It is an
important task for principals to be able to assist teachers to improve their performance.
Instructional leaders should know something about subject matter and more importantly know
something about teachers as learners and about effective ways of teaching teachers (Jenkins,
2009). Stein and Nelson (2003) argue that the role of the principal as teacher then is like the role
of the teacher in the classroom. The instructional leader is not the transmitter of knowledge, but
one who takes responsibility for understanding the learning needs of individuals; understands
how to design tasks that support and encourage learning; employs a strategic mix of incentives
and sanctions; and ensures there are adequate resources available to support learning (Marks &
Printy, 2003).
Evidence drawn from several extensive reviews of educational leadership literature that
included instructional leadership as a key construct found that the core characteristics underlying
this approach to school leadership and management are leaders that
 create a shared sense of purpose in the school, including clear goals focused on
student learning;
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 40

 foster the continuous improvement of the school through cyclical school development
planning that involves a wide range of stakeholders;
 develop a climate of high expectations and a school culture aimed at innovation and
improvement of teaching and learning;
 coordinate the curriculum and monitoring student learning outcomes;
 shape the reward structure of the school to reflect the school’s mission;
 organize and monitoring a wide range of activities aimed at the continuous
development of staff; and
 are visible presence in the school, modeling the desired values of the school’s culture
(Hallinger, 2005).
Blase and Blase (1999) conducted a survey of over 800 teachers working in elementary,
middle and high schools in the South-eastern, Midwestern and Northwestern United States.
Teachers completed open-ended questionnaires on which they wrote detailed descriptions of
principals’ positive and negative characteristics and exactly how such characteristics affected
them and their performance in the classroom. The study by Blase and Blase (1999) suggest that
effective instructional leadership is embedded in school culture; it is expected and routinely
delivered. Specific behaviors of instructional leadership has been cited such as making
suggestions, giving feedback, modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting
collaboration, providing professional development opportunities, and giving praise for effective
teaching (Blase & Blase, 1999; Blase & Blase, 2000; Overturf, 2011).
Leadership Styles
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership is a process that changes
and transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 41

goals, and includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full
human beings (Northouse, 2010). Transformational leadership involves exceptional form of
influences that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them, and
often incorporates charismatic and visionary leadership. It is a process whereby a person
engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motion and morality in both
the leader and the follower. This type of leader is attentive to the needs and motives of followers
and tries to help followers reach their fullest potential (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi,
2003).
Functioning as leaders, principals can serve to transform school cultures or to maintain
them (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Transformational leadership provides intellectual direction
and aims at innovating within the organization, while empowering and supporting teachers as
partners in decision making (Conley & Goldman, 1994; Geijsel et al., 2003; Leithwood, 1994;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). The study by Marks and Printy (2003) suggest that strong
transformational leadership by the principal is essential in supporting the commitment of
teachers. Their study showed that when teachers perceive principals’ instructional leadership
behaviors to be appropriate, they grow in commitment, professional involvement and willingness
to innovate (Sheppard, 1996). Thus, instructional leadership can itself be transformational
(Marks & Printy, 2003). It is assumed that leaders will utilize a combination of instructional
leadership and transformational leadership to create the school cultures that can implement
CCSS seamlessly as instruction may change through CCSS.
Autocratic Leadership. Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership, is
a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from
group members (Gustainis, 2004). Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 42

ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves
absolute, authoritarian control over a group. Autocratic leadership can be beneficial in some
instances, such as when decisions need to be made quickly without consulting with a large group
of people. Some projects require strong leadership in order to get things accomplished quickly
and efficiently. Autocratic leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for
group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group
(Gustainis, 2004).
Managerial Leadership. Managerial leadership focuses on procedures and operations of
the school (Jazzar, 2004). The primary functions of management is planning, organizing,
staffing and controlling (Northhouse, 2010). Management focuses on seeking order and stability.
It includes establishing agendas, setting timetables, providing structure, establishing rules and
procedures, and generating solutions.
Shared Leadership. Shared leadership, also known as Collaborative l+eadership is when
the leader collaborates with staff to share leadership roles (Lambert, 2002). Collaborative
leadership focuses on strategic school-wide actions that are directed towards school
improvement and shared among the principal, teachers, administrators and others. Collaborative
leadership can entail the use of governance structures and organizational processes that empower
staff and students, encourage broad participation in decision-making, and foster shared
accountability for student learning. (Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
Situational Leadership. Situational leadership (SL) is based on the notion that
leadership is dependent on the situation (Northouse, 2010). The premise of the theory is that
different situations demand different kinds of leadership. Blanchard (2008) explains that leaders
match their style to the competence and commitment of their staff; effective leaders adapt their
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 43

style according to the development level of the people they are managing. The SL theory
supports the notion that no single leadership style is better than another. Effective leaders need to
be able to adapt their leadership styles to meet the needs of different situations; therefore,
different styles may be more appropriate at different times (Blanchard, 2008; Northouse, 2010).
Implementing Change
Literature shows qualities of effective school leaders when implementing changes in
schools (Hall & Hord, 2010). It is important that the site leader advocates, monitors, and
evaluates the instructional implementation and guides the teachers as needed through
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and Professional Developments (PDs) (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Waters et al., 2003). Understanding and acknowledging that the change process is
a factor to be accommodated in the school improvement efforts is also important in moving
schools toward desired improvement (Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall & Hord, 2010; Hord, 1990).
Many challenges can arise when implementing changes for improvement. It is important to
understand that making improvements is a developmental course that proceeds in stages (Elmore,
2000). Schools can meet challenges in implementation when they are impatient and expect
improvement too quickly (Datnow, 2005). Implementation can also be challenging when
teachers do not have buy-in or if ongoing support is not provided. Teachers also abandon the
changes when regulations and mandates are not clear. They put reform-related activities aside to
prepare students for the state tests, therefore making fidelity in implementation an issue
(Anderson et al., 2012). Other challenges can arise due to limitations on budgets. The leader
should understand that improvement will take a change process and that teachers will be at
different stages of implementation (Hord, 1990).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 44

According to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), reforming a system necessitates
that the leader monitor and evaluate the system, demonstrate knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, and provide teachers with the necessary staff development
opportunities that will directly enhance their teaching. The leader should also help establish high,
concrete goals and expectations for all students and, at the same time, provide teachers access to
one another within the system to work through problems and learn from one another’s solutions
(Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). To ensure fundamental change in the way a school operates, the
leader will benefit from understanding and changing the culture of the school to help lead and
facilitate the pedagogy necessary for sustainable learning (Fullan, 2001, 2002). At the same time,
success with school change depends on the motivations and capacities of leadership (Elmore,
2000; Evans, 2001; Fullan, 2002, Leithwood, 1994). School leaders will also benefit from
understanding the purpose of the reform efforts and act upon what is required to implement the
program(s) for the benefit of students (Evans, 2001). The practice of improvement requires
understanding how good work can be supported and propagated in schools (Elmore, 2000).
Through their meta-analysis of research, Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL) has synthesized information that provides strong guidance on specific
leadership behaviors for school administrators (Marzano et al., 2005). The research also reveals
the well-documented effects on student achievement. Among all school-related factors that
contribute to what students learn, leadership is second only to classroom instruction (Marzano et
al., 2005). Marzano et al. (2005) explain their balanced leadership framework, stating:
Leadership means more than simply knowing what to do- it’s knowing when, how and
why to do it. Effective leaders understand how to balance pushing for change while at
the same time, protecting aspects of culture, values, and norms worth preserving. They
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 45

know which policies to align them with organizational priorities. They know how to
gauge the magnitude of change they are calling for and how to tailor their leadership
strategies accordingly. Finally, they understand and value the people in the organization.
They know when, how, and why to create learning environments that support people,
connect them with one another, and provide the knowledge, skills, and resources they
need to succeed. This combination of knowledge and skills is the essence of balanced
leadership (p. 2).
Effective change leadership requires a deep understanding of the change process which is
complex, non-linear, and recursive (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Successful implementation of
change requires effective management and monitoring of the implementation, evaluating the
quality, fidelity, consistency, and intensity of implementation (Fullan, 2010). The focus of this
study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by
providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California
from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. This study aimed to increase
understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders are approaching the efforts of
CCSS implementation and why they are taking particular approaches in the implementation
process. This perspective raised understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders
are approaching these efforts and why they are taking particular approaches in the
implementation of CCSS.
Conceptual Framework
This study was grounded in leadership theory and instructional leadership theory as the
focus is on leadership and instructional leadership. In addition, the study was grounded in Hall
and Hord’s (1987) conceptual framework known as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 46

(CBAM). The interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements will be explored to define
how they can lead to successful educational reform. This overarching conceptual framework
serves as a lens through which to view the important educational change efforts of implementing
the CCSS.
Leadership Framework
Research emphasizes the importance of a school’s leadership capacity for sustaining
change. Starting in 1998, Mid-continental for Education and Learning (McREL) began
synthesizing a growing body of research through meta-analysis of research on student
characteristics and teacher and school practices associated with school effectiveness, and
identified 21 leadership responsibilities that are significantly associated with student
achievement, creating a balanced leadership framework that describes the knowledge, skills,
strategies, and tools leaders need to positively impact student achievement (Waters & Cameron,
2007; Waters et al., 2003). These 21 leadership responsibilities include:
1. Situational awareness. Aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the
school and uses this information to address current & potential problems.
2. Intellectual Stimulation. Ensures that faculty and staff are aware of the most current
theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the
school’s culture.
3. Change Agent. Willing to and actively challenges the status quo.
4. Input. Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and
policies.
5. Culture. Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation.
6. Outreach. Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 47

7. Monitor/Evaluate. Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on
student learning
8. Resources. Provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary
for the successful execution of their jobs
9. Order. Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines
10. Ideals/Beliefs. Communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about
schooling.
11. Affirmation. Recognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and acknowledges
failures.
12. Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Is directly involved in
the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
13. Focus. Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s
attention.
14. Discipline. Protects teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their
teaching time or focus.
15. Communication. Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers and
among students.
16. Flexibility. Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation
and is comfortable with dissent.
17. Optimize. Inspires and leads new and challenging innovation
18. Relationships. Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and
staff.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 48

19. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Is directly involved in the design and
implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
20. Visibility. Has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students.
21. Contingent rewards. Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments. (Waters
et al., 2003, p. 4).
The balanced leadership has been developed through a meta-analysis of 70 studies
involving 2,894 schools (Waters et al., 2003). It has been developed from a comprehensive
analysis of research on school leadership and student achievement and provides concrete
responsibilities, practices, knowledge strategies, tools, and resources that leaders need to be
effective (Waters et al., 2003). It was assumed that school leaders will utilize many of the
responsibilities of the balanced leadership framework to be effective as they implement CCSS.
According to Waters and Cameron (2007), school leaders should be highly knowledgeable about
curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the research-based practices associated with the
change initiative. They should also provide conceptual guidance regarding the related school
and classroom practices. In addition, “they must support teachers and others in realizing and
implementing the change through inspiration, by portraying a positive attitude about their
abilities, and being a driving force behind the initiative” (Waters & Cameron, 2007, p. 38).
Having the right focus of change is a key to improving schools and increasing student
achievement (Waters et al., 2003). In order for leaders to have a positive impact on student
achievement, they not only need to focus on improving key school and classroom practices, they
also need to understand the magnitude of change implied by these efforts (Waters et al., 2003).
Transformational leadership provides intellectual direction and aims at innovating within
the organization, while empowering and supporting teachers as partners in decision making
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 49

(Conley & Goldman, 1994; Leithwood, 1994). Strong transformational leadership by the
principal and instructional leader is essential in supporting the commitment of teachers (Marks &
Printy, 2003). When teachers perceive principals’ instructional leadership behaviors to be
appropriate, they grow in commitment, professional involvement and willingness to innovate
(Sheppard, 1996). Thus, instructional leadership can itself be transformational since the
instructional leader can transform school cultures by utilizing instructional leadership and
transformational leadership when implementing change (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Marks & Printy (2003) argue that the role of instructional leadership is dependent on
personal, contextual, and organizational factors and that successful instructional leadership
requires skillful planning and management, as well as understanding the complexities of the
social system of the organization. Their interpretation of the literature suggest that strategic
leadership is characterized by clear vision and coordinated, consistent, purposeful actions on the
part of the leader (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). It is assumed that school leaders will undertake
the roles of instructional and transformational leaders to implement the enactment of CCSS.
Transformational leaders motivate followers by raising their consciousness about the importance
of organizational goals and by inspiring them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of
the organization (Marks & Printy, 2003). It was assumed that school leaders will practice an
integrated form of transformational and instructional leadership to implement the CCSS.
Concerns-Based Adoption Model
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was originally proposed in 1973 by Hall,
Wallace, and Dossett (Anderson, 1997). Drawn upon Fuller’s (1969) phases of concerns theory,
in the CBAM model, change facilitators are responsible for using informal and systematic ways
to probe individuals and groups to understand them (Hall & Hord, 1987). Fuller originally
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 50

proposed a sequence of concerns that pre-service and beginning teachers experience as they
come to identify with the new role of a teacher (Conway & Clark, 2003; Hollingsbead, 2009).
Hall and Hord’s (1987) Concerns-Based Adoption Model has been identified with three
dimensions: Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and Innovation Configurations. The change
facilitator, the educational leader, provides interventions that affect and facilitate teachers’ use of
new programs or practices (Hall & Hord, 2010). The three dimensions represent key aspects of
the change process as it is experienced by individual users. The most readily and commonly
used is the Stages of Concern (Anderson, 1997).
Stages of Concern. The Stages of Concern dimension address how teachers or others
perceive an innovation and how they feel about it (Hall & George, 1979). Seven different Stages
of Concern have been identified ranging from early “self” type concerns, which are more teacher
focused, to “task” concerns, which address the logistics and scheduling arrangements regarding
the use of the innovation or change, and ultimately to “impact” kinds of concerns which focus on
increasing the effectiveness of the innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). The implication is that the
content and interventions of the facilitator will depend upon the concerns as shown in Table 1
(Hall & George, 1979; Hall & Hord, 1987).
Table 1
Stages of Concern and Interventions
Stages of
concern
Expressions of concern Interventions
Stage 6:
Refocusing
I have some ideas about
something that would work
 Respect and encourage teacher interests
 Channel their ideas and energies; act on their
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 51

even better than this. concerns.
Stage 5:
Collaboration
I am concerned about
relating what I am doing
with what my co-workers
are doing.
 Provide opportunities to develop skills needed
to work collaboratively
 Rearrange schedules so people can collaborate
Stage 4:
Consequence
How is my use affecting
clients?
 Provide positive feedback and needed support
 Provide opportunities for teachers to share
knowledge and skills
Stage 3:
Management
I seem to be spending all of
my time getting materials
ready.
 Answer specific “how to” questions
 Avoid considering future impact at this time
Stage 2:
Personal
How will using it affect me?
 Address potential personal concerns directly
 Implement changes progressively over time
Stage 1:
Informational
I would like to know more
about it.
 Provide clear and accurate information
 Relate changes to current practices
Stage 0:
Awareness
I am not concerned with this
innovation.
 Involve teachers in discussion and decisions
 Give permission not to know

Note. Adapted from “Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes 3
rd
ed.,” by G.
Hall and S. Hord, 2010. Copyright 2010 by Allyn and Bacon.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 52

Stages of Concern is a framework that describes the feelings and motivations a teacher
might have about a change in curriculum and/or instructional practices at different points in its
implementation (Hall & George, 1979; Hall & Hord, 1987). At Stage 0, AWARENESS, the
teacher has little knowledge about or interest in the change. At Stage 1, INFORMATIONAL, the
teacher is interested in learning more about the innovation and the implications of its
implementation. Teacher concerns at Stage 2, PERSONAL, typically reflect strong anxieties
about the teacher’s ability to implement the change, the appropriateness of the change, and the
personal costs of getting involved. Stage 3, MANAGEMENT, is reached when the teacher
begins to experiment with implementation; at this point teacher concerns intensify around the
logistics and new behaviors associated with putting the change into practice. At Stage 4,
CONSEQUENCE, teacher concerns focus predominantly in the impact of the change on students
in their classrooms and on the possibilities for modifying the innovation or their use of it to
improve its effects. At Stage 5, COLLABORATION, reflects teacher interest in working with
other teachers in the school to jointly improve the benefits of change implementation for students.
At some point in the change process, teachers may reach Stage 6, REFOCUSING. Now the
teacher is thinking about making major modifications in the use of the innovation, or perhaps
replacing it with something else (Hall & George, 1979; Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall & Hord, 2010).
As leaders implement the CCSS, they will intentionally and unintentionally gauge teachers’
stages of concerns regarding implementation. Instructional leaders can provide follow up
support to the teachers based on the concerns that rise. Leaders can utilize informal questioning
techniques or official surveys and questionnaires to determine a teacher’s stage of concern and
provide appropriate follow–up support as needed (Anderson, 1997; Kember & Mezger, 1990).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 53

CBAM theory idealizes the Stages of Concern as a developmental progression in which
teachers implementing a change have concerns of varying intensity across all seven stages at
different points in the change process (Hall & George, 1979; Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall & Hord,
2010). A teacher who is just learning about a change, but who has not begun to implement it, is
likely to have higher Awareness, Informational, and Personal concerns than Management and
Consequence concerns. Early stage concerns subside and Management concerns intensify when
the teacher starts trying to implement the change in the classroom. As the teacher gets more
skilled in using the change, Management concerns may give way to Consequence concerns about
the impact of the change on students and Collaboration and Refocusing concerns about the
prospects for improving its implementation (Anderson, 1997; Hall & Hord, 2010).
The Stages of Concern framework presents a possible, not a necessary, progression of
teacher concerns about a change (Anderson, 1997). Not all teachers evolve in their use of new
practices to Consequence, Collaboration, or Refocusing concerns. CBAM studies have often
reported that when implementation of new practices becomes routinized in some configuration,
teachers may experience an overall lessening of concerns about implementation as their attention
shifts to other things. That is, the resolution of early stage concerns does not necessarily lead to
the arousal of later stage concerns about the impact of those practices on students. Being aware
of the concerns allows those in charge of the innovation to tailor aid given to individuals
(Anderson, 1997; Hall & Hord, 2010). It was assumed that school leaders intentionally and
unintentionally utilize the concepts of the CBAM theory to provide interventions that affect and
facilitate teachers’ use of new programs or practices.
Determining a person’s stage of concern can be as simple as asking questions. Leaders
can utilize informal questioning techniques or official surveys and questionnaires to determine a
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 54

teacher’s stage of concern (Anderson, 1997; Kember & Mezger, 1990). Teachers can then get
the follow up support for their stages. As leaders implement the CCSS, they will intentionally
and unintentionally gauge teachers’ stages of concerns regarding implementation. Instructional
leaders can provide follow-up support to the teachers based on the concerns that rise. Limitations
to using CBAM are time and resources. Many leaders feel limited in their time to conduct
questionnaires and to analyze them. Limited resources and budget also deter leaders from
utilizing CBAM concepts to its fullest potential (Anderson, 1997).
Levels of Use. The second dimension, the Levels of Use of the innovation address what a
teacher is doing or not doing in relation to the innovation. The Levels of Use has to do with
behaviors and portrays how people are acting with respect to specified change. With
understanding of this dimension, the issue is on the level of use the teacher is in the
implementation process (Hall, 1987; Hall & Hord, 1987). The Levels of Use dimension
describes the various levels of how teachers are using an innovation and is beneficial for the
facilitator in determining how to help teachers become increasingly successful and effective in
using the innovation. The level begins with mechanical use and move on to routine use with the
ultimate goal of renewal and refinement where the user is seeking ways to make adaptations in
the use of the innovation to increase its effectiveness and impact in their classrooms (Hall &
Hord, 1987).
Whereas Stages of Concern pertains to teacher attitudes about a change, the CBAM
Levels of Use framework focuses on general patterns of teacher behavior as they prepare to use,
begin to use, and gain experience implementing a classroom change (Anderson, 1997; Hall &
Hord, 2010). Progression from one level to the next is marked by key decision points and
corresponding behaviors in several domains: acquiring information, assessing, sharing, planning,
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 55

status reporting, performance, and knowledge as shown in Table 2. Level 0, NONUSE, reflects a
state in which the teacher has little knowledge of the change and no plans for its implementation.
A teacher enters Level I, ORIENTATION, when she or he decides to seek more information
about the change, but has not made a decision to implement it. At Level II, PREPARATION, a
teacher is actively preparing to put the change into practice, but has not actually begun to
implement it in the classroom.
At Level III, MECHANICAL, the teacher begins change implementation. Now the
teacher is struggling with the logistics of implementation (e.g., lesson planning, classroom
management, record keeping) and with the acquisition of new teaching skills. At this level
teacher decision making is oriented toward making the innovation more manageable and easy to
implement; in other words, changes in innovation use are teacher-centered. A teacher who
establishes a pattern of regular use, and who makes few changes and adaptations in use of the
innovation, is said to have attained Level IVA, ROUTINE use. Most teachers settle in at a
Routine level of use. Some, however, may actively assess the impact of the innovation on their
students and initiate changes in the innovation or their use of it on this basis. They have now
reached level IVB, REFINEMENT. Changes in innovation use are student-centered. Level V,
INTEGRATION, describes a state in which teachers collaborate with other teachers to make
changes in implementation for the benefit of their students. Now teacher actions extend to the
impact of implementation beyond their own individual classrooms. Eventually, some teachers
reach Level VI, RENEWAL where they feel the need to make a major change in the innovation
and/or to explore alternative practices (Anderson, 1987; Hall & Hord, 2010).

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 56

Table 2
Levels of Use
Levels of use Behavioral indicators of level
VI. Renewal
The user is seeking more effective alternatives to the established use of
the innovation.
V . Integration
The user is making deliberate efforts to coordinate with others in using
the innovation.
IVB. Refinement The user is making changes to increase outcomes.
IVA. Routine
The user is making few or no changes and has an established pattern of
use.
III. Mechanical The user is making changes to better organize use of the innovation.
II. Preparation The user has definite plans to begin using the innovation.
0I. Orientation The user is taking the initiative to learn more about the innovation.
0. Non-Use The user has no interest, is taking no action.

Note. Adapted from “Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes 3
rd
ed.,” by G.
Hall and S. Hord, 2010. Copyright 2010 by Allyn and Bacon.
Leaders utilize the Levels of Use dimension to determine the various levels of how
teachers are using an innovation and determine how to help teachers become increasingly
successful and effective in using the innovation. Instructional leaders will be intentionally and
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 57

unintentionally be determining the teachers’ levels of use of CCSS and providing interventions
to increase the level of use of CCSS.
The third dimension, Innovation Configurations addresses the innovation itself, focusing
on describing the operational forms an innovation can take. Teachers may adapt the innovation
as they become involved in its use. Through Innovation Configurations, it is possible to identify
and describe the adaptations that are in use and plan one’s interventions in accordance with the
actual operational form of an innovation in particular classrooms (Hall & Hord, 1987). Another
key to the change process in CBAM is understanding the interventions that change facilitators
make. The actions and events that influence teachers’ use of an innovation are the basis for the
change facilitator’s efforts since action is one of the significant differences between more
effective and less effective change facilitators. Context is also important in understanding the
change process. Different contexts place different constraints on what change facilitators can do
and can generate unique opportunities for facilitating change (Hall & Hord, 1987). It is also
important for change facilitators to understand that change is a process and as a result, they need
to be adaptive in their behaviors based on new information about their contexts.
Several assumptions about classroom change in curriculum and instruction underpin
CBAM: (1) change is a process, not an event; (2) change is accomplished by individuals; (3)
change is a highly personal experience; (4) change involves developmental growth in feelings
and skills; and (5) change can be facilitated by interventions directed toward the individuals,
innovations, and contexts involved. The model has three diagnostic dimensions for
conceptualizing and measuring change in individuals: Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and
Innovation Configurations (Anderson, 1997).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 58

Studies that adopt a Concerns-Based Adoption Model include research on pre-service
preparation (Gunstone, Slattery, Baird, & Northfield, 1993), early career teachers (Boccia, 1989),
multicultural education (Marshall, 1996), assessment (Bainer & Porter, 1992), integration of
educational technology (Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Newhouse, 2001; Ranjdoust, Talebi, Bargi, &
Mousavi, 2012), site-based decision-making (Gips & Wilkes, 1993), instructional innovation in
science (Kelly & Staver, 2005), integration of students with disabilities into physical education
(Lienert, Sherrill, & Myers, 2001), staff development (Kember & Mezger, 1990), and
educational reform (Conway & Clark, 2003). In Rockwall, Texas, CBAM served as the
framework to study a district wide implementation (Hollingshead, 2009). The CBAM principles
and strategies were used to increase awareness of the change process during the first year of
implementing a new character education program. In addition, CBAM provided leaders with
information necessary to develop strategies that would support teachers’ advancement in the
program to higher levels of implementation (Hollingshead, 2009). In Minot, North Dakota,
CBAM was utilized to study the Minot Public Schools adoption and implementation of an
elementary science program (Kelly & Staver, 2005). In both case studies, the stages of concern
profiles were produced and analyzed to determine the follow-up professional development plans
and interventions (Hollingshead, 2009; Kelly & Staver; 2005).
Hall and Hord’s (1987) Concerns-Based Adoption Model provides a set of concepts and
tools to help change facilitators think and work in the same manner; it is useful in explaining the
level of teachers’ commitment in adopting innovations (Ranjdoust et al., 2012). CBAM is a
comprehensive approach for studying the change process, diagnosing attitudes and behaviors
surrounding an initiative. The change process is complicated by numerous interactive dynamics
in the educational setting, and all implementers do not follow the idealized evolution of concerns
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 59

(Hollingshead, 2009). The interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements of leadership
and CBAM were explored to define how they can lead to successful educational reform. This
overarching conceptual framework served as a lens through which to view the important
educational change efforts of implementing the CCSS.
Conclusion
A review of the literature on leadership and the enactment of Common Core State
Standards on instructional leadership have been presented. The background information on
CCSS was presented along with research on leadership and instructional leadership. The
conceptual framework was presented to provide a lens to view the study. Current literature
shows effective ways school leaders can implement change. However, there is a gap in the
literature on the instructional leader’s role in the CCSS implementation process. This study
increased understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders approached the efforts of
CCSS implementation and why took particular approaches in the implementation process. The
study added to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by
providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California
from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 60

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter will describe the study’s design, sample selection, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of
the instructional leader in leading change through a case study of three leaders preparing for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). A qualitative case study was
utilized for this study to understand how instructional leaders “interpret their experiences, how
they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” as they
implement CCSS (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). Qualitative research was the most appropriate research
method for this study because it can be used to better understand phenomena about which little is
known (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003).
In 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National
Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) committed to developing a
common set of expectations across states for what K–12 students are expected to know and be
able to do in English Language Arts and Math (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). The Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) were released in June 2010 and as of March 2014, all states with
the exception of Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, Virginia, and Indiana have adopted the English
Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State Standards; Minnesota has adopted the
English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards. In addition, the District of
Columbia, four territories of Guam, American Samoa Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the CCSS
(NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). On August, 2, 2010, California State Board of Education voted
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 61

to adopt the CCSS with the plan to administer the operational summative assessment in spring
2015 (California Department of Education, 2013).
With the enactment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school leaders in
California will play a vital role in implementing the new education policy in their school sites
(Elmore, 2000; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Leaders
will utilize various leadership styles and strategies to implement CCSS. However, little was
known about the instructional leader’s role in CCSS implementation process during the early
stages. In addition, because the CCSS have recently been developed and adopted, there is a lack
of empirical research that shows the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS implementation
process in urban elementary schools in Southern California. While each state’s transition from its
current education standards to the CCSS will be different, preliminary research suggests that
these transitions are not likely to be a matter of incremental change (NGA Center & CCSSO,
2014). Across the nation, school leaders have been trying to figure out the best transitional
process to make implementation of CCSS as seamless as possible for teachers, students, and
parents. In California, some districts piloted CCSS earlier than others; the lessons learned from
the early implementers provided information to the schools that implemented the enactment later
on.
In this study, qualitative research was conducted to find out how instructional leaders
implemented Common Core State Standards in three elementary schools in a single district in
Southern California. The lessons learned from early implementers have potential to provide
valuable information to guide later implementers in the enactment process. This study was
designed to address the following research questions:
1. What is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary schools?
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 62

2. What is the role of the instructional leader in implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in elementary schools in Southern California?
3. What leadership styles and strategies are used to implement CCSS in elementary
schools in Southern California?
4. What are the challenges of implementation of CCSS?
5. What are the lessons learned from the implementation of CCSS?
Methodological Approach
The purpose of this study was to find information on how school leaders are preparing for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards and to characterize the leadership
strategies and styles that are used to implement the enactment. As a principal and instructional
leader of an elementary school in Southern California, my goal for this study was to gain insight
from other instructional leaders implementing Common Core State Standards to become better
equipped to lead my school during the implementation process. The focus of this study was to
add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a
detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the
perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. This study aimed to increase
understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders are approaching the efforts of
CCSS implementation and why they are taking particular approaches in the implementation
process.
The nature of the research questions of this study lent itself to a qualitative research
design since it required an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon
(Merriam, 2009). A qualitative case study is the most appropriate in situations where the
researcher has little control over the events in the context surrounding the phenomenon (Bogdan
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 63

& Biklen, 2003; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; McEwan & McEwan,
2003; Merriam, 2009). The research questions of this study required data collection of
instructional leaders’ experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge obtained through
interviews. “Detailed description of people’s activities, behaviors, and actions” were recorded in
observations, interviews, and excerpts, quotations, or entire passages extracted from various
types of documents (Patton, 2002, p. 4). As a result, qualitative research was the best
methodological approach for this study.
A case study was conducted to find out how instructional leaders prepare for
implementation of Common Core State Standards in three elementary schools in a single district
in Southern California since data is limited on this topic due to the infancy of CCSS
implementation. In case study research, data collection usually involves all three strategies of
interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam, 2009).
Since qualitative research is an effort to understand situations and the uniqueness of the
experience, semi-structured interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and document analysis
enabled a greater depth of understanding (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Research shows that
multiple sources of information should be sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective (Creswell, 2009; Merriam,
2009; Patton, 2002). By using a combination of semi-structured interviews, observations, and
document analysis, different data sources were used to validate and cross-check findings
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009). Triangulation of the data through multiple
sources increased validity because the strengths of one approach compensated for the weakness
of another approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009;
Patton, 2002).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 64

Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was the leadership style of three elementary school
instructional leaders and how the leadership style may have a relationship to the strategies they
choose. Purposeful sampling was the strategy used to identify participants for this study because
it was an appropriate method that led to the rich data that is needed to answer the research
questions by studying participants from the selected district in which “the most can be learned”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 77) based on district administrators’ recommendations. This study will focus
on instructional leaders of three different schools in one district in Southern California that were
selected based on purposeful sampling. The criteria for the selection are instructional leaders
that:
1) Work with elementary school teachers and students
2) Are at least in their second year of preparing for implementation of CCSS
3) Have at least three years of experience as an instructional leader
4) Have successfully led their schools to meet all the Growth Academic Performance
Index (API) Targets for the past three years
These criteria were selected because there was a gap in literature in the instructional leader’s
roles in implementing CCSS at the elementary level. As an instructional leader of an elementary
school, my goal was to increase knowledge about this topic for myself as well as other leaders
through this study of experienced elementary school leaders.
Gaining Access to Participants
The proposal for this study went through a rigorous approval process for the conduct of
human subjects research through the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) (UP: IRB # UP-13-00362). The Director of Curriculum and Instruction and
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 65

Superintendent of XYZ School District were contacted to gain approval for the case study and to
gain access to the participants. Recommendations from the Director were used to select three
elementary school instructional leaders for the case study. Once IRB was approved, an email
was sent to the recommended instructional leaders before the beginning of the school year to
recruit them as participants for the study.
The email provided a clear and concise purpose of the case study. The process, sequence,
and organization of the case study were explained thoroughly. An information sheet
accompanied the email and a hard copy was given to the leaders during the first meeting. A
phone call was made to all case study participants to follow up on their participation in the study.
An additional email was sent to thank them for their willingness to participate in the study and
outlined the timeline for the first meeting. If any of the first three leaders declined the
participation of the study, the next person on the list was contacted via email for recruitment. The
same procedures were followed as above for this participant.
The Selected Sample
The instructional leaders for this study were selected from three different elementary
schools of XYZ School District in Southern California. The instructional leaders were chosen
based on recommendations from the district administrator. The XYZ School District consists of
eight elementary schools with a diverse ethnic and socio-economics student population. There
are approximately 4,400 students including 150 Special Day Class (SDC) students that are
currently enrolled in select elementary schools in the district. In addition, there are 50 SDC
preschool students. XYZ School District scored above the county and state averages on the
2012-2013 Standardized Testing and Accountability Report (STAR) testing as shown in Figure
1. There are two Title I schools, one of which is in Program Improvement year 2 status.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 66

Figure A. 2013 XYZ School District Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report

Figure A. XYZ School District’s Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report shows that
XYZ District represented by LEA (Local Education Agency) scored above the county and state
averages on the 2012-2013 Standardized Testing and Accountability Report (STAR). Adapted
from “Academic Performance Index,” 2013. Copyright 2013 by California Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
The first instructional leader that was studied was Barbara, the principal of Hawks
Elementary School. Barbara was an elementary school teacher for 13 years, a Teacher on
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 67

Special Assignment, and Community Liaison for an elementary school site, where her work was
similar to that of an Assistant Principal. During the study, she was in her third year as a principal
of Hawks elementary School. Hawks Elementary School thrived as one of the most outstanding
schools in the county, garnering a silver medal from the county and a California Distinguished
Schools Award as well as a Business for Education Excellence Honor Roll Award.
Hawks Elementary School was opened in 1969, and was one of eight schools in the XYZ
School District. Approximately 550 students were presently enrolled. Students received
instruction in eighteen regular education classrooms and one special education classroom.
Students at Hawks came from lower, middle, and upper middle class homes, and 19% of the
students qualified for free or reduced lunch. Seventy percent of the parents indicated their
education level as college graduate or above. All Hawks teachers were fully credentialed, and all
had their CLAD certificates. Several staff members, including the principal, had advanced
degrees. Students by Ethnicity were as follows: African American not Hispanic 3.7%; Asian
42.6%; Filipino 9.3%; Hispanic or Latino 18.8%; Pacific Islander 0.7%; White not Hispanic
23.3%. Almost 13% of the students are English Language Learners and 4.4% of the students are
students with disabilities. Hawks was a high performing elementary school with a 2013 API of
971. The school met the 2012-2013 Growth API Targets school wide and for all student groups
as indicated by Figure B.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 68

Figure B. 2013 Hawks Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report

Figure B. Hawks Elementary School District’s Growth Academic Performance Index (API)
Report shows that Hawks Elementary School scored significantly above the Local Education
Agency (LEA) and state averages on the 2012-2013 Standardized Testing and Accountability
Report (STAR). Adapted from “Academic Performance Index,” 2013. Copyright 2013 by
California Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 69

The second instructional leader that was studied was Nancy of Main Elementary School.
Nancy was in her eighth year as principal. It was her fourth year as principal of Main Elementary
School in the XYZ School District. During her tenure as a teacher, Nancy served in various
capacities that included district trainer, literacy coach and Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA) in middle school, and principal at another school district for four years. She also worked
as a consultant with Early Intervention for School Success through the County Office of
Education, serving over 17 schools in the county. Nancy continued to participate as a consultant
with Principal’s Exchange Foundation, which is a charitable organization developed to promote
student achievement.
Main Elementary School was named a California Distinguished School in 2006 and
recently again in 2010. The school served approximately 559 students in grades Preschool
through 6. There were 18 general education classrooms, three Autism-specific Special Day
Classes serving 32 children in grades preschool through 6, one Speech and Language classroom,
a part-time Resource Teacher and a part-time psychologist. The school community partnership
was reported as strong allowing for such activities as City Fit & Fun Program, Boy Scouts, Girl
Scouts, High School tutoring program through Regional Occupational Program (ROP) and a
District Music program.
Sixty percent of the parents were College graduates. All staff members were fully
credentialed with their CLAD or equivalent and were highly qualified and appropriately assigned.
Students by Ethnicity were as follows: Asian: 33%; Black: .04%; Filipino: 11%; Hispanic: 30%;
Native American: .03%; Pacific Islander: .05%; White: 19%. Percent of students that were
Eligible for Free & Reduced Lunch were 49.72%; 24% of the students were English Language
Learners; 9% of students were students with disabilities. Main School’s 2013 API score was 905
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 70

and the school met the 2012-2013 Growth API Targets school wide and for all student groups as
indicated by Figure C.
Figure C. 2013 Main Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report

Figure C. Main Elementary School District’s Growth Academic Performance Index (API)
Report shows that Main Elementary School scored above the Local Education Agency (LEA)
and state averages on the 2012-2013 Standardized Testing and Accountability Report (STAR).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 71

Adapted from “Academic Performance Index,” 2013. Copyright 2013 by California Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
The third instructional leader that was studied was Rachel who had been in education for
18 years as an elementary school teacher, high school English teacher, assistant principal and
principal. Rachel was in her third year as a principal in the XYZ School District. She was the
principal of Hill Elementary School during the time of the study. The site, located in a well-kept
residential area, was known as a “neighborhood school” and served the community for over 40
years. The school’s enrollment was approximately 520 students with 18 regular education
classrooms in grades K- 6, and two Special Day Classes serving students in grades 3-4 and 5-6.
A total of 19 certificated staff and 13 classified staff provided a comprehensive instructional
program and related support services. Based on the STAR demographics, the school served a
diverse student population including the following subgroups: 25% White; 54% Hispanic; 6%
Asian; 7% Filipino; 1% African American; 6% Multiple. Fifty-five percent are Socio-
economically Disadvantaged and 25% were English Language Learners. Hill Elementary
School’s 2013 API score was 890 and the school met the 2012-2013 Growth API Targets school
wide and for all student groups as indicated by Figure D.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 72

Figure D. 2013 Hill Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report

Figure D. Hill Elementary School District’s Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Report
shows that Hill Elementary School scored slightly above the Local Education Agency (LEA) and
state averages on the 2012-2013 Standardized Testing and Accountability Report (STAR).
Adapted from “Academic Performance Index,” 2013. Copyright 2013 by California Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 73

Data Collection Procedures
For this study, it was important to analyze the phenomenon of instructional leadership in
real-life context of a school setting to gain a better understanding of what factors about the
context seems to influence instructional leaders during the CCSS implementation process
(Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). The case study contributed to the base of knowledge
supporting the context of instructional leaders implementing change (Hallinger, 1992; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Merriam, 2009; Stein & Nelson, 2003). Multiple sources of information were
sought and were used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a
comprehensive perspective (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Data were collected from four
different sources of information in order to triangulate the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). By
utilizing a combination of observations, semi-structured interviews, teacher surveys, and
document analysis, different data sources were used to validate and crosscheck findings (Patton,
2002). Triangulation of the data through multiple sources increased validity because the
strengths of one approach compensated for the weakness of another approach (Corbin & Strauss,
2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009). The researcher gained a more secure
understanding of the issues that were being investigated by using different methods as a check on
one another, (Maxwell, 2013). Furthermore, using multiple methods was a way to “to gain
information about different aspects of the phenomenon” that was being studied (Maxwell, 2013,
p. 102).
Semi-Structured Interviews
An interview is a purposeful conversation that is directed by one person in order to get
information from another (Bogdan & Bicklen, 2003; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam,
2009). The purpose of the interview process was to allow an open-ended exploration of the
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 74

instructional leader’s role in the CCSS implementation process (Maxwell, 2013). Two
interviews were conducted for each instructional leader at his/her school site with follow-up
phone calls and or emails as necessary to gather the information that answered the research
questions. The semi-structured interviews included a mixture of questions that enabled the
interview process to be flexible in the direction that the interview went (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). The interviews for this study were semi-structured with probing questions and
lasted 30-45 minutes each (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Informal interviews also took place after each observation to get insight about the
leader’s thought processes. While specific information was required from all respondents such as
what their role is in the CCSS implementation process, each interview was guided by the list of
questions or issues to be explored; with no predetermined wording. As the interviewer, I had a
set of predetermined questions but maintained the flexibility to ask follow-up questions or
questions for clarifications as needed to assist in collecting rich data (Bogdan & Bicklen, 2003;
Merriam, 2009). The semi-structured interviews and memos were audio-taped and transcribed
for accuracy and rich description of data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). After each interview,
analytic memos of the interviews were written within 24 hours to summarize, reflect, and capture
preliminary thoughts for future analysis of the conversation (Merriam, 2009).
Observations
Observations were made to capture the instructional leaders’ leadership styles and
strategies during designated meetings and trainings on Common Core State Standards as well as
routine interactions. Two observations were made for each of the instructional leaders that lasted
two to three hours per observation. Observations differ from semi-structured interviews in that
the researcher obtains a direct account of the phenomenon rather than relying on someone else’s
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 75

interpretation, but it is still a major means of collecting data to enrich the interview data
(Creswell, 2009; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009). The Observation Protocol
(Appendix D) was utilized for the observations.
Key words were selected based on the themes of the literature review of leaders including
collaboration, providing resources, support, guidance, monitor, and knowledgeable. The
researcher looked for these words throughout the observations. Attention was also given to the
setting, social environment, interactions, and activities. In addition, attention was given to subtle
factors that were less obvious, but as important such as informal and planned activities, symbolic
and connotative meanings of words, nonverbal communication such as dress and physical space,
and things that did not happen, especially if they should have happened (Merriam, 2009; Patton,
2002). The observation notes were written up to ensure detail and accuracy of descriptions, direct
quotations, and the researcher’s commentary to contribute to the descriptive nature of qualitative
research (Merriam, 2009). After each observation, conversational interviews were held with the
instructional leader with guided questions to capture the leader’s rationale for the style and
strategies used during the observations.
Teacher Surveys
Surveys of teachers were utilized to triangulate the data collected from participating
instructional leaders in order to strengthen the validity of the study (Creswell, 2009). The
purpose of the survey was to triangulate the data of the instructional leaders’ interviews and
observations and to generalize information about the responses from the sample. A survey is the
preferred type of data collection from the teachers since it allows for rapid turnaround in data
collection (Creswell, 2009). The teacher surveys were cross-sectional; they were collected at one
point in time by the researcher. The surveys were anonymous and voluntary and consisted of
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 76

self-administered open-ended questionnaires (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). All certified teachers
were given the opportunity to complete the survey at each participant’s school site. The teacher
surveys were administered and collected during a staff meeting during the data collection period
for each instructional leader’s school site.
Document Collection
Documents can provide information that cannot always be observed through a historical
perspective and provide a behind the scenes look at programs and processes (Merriam, 2009;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Patton, 2002). Hence, data were collected through the examination
of school and district documents such as the CCSS implementation plan, school site
implementation plan, the school accountability report card (SARC), and school and district
agendas obtained through the instructional leaders and district’s Director of Curriculum and
Instruction. As the researcher, I was the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, and
went through the inductive process of gathering data to build concepts or theories (Creswell,
2009; Merriam, 2009). Once all the semi-structured interviews were collected, they were
transcribed and analyzed along with the interview notes, observation notes, teacher surveys, and
documents using the codes for data analysis.
There are several stances a researcher can assume when conducting observations, from
being a member of the group and a complete participant- an insider- to being a complete
observer, unknown to those being observed- an outsider (Merriam, 2009). As a current
elementary school principal and instructional leader, I held an insider stance with the
instructional leaders of the study since my job is similar to theirs. However, since the
instructional leaders were from different school sites, I also held an outsider stance; I did not
influence what happened at the leaders’ school sites. During observations of some trainings and
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 77

meetings, I was a participant-researcher where I was a participant of the training or meeting and
researching the instructional leaders. This participant-researcher relationship is a complex
phenomenon since “both parties bring biases, predispositions, attitudes, and physical
characteristics that affect the interaction and the data elicited” (Merriam, 2009, p. 109).
Regardless of the stance, an observer cannot help but affect and be affected by the setting, and
this interaction may lead to some bias of the situation as it exists under non research conditions.
As a researcher, I was committed to keeping an open mind throughout the study and taking a
stance that was objective, sensitive, and respectful of the respondents. To achieve that, I made
sure data were kept anonymous to help the participants feel comfortable in their roles.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was completed for the interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and
document collection. Initial codes were created based on the themes of the literature review of
leaders including collaboration, providing resources, support, guidance, monitor, and
knowledgeable. After data collection, additional codes were created by the researcher based on
general trends and patterns of the data. Then, each source of data was manually coded by the
researcher based on the research questions. The data were triangulated with multiple sources.
The final analyses were based on research questions. Information from semi-structured
interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and documents were used to determine trends and
patterns to answer the research questions. The timeline of data collection was followed as shown
in Table 3.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 78

Table 3
Data Collection Timeline
Timeline Task
Summer 2013 Got IRB approval
Summer 2013 Contacted district administrators to gain access to participants
Aug. 2013 Gained access to participants- made initial contact and followed up as
needed
Aug.-Dec. 2013 Data collection
 Conducted two interviews with each of the three instructional
leaders
 Conducted a minimum of two observations of each of the three
instructional leaders
 Conducted informal interviews after each observation
 Conducted teacher surveys
 Collected documents for analysis
Jan.-Feb. 2014 Data analysis

As soon as IRB was approved, the district administrators were contacted to gain access to
participants during the summer of 2013. Three principals were contacted for the study in early
August 2013. Data collection began in August 2013 with interviews and observations of
Professional Development sessions, and continued until December 2013 with follow-up
interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and document collection. The duration of the data
collection was narrow due to the limited time in completing the entire study.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 79

Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program policies and
procedures for conducting research were followed during the progress of this research. Prior to
participation in this study each participant was given an explanation of the purpose, procedures,
and scope of the study. In addition, each participant was given an information sheet which made
the nature of their participation clear and included information on:
 the voluntary participation of their role in the study
 the choice to withdraw at any time
 what they are expected to do
 permission to audio-tape
 how their identity will be protected
To protect the anonymity of each instructional leader participant, pseudonyms were
assigned to the leaders and teachers completing the surveys were anonymous. In addition, the
names of the district and schools which the participants are associated with were changed to
avoid any possible association that would lead to the identification of participants so that
participants will feel comfortable providing their honest answers during interviews. All data
including taped semi-structured interviews, interview transcripts, notes, and related documents
were stored in a secure location with restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The
proposal for this study went through a rigorous approval process for the conduct of human
subjects research through the University of Southern California’s IRB prior to contacting
participants, gaining site permission for data collection in the 2013 fall semester (UP-IRB # UP-
13-00362).

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 80

Validity
Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness and accuracy of
interpretations and findings (Creswell, 2009). The accuracy and credibility of the findings of this
study were established using the validation strategies of data triangulation. Triangulation is the
process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources, and methods (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). Data collected from
this study came from semi-structured interviews with three different instructional leaders,
observations of the instructional leaders, and document analysis. Triangulation of these multiple
sources of data increased internal validity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003;
Merriam, 2009).
Any and all information collected was confirmed or disconfirmed through these various
sources. The consistencies and inconsistencies found in the data through the multiple methods
via triangulation allowed for a richer analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; McEwan & McEwan,
2003; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002).
Some potential threats to validity were:
1. Length of the study: The time for collecting the qualitative data from field work for this
study was limited to five months. However, despite the limitation of the length of the
study, rich data were gathered from the interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and
document collection on the instructional leader’s role in implementing CCSS.
2. Hawthorne Effect: Phenomenon in which participants improve or modify an aspect of
their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they
know they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.
The instructional leaders being studied could modify their behavior during the interviews
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 81

and observations resulting in findings that are different if they were unaware of the study.
Although the Hawthorne Effect was possible for the interviews and observations, the
teacher surveys helped to triangulate the data. Triangulation of the data through multiple
sources increased validity because the strengths of one approach compensated for the
weakness of another approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009;
Patton, 2002). By using different methods as a check on one another, I gained a more
secure understanding of the issues that were being investigated and obtained concluding
data that was more credible (Maxwell, 2013). To further ensure for internal validity or
credibility, I conducted member checks or respondent validation throughout the study to
check if my analysis was valid (Merriam, 2009). This helped identify any biases and
misunderstanding of what I observed and increased credibility of the data.
Limitations
There were several limitations identified with this study. First, there was a lack of
empirical research that showed the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS implementation
process in elementary schools in California since the CCSS have recently been developed and
adopted. Therefore, the literature on school leaders implementing change was used as a proxy
(see chapter 2). Second, the study was limited to three instructional leaders of three different
elementary schools in a small district in Southern California, so generalizability of the study was
limited. (See chapter 3 for more in-depth discussion.) What information was gathered, however,
has the potential to provide an in-depth view of the challenges and solutions in implementing
CCSS or change in general that may provide information that assists other instructional leaders
as they grapple with implementation. Third, the unit of analysis was the individual instructional
leader and as such their experiences, knowledge, personalities, and values differed although their
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 82

varied experiences provided rich data with which to generalize across cases. Fourth, other issues
of leadership and implementation of Common Core State Standards may exist that may not be
addressed in this study. However, leadership is complex and those that are identified will be
beneficial to leaders that are implementing CCSS. Fifth, the timeline of data collection only
spanned five months rather than an entire school year. The data that were collected, though,
pointed to instructional leaders’ styles and strategies that were utilized for the preparation of
implementation of CCSS. These factors undoubtedly affected the outcome of this study and
provided limited applicability and transferability of the study to other individuals. However, any
information this study provided can be useful for the implementation process due to the
widespread adoption of CCSS. The insights gained from the study provided general knowledge
about the role of instructional leaders in leading change through the implementation of CCSS
and provided valuable information to later implementers.
Summary
In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research methodology
that were used to accomplish the purpose of investigating the role of the instructional leader in
leading change through a case study of three instructional leaders preparing for the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions were given in the beginning of
the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the sample and how the
individual cases will be selected for study. Data collection and analysis procedures were
explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy, there was limited research
on the role of the instructional leader in the implementation of CCSS, therefore, a brief overview
of the implementation process was presented along with ethical considerations of the study.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 83

Chapter Four will discuss the findings from the data analysis in narrative form using the research
questions to organize the data.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 84

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the role of the instructional leader in
leading change through a case study of instructional leaders preparing for the implementation of
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The data collected for this study will be presented
and analyzed and the findings for each research question will be reported. The following
research questions were the focus for this study:
1. What is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary schools?
2. What is the role of the instructional leader in implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in elementary schools in Southern California?
3. What leadership styles and strategies are used to implement CCSS in elementary
schools in Southern California?
4. What are the challenges of implementation of CCSS?
5. What are the lessons learned from the implementation of CCSS?
This study aimed to increase understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders were
preparing for the efforts of CCSS implementation and why they were taking particular
approaches in the process. This study focused on instructional leaders of three different schools
in one district in Southern California that were selected based on purposeful sampling. The
criteria for the selection were instructional leaders that:
1) Work with elementary school teachers and students
2) Are at least in their second year of preparing for implementation of CCSS
3) Have at least three years of experience as an instructional leader
4) Have successfully led their schools to meet all the Growth Academic Performance
Index (API) Targets for the past three years
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 85

The data for this study was collected over a five month period during the 2013-2014
school year of three instructional leaders in the XYZ School District. To protect the anonymity
of each participant, pseudonyms were assigned to the leaders, schools, and districts to avoid any
possible association that would lead to the identification of participants. The data were
comprised of the following: A) Interviews with three site instructional leaders, B) Observations
of the instructional leaders at their school sites, C) Teacher surveys from the instructional
leader’s school sites, and D) Document analysis to triangulate the data. The interviews were held
at the instructional leaders’ school sites and lasted from 30 minutes up to 50 minutes. A
minimum of two observations were conducted per instructional leader that lasted about two
hours each. The observations were of the leaders facilitating Staff Development sessions, staff
meetings, classroom walkthroughs, and routine interactions. An informal conversational
interview was conducted after each observation. Teacher surveys and documents were collected
for analysis to triangulate the data. A total of twenty-six teacher surveys were collected from the
three elementary schools. Documents that were collected include the Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA), the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), Agenda and Minutes
from School Staff Meetings and Principals Professional Learning Communities sessions, as well
as the District Leadership and Management meetings. Documents also included district and
school websites, CCSS training schedules and descriptions.
Analysis of the data shows the following key findings: a) Instructional leaders provide
structure, guidance, and support to staff when implementing change in schools through
Professional Learning Communities and Professional Development; b) The instructional leader
advocates, monitors, and evaluates the instructional implementation of CCSS and guides the
teachers as needed; c) Instructional leaders need to be able to adapt their leadership styles to
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 86

meet the needs of different situations; therefore, different styles may be more appropriate at
different times; d) Challenges of implementing CCSS include the lack of high-quality materials
and technology tools that are necessary for SBAC online Common Core testing; e) Implementing
CCSS is a change process with various educators in different stages of implementation
throughout the progression.
The focus of this study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school
leaders lead change by providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three
elementary schools in California from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites.
The first research question sought to understand the leaders’ perception of the role of the
instructional leader in leading change in elementary schools.
Research Question 1. What is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in
elementary schools?
Key Finding: Instructional leaders provide structure, guidance, and support to staff when
implementing change in schools through collaborative opportunities such as Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) and Professional Development (PD).
According to the teacher surveys of this study, 92% of the teachers indicated that the role
of the instructional leader was to provide guidance and support. Following this was collaborating
with teachers and providing time for collaboration amongst the teachers. Interviews and
document analysis of the Single Plan for Student Achievement showed that teachers in the three
schools were given opportunities to participate in Grade level Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) and district Grade Level Meetings on a regular basis to collaborate with
other teachers:
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 87

Grade level teams collaborate regularly through formal and informal means on a daily
basis. Monthly meeting time is set aside for in-depth PLC meeting with some agenda
items provided by the principal. Written notes are kept from these meetings and put into a
grade level binder along with other pertinent student data. Teams regularly receive
feedback from the site administrator (Hawks Elementary School Single Plan for Student
Achievement 2013-2014, p. 8).
All teachers at Hill Elementary School participate in Grade level PLCs and district Grade
Level Meetings on a regular basis. Monthly staff meetings, grade-level, district wide
grade level meetings provide the professional development for the implementation of
CCSS (Hill Elementary School Single Plan for Student Achievement 2013-2014, p. 8).
All teachers at Main Elementary School participate in Grade level PLCs and District
grade level meetings on a regular basis (Main Elementary School Single Plan for Student
Achievement 2013-2014, p. 8).
The Agenda and Minutes of Staff Meetings, PLCs, and district meetings validate this finding.
The District’s Professional Development Calendar for the school year has PD sessions and PLC
sessions scheduled three out of four times during each month (District Professional Development
Calendar 2013-2014). The three instructional leaders validated the accuracy of the PD calendar
during the interviews. Although some minor adjustments were made to the topics of PD, the
district PD sessions and site PD sessions were held throughout the year (B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N.
Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013). Observations of the three instructional
leaders facilitating school site PLCs further validate this finding (Hill Elementary School
Academic Conference Observation, October 1, 2013; Hawks Elementary School Academic
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 88

Conference Observation, October 9, 2013; Main Elementary School Observation, December 3,
2013).
Barbara, the Principal of Hawks Elementary School described her role in leading change
as someone that “guides and supports her staff during change” (B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013). During a Common Core Staff Professional Development
(PD) with her staff, Barbara showed evidence of providing support and guidance by presenting
information and resources on CCSS for implementation (Hawks Elementary School Observation,
October 9, 2013). She met with grade level teachers throughout the day for Academic
Conferences, a form of PD that is provided to the teachers with guidance from the Principal.
Barbara gave each grade level a binder of the Deconstructed Common Core State Standards.
These grade-level documents deconstruct the standards, one standard at a time, providing
explanations of what students should know, understand, and be able to do. She also shared the
Blueprints of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), the new Common Core
assessments, and walked the teachers through the sections of the blueprints. These were
resources that were provided to her through the District’s Professional Development sessions for
Principals (B. Smith personal communication, October 9, 2013). During the Academic
Conference, Barbara checked in with her teachers to see how she could support them. She asked
them about materials and resources they have found to be useful in the CCSS implementation
process and what resources they were still looking for. Teachers shared what they have found so
far and asked for her advice regarding instructional strategies for Common Core. She gave them
her input based on her knowledge and experience (Hawks Elementary School Observation,
October 9, 2013). Describing her instructional role in implementing change, she states, “You're
the person who leverages the resources. You're the go-to person for the knowledge, and if you
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 89

don't have the knowledge, you're the person that gets that knowledge and disseminates it as best
you can or you pull in the people to make sure that happens” (B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013).
Nancy, the instructional leader and Principal of Main Elementary School believes that
instructional leaders need to know a lot about instruction and have to know his/her people and
utilize them to the maximum in order to guide the school to where they should go when
implementing change. She believes the instructional leader is the one that sets the tone for the
school. She states, “The minute you step off that car, you’re on until the minute you get back in
your car. It’s how you look at things, it’s your attitude” (N. Gonzalez, personal communication,
December 3, 2013). Successful instructional leadership requires skillful planning and
management, as well as understanding the complexities of the social system of the organization
(Southworth, 2002; Stein & Nelson, 2003). As a Principal of the school, Nancy believes she has
to be the instructional leader, not just the manager of the school. She believes it is her role to
support and guide her staff with knowledge and materials. During Main Elementary School’s
Leadership Team Meeting, Nancy gave her teachers an updated California CCSS document and
shared information about recent information she learned from the District. She also checked in
with the teachers to see how they were doing in the change process and to see if there was
anything they needed (Main Elementary School Observation, December 3, 2013).
Rachel, the instructional leader and Principal of Hill Elementary School believes it is the
role of the instructional leader to guide the teachers in determining their goals when
implementing change. “The role of the instructional leader is to have a solid vision of the
direction the school is moving towards, making sure that everyone grows” (R. Clark, personal
communication, September 26, 2013). According to Rachel, the instructional leader needs to
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 90

analyze data and be able to determine the area that the teachers need to focus on. She explains
that with California Standards Test (CST) and California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) scores, the goal of all the students was to move up a band and the students who were
already at the advanced or proficient level had to sustain that. During her Academic Conference,
Rachel looked at data of CST, CELDT, and other measures with her teachers to guide them in
determining the areas and the students they needed to focus on. She shared with them the news
that they will be getting a new Intervention Specialist to support the school with the academic
programs, increasing the support for her staff (Hill Elementary School Observation, October 1,
2013). Rachel believed it was her role as an instructional leader to provide support and guidance
to her staff, and to provide personnel that could provide additional support and guidance as well.
She shared with her staff that the role of the Intervention Specialist was to support the teachers
with the intervention students as well as the CCSS implementation process. She believed the
Intervention Specialist would be essential in providing the additional support and guidance that
the teachers needed during the CCSS implementation process (Hill Elementary School
Observation, October 1, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013).
Research Question 2. What is the role of the instructional leader in implementing Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) in elementary schools in Southern California?
Key Finding: The instructional leader advocates, monitors, and evaluates the instructional
implementation of CCSS and guides the teachers as needed.
The school leader provides structure, support and monitors progress, with the support of
the site leadership team; the staff as a whole works together as a professional learning
community to implement research-based strategies in order to maximize student achievement
(Achieve, 2011; Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers & D’Amico, 2012; Waters & Cameron, 2007).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 91

To be an advocate for CCSS, leaders need to become knowledgeable about the topic and the
change process (Marzano, 2003; Stronge, 1993). XYZ School District has a centralized
implementation plan for CCSS where a group of teacher leaders throughout the district called the
Instructional Guidance Team (IGT) helped lead this change in collaboration with the District’s
Director of Curriculum and Instruction. According to XYZ School District’s Curriculum and
Instruction Plan, the academic programs were implemented through IGT:
The role of the IGT is to a) create a structure that enables successful collaboration, b)
establish a leadership team to collaborate and communicate instructional goals for
success, c) inform classroom instruction to respond to academic needs, d) better align
assessments to standards, d) put educators at the center of professional development and
school success, f) share leadership responsibilities and brokering of a knowledge
exchange, g) build the practice for a group learning knowledge base through lessons
learned, best practices, tools and methods, and h) to discuss formative, interim, and
summative assessment strategies (XYZ District Curriculum and Instruction Plan, p. 9).
The IGT researched CCSS, the instructional strategies that align with CCSS, and presented these
topics to the rest of the district’s teachers in their regularly scheduled CCSS District Professional
Development (PD) sessions (District Professional Development Calendar 2013-2014). Sessions
included topics such as Close Reading, Academic V ocabulary, Text Complexity, and Thinking
Maps. The IGT also created the district’s Pacing Guide of CCSS instruction for each grade level,
identified CCSS aligned materials and developed CCSS units of instruction (District Professional
Development Calendar 2013-2014; B. Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013; R.
Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication,
December 3, 2013).
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 92

At XYZ School District, the principals of the district were assigned to specific grade
levels and attended the IGT PDs along with the teachers to become experts at that grade level
(District Principal Leadership Meeting Observation, September 18, 2013; B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N.
Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013). The principals were advocates for the
CCSS implementation by becoming knowledgeable about CCSS, encouraging the change
process, and monitoring the implementation process. Document analysis of the District’s CCSS
Professional Development Schedules, Minutes and Agendas, and the three schools’ SPSA
documents validate this plan (2013-2014 XYZ School District Professional Development
Schedule; 2013-2014 Hawk Elementary School SPSA; 2013-2014 Hill Elementary School
SPSA; 2013-2014 Main Elementary School SPSA). Interviews, observations, and teacher
surveys further validate this implementation plan.
According to Barbara, the principal and instructional leader of Hawks Elementary
School, “the district is focused on building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they
need to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of sustained
instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement” (B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013). Barbara reports that the district has prepared the
principals and teachers by providing information about CCSS. Some principals attended state or
national level CCSS workshops which they shared back to the other principals and school sites.
All three instructional leaders described the District’s Principals PLCs where all the principals
meet together every other week to discuss the CCSS implementation process at their school sites.
With guidance from district office, the principals worked together to implement the IGT plans in
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 93

their school sites as the instructional leaders. Barbara states that she feels very lucky to have this
Instructional Guidance Team. She states,
They are the ones who've done a lot of the research and are putting together the nuts and
bolts of actually implementing it with regard to having the strategies in place and
understanding how the strategies will help us make that transition. We're already making
that transition, and they're working on making sure that the Professional Development is
exactly what the teachers need so that they can start actually doing it in the classroom. It's
a natural progression from what we're doing now. (B. Smith, personal communication,
October 9, 2013).
In her school’s staff meetings, Barbara explained that she always tried to follow up with
whatever the IGT has done. That way, it's a common message throughout the district. She
stated, “My job is to make sure I provide the necessary follow-up and also be that resource
provider. And as a principal team, we're working together to make sure that we're the ones that
are on top of it” (B. Smith, personal communication, October 9, 2013). She also states that her
role is to become part of the Instructional Guidance Team for sixth grade to provide support to
the teachers who are giving that Professional Development, and to act as a sounding board for
them.
Barbara also believes that her role as an instructional leader is to provide time for her
teachers to work together and collaborate with one another as they learn about CCSS and CCSS
aligned instructional strategies. She says that she tries to encourage her teachers as a team so
that they can work together to implement CCSS. Barbara reports that she has done everything
she can do to build the grade level teams, and a lot of them are meeting on their own. She
reported that there is one grade level that meets every Thursday morning and three grade levels
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 94

that meet during lunchtime. Last year, teachers had at least one Thursday a month where they
could formally meet for PLCs. This year, much of that time has been used for CCSS trainings
and presentations by the IGT. The district provided half day subs for principals to meet with
grade level teams at least twice a year in the form of Academic Conferences. Barbara was able to
meet with her grade level teams to address any concerns regarding CCSS implementation. The
teachers were then given time to collaborate with one another. In addition, Barbara met with her
Site Leadership Team once a month to discuss school-related issues as well as Common Core
implementation. She got feedback from her Site Leadership Team that is made up of grade level
representatives. She checked in with them about the CCSS Professional Development that they
learned and got their feedback about the CCSS implementation process during the meetings.
During the Leadership Meeting, Barbara and her teachers also discussed the resources that they
needed to implement the strategies that they learned through IGT. According to Hawks
Elementary School’s Teacher Surveys, 100% of the teachers indicated that the role of the
instructional leader during the CCSS implementation process is to provide time for collaboration.
This validates Barbara’s beliefs and perception of the instructional leader’s role in the CCSS
implementation process. Hawks Elementary School’s Staff Meeting and Site Leadership Team
agendas and minutes validate these statements.
As the instructional leader, Barbara believes that she needs to provide guidance and
support to her teachers during the CCSS implementation process. According to Hawks
Elementary School’s Teacher Surveys, 88% of the teachers agreed with this statement. This
statement was validated through document analysis of SPSA, Staff Meeting agenda and minutes,
and observations of Professional Development sessions. Barbara also believes that it is her role
to monitor the implementation process so that she can provide appropriate guidance and support.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 95

However, only 38% of her teachers indicated that this should be the role of the instructional
leader in the CCSS implementation process according to the Teacher Surveys. To monitor the
CCSS implementation at her school site, Barbara visits the classrooms on a regularly basis and
continually talks to the teachers. During Academic Conferences, Staff Meetings, and Leadership
Team Meetings, she checks in with the staff to get their feedback about the implementation
process. She also has an open door policy with the teachers so that they can check in with her
whenever they need to. Barbara states that she comes to work at seven o’ clock in the morning
so that she was available to the teachers that need to speak to her about something. She also
went out for outside duty to be visible to parents, students, and teachers. In addition, Barbara
monitored CCSS through formal observations. Barbara has eleven teachers being formally
evaluated this school year and since the district’s expectation is to implement CCSS, she has seen
many formal lessons on CCSS.
Rachel, the principal and instructional leader at Hill Elementary School states that her
biggest role as an instructional leader during the CCSS implementation process is to support the
transition. Teacher Surveys from Hill Elementary School validate these statements with 88%
indicating that the instructional leader’s role during CCSS implementation process is to guide
and support the transition. To guide and support her staff, Rachel follows up with what IGT
presents during the District’s Professional Development sessions with her teachers during Staff
Meetings and classroom walkthroughs. Her school has four teachers that are part of IGT which
helps her in getting information on what they are doing and the direction they are headed. She
states, “I think my goal is to support the transition, to clarify, and to really make it a little more
succinct, because there is a lot of change out there. One of the things that we want to keep our
focus on really has to do with students learning and students demonstrating that they understand
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 96

and that they know the Common Core Standards. My biggest job is to help teachers teach to the
rigor and making sure that all kids have that same opportunity” (R. Clark, personal
communication, December 2, 2013).
Rachel reports that her monthly Staff Meetings have shifted to PLCs where the bulk of
the time is spent on discussing and working on CCSS together. As a result, the day-to-day
business and office types of information are sent via email or are condensed in the beginning of
the Staff Meetings so that teachers get a chance to collaborate with one another about CCSS
implementation with their grade level teams. This is validated in Staff Meeting agendas and
minutes, observations, and teacher surveys. According to Hill Elementary School Teacher
Surveys, 100% of the teachers indicated that the role of the instructional leader is to provide time
for collaboration. This is in alignment with Rachel’s perception of the role of the instructional
leader. On the other hand, 63% of her teachers indicated that the role of the instructional leader is
to collaborate with teachers.
Rachel also believes that it is her role to monitor the implementation process to make
sure her teachers are headed in the right direction. To encourage and monitor the CCSS
implementation at her school site, she tells her teachers what she will be looking for during
classroom walkthroughs. For example, she will look for evidence of Close Reading or Thinking
Maps. Rachel states, “When I go into the classroom, I love it that it's up on the boards, and the
kids are doing it, the kids are talking about it, and then I bring it up at Flag Ceremonies so that
way the kids and parents hear it from me, and they hear it from the teachers” (R. Clark, personal
communication, December 2, 2013). In addition to the District’s trainings, Rachel reports that
she likes to do a lot of reading on Common Core on her own, so when she comes across articles
or other important research, she shares it with her teachers. At her site meetings, she tries to
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 97

focus a little bit more on what the teachers want clarification on and then talk about just what
that shift looks like in the classroom. Hill Elementary School’s Teacher Surveys indicate that
50% of teachers believe the instructional leader’s role is to monitor the implementation. Nancy,
the principal and instructional leader of Main Elementary School explains that her role is to learn
about CCSS to become knowledgeable about the topic to build credibility with her teachers and
to be an advocate for implementation of CCSS. She shares that she is excited about this change
and makes sure her teachers are aware of her excitement. Eighty percent of Main teachers
indicated that their instructional leader was enthusiastic about the change (Teacher Surveys,
December 2013). Nancy believes in maintaining consistency with her teachers and staying
connecting with her students. Her staff meetings are focused on Common Core and she meets
with teachers to examine the crosswalks of Common Core compared to the California State
Standards and to look at the deconstructed standards. She tries to provide time for her teachers to
work together during Staff Meeting days so that they can work on CCSS implementation with
the teachers. According Main Elementary School’s Teacher Surveys, 90% of the teachers
indicated that the role of the instructional leader is to provide time for teacher collaboration and
60% indicated that the role of the instructional leader is to collaborate with teachers.
Nancy states that she monitors CCSS implementation by observing in classrooms and
mentioning her observations about CCSS in the weekly bulletin principal’s message to the
teachers. She follows up with the teachers through emails, notes, or informal conversations.
During observations of her routine classroom walkthroughs, Nancy walked around all the
classrooms and left notes to the teachers about what she observed (Main Elementary School
Observation, December 3, 2013). Nancy also requires CCSS in the teachers’ lesson plans and
classroom bulletin boards. She believes this year is a practicing year, so she checks to make sure
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 98

CCSS are included, however, she does not have specific requirements for the teachers. Nancy
reports that many of her teachers have the Learning Icons up on the boards that they use for
Close Reading Activities, one of the instructional strategies that teachers have learned through
the IGT PD sessions. During the walkthroughs, Nancy checked up on the lesson plans and
looked for evidence of CCSS implementation in the classrooms. There was evidence of
Learning Icons and Close Reading symbols on text, Thinking Maps, and CCSS objectives on the
boards in the classrooms (Main Elementary School Observation, December 3, 2013). By
utilizing these strategies to monitor and evaluate the instructional implementation of CCSS, the
instructional leaders were able to guide the teachers through the process and continue to be an
advocate for the change process to maximize student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Research Question 3: What leadership styles and strategies are used to implement the enactment
of CCSS in elementary schools in Southern California?
Key Finding: It is important for instructional leaders to adapt their leadership styles to meet the
needs of different situations; therefore, different styles may be more appropriate at different
times.
The three instructional leaders explained that their leadership styles during
implementation of CCSS depended on the situation and the teacher. Barbara considered herself
to be a situational leader, shifting her style according to the needs of the situation and the
individual teacher she is working with. She reports that it is important for leaders to have
excellent communication skills and the ability to have people express their concerns, allowing
people to absorb this information about CCSS in their own way. Barbara makes sure her staff
understands that ambiguity is not a bad thing. As an instructional leader, Barbara knows that
there will be teachers who get it, but there are also others who will move a little more slowly into
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 99

the implementation process. She states that she will provide the teachers with the support they
need in the CCSS implementation process. She individualizes the support based on what she
knows and sees from the teachers (B. Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013).
According to Hawks Elementary School’s Teacher Surveys, 63% indicate that Barbara
demonstrates Shared Leadership traits where they believe she collaborates with staff to share
leadership roles. In her observations Professional Development sessions, Barbara demonstrated
Shared Leadership traits as she collaborated with staff and gathered input from them about the
CCSS implementation. Observations of her day to day routines including walkthroughs showed
her Situational Leadership traits as she changed her style and tone with the teachers depending
on who they were. Conversations with teachers that she perceived to be advanced were quick
and to the point while conversations with teachers that she perceived to be in the beginning
stages were slower in pace and more elaborate. Barbara stated that this was strategic because she
wanted to make sure the beginning teacher understood her clearly. Barbara explains,
The leadership strategies that I use to implement Common Core is allowing time for
people to internalize the information and being that person to provide whatever support
they need. Not necessarily being the expert, because I think that would be counter
indicated at this point because there are very few experts out there, but at least trying to
be as knowledgeable as possible and helping the teacher to find those answers together
and with the help of the IGT. If one teacher is asking a question, there are probably other
teachers asking, and I think it's really good for the larger answers to come from the
Instructional Guidance Team and not necessarily a principal.
Barbara describes herself as highly organized and a good communicator and listener. She
states that the only things that she takes on are things that she knows she can do to the best of her
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 100

ability. She states that she won't take something on and do it halfway. Barbara explains her
communication and listening skills:
I'm a fairly good communicator. I try to express my ideas so that they're fairly concise
and people can understand what I'm trying to say and, if not, I know when I'm not
communicating properly. I can go back and provide that background. I’m also a good
listener. I can understand the perspective of somebody else, especially my teachers
because it hasn't been that long since I've been there.
Barbara states that she cares deeply about education. She believes very strongly that a public
education is one of the foundations that keep our entire civilization rolling the way it is supposed
to roll. According to Barbara, “Every child has got to be an educated child.” Seventy-five
percent of her teachers indicate Barbara to be knowledgeable, confident, enthusiastic, and
focused in the Teacher Surveys.
Nancy, the principal and instructional leader of Main Elementary School states that she is
a situational leader and that her style “really depends on the situation” (N. Gonzalez, personal
communication, December 12, 2013). She describes herself as consistent and straightforward.
She is not afraid to have a hard conversation and to stick to it. She describes the need to be a
good listener and allowing people to say what they think, but not take things personally. Nancy
believes her role is to put the systems in place at the school site including teamwork. She
encourages her teachers to work together in teams to learn about CCSS and implementation.
Main Elementary School’s Staff Meetings have shifted to look more like PDs and work sessions
where the teachers are spending time diving into CCSS. During Staff Meetings, Nancy has
teachers working in teams of the same grade level in the same room so that they can see other
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 101

teams working and glean from each other. Nancy believes it is her role to provide the structure so
that her teachers can work in teams.
Rachel, the principal and instructional leader of Hill Elementary School sees herself as an
instructional coach to the teachers with the goal of building teacher capacity. She states that her
leadership style can change from situation to situation, but overall she tends to be a collaborative
leader. Some of the strategies that Rachel has used at her school site to implement CCSS is to
learn more about the topic and co-plan/co-teach with the teachers. She states, “I think that's one
of the important things that we have to keep in mind- that we have to get in there and also teach
and show the teachers how it's okay to take a risk” (R. Clark, personal communication,
December 2, 2013). In order for schools to successfully increase student learning outcomes,
instructional leadership should emanate from and be a shared value of all stakeholders (Marzano
et al., 2005; Southworth, 2002). Rachel believes in informing parents and students that CCSS is
new and that we are asking our students to do more than kids have done in the past.
Data collection and analysis showed that it is important for instructional leaders to adapt
their leadership styles to meet the needs of different situations; therefore, different styles may be
more appropriate at different times. The instructional leaders of the study explained that their
leadership styles during implementation of CCSS depended on the situation and the teacher. The
strategies that they chose for the various situations depended greatly on what the situation was
and who they were working with (B. Smith, personal communication, November 11, 2013; R.
Clark, personal communication, December 2, 1013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication,
December 3, 2013).
Research Question 4: What are the challenges of the implementation of CCSS?
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 102

Key Finding: Challenges of implementing CCSS include the lack of high-quality materials and
technology tools that are necessary for SBAC testing.
Many challenges can arise when implementing changes for improvement. It is important
to understand that making improvements is a developmental course that proceeds in stages
(Elmore, 2000). One of the main challenges that the three instructional leaders of the study
reported was the lack of high-quality organized materials that aligned with the new standards
(District Principals Professional Learning Communities Observation, November 1, 2013; B.
Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013; District Principals Professional
Development Observation, December 1, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2,
2013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013). Although there were many
materials that were labeled as CCSS, when teachers and administrators actually analyzed the
rigor of the standards, many of the materials did not match Common Core. (B. Smith, personal
communication, November 19, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N.
Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013). During an observation of a Principals
Professional Development, the principals of the district discussed how teachers were frustrated
about the lack of materials for Common Core. They shared that teachers were finding materials
online and in teacher stores, however, when they analyzed the materials, they were not always
high quality, rigorous Common Core materials to teach and assess CCSS (District Principals
Professional Development Observation, December 1, 2013). Furthermore, there lacked an online
program to help students prepare for the content and features of SBAC (District Principals
Professional Development Observation, December 1, 2013). The teacher surveys of the study
validate this conclusion with 96% of the teachers reporting the lack of materials and resources as
a challenge. In addition, Barbara stated that funding to buy the new materials was an issue. The
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 103

district as a whole was weary of purchasing new Common Core materials due to the influx of
low quality materials and materials and was careful about the materials they chose for Common
Core (District Principals Professional Learning Communities Observation, November 1, 2013;
District Principals Professional Development Observation, December 1, 2013).
Another area that the instructional leaders reported as a challenge was technology
(District Principals Professional Learning Communities Observation, November 1, 2013; B.
Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013; District Principals Professional
Development Observation, December 1, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2,
2013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013; Principals Leadership Meeting
Observation, December 18, 2013). The instructional leaders were worried about the technology
tools as well as the bandwidth and infrastructure that were necessary for the SBAC online testing
(B. Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013; District Principals Professional
Development Observation, December 1, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2,
2013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication, December 3, 2013). The schools needed more
computers to accommodate the SBAC online testing, however students also needed increased
keyboarding and computer skills (B. Smith, personal communication, October 9, 2013; B. Smith,
personal communication, November 19, 2013). During the Principals PLC, the principals
discussed the need for technology skills (Principals PLC Observation, November 1, 2013). When
they looked at the SBAC Practice Tests, they saw that there were many computer skills that their
students were not prepared for such as high-lighting, scrolling up and down and side to side
(Principals PLC Observation, November 1, 2013). The lack of time was indicated by 38% of the
teachers as a challenge and the second frequently reported area after the lack of high quality
materials.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 104

The instructional leaders and teachers of this study reported many challenges as they
prepared for implementation of CCSS. The lack of high-quality materials and the lack of
technology tools and skills that are necessary for SBAC testing were the top challenges reported
by both the leaders and teachers. By identifying the challenges and addressing them, the
educators were able to learn from their implementation process and make plans for
improvements for their practice.
Research Question 5: What are the lessons learned from the implementation of CCSS?
Key Finding: Implementing CCSS was a change process with various educators in different
stages of implementation. Making improvements is a developmental course that proceeds in
stages.
Leading change requires that the leader provide teachers access to one another within the
system to work through problems and learn from one another’s solutions (Zmuda, Kuklis, &
Kline, 2004). The leader should understand that improvement will take a change process and
that teachers will be at different stages of implementation (Hord, 1990). All three instructional
leaders indicated in their interviews and interactions with staff that CCSS implementation was a
process that was going to take a few years to implement successfully (R. Clark, personal
communication, September 26, 2013; B. Smith, personal communication, October 9, 2013;
November 19, 2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N. Gonzalez,
personal communication, December 3, 2013; Hawks Elementary School Observation, October 9,
2013; Hill Elementary School Observation October 1, 2013; Main Elementary School
Observation, December 3, 2013). According to the teacher surveys, teachers validated that they
believed it will take time to fully implement CCSS.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 105

Barbara, the principal and instructional leader of Hawks Elementary School reported that
through the preparation process of CCSS implementation, she has learned that “professional
development needs to fit not only the situation but the audience. There's also differentiation in
professional development, and what this person needs is not what this person needs” (B. Smith,
personal communication, November 19, 2013). She explained that in order to implement CCSS
successfully, educators need to be able to explain the pieces of the standards and the 21st century
skills, including how the new standards are laid out. All three instructional leaders reported the
need for administrators and teachers to have a deeper understanding of how CCSS is organized
and to know what they are responsible for (B. Smith, personal communication, November 19,
2013; R. Clark, personal communication, December 2, 2013; N. Gonzalez, personal
communication, December 3, 2013). Nancy suggested looking at the outline of the Common
Core Standards in depth and spending time backwards mapping the standards to create a
roadmap for teachers as they implement CCSS. She describes the importance of looking at CCSS
instructional strategies as well as the standards (N. Gonzalez, personal communication,
December 3, 2013). Rachel reported that looking at the organization of the standards was
important and wished that she had spent more time on it with her teachers to analyze the
similarities and differences of the old standards and the new Common Core Standards (R. Clark,
personal communication, December 2, 2013). Barbara also described the need for analyzing the
Common Core Standards in depth (B. Smith, personal communication, November 19, 2013).
Teachers also reported that looking at the organization of the Common Core Standards more in
depth would have been helpful (Teacher Surveys, December 2013). One teacher elaborated that
breaking down the standards would have helped with clarification and understanding (Teacher
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 106

Surveys, December 2013). Another stated that unpacking the standards a little more would have
been a beneficial start to implementing CCSS (Teacher Surveys, December 2013).
There were many lessons learned by instructional leaders and teachers from preparing for
implementation of CCSS. Data collection showed that educators realized that implementing
CCSS was a change process that took time to implement fully and with success. In addition,
data analysis showed that making improvements is a gradual progress that proceeds in stages.
Preparing for the Common Core Standards in the elementary schools took time to learn about the
standards and the instructional strategies that aligned with CCSS. It also took time to learn about
the College and Career Readiness Standards of CCSS. The elementary school instructional
leaders reported the importance of communicating with middle and high schools now that they
are linked together in a continuous process of preparation for college and careers (B. Smith,
personal communication, November 19, 2013; N. Gonzalez, personal communication, December
3, 2013).
Summary
Based on the data collected, instructional leaders play an important role in leading change.
As they prepare teachers for the implementation of CCSS, research suggests that instructional
leaders provide structure, guidance, and support to staff by advocating the change, and
monitoring and evaluating the implementation process. The data showed that instructional
leaders need to be able to adapt their leadership styles to meet the needs of different situations. In
addition, there were common challenges when implementing change, and there were lessons that
can be learned from one another. The findings suggest some evidence that the XYZ School
District instructional leaders were preparing for the implementation of CCSS through
collaboration, professional learning communities, and various Professional Development. This
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 107

claim is supported by the data collected that the instructional leaders are participating in PDs,
PLCs, and various trainings and providing support to their teachers. This confirms the findings of
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) that effective change leadership requires a deep
understanding of the change process; and that successful implementation of change requires
effective management and monitoring of the implementation, evaluating the quality, fidelity,
consistency, and intensity of implementation (Fullan, 2010).

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 108

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
Qualitative research was conducted in this study to investigate the role of the
instructional leader in leading change through a case study of instructional leaders preparing for
the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The focus of this study was
to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a
detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the
perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. This study increased understanding of
how elementary school instructional leaders were approaching the efforts of preparing for CCSS
implementation and why they were utilizing particular strategies in the process. The lessons
learned from early implementers have potential to provide valuable information that can help
guide later implementers in the process. This chapter provides a summary of the case study and
significant findings from the data reported in Chapter Four along with a discussion of the
implications for future practice, research, and policy.
Overview of the Problem
With the enactment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school leaders were
called to lead the change in implementing the new education policy. The literature on leadership
shows qualities of effective school leaders when implementing change in schools (Darling-
Hammond, 2000). Although we knew how school leaders have implemented educational policies
in the past, we did not know how school leaders were implementing CCSS given that this was a
new education policy. Furthermore, because the CCSS have recently been developed and
adopted, there was a lack of empirical research that showed the roles of instructional leaders in
the CCSS implementation process in elementary schools in California. It was important to
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 109

gather data on the instructional leader’s role in implementing CCSS to increase the success of the
implementation process knowing that school leaders will play a vital role in implementing the
new education policy in their school sites (Elmore, 2000; Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005;
NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). Current literature shows effective ways school leaders might
implement change. However, there was a gap in the literature on the instructional leader’s role
in the CCSS implementation process due to the infancy of CCSS. This study sought to increase
understanding of how elementary school instructional leaders were approaching the efforts of
CCSS implementation and why they took particular approaches in the implementation process.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how school leaders were preparing for
implementation of the Common Core State Standards and to characterize the leadership styles
and strategies that were used to implement the enactment. Forty-four states, the District of
Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) have
adopted the Common Core State Standards (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2014). While each adopted
state’s transition from its current education standards to the CCSS may have been different,
policymakers and educators at all levels could benefit from preparing for the changes that will
need to occur over the next several years of implementation (NGA Center & CCSS, 2012). In
California, school leaders were trying to figure out the best transitional process to make it as
seamless as possible for teachers and students. Some districts were piloting the CCSS earlier
than others; this study was conducted with the assumption that learning from these early
implementers would help the schools that implement the enactment later on. School leaders
needed to engage in both instructional leadership and systemic leadership to affect the necessary
changes (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012; Southworth, 2002; Stronge, 1993). This study sought to find
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 110

data that informed elementary school instructional leaders on leadership styles and strategies that
would help them as they implemented CCSS in their school sites.
Research Questions
A case study was conducted to examine the role of the instructional leader in
implementing CCSS in three elementary schools in a single district in Southern California. The
following research questions were the focus for this study:
1. What is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary schools?
2. What is the role of the instructional leader in implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in elementary schools in Southern California?
3. What leadership styles and strategies are used to implement CCSS in elementary
schools in Southern California?
4. What are the challenges of implementation of CCSS?
5. What are the lessons learned from the implementation of CCSS?
Methodology
The nature of the research questions of this study lent itself to a qualitative research
design. The research questions of this study required data collection of instructional leaders’
experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge obtained through interviews. The phenomenon
of instructional leadership in real-life context of a school setting was analyzed to increase
understanding of what factors about the context seemed to influence instructional leaders in
preparation for the CCSS implementation process (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Research
shows that multiple sources of information should be sought to validate and cross-check
findings. Hence, a combination of semi-structured interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and
document analysis were used to triangulate the data (McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam,
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 111

2009). Triangulation of the data through multiple sources increased validity because the
strengths of one approach compensated for the weakness of another approach (Corbin & Strauss,
2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). By using different methods as
a check on one another, a more secure understanding of the investigated issues was obtained
(Maxwell, 2013).
Purposeful sampling was the strategy used to identify participants for this study. This
study focused on instructional leaders of three different schools in one district in Southern
California. The criteria for the selection were instructional leaders that:
1) Work with elementary school teachers and students
2) Are at least in their second year preparing for implementation of CCSS
3) Have at least three years of experience as an instructional leader
4) Have successfully led their schools to meet all the Growth Academic Performance
Index (API) Targets for the past three years
These criteria were selected because there was a gap in literature in the instructional leader’s
roles in implementing CCSS at the elementary level. As an elementary school principal and
instructional leader, my goal was to increase knowledge about this topic for myself as well as
other school leaders through this study of experienced elementary school instructional leaders as
well as add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change.
The data for this study was collected over a five month period during the 2013-2014
school year of three instructional leaders in the XYZ School District. The data were comprised of
the following: A) Interviews with three site instructional leaders, B) Observations of the
instructional leaders at their school sites, C) Teacher surveys from the instructional leader’s
school sites, and D) Document analysis to triangulate the data. The interviews were held at the
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 112

instructional leaders’ school sites and lasted from 30 minutes up to 50 minutes. A minimum of
two observations were conducted per instructional leader that lasted about two hours each. The
observations were of the leaders facilitating Staff Development sessions, staff meetings,
classroom walkthroughs, and routine interactions. An informal conversational interview was
conducted after each observation. Teacher surveys and documents were collected for analysis to
triangulate the data.
Discussion of Findings
Analysis of the data showed that implementing change is a process that requires
collaborative work amongst educational leaders with varying leadership styles. The leaders of
this study understood that implementation of Common Core would take a change process and
that teachers would be at different stages of implementation (Hord, 1990). Many layers of
collaborative efforts were required to implement change. Starting from the district level, the
implementation of change at the three school sites required well-designed, strategic plans to
restructure the paradigm shifts of Common Core implementation. According to findings,
collaboration amongst and between the instructional leaders and teachers was an important
element of leading the change process effectively. Leadership styles and strategies used by the
instructional leaders were adapted to meet the needs of different situations; therefore, different
styles and strategies were more appropriate at different times. Collaboration, situational
leadership, and understanding of the change process were seen as essential components to
implementing CCSS.
Collaboration
The implementation of CCSS required shifts in instructional strategies including
increased critical thinking and text-based discussions. The shift in teaching prompted by CCSS
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 113

required ongoing professional learning; hence, school leaders benefitted from building
collaborative communities of learners at their school sites (Oerturf, 2011). According to data
analysis, the role of the instructional leader in leading change was to provide guidance and
support through collaborative communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007). The staff as a whole
worked collaboratively to implement the instructional shifts of Common Core such as critical
thinking, close reading, academic language, and text-based discussions in order to maximize
student achievement (Achieve, 2011; Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers & D’Amico, 2012;).
Interviews, teacher surveys, and document analysis showed that teachers in the three schools
were given opportunities to participate in collaborative learning opportunities in the form of
Grade level Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and District Grade Level Meetings on a
regular basis to work with other teachers. The study showed that instructional leaders were
responsible for ensuring that the curriculum and instruction met CCSS requirements, that
teachers have the professional development and supports they needed for these instructional
shifts, and that parents and community stakeholders understood expectations for the CCSS and
how they can best support their students (Achieve, 2012; Overturf, 2011).
In California, the CCSS implementation plan was developed by the California
Department of Education and full implementation of CCSS systems occurred over several years
and in the context of a continuous learning process. The beginning phase of implementation, the
awareness phase represented an introduction to the Common Core Standards, the initial planning
of systems implementation, and establishment of collaborations (CDE, 2013). The next phase,
the transitional phase was a concentration on building foundational resources, implementing
needs assessment, establishing new professional learning opportunities, and expanding
collaborations between all stakeholders. The final phase, implementation phase expanded the
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 114

new professional learning support, fully aligned curriculum, instruction and assessment, and
effectively integrated these elements across the field (CDE, 2013). Hence, collaboration and
professional learning were key elements in implementing change during the roll out of the
Common Core Standards (Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). Collaboration
opportunities were given to leaders through District-wide Principals’ Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs), to teachers through District-wide Grade-level PLCs and through each
school’s Grade-level PLCs. The leaders met twice a month at the district level to discuss and
plan CCSS implementation. Teachers were given opportunities to collaborate with one another
once a month at the district level and once or twice a month at the site level. Teachers in the
study met with their team of teachers on a weekly basis to collaborate with one another even
when they were not required by a supervisor. This shows the importance of collaboration in the
implementation efforts.
At XYZ School District, collaboration began at the district level with Cabinet PLCs with
the Superintendent who supervised the district’s plan of CCSS implementation. There existed a
centralized implementation plan for CCSS where a group of teacher leaders throughout the
district called the Instructional Guidance Team (IGT) helped lead this change in collaboration
with the District’s Director of Curriculum and Instruction. The Principals participated in the IGT
meetings and provided support as needed. Leading change required that the leaders provide
teachers access to one another within the system to work through problems and learn from one
another’s solutions (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). Teachers were given opportunities through
PLCs after school as well as Academic Conferences during the school day. Site level PLCs were
led by the teachers and the Academic Conferences were led by each site’s instructional leaders.
Data analysis showed the importance of providing a centralized, systematic design plan starting
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 115

from the district level to implement change effectively including opportunities for collaboration
between instructional leaders and teachers.
Situational Leadership
According to data analysis, it is important for instructional leaders to adapt their
leadership styles and strategies to meet the needs of different situations; therefore, different
styles and strategies were more appropriate at different times (Blanchard, 2008; Northouse,
2010). This style of leadership is best described by Situational Leadership theory which supports
the notion that no single leadership style is better than another (Blanchard, 2008). All three
leaders of the study indicated that they utilized Situational Leadership during the CCSS
implementation process. The three instructional leaders explained that their leadership styles
during implementation of CCSS depended on the situation and the teacher. The data support the
literature on Situational Leadership that explains that leaders match their style to the competence
and commitment of their staff; effective leaders adapt their style according to the development
level of the people they are managing (Blanchard, 2008).
The instructional leaders reported that teachers will be at different stages of
implementation and that their strategies varied based on teacher and situation. The leaders
gauged teachers’ stages of concerns regarding implementation and provided interventions based
on their assessment during PLCs and Academic Conferences at the school sites (Hall and Hord,
2010). During Academic Conferences, the instructional leaders met with grade level teams to
discuss the current implementation process as well as the needs for the next steps of
implementation. The leaders asked teachers to share about the instructional strategies they
learned through the district Professional Development on Common Core including how they
were applying the instructional strategies in their classrooms. Teachers shared the shift in
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 116

instructional strategies as a result of Common Core and analyzed their next steps of
implementation as a team. The leaders changed their styles based on the team of teachers they
were working with. They were collaborative with teachers that were applying the district’s
Professional Development plans and suggestions. The leaders encouraged the teachers for trying
the new strategies and discussed the district’s PDs as a fellow colleague.
Each leader described a resisting teacher at their site and how they had to change their
leadership style for these teachers. The leaders described how they had to teach the significance
of CCSS and had to convince them that it was going to be around for a while. The leaders gave
directives to the resisting teachers to apply the instructional strategies that were taught during the
district PDs, thereby utilizing the autocratic leadership style. These teachers were given specific
guidelines about what the leaders wanted to see in their classrooms along with a timeframe for
completing the guidelines. The leaders of this study were positive advocates for the change
process and encouraged teachers in their endeavors to implement the new standards and apply
the instructional strategies that aligned with the standards. Observations also showed that the
leaders were also flexible and proactive with the change process; they believed in the benefits of
Common Core and encouraged their teachers to implement the strategies that they learned from
district PDs.
Change Process
Findings showed understanding and acknowledging that change is a process was an
important element in school improvement efforts in this study of instructional leaders (Elmore,
2000; Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall & Hord, 2010). The leaders of this study understood that
improvement would take a change process and that teachers would be at different stages of
implementation (Hord, 1990). Data analysis showed that the majority of teachers of this study
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 117

were aware that CCSS implementation would be a change process as well. Leading the teachers
through a change process required guidance and support through collaboration as mentioned in
the previous section (Cosmah & Saine, 2013; Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). The instructional
leaders of this study were advocates for the CCSS implementation by becoming knowledgeable
about CCSS, encouraging the change process, and monitoring the implementation process. The
leaders acknowledged that the change process would not happen overnight. They described how
it may take three to five years to fully implement CCSS, as a result it was important to prepare
for each step of implementation.
According to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), the change process necessitates that
the leader monitor and evaluate the system, demonstrate knowledge of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment, and provide teachers with the necessary staff development opportunities that
will directly enhance their teaching. To prepare the teachers for CCSS implementation, the
leaders of this study established high, concrete goals, and expectations for all students and, at the
same time, provided teachers access to one another within the system to work through problems
and learn from one another’s solutions during collaborative opportunities in the form of PLCs
after school and Academic Conferences during the school day with sub release time (Zmuda,
Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). To ensure fundamental change in the way a school operates, the leaders
described the benefits from understanding and changing the culture of the school to leading and
facilitating the pedagogy necessary for sustainable learning (Fullan, 2001, 2002). At the same
time, success with school change depended on the motivations and capacities of leadership
(Elmore, 2000; Evans, 2001; Fullan, 2002, Leithwood, 1994). School leaders benefitted from
understanding the purpose of the reform efforts and acted upon what was required to implement
the new standards for the benefit of students (Evans, 2001). The leaders explained that they
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 118

understood the premise behind Common Core and believed in the significance of
implementation. As teachers received trainings about Common Core, the leaders encouraged the
teachers to implement the Common Core instructional strategies in their daily lessons as well as
formal observations. The practice of leading change required understanding how good work can
be supported and propagated in schools (Elmore, 2000).
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings from this case study suggest several implications for policy and practice for
school leaders leading change. Analysis of the data showed that leading change is a process that
requires collaborative work amongst educators with varying leadership styles. The data suggest
that leading change effectively requires well-designed, strategic plans to restructure the paradigm
shifts of its implementation. Many layers of collaborative efforts were required to lead change
starting from the district level. Collaboration in the form of Professional Learning Communities
was reported and observed at the district and school levels. The district’s centralized plan
included separate PLCs at the Cabinet level, Principal level, district-wide grade-level, as well as
individual site’s grade-level teams.
The data validated the importance of participating in collaborative learning opportunities
such as PLCs so that educators can work together to learn from one another during the change
process. This finding implies the need for instructional leaders to participate in ongoing
collaborative learning opportunities to learn about CCSS and to provide teachers time to
collaborate with one another as well. In addition to collaborative learning opportunities,
providing teachers with the necessary staff development opportunities intended to directly
enhance their teaching is beneficial (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). The teachers of the
study participated in ongoing staff development throughout the year to learn about the Common
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 119

Core Standards and research-based teaching strategies for implementing CCSS.
According to Waters and Cameron’s (2007) balanced leadership framework, school
leaders should be highly knowledgeable about curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the
research-based practices associated with the change initiative. It was assumed that school
leaders would utilize many of the responsibilities of the balanced leadership framework to be
effective as they implemented CCSS because the responsibilities listed in the balanced leadership
framework were research-based leadership strategies. This study’s data showed that teachers
went to the leaders for information about CCSS and SBAC first before conducting research or
readings of their own. This implies the need for school leaders to stay on top of the research and
readings to be highly knowledgeable about CCSS and its related curriculum knowing that it was
important to support teachers with information as literature suggests (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Many challenges were reported as teachers and leaders prepared for implementation of
CCSS. The lack of high-quality materials and the lack of technology tools and skills that are
necessary for SBAC testing were the top challenges reported. By identifying the challenges and
addressing them, the educators will be able to learn from their implementation process and make
plans for improvements for their practice. District personnel and principals discussed the
challenges and identified plans to improve the process through collaborative efforts in Principals
PLCs and District Management Meetings. The leaders collaborated with the teachers of their
sites and reported their challenges at the district meetings. Common challenges were identified
during this process including the lack of technology tools and skills as well as the lack of
materials. To respond to the challenges, the Principals and the District’s Curriculum and
Instruction Team planned to purchase programs and resources that would meet the needs of
Common Core as well as the SBAC testing. This team of instructional leaders analyzed current
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 120

materials and researched newly published materials to find and purchase materials that aligned
with CCSS.
In order for the CCSS to be implemented effectively to achieve the intended outcomes,
principals, teachers, and other educators should have adequate supports and guidance starting
from the top down. For elementary principals and instructional leaders this means having
supports for planning, capacity building, and implementation through Professional Development,
sub release days for Academic Conferences and collaboration, and PLCs. Elementary school
principals should have assistance to ensure that they understand the requirements and have the
resources for providing professional development to teachers, have access to the needed
curricula, and have a chance to provide input into assessment protocols and procedures. This
study showed that having a well-planned centralized implementation process starting from the
district level was an effective way to implement change. Input about the plan was given to the
district leaders by teachers and staff members, therefore there existed top-down collaboration as
well bottom-up collaboration. Data analysis provides implications for creating teacher planning
time for teachers to collaborate with one another within the local context to find or create
teacher-materials that are aligned to CCSS.
Finally, the leader should understand that improvement will take a change process and
that teachers will be at different stages of implementation (Hord, 1990). Data analysis showed
that the instructional leaders and teachers were aware that CCSS implementation would be a
change process that will take time. The instructional leaders reported that teachers will be at
different stages of implementation and that their strategies varied based on teacher and situation.
It was assumed that as leaders implement the CCSS, they will intentionally and unintentionally
gauge teachers’ stages of concerns regarding implementation. Instructional leaders then would
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 121

provide follow up support to the teachers based on the concerns that rise. This implies the need
for instructional leaders to be more knowledgeable about the change process as well as
appropriate interventions for each stages of concern such as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM). CBAM provides leaders with information necessary to develop strategies that would
support teachers’ advancement in the program to higher levels of implementation. Several
assumptions about classroom change in curriculum and instruction underpin CBAM: (1) change
is a process, not an event; (2) change is accomplished by individuals; (3) change is a highly
personal experience; (4) change involves developmental growth in feelings and skills; and (5)
change can be facilitated by interventions directed toward the individuals, innovations, and
contexts involved (Hord, 1990).
Hall and Hord’s (1987) Concerns-Based Adoption Model provides a set of concepts and
tools to help change facilitators think and work in the same manner; it is useful in explaining the
level of teachers’ commitment in adopting innovations (Ranjdoust, Talebi, Bargi, & Mousavi,
2012). CBAM is a comprehensive approach for studying the change process, diagnosing
attitudes and behaviors surrounding an initiative. The change process is complicated by
numerous interactive dynamics in the educational setting, and all implementers do not follow the
idealized evolution of concerns (Hollingshead, 2009). Data findings provide implications for the
interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements of leadership and CBAM to be explored
to define how they can lead to successful educational reform such as CCSS implementation.
Implications for Future Research
The findings of this study yield numerous implications for future research. Analysis of
the data showed that the instructional leaders of this study provided collaborative learning
opportunities and utilized situational leadership styles to implement the change. The question
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 122

remains on the types of collaborative opportunities that are most effective for implementation of
CCSS. Although the teachers of XYZ School District participate in ongoing collaboration
through PLCs and Professional Development, there is yet an outcome analysis on the effect of
the professional development. In addition, it would be beneficial to study the culture of the
district that leads to successful implementation of change. Teachers are judging the PDs on how
it is affecting their teaching, however, there lack an assessment or data system to evaluate the
effects of the PD on student outcomes. Analysis of the data also showed that the instructional
leader monitors and evaluates the instructional implementation of CCSS; however, without data
to determine if we are on the right track, it is difficult to determine if the leaders are monitoring
and evaluating CCSS. This would be a topic that could be addressed in the future when the
SBAC Common Core online testing data are reported.
Data findings show implications for research in the challenge areas that were reported by
instructional leaders and teachers such as high-quality materials for teaching CCSS and
technology tools that are necessary for SBAC online Common Core testing. It is recommended
that research be conducted on the CCSS materials that are published to determine alignment to
CCSS and effectiveness of teaching CCSS. It is also recommended that research be conducted
on the SBAC online tests to determine the skills that need to be taught to teachers and students.
Finally, data analysis showed that implementing CCSS is a change process with various
educators in different stages of implementation throughout the progression. This provides
implication for future research on the interrelationships and interdependencies of the elements of
leadership and a change model such as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model to be explored to
define how they can lead to successful CCSS implementation.
Limitations
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 123

There were several limitations identified with this study. There was a lack of empirical
research that showed the roles of instructional leaders in the CCSS implementation process in
elementary schools in California since the CCSS have recently been developed and adopted.
Therefore, the literature on school leaders implementing change was used as a proxy (see chapter
2). Second, the study was limited to three instructional leaders of three different elementary
schools in a small district in Southern California, so generalizability of the study was limited.
(See chapter 3 for more in-depth discussion.) The design of the study triangulated the data
collected from multiple sources including interviews, observations, teacher surveys, and
document analysis. While triangulation increases validity, limitations persist (Patton, 2002). For
example, limitations could include missing or misconstrued data, low participation in the teacher
surveys, and potential researcher bias. Limitations of interviews can occur because of the
emphasis on what people say they do, rather than what they actually do. Limitations of
interviews can also occur as a result of the specific questions that are asked and not asked
(Merriam, 2009).
Observations were used to authenticate the responses of the interviews, however
limitations can arise when observations are influenced by researcher perception, are confined to
external behaviors, and are limited by the sample of activities being observed (Patton, 2002).
While document analysis provides another opportunity to collect data, it can be limited because
of inaccurate or incomplete data. Time constraints and length of the study contribute to
limitations on this data collection as well. The timeline of data collection only spanned five
months rather than an entire school year. These factors undoubtedly affected the outcome of this
study and will provide limited applicability and transferability of the study to other individuals.
However, any information this study provided can be useful for the implementation process due
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 124

to the widespread adoption of CCSS. The insights gained from the study can provide general
knowledge about the role of instructional leaders in leading change through the implementation
of CCSS and provide valuable information to later implementers.
Conclusion
The literature on leadership shows qualities of effective school leaders when
implementing change in schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000). This study aimed to gain a deeper
understanding of how instructional leaders lead change through a case study of the CCSS
implementation process. The focus of this study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership
and how school leaders lead change by providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process
in three elementary schools in California from the perspective of instructional leaders of the
school sites. Data collection of the study validated the research that showed the importance of
the site instructional leader to advocate, monitor, and evaluate the instructional implementation
and guide the teachers as needed through collaborative learning opportunities such as
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and Professional Development (PD) (Marzano,
2003; Stronge, 1993). Data analysis also validated the literature that showed the importance of
understanding and acknowledging that change is a process. Many challenges were reported and
many lessons were learned through early implementation of CCSS. The lessons learned from
early implementers have potential to provide valuable information that can help guide later
implementers in the process. Ultimately, the understanding and leadership of principals and
instructional leaders is essential to the success of leading change.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 125

References
Achieve. (2011). Engaging Educators: Common Core State Standards Implementation.
Achieve. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The role of the elementary
school leader Action Brief. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from www.achieve.org.
Anderson, K., Harrison, T., & Lewis, K. (2012). Plans to adopt and implement common core
state standards in the southeast region states: Issues & answers. REL 2012-no. 136.
Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at SERVE Center. University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, 915 Northridge Street, Greensboro, NC 27403. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/964184584?accountid=14749
Anderson, S. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption
model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.
Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern
about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 8(4), 279–302.
Bainer, D., & Porter, F. (1992). Teacher concerns with the implementation of holistic scoring.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research
Association, Chicago, USA. ERIC Document ED355511.
Baker, K. (2007). Are international tests worth anything? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2): 101-04.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P.J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006:
performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an
international context (NCES 2008–016). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 126

Administration Quarterly, 112-121.
Beach, R. (2011). Issues in analyzing alignment of language arts Common Core Standards with
state standards. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 179-182.
Blanchard, K. (2008). Situational leadership. Leadership Excellence, 25(5), 19. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/204622182?accountid=14749
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Boccia, J. (1989). Beginning teachers speak out: A study of professional concerns in the first
three years of teaching. ERIC Document ED 316555.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and. methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party's report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. (3
rd
ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, C., and Rocha, E. (2005). The case for national standards, accountability, and fiscal
equity. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
California Department of Education . (2012). Academic Performance Index. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2013). Common Core State Standards Systems
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 127

Implementation Plan for California. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/documents/ccssimpsysplanforcaapril2013.pdf
Carmichael, S., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W. (2010). The state of state standards
and the Common Core in 2010. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Clayton, J. (2011). Changing diversity in U.S. schools: The impact on elementary student
performance and achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43(6), 671-695.
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Assessing the quality of the Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 183-185
Conley, D., Drummond, K., Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011). Reaching the goal:
The applicability and importance of the Common Core State Standards to college and
career readiness. Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Conley, D., & Goldman, P. (1994). Ten propositions for facilitative leadership. Reshaping the
principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts, 237-262.
Conway, P., & Clark, C. (2003). The journey inward and outward: a re-examination of Fuller's
concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5),
465-482.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cosmah, M., & Saine, P. (2013). Targeting digital technologies in Common Core Standards: A
framework for professional development. New England Reading Association Journal,
48(2), 81-86
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 128

Cronin, J., Dahlin, N., Adkins, D., & Kinsbury, G. (2007). The proficiency illusion. Washington,
DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Cross, C., & Rice, R. (2000). The role of the principal as instructional leader in a standards-
driven system. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 61-65.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Phoenix, Arizona, USA: Educational Policy Analysis Archives.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Orphanos, S. (2006). Leadership development in California. Stanford:
Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Donmoyer, R., & Wagstaff, J. (1990). Principals can be effective managers and instructional
leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 20-29.
Drew, S. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the Common Core State Standards: Preparing students
for 21st ‐century literacy now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 321-330.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, Ind. Alexandria, Va.: National Education
Service; ASCD.
Eilers L., & D'Amico M. (2012). Essential leadership elements in implementing Common Core
State Standards. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(4):46-50.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Evans, L. (2001). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction and motivation among education
professionals: Re-examining the leadership dimension. Educational Management
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 129

Administration & Leadership, 29(3), 291-306.
Finn, C., Petrilli, M., & Julian, L., (2006). The state of state standards 2006. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 16-21.
Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 10-15.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on
teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(33), p.228 - 256
Gips, C., & Wilkes, M. (1993). Teacher concerns as they consider an organizational change to
site-based decision-making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. ERIC Document ED361896.
Gray, C., Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2007). Good principals aren't born-they're
mentored. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.
Gunstone, R., Slattery, M., Baird, J., & Northfield, J. (1993). A case study exploration of
development in pre-service science teachers. Science Education, 77(1), 47–73.
Gustainis, J.(2004). Autocratic leadership. In Encyclopedia of leadership. Retrieved from
https://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com.libproxy.usc.edu/cont
ent/entry/sagelead/autocratic_leadership/0
Hall, G., & George, A. (1979). Stages of concern about innovation: The concept, initial
verification and some implications. 1st draft. Texas University, Austin. Washington, DC:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education/National Institute of Education.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 130

University of New York Press.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2010). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. 3
rd
ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional
to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3).
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, (4) 221–239.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership
and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders.
The Elementary School Journal, 89-108.
Haycock, K., & Trust, E. (2012). Implementation of Common Core State Standards: Roles for
Advocates. Policy Innovators in Education Network.
Hollingshead, B. (2009). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model: A framework for examining
implementation of a character education program. National Association of Secondary
School Principals. NASSP Bulletin. SAGE Publications. 93 (3), 166-183.
DOI: 10.1177/0192636509357932.
Hollenbeck, A., & Saternus, K. (2013). Mind the comprehension iceberg: Avoiding Titanic
mistakes with the CCSS. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 558–568.
DOI:10.1002/TRTR.1160
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 131

Hord, S. (1990). Realizing school improvement through understanding the change process.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1(1), 1-4.
Horsford, S., & Brown, M. (2011). Leadership matters: advancing issues of equity, engagement,
and excellence in the study of educational leadership. Journal of School Leadership. 21.
Hunt, J., Rizzo, J., & White, D. (2008). Blueprint for Education Leadership (No. 2). Durham, NC:
Hunt Institute.
Jazzar, M. (2004). Instructional or Managerial Leadership: The Principal Role. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership. 7(3), 28-34. doi: 10.1177/155545890400700305
Jenkins, B. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, 88(3), 34-37.
Kelly, M., & Staver, J. (2005). A case study of one school system's adoption and
implementation of an elementary science program. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 42(1), 25-52.
Kober, N., & Rentmer, D. S. (2011). States' progress and challenges in implementing Common
Core State Standards. Center on Education Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States' progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help
reform school cultures. School effectiveness and school improvement, 1(4), 249-280.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of
leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration. Quarterly,
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 132

35, 679–706.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: The Education Schools Project.
Lienert, C., Sherrill, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Physical educators’ concerns about integrating
children with disabilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 18(1), 1–17.
Loveless, T. (2012). The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education: How well are
American students learning? With sections on predicting the effect of the Common Core
State Standards, achievement gaps on the two NAEP Tests, and misinterpreting
international test Scores. 3 (1). Brookings Institution.
Loveless, T. (2013). The Common Core Initiative: What are the chances of success?
Educational Leadership. ASCD.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39
(3), p. 370-397.
Marshall, P. (1996). Multicultural teaching concerns: New dimensions in the area of teacher
concern research? Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), 371–379.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: from research
to results. Heatherton, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Massell, D. (2008). The current status and role of standards based reform in the states. Draft
report prepared for the National Research Council Workshop Series on Standards Based
Reform.
Mathis, W. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool. Boulder
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 133

and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
Mathis, W. (2012). Research-based options for education policymaking: Common Core State
Standards. National Education Policy Center.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications: Los Angeles.
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making sense of research. Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of
instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117-139.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2014). Common Core Standards Initiative website. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2007-National
Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8. NCES 2007-494. National Center
for Education Statistics.
National Research Council. (2008). Assessing the role of K–12 academic standards in states:
workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Newhouse, C. (2001). Applying the Concerns-based Adoption Model to research on computers
in classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), n5.
Northouse, P. (2010). Fifth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Overturf, B. (2011). Kentucky leads the U.S. in implementing Common Core Standards. Reading
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 134

Today. 29: 24-25.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications.
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction, and
assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011a). Assessing the common core standards:
Opportunities for improving measures of instruction. Educational Researcher, 40(4),
186-188. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/881457282?accountid=14749
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011b). Common Core Standards: The new US
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Post, T. (2013). Minn. moves ahead with some Common Core education standards, Minnesota
Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/06/07/education/common-core-
standards
Ramirez, F., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2006). Student achievement and national
economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1): 1-30.
Ranjdoust, S., Talebi, B., Barqi, I., & Mousavi, S. (2012). A Study of the Application of Internet
Use in Academic and Research Activities of Faculty on the Basis of Concern Based
Adoption Model (CBAM).
Reed, P. (2013). Leadership Skills for Implementing the Common Core. Principal Leadership,
13(6), 56-58.
Ritz, G. (2013). Superintendent Glenda Ritz Statement Regarding SB-193, Common Core
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 135

Standards. Indiana Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.in.gov/news/superintendent-glenda-ritz-statement-regarding-sb-193-
common-core-standards
Rust, T. (2012). Common Core Standards. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 72(3), 32-36.
Partelow, L., & Miller, D. (2005). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and
other G8 countries: 2004. NCES 2005-021. U.S. Department of Education.
Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of
Educational Change, 7(4), 259-287.
Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2011). Preparing future Math teachers. Science,
332(6035), 1266-1267.
Sebring, P., & Bryk, A. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-344.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.
School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91.
Stein, M., & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational evaluation and
policy analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Stronge, J. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager. NASSP
Bulletin, 77(553), 1-7.
Tienken, C. (2008). Rankings of international achievement test performance and economic
strength: Correlation or conjecture. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 3(4), 1-15.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 136

Tienken, C., & Canton, D. (2009). National curriculum standards: Let's think it over. American
Association of School Administrators Journal of Scholarship and Practice. 6(3), 2-10
Tienken, C. (2012). The Common Core State Standards: The emperor is still looking for his
clothes. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 152-155.
Stein, M., & Neslon, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 24(4), 423-448.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of
Education Statistics. (NCES 2011-015), Chapter 6.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision with
action. McREL.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA
Youngs, P., & King, B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school
capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 , 643-670.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Comments on the Common Core Standards Initiative. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice, 6(3), 46-54.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of
continuous improvement. ASCD.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 137

Appendix A
Certified Information Sheet for Leaders

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 138

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 139

Appendix B
Interview Protocol- Instructional Leaders

Researcher: _______________________ Date: ________________________
Interviewee: _______________________ Job Title: _____________________
Start Time: ________________________ End Time: ____________________

Interview Questions
1. What do you think is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary
schools?
2. Can you tell me about the implementation of CCSS at your school site? (Formal plan of
implementation, trainings for staff, PD, PLC, etc, who, what, when, how? Describe
implementation phase.)
3. How have you been prepared to lead the implementation of CC? (What types of Professional
Development (PDs) /trainings have you received on CC? How many? When?)
4. As an instructional leader, do you/ or did you have implementation goals for the 1st year, 2nd
year, and beyond? If so, what are/were they?
5. What do you think is your role in the implementation process of CC?
6a. Can you describe your personal characteristics that make you the leader that you are?
6b. What leadership styles do you use to implement CCSS?
7. What leadership strategies do you use to implement CCSS?
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 140

8. How do you monitor the implementation process?
9. What challenges do you face implementing CCSS?
10. What challenges do you foresee?
11. What are some lessons learned from the implementation process so far?
12. What ideas for improvement do you have for implementation?
13. Is there anything you would like to add regarding this topic?
14. Would it be okay to contact you if I have any additional questions?
Reminder about any documents that were promised during interview.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 141

Appendix C
Certified Information Sheet for Teachers

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 142

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 143

Appendix D
Teacher Survey Protocol

Researcher: Sinae Lee Chang Date: ________________________
Teacher Survey Questions
1. What do you think is the role of the instructional leader in leading change in elementary
schools? Check all that apply.
 Provide guidance and support
 Collaborate with teachers
 Provide time for teacher collaboration
 Provide resources
 Provide Professional Development
 Monitor progress
 Other (please list) ______________________________________________________

2. How have you been prepared to implement CC? Check all that apply.
 National/ State Professional Development
 District Professional Development
 School-wide Professional Development
 Learned on my own. Please describe (Internet, resources, etc.).
________________________________________________________________________
 I have not received any preparation.
 Other (please list). ________________________________________________________

3. What do you think is your instructional leader’s role in the implementation of CC?
Check all that apply.
 Provide guidance and support
 Collaborate with teachers
 Provide time for teacher collaboration
 Provide resources
 Provide Professional Development
 Monitor progress
 Other (please list) ______________________________________________________

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 144

4. How would you describe your site instructional leader’s personal characteristics?
Check all that apply.
 Knowledgeable
 Confident
 Enthusiastic
 Focused
 Other __________________________________________________________________

5. Can you tell me about the implementation of CCSS in your classroom? Choose one.
 I have begun CCSS implementation.
 I am getting ready for implementation.
 I do not plan to implement CCSS this school year.
 Comments ______________________________________________________________

6. What leadership style does your leader use to implement CCSS?
 Autocratic-wants to control every aspect of implementation
 Managerial- focuses on procedures and operations of the implementation
 Shared- collaborates with staff to share leadership roles
 Transformational- focuses on enhancing the motivation, morale, and performance of
followers during implementation
 Other / Comments ________________________________________________________

7. What leadership strategies does your instructional leader use to implement CCSS?
Check all that apply.
 Conduct classroom walkthroughs
 Ensure that high-quality teaching materials and resources are available
 Provide professional development
 Conduct formal observations
 Model lessons
 Other __________________________________________________________________

8. How does your leader monitor the implementation process? Check all that apply.
 Classroom visits
 Staff Meetings
 Professional Learning Communities
 Other. Please list.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 145

9. What challenges do you face implementing CCSS?

10. What challenges do you foresee in the implementation process?

11. What are some lessons learned from the implementation process so far?

12. What ideas for improvement do you have for implementation?

13. Please add any additional comments regarding this topic.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 146

Appendix E
Observation Protocol

Study: The Instructional Leader’s Role in Leading Change: A Case Study of the Implementation
of the Enactment of Common Core State Standards in Elementary Schools

Observer:
Event:
Location:
Date:
Time:

Purpose of Observation: To observe the leadership styles and strategies of the instructional
leader.

Brief Description of Event:

Key Words:
support guidance resources monitor collaboration knowledgeable

Participants and Interactions
Descriptions Observer Comments

Physical Space/ Description of Room Set-Up
Descriptions Observer Comments

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 147

Activities
Descriptions Observer Comments

Observer Role
Descriptions Observer Comments

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the leadership and instructional leadership theories to understand the role of the instructional leader in leading change through a case study of instructional leaders who prepared for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In addition, the study is grounded in Hall and Hord's (1987) conceptual framework known as the Concerns‐Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The overarching conceptual framework served as the lens through which to view the important educational change efforts of implementing the CCSS. The purpose of this study was to add to the knowledge base of leadership and how school leaders lead change by providing a detailed look at the CCSS adoption process in three elementary schools in California from the perspective of instructional leaders of the school sites. Qualitative data were collected from interviews and observations of three instructional leaders, along with teacher surveys, and document analysis to triangulate the data. Findings from this study indicate that implementing change is a process that requires collaborative work amongst and between the instructional leaders and teachers with varying leadership styles from the instructional leader. Collaboration, situational leadership, and understanding of the change process were seen as essential components to implementing CCSS. These findings imply the need for instructional leaders to participate in ongoing collaborative learning opportunities to learn about CCSS and to provide teachers time to collaborate with one another. This study showed that having a well‐planned centralized implementation process starting from the district level was an effective way to implement change. Data analysis provides implications for creating teacher planning time for teachers to collaborate with one another within the local context to find or create teacher‐materials that are aligned to CCSS. The findings of this study yield implications for research in the challenge areas that were reported by instructional leaders and teachers of the study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle 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

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

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions

PDF

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia

Asset Metadata

Creator Chang, Sinae Lee (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/24/2014

Defense Date 05/02/2014

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,implementation of CCSS,instructional leaders,leadership styles and strategies,leading change,OAI-PMH Harvest,principals implementing CCSS

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Mafi, Gabriela (committee member), Robles, Darline P. (committee member)

Creator Email sinaecha@usc.edu,stacychang329@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-447692

Unique identifier UC11286671

Identifier etd-ChangSinae-2735.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-447692 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChangSinae-2735.pdf

Dmrecord 447692

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Chang, Sinae Lee

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