University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

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

By

Thomas G. Crowther

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

Dr. Pedro Garcia, Committee Chair
Dr. Rudy Castruita, Committee Member
Dr. Jan Britz, Committee Member

December, 2014

Copyright 2014 Thomas G. Crowther

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

i

DEDICATION

To my wife, JVB, and our Everly and Clarke

“Just to See You Smile…”

-TGC

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank the dissertation committee of Dr.
Pedro Garcia, Dr. Rudy Castruita and Dr. Jan Britz. This amazing trio lent their time,
guidance and expertise in education and in organizational leadership to me. They
have each had an influence on me that will last a lifetime, both as an educational
leader and as a person. I would especially like to thank Jan, who as my district’s
superintendent has been monumental in my development as an educator and
leader. I must also acknowledge three other mentors; Dr. Greg Miller and soon to be
“Drs.” John Paramo and Michael Bertram for their support and guidance with every
professional endeavor I have embarked on as a site leader. I am fortunate to have
been able to call them each both “boss” and “friend” over the years. I must also
thank my friend and fellow Ed. D. candidate, Oscar Macias, for the valuable dialogue
in commutes to and from campus most Thursdays while completing the coursework
for this degree. Fight on!

Finally, I must thank my amazing family for all of their support through this
endeavor. Without their love and guidance neither my wife, Jill, nor I, could do a
fraction of the things that we do. Whether it was simply childcare, or, whether it was
the type of advice that comes through life’s experiences… it was and it shall always
be family that gets us through. And Jill, it is for you that I do… and that I am. Thank
you for believing in me. I love you more than you will ever know.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

iii

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the strategies, resources and skills
superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core State Standards and
the role of politics in their decision-making process. The researcher utilized a mixed
methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative data from surveying and
interviewing superintendents in midsized districts in California. Collection methods were
triangulated with data analyzed from public documents pertaining to the districts of
interview participants. A review of existing literature related to standards-based
education and on organizational leadership added to the validity of the research. Forty
superintendents were surveyed and six were interviewed between the 2013-2014 and the
2014-2015 school years. Four central questions guided this study as it explored
implementation of the Common Core, impediments superintendents faced, the role of
past experiences and the role of politics on implementation efforts. The findings indicate
that superintendents utilized a collaborative approach to Common Core implementation.
Those interviewed preferred a coaching model of teachers leading other teachers to
training led by outside consultants. New instructional practices were built on existing
practices, even though the leaders perceived the new standards as a major shift in
pedagogy. Overall, superintendents perceived the political pieces as more important than
practical matters during implementation. A looming timeline for implementing the
standards and the difficulty in implementing change of such magnitude in large
organizations were among the greatest challenges superintendents reported facing.
Additionally, the role of the superintendent has evolved into a merger of the historical
role of instructional leader and a role that now also encompasses manager, communicator
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

iv

and visionary leader. This increases the pressure on superintendents as change agents.
The findings also indicated that intuition and gut feelings played a significant role in the
decision-making process of superintendents and that such intuitive feelings were largely
driven by their previous experiences. The findings suggest that superintendents should
embrace a collaborative leadership styles that makes their vision a shared vision for
stakeholders in their districts. Stakeholders must feel a part of the process and ultimately
buy into the vision of their leaders if such change is to be effective and long lasting.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 4
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 9
Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 9
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 11
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 11
Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 12
Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 12
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ..........................................................................................18
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 18
Rationale for the Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 18
Historical Perspective of Standards-Based Education ............................................ 20
Standards Based Learning and Data-Driven Decision Making ............................ 22
NCLB ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Accountability ......................................................................................................................... 27
Standards, Accountability and the Common Core .................................................... 29
Common Core State Standards Initiative ..................................................................... 31
Politics in Play ......................................................................................................................... 33
Today’s Role of the Superintendent ............................................................................... 37
CCSS Implementation Efforts: Challenges and Opportunities ............................. 38
Bolman and Deal .................................................................................................................... 40
Management Decision Theory .......................................................................................... 42
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology ................................................................................45
Research Methodology ........................................................................................................ 45
Research Questions............................................................................................................... 45
Rationale for Mixed Methods Study ............................................................................... 45
Qualitative Methods ............................................................................................... 45
Quantitative Methods ............................................................................................ 47
Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 47
Sample and Population ........................................................................................................ 47
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

vi

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 49
Review of the Theoretical Framework ........................................................... 49
Data Needed ................................................................................................ 51
Interview Protocol……………………………………………………………..52
Survey Protocol………………………………………………………………….53
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 53
Process of Getting Consent……………………………………………………………………….54
Survey Protocol……………………………………………………………………….………………54
Interview Protocol…………………………………………………………………………………..55
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………..56
Interviews…………………………………………………………………………………….56
Method of Interview Analysis……………………………………………..56
Interpret Data……………………………………………………………………………….57
Coding……………………………………………………………………………….57
Surveys……………………………………………………………………………………...…57
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4: Findings .............................................................................................................60
Focus of the Study ................................................................................................................. 60
Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................. 62
Survey Respondents’ Data Aggregated…………………………………………...63
CCSS Implementation Efforts By Superintendents Surveyed……….…..66
Survey Results Summary Related to CCSS Implementation Efforts.…69
Attitude Towards the CCSS of Superintendents Surveyed……………….69
Readiness for the CCSS……………………………………………………………….....71
Interview Participants……………………………………………………………….….72
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................. 74
Collaboration………………………………………………………………………………..76
Coaching Model and a Focus on Best Practices……………………………….77
Use of Funding……………………………………………………………………………...79
Summary of Results: Research Question 1……………………………………..80
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................. 82
Time…………………………………………………………………………………………….82
Technology…………………………………………………………………………………..83
Curriculum Management………………………………………………………………84
Organizational Change………………………………………………………………….85
Summary of Results: Research Question 2…………..…………………………86
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................. 87
Impact of Previous Experiences on Decision Making………………………88
Intuition and Gut Feelings……………………………………………………………..91
Summary of Results: Research Question 3…………….………………………..92
Research Question 4 ............................................................................................................. 93
Community and Board Communication………………………………………….96
Politics in Play………………………………………………………………………………98
Political Rollout to Teachers………………………………………………………….99
Summary of Results: Research Question 4……………………………………100
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

vii

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………100
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations. ................................................... 103
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….103
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 105
Research Question 1……………………………………………………………………106
Research Question 2……………………………………………………………………107
Research Question 3……………………………………………………………………107
Research Question 4……………………………………………………………………107
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 108
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 109
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 110
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 112
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 121
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter…………………………………………………………….121
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey……………………………………………………….122
Appendix C: Interview Protocol………………………..…………………………………….128
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Lifelong and Lifewide Learning……………………………………… 25
Figure 2.2: CCSS Bills Introduced By Month and Year 2012-2014……….......... 35
Figure 2.3: CCSS Legislation By State…………………………………….......... 36
Figure 4.1: Previous Experiences of Superintendents Surveyed……………........ 65
Figure 4.2: CCSS Implementation Efforts in Districts of Survey Participants…… 67
Figure 4.3: Building CCSS Capacity……………………………………….. 68
Figure 4.4: Stakeholders’ Awareness of the CCSS……………………........ 70
Figure 4.5: Comparison of CCSS Implementation to NCLB Implementation…. 71
Figure 4.6: Readiness for CCSS………………………………………………… 71

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Average Daily Attendance in Districts of Survey Participants……….. 62
Table 4.2: Type of District and Free and Reduced Lunch Percentages…………... 63
Table 4.3: Type of District, Continued……………………………………………. 63
Table 4.4: Superintendents Surveyed and Tenure in Current Position……………. 64
Table 4.5: Degrees Held Amongst Survey Participants…………………………… 65
Table 4.6: Gender of Survey Participants………………………………………….. 66
Table 4.7: Tenure of Superintendents Interviewed………………………………… 68
Table 4.8: Demographical Data of Districts of Superintendents Interviewed…… 73
Table 4.9: Readiness for the CCSS………………………………………………… 74
Table 4.10: Community Awareness of the CCSS…………………………………. 94
Table 4.11: Community Outreach Efforts of Superintendents Interviewed….. 97
Table 4.12: Role of Politics in the CCSS………………………………………….. 98

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

1

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This study focuses on organizational change and on education as both a political
entity and as a large structural body fueled by human capital. Specifically, this study
focuses on the strategies, tactics and resources superintendents employed as they
implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in their districts and the politics
in play. From Machiavelli’s The Prince ([1514] 1961, p. 27, Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.
370):
It must be realized that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more uncertain of
success, or more dangerous to manage than the establishment of new order of
[things]; for he who introduces [change] makes enemies of all those who derived
advantage from the old order and finds luke-warm defenders among those who
derived advantage from the older order and finds but luke-warm defenders among
those who stand to gain from the new one….

The CCSS were a major shift in philosophy and pedagogy and as such, called for
significant changes in all aspects of education (Kirst, 2013). Fully implemented in most
states in 2014-2015, the CCSS means that in the years ahead existing state and district
policies will need to be aligned including: curriculum frameworks, instructional
materials, K-12 and college assessments, K-12 finances, professional development (PD),
teacher preparation programs, teacher and administrator evaluation systems, preschool
programs and other programs (Kirst, 2013). The CCSS move states away from individual
standards that vary in each state to a shared set of higher and deeper national standards
rooted in inquiry and critical thinking (Kirst, 2013). Although the standards were created
collaboratively with stakeholders from both the K-12 and higher education arenas, as
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

2

well as parent groups and politicians, building consensus on what the standards are, and
are not, proved challenging. When enacting change from top-down directives through
policies, organizational capacity building and guidance from leaders is required (Fullan,
2012; Kirst, 2013). Since change is difficult to both individuals and to organizations at
large, the leaders at the top of the system’s hierarchy must also garner buy-in amongst
stakeholders. The superintendents who implemented the CCSS in their districts had to
select strategies and tactics for implementation wisely. This study examined the role of
the superintendent as a transformational and organizational change agent tasked with
implementing the new standards. The focus was on superintendents who implemented the
CCSS in midsized districts in California during the bridge-year to the new standards in
2013-2014, and through the start of fall semester during the 2014-2015 school year, when
the new standards were fully implemented by the states who had adopted them.
In California, the CCSS replaced the California Content Standards (CCS), just as
they replaced existing individual standards in 43 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia
and many U.S. territories (CDE, 2013). The CCSS aim to teach students to think deeper
with their learning, to think more critically, to write across the curriculum, to link
subjects across core content areas and to be more college and career ready (NCSL, 2008;
NGA, 2008; 2010a, 2010b). Few would deny that these are good, even great goals.
However, based on the previous experiences of some stakeholders, the sparse but
lingering negative connotations some still associated with standards-based learning and
the challenges that come with implementing significant changes within organizations, the
challenges for superintendents tasked with implementing the CCSS were daunting.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

3

Additionally, there was a scarcity of time to implement the CCSS, thus
superintendents had to be tactical with the strategies they ultimately employed. The
managerial-decision making theory of Sayegh, Anthony and Perrewe (2004) suggests that
in the absence of a proven model to follow, skilled leaders rely on intuition and emotion
instead. Prominent educational researchers have also long decried education as a field in
which practitioners make decisions based on intuition or gut-instincts (Slavin, 2002;
2003). Such decisions rely largely on their past experiences (Sayegh et al., 2004), thus
successful implementation of the CCSS may rely in part on wise managerial decisions of
district superintendents, in part on their political smarts and savvy salesmanship of the
new standards and in part on their previous experiences as change agents. Regardless of
the sound theories, research and idealistic goals behind the CCSS, they shall fail locally if
district superintendents fail to garner buy-in amongst district stakeholders and implement
the standards properly.
Edwards (2007) contends that standards-based education reform continues to
influence the role of superintendents because they are forced at the local level to
implement change regardless of whether it is desired or popular: “the superintendent will
undoubtedly find himself or herself taking on a different leadership position, not unlike
when laws and mandates of the past required courage and unpopular stances to move the
agenda forward … he or she is bound by law to implement legislation, even at the risk of
being criticized” (p. 12). This was the case with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), where
superintendents were tasked with implementing an accountability model that aimed to
close the achievement gap but which also labeled many American schools failures
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Menken, 2009), and which ultimately took punitive measures
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

4

against them. This study compares and contrasts this experience to the current
experiences of superintendents implementing the CCSS.
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four-frames of leadership, Political, Structural, Human
Resources and Symbolic, form the study’s theoretical framework. Additionally, the
conceptual model of managerial decision-making of Sayegh et al. (2004), which states
that lack of time and knowledge are “crisis conditions” add to the framework. Since there
was no proven blueprint for successful CCSS implementation, but there was the presence
of a 2014-2015 timeline to implement the new standards, the challenges superintendents
faced met their criteria of crisis conditions and is applicable for this study as well.
Background
The late 1970’s and early 1980’s saw public perception of the educational system
in the United States at a new low. On August 26, 1981, then Secretary of Education T. H.
Bell created the National Commission on Excellence in Education to investigate the
quality of education in the country (Gardner, 1983). There was a general concern that the
U.S. educational system was falling short of its implicit goal of keeping American
students better educated than students in the rest of the world. The commission’s chair,
DP Gardner’s (1983), open letter to the American people recommended loftier high
school graduation requirements with increased rigor in core content areas, the adoption of
measurable standards, increasing the school year to up to 220 days and increased federal
spending and policies that support public education (p. 1). Gardner (1983) also cited
figures that suggested the U.S. was falling behind other developed countries, namely
Asian countries and West Germany, and that the Nation was “at risk” of losing its
standing economically and in the global market (p. 1). These same concerns resonate
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

5

three decades later, as the CCSS were implemented in most states during the 2014-2015
school year with the implicit goal of ensuring the U.S. is competitive globally in the 21
st

century (Adams, 2010, NGA, 2008; 2010a, 2010b). Proponents of the new standards
insist the CCSS are more than another pendulum swing in education, while critics argue
that they are a rinse, recycle and repeat of a flawed model (Baker, 2010, Tienken, 2011).
In 2002, President George W. Bush pushed the United States Congress to sign
into law the eighth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), NCLB. The standards-based education movement that truly began in the
aftermath of Gardner’s piece and which continued under President Bill Clinton in the
1990s through the previous reauthorization of ESEA, had new rules and regulations that
placed an unprecedented level of accountability on public schools across the country
(Menken, 2009; Kirst, 2013). In place of a previous system that allowed educators to
work in isolation in their own one-room school houses, NCLB enacted a federal
accountability system focused on closing the achievement gap between the Nation’s
highest achievers and those struggling to keep pace through the presence of data driven
decision-making (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Menken, 2009).
The Federal Government’s version of student achievement output came in a three-
digit figure known as the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). In California, a similarly
complex three-digit model known as the Academic Performance Index (API) became the
scorecard utilized to track progress of schools and districts. These two figures held the
fate of schools across the state since 2002. Under this system, schools that failed to keep-
up with increasingly lofty growth target scores fell into Program Improvement (PI) and in
the most extreme cases were taken over by the state. In one of the most controversial
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

6

targets attached to NCLB, 2014 was to be the year where 100% of the nation’s school
children were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and math according to the
standards-based assessments created by each state (Menken, 2009). Despite positives
attached to the accountability era of NCLB, the policy was largely viewed as a failure by
many stakeholders in education because the 100% proficiency mandate predetermined
the majority of America’s public schools would fail to achieve the end goal (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Davidson, Reback, Rockoff and Schwartz, 2012). Additionally, many
argued that the state-standards under NCLB were a mile-wide and an inch deep and that
they merely encouraged teachers to teach to the test to avoid punitive measures such as PI
(Causey-Bush, 2005). Regardless, superintendents sold the NCLB accountability model
to their stakeholders for more than a decade, knowing that as the growth targets became
more and more ambitious, most of their schools would be labeled failures despite strong
gains. In some ways, the political sell of a flawed system of accountability was the
greatest challenge of superintendents in that time span. With 2014 nearly complete, and
with few schools having met the 100% proficiency mandate, most states transitioned to
the CCSS with the accountability piece still largely unknown.
The CCSS were in place in states that had adopted them by the start of the 2014-
2015 school year. Although these new standards are vastly different than the
accountability system of NCLB, implementing any new policy requires leaders to
examine both political pieces and practical barriers (Kirst, 2013). With the CCSS, the
practical barriers were rather obvious; for example, how did districts with budget
constraints deal with the technological expectations for the computer-based assessments
scheduled for the spring of 2015? How were teachers trained in best practices and new
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

7

lesson design to adhere to the new standards when there were few experts and even fewer
funds to support professional development? How will new textbooks and supplemental
pieces be selected and then purchased in the years ahead?
The political implications of implementing the CCSS are more complex and
require a detailed exploration of existing literature on implementation efforts of previous
educational legislation as well as quantitative and qualitative research as to how district
leaders are currently implementing the CCSS in their districts. Kowalski (2006) states
that being the chief executive officer of any organization is a difficult assignment, and
being a school superintendent is no exception. “In today’s educational arena, the
superintendent is responsible for balancing the social, political, economic, and legal
problems that penetrate the schoolhouse, as well as for managing the tensions
surrounding these problems,” (p. 49). The CCSS will bring all of these challenges to
districts implementing them and it will be superintendents who navigate their districts
through problems as they arise.
Research states that the CCSS place a greater focus on critical college and
workplace skills such as student literacy of complex informational text (Kirst, 2013;
NGA, 2008, 2010a, 2010b;Rothman, 2012). Ultimately, the standards are an important
first step in redefining the education students receive in the K-12 setting (Rothman,
2012). What happens if those in education do not wish to be redefined? Superintendents
are under intense pressure to achieve buy-in from the majority of their district’s
stakeholders. As Adams (2010) suggests, “Implementation depends on willing
participants… With so much riding on individual effort, individual-level motivation
becomes a vital part of the implementation story. Misalignment between implementers’
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

8

personal goals and public goals can diminish a student’s or teacher’s willingness to do
new things or to do old things differently” (p. 15).
Statement of the Problem
The problem facing superintendents implementing the CCSS in their districts is
that change of such magnitude is difficult. There was no clear blueprint for successful
implementation of the CCSS for these leaders to implement and in the absence of such
knowledge leaders rely in part on past experiences, intuition and emotion (Sayegh et al.,
2004). Those under their leadership may rely on such variables as well. As such, the
leaders at the top of the districts’ hierarchies must be conscious of the feelings of their
teachers and site leaders and they must then select appropriate strategies and techniques
for implementing the standards with all of these variables in mind. Change agents fail
when they rely entirely on reason and structure and neglect human, political and symbolic
elements (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Stakeholders must be
convinced that the new standards are an improvement to the previous standards and that
they have value to teachers and students alike. The majority of stakeholders in districts
implementing the new standards must embrace them, if the goals of the CCSS are to be
met. This is as essential as the reality that the standards are now educational law in the
states that have adopted them. Most districts in California began implementation of the
CCSS on a procedural level during the 2013-2014 transition or “bridge” year, with full
implementation slated for 2014-2015 (CDE, 2013). In addition to limited concrete
knowledge about CCSS implementation, superintendents faced the added burden of a
timeline to implement the standards successfully.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

9

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the strategies, skills and decision-making
processes superintendents utilized while maneuvering the politics of implementing the
CCSS. This dissertation examines the impediments they faced when implementing the
organizational changes called for by the changing politics associated with the CCSS. If,
as Sayegh et al. (2004) suggest, in the absence of proven concrete knowledge to drive
decision-making leaders turn to intuition, emotion and past experiences in making
decisions, then the past experiences and gut feelings of superintendents will have an
impact on their implementation of the new standards. This dissertation then also
examines the influence superintendents’ prior experiences had on the strategies and
tactics they selected for CCSS implementation. A mixed methods study was conducted in
which implementation of the CCSS was explored in a variety of settings via surveys and
interviews of current superintendents.
Research Questions
To achieve the purpose of the study stated above, the following questions guided
this dissertation:
(1) What resources, strategies and skills did superintendents draw upon when
implementing the CCSS?
(2) What barriers, either organizational or external impediments, did
superintendents encounter, or do they expect to encounter, in the years ahead?
(3) What role did superintendents’ previous experiences play in the strategies and
tactics they selected?
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

10

(4) To what extent, did politics factor into the decision-making process as
superintendents implemented the CCSS?
Significance of the Study
This study shall add to the emerging body of literature related to the CCSS. By
critically examining implementation efforts of the new standards in California, this study
may inform others in other states, the District of Columbia and in the U.S. territories who
have adopted them. It will also contribute to the extensive literature related to
organizational change. District superintendents invest so much of their time responding to
the daily local challenges of being in charge of a large organization, —Bolman and
Deal’s structural frame—at times they have little opportunity to focus on their big-picture
vision, which encompasses Bolman and Deal’s symbolic frame. Cuban (1988) found that
“if the [role of instructional leader] aims to alter existing beliefs and behaviors of
members of the school community (p. 371), the fundamental purpose of the managerial
role is to maintain organizational stability” (p. 136). The CCSS requires both managing
talents and visionary leadership from superintendents. The strategies and skills
superintendents employed while implementing the CCSS were important, but equally
important were their abilities to communicate effectively, build consensus and politically
solicit buy-in and positive attitudes from stakeholders about the significance of the CCSS
to teachers and leaders within their districts. Bolman and Deal’s human resource and
political frames of leadership are therefore also essential as superintendents lead
implementation of the new standards in their districts. The CCSS aim to align all K-12
districts to one another and more importantly, to align K-12 education to the demands of
higher education and the workplace, thus making the U.S. more competitive in the 21
st

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

11

century. These are significant goals that will impact the future of education in the U.S.
This study examined how superintendents successfully implemented the standards, in
part by selling this big picture vision to stakeholders. In short, this study explored how
superintendents cut through the politics in the field of education by being shrewd
politically themselves. As such, this study shall, in a more widespread context, aid
leaders in their reform efforts—from local level efforts to more prescribed instructional
and curricular reforms driven by the state or federal government.
Methodology
The research design for this study was a mixed methods approach that consisted
of surveying and interviewing superintendents. Unique purposeful sampling was used
based on atypical attributes of the districts selected. Surveys were distributed
electronically and interviews were conducted with six of the superintendents initially sent
surveys for the study. Both the surveys and interviews contained specific questions
designed to answer the research questions stated earlier. Additionally, this research was
triangulated with a review of existing literature on the CCSS. Finally, the researcher
conducted an analysis of existing artifacts in the districts where the superintendents
interviewed were employed including public information digital data such as their
districts’ School Accountability Report Cards (SARC).
Assumptions
The results of this study assumed that the participants were truthful and honest in
their responses to the survey and interview questions posed. It also assumed that the most
recent API and AYP data were accurate models for determining both high-performing
districts and comparable like schools. It accepted that the standards California maintained
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

12

from the previous CCS were utilized appropriately in the districts examined so that there
was a significant shift in standards and in pedagogy taking place in districts
implementing the CCSS. Finally, it assumed that politics play a significant role in both
the sender’s delivery of a message and the recipient’s reception of a message. This study
thus assumed that the superintendent in each district studied had the respect of his or her
stakeholders, if only by nature of their title, to carry enough influence so as to attempt to
implement their vision in their district.
Limitations
This study was limited to the scope of the number of superintendents surveyed,
which was 40, and the number ultimately interviewed, which was six. It is possible,
perhaps even likely, that the view from the highest position in the district office may be
skewed in comparison to the view held by teachers and staff working within the same
district. Other limitations were:
(1) Validity of data was based on the choice of instrumentation used.
(2) Ability and willingness of participants to provide accurate responses.
Delimitations
A delimitation of this study was the timeline for completion. This study was
conducted during the 2013-2014 and early portion of the 2014-2015 school years, the
bridge year and first year of CCSS implementation in California. The findings of the
researcher are then limited to the very early results of CCSS implementation in the
districts selected. It may be too early to call implementation of new standards in any
district successful, or unsuccessful given such time constraints. Additionally, participants
in the interviews for this study had to meet the following criteria:
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

13

(1) They had served as a superintendent for at least two years, thus they had been in
their leadership role during implementation efforts of the CCSS.
(2) They had at least 12 years in education in total and could speak to previous
experiences related to standards-based teaching, such as the implementation of the
accountability model of NCLB.
(3) They were a superintendent in either a unified or high school district with an
average daily attendance (ADA) of 9,000 or more.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are referenced in this study, described in detail at first
reference and referenced by their acronyms thereafter. They are listed in the sequence
they appear in the study.
1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): First authorized by Congress
in 1965, the federal education policy that governs how federal funds are spent on
education. It has been reauthorized eight times, most recently under No Child Left
Behind (NCLB).
2. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of ESEA requiring
schools and districts to meet measurable data driven goals for student
achievement based on overall performance and the performance of subgroups as
determined by state standards-based assessments.
3. Subgroup: A group within a larger group, sharing the same common differential.
For the purpose of evaluating the performances of students against one another, a
subgroup is a testing group with a perceived disadvantage related to race,
language, special needs or socio-economics.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

14

4. Academic Performance Index (API): A state of California measure for academic
growth and progress in schools and districts. All schools should be “proficient” or
above 800 (out of 1,000) using this model.
5. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Federal measure for academic growth and
progress of schools and districts under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
6. Common Core State Standards (CCSS): The Common Core State Standards have
been developed in English Language Arts (ELA) and math and will be
implemented in 43 states, the District of Columbia and most United States
territories starting with the 2014-2015 school year in all public K-12 schools.
7. California Content Standards (CCS): The current standards first implemented in
1997, scheduled to be replaced by the CCSS in 2014.
8. Program Improvement (PI): Title I schools in California that fail to meet growth
targets fall into PI. Ramifications for being a PI-school vary depending on number
of years the site or district remains in PI.
9. Professional Development (PD): For the purposes of this study, PD refers to the
training of staff related to CCSS implementation.
10. College Career Readiness Standards (CCRs): An accompanying set of CCRs are
aligned to subject matter standards of the CCSS. A major push to the CCSS is
college and career readiness.
11. School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Since 1988, the California state law
has required all public schools receiving state funds to prepare and distribute a
SARC. The SARC includes demographical data, testing data, and faculty data and
is a good resource in the site’s progress towards developed goals.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

15

12. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The average daily attendance of a site or
district, critical in funding measures in the state of California.
13. English Language Arts (ELA): A subtest on many standardized assessments, or a
common acronym when discussing curriculum framework or standards in K-12
schooling and referencing reading, writing, or literacy.
14. Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA): A global study by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that assesses 15-year-
olds’ scholastic performance in math, science and reading conducted every three
years since 2000.
15. Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): First performed in 1995, the
TIMSS assesses math and science knowledge of fourth and eighth graders
conducted in four-year increments.
16. Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM): The use of data to make informed
decisions about public K-12 schooling.
17. National Governors’ Association (NGA): The national organization of Governors
in each state who worked with the Chief Council of State School Officials
(CCSSO) and other stakeholders in the development of the Common Core State
Standards Initiative (CCSSI).
18. English Learners (EL): Students whose primary language is one other than
English. A significant percentage of school-aged children in the U.S. today are EL
students and this is a subgroup of focus in the standards’ based era of education.
19. California Department of Education (CDE): The state of California’s public
education department.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

16

20. California Office to Reform Education (CORE): A nonprofit organization aiming
to improve public education made up of 10 districts and one million students in
the state of California.
21. Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC): State-led consortium working
to develop next-generation assessments that accurately measure student progress
toward college- and career-readiness. Smarter Balanced is one of two multistate
consortia awarded funding from the U.S. Department of Education in 2010 to
develop an assessment system aligned to the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) by the 2014-15 school year.
22. Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): California Governor Jerry Brown
returned control of K-12 school funding to local education agencies (LEA) and
districts signed July, 2013 (AB 97).
23. Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP): Under the LCFF, each district
must develop annual goals using multiple measures while working towards
meeting eight broad priorities established by the state legislature.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of
the study. It includes the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research
questions, significance of the study, limitations of the study, delimitations of the study,
definitions of terms and an overview of the entire dissertation. Chapter Two presents a
literature review of research on standards-based education, implementation of policy
changes in the field, the evolving role of the superintendent, how change of magnitude
must be sold within large organizations and the role emotions and intuition play in
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

17

managerial decision-making. Chapter Three contains the methodology, instruments used,
sample used for the research, and data reporting. Chapter Four reports the findings of the
data as they relate to the research questions guiding this study. Finally, Chapter Five
contains the final summary along with conclusions, future implications and
recommendations as they relate to current practices and future research.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

18

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
This chapter begins with a rationale for the theoretical framework for this study.
Then, in order to adequately examine the strategies, tactics and resources superintendents
employed during implementation of the CCSS, this chapter explores two areas; 1)
standards-based learning and accountability components of public education today, and
2) the evolving role of the superintendent. The first part of this chapter reviews the
history of standards-based education and how the United States got to the adoption of the
CCSS in 86% of all U.S. states. This includes a focus on the impact the accountability
measures put in place during NCLB had on standards-based education. Next, this chapter
reviews the role of the superintendent today and how this role has evolved in the
standards-based era. Examining the changing role of the superintendent highlights the
balance of manager and visionary leader that a superintendent must maintain as district
leader, and helps to justify the rationale for Bolman and Deal’s frames of leadership as
the framework for this study. Finally, this section examines the challenges of
implementing change in large organizations within the specific contexts of
superintendents implementing the CCSS.
Rationale for Theoretical Framework
As a theoretical framework which demonstrated the importance of the balance
between a superintendent’s role of manager of day-to-day operations and of innovative
leader navigating the political realm of leadership, the researcher focused on Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four frames of leadership: Structural, Human Resources, Political and
Symbolic. The role of the superintendent during CCSS implementation utilized all four
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

19

frames. Focus was given to the superintendent as political leader because, as Bolman and
Deal note, the political frame “is the key to success in certain jobs (p. 278).” As such, the
study examined the strategies and skills employed by superintendents as the person in
authority within a district and as the one who moved a district’s teachers and site leaders
towards successful CCSS implementation.
According to Merriam (2009), one of the clearest ways to identify one’s own
theoretical framework is to attend to the literature being reviewed. Most literature related
to the CCSS was written since 2008, when the NGA and the CCSSO began their
conception. It was this newness that drew the researcher to the CCSS in the first place,
his belief that the standards will drive the field of education in the years ahead. Merriam
(2009) suggests a review of one’s own disciplinary orientation, or the lens through which
the world is viewed. Coming from the frame of reference of an educational leader
attempting to implement the CCSS at his site, the researcher wanted to understand the
strategies and tactics employed by superintendents as they implemented these standards,
and required shifts in pedagogy required, in their districts. The researcher’s previous
experiences in education had him convinced that selling change to educators is difficult,
and at times impossible, and he wanted to explore how superintendents overcame the
politics associated with implementing change of such magnitude.
The science of management decision theory suggests that intuition and emotion
influence the decision-making of leaders (Sayegh et al., 2004). Sayegh et al. (2004)
examined the link of emotions to decisions made based on intuition, especially decisions
made in times of crisis conditions such as limited time or knowledge for choice
consideration. Their conceptual model of managerial decision-making underscores the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

20

role of emotions in an intuitive decision process. This is especially true in times of crisis
conditions, or in the presence of limited knowledge or a limited timeline. Slavin (2002;
2003) suggests this has long been applicable in the field of education as well, where
practitioners often make important decisions based on intuition, gut-feelings or fads. The
newness of the CCSS meant that there were few working models for successful
implementation. With implementation of the standards scheduled across districts in
California in the 2014-2015 school year there was also a clear timeline for completion.
This suggests many decisions related to CCSS were made based on the intuition of
superintendents and what they perceived would occur. These gut feelings are developed
largely by their past experiences, thus the conceptual model of managerial decision-
making by Sayegh, Anthony and Perrewe also has influence in the framework for this
dissertation. While Bolman and Deal (2003) form the theoretical framework for
examining the politics and management choices associated with implementing the CCSS,
the conceptual model of Sayegh et al. (2004) establishes a framework for how past
experiences, intuition and emotion influenced the strategies and tactics superintendents
employed during the implementation of new policy.
Historical Perspective of Standards-Based Education
Gardner (1983) began “A Nation at Risk” with the following:
While we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have
historically accomplished and contributed to the United States… the
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and as a
people (p. 1).

In his open letter to the American people, Gardner (1983) concluded that the
Nation’s school system was failing through a combined effort of diluted curriculum with
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

21

no central purpose, declining expectations, reduced time spent by students in a formal
learning environment and incompetent individuals who were being recruited to the
teaching profession. Gardner (1983) recommended loftier high school graduation
requirements with increased rigor in core content areas, the adoption of measurable
standards, increasing the school year up to 220 days and increased federal spending and
policies that support public education. Most of these ideals have been put in place in the
American educational system in the last quarter-century. The results have been mixed.
Gardner (1983) also cited countless figures that suggested the U.S. was falling
behind other developed countries and that the nation was “at risk” of losing its standing
economically and in the global market. This is the same argument made by proponents of
the CCSS today (NGA, 2008, 2010), however, Tienken (2011) suggests that this has
always been a faulty connection:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average broke 1,200 points for the first time on
April 26, 1983, the day A Nation at Risk was released… the Dow Jones
Industrial Average closed at 11,691 points on January 4, 2011, over a ten-
fold increase. The U.S. consistently outranks Japan on the World
Economic Forum’s Growth Competitive Index (p. 9).

Although Tienken (2011) concedes that the performance of American students on
the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) has declined in
comparison to other G20 countries, he also cites countless evidence to support his
contention that “test rankings simply do not correlate to economic strength,” (p. 9).
Adams (2010) agreed that the CCSS were an extension of this fear that the U.S. is falling
behind in a global market:
In 1983, the new excellence-oriented education debate was all about
mediocre student performance and international economic competition.
Twenty-seven years later—after two full generations of students have
transited K-12—the continuing education debate is about mediocre student
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

22

performance and international economic competition. The competitors
have changed, with China and India replacing West Germany and Japan as
the economic bugaboos… Throughout, the U.S. schools seemed animated
by an increasing sense of urgency but an incommensurate ability to
respond (p.6).

Although the U.S. dedicates more resources to education than any other nation
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009), student achievement has remained stagnant while other
developed nations continue to produce gains that surpass the U.S. on international tests
such as the PISA and the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Gonzales,
2007; OECD, 2007; Schleicher, 2006). While some dismiss this data, given the stark
differences in the educational systems and student demographics of these countries in
comparison to the public school system in the U.S., others interpret this to mean that the
American system is struggling to produce students with the knowledge and skills to
compete in the global market (Levine, 2005). The response to this perception was a push
for data-driven decision-making (DDDM) and accountability measures such as NCLB.
Ultimately, this led to the development of the CCSS and a major selling point of the new
standards was that they were internationally benchmarked (Kirst, 2013).
Standards-Based Learning and Data-Driven Decision-Making (DDDM)
Standards-based learning and data-driven decision-making came to exist as a
means to track student progress and to hold schools accountable for their students. Many
believe that data generated by these educational practices hold keys to predicting a
nation’s future success (Baker, 2010; Davidson, et al., 2012; Tienken, 2011). Proponents
of the CCSS point to the decline in the performance of American students on
international tests in science and math as evidence of the need for clear and standardized
expectations across the country as opposed to standards that vary state-to-state. The
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

23

NGA’s case made while developing the CCSS is similar to Gardner’s argument three
decades earlier:
The United States is falling behind other countries in the resource that
matters most in the new global economy, human capital. American 15-
year-olds ranked 25
th
in math and 21
st
in science achievement in the most
recent international assessment conducted in 2006 (NGA, 2008).

The National Governor’s Association’s (NGA) literature also echoed Gardner’s
concern about the rate at which Americans sought higher education stating, “the U.S. is
rapidly losing its historic edge in educational attainment as well (p. 6).” As evidence it
pointed to the fact that as recently as 1995 the U.S. was still tied for first in college
graduation rates, however, by 2006 it had dipped to 14
th
. That same year, it had the
second-highest college dropout rate of the 27 countries that participated in the PISA
(NGA, 2008). In 2010, when the CCSS were finalized, the NGA and the Council for
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) had agreed that, while states should maintain
control of how schools teach students, there was a need to create national standards that
produced consistency in what students were learning state to state. Though the CCSS are
not mandated national standards, they have been adopted by the majority of states in the
U.S. and are thus de facto national standards (Baker, 2010; Tienken, 2011).
Critics argue that standards-based testing data tell only part of the story. Baker
(2010) suggests that, “for more than a half a century reformers have been trying to fix our
schools with little success… if something takes that long to fix it isn’t broken in the first
place,” (p. 60). He argues that test scores are more strongly affected by factors beyond
the control of schools. In example, he contends that home factors are a far greater
variable. As evidence he used a pre-post test design to measure the influence of schools
on learning. He pulled data from a three-year longitudinal study of 120,000 elementary
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

24

age children who took the CTBS standardized test. Tests were given twice a year and the
data set of 4,000 students representing the diversity amongst American school children
was used as the sample size. He concluded that school-aged children learned academic
content at school, not home, but that the home environment frequently had a negative
effect on learning, especially in math (Baker, 2010). This pattern was most consistent
with students from poverty and from minority groups. His data supports arguments that
schools, “whether deemed ‘good’ or ‘bad’ through the accountability model under
NCLB, do not take tests, students do,” and that “the arguments supporting national
standards based on students’ measured outcomes do not hold up,” (Baker, 2010, p. 65). If
test scores are not truly the measure of a good school, critics argue, then they most
certainly cannot be a future predictor of a nation’s success in the global economy either
(Tienken, 2011).
Proponents of the CCSS would argue that Baker’s argument, that home and other
environments have a greater impact on learning than the school environment, is the exact
reason the new standards are necessary. A core component of the CCSS is to develop
metacognitive skills that foster learning in both the formal and informal learning
environment. According to the LIFE Center’s diagram of life-long and life-wide learning
(Figure 2.1), even through a student’s K-12 experience they spend only 18.5% of their
waking hours in the formal learning environment. This number dwindles during an
individual’s time in the workforce and in retirement. As such, far more learning takes
place in the informal environment than a formal one, thus the development of critical
thinking skills such as those sought by the new standards are essential for an individual’s
capacity to be successful in the 21
st
century.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

25

Figure 2.1. Estimated time spent in school and informal learning environments.
This diagram shows the relative percentage of their waking hours that people across the
lifespan spend in formal educational environments and other activities. The calculations
were made on the best available statistics for a whole year basis on how much time
people at different points across the lifespan spend in formal instructional environments.
(Reproduced with permission of The LIFE Center.)

NCLB
High-stakes testing was at the core of NCLB. Tests were used to hold schools,
districts and states accountable for student performance, therein affording the federal
government greater control over the constitutionally decentralized national system of
United States’ education (Menken, 2009). President Bush signed NCLB into law,
mandating that all students would be 100% proficient in English and math assessments
by 2014. This legislation was the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA, the main
federal law funding public education in the U.S.. ESEA was first enacted in 1965 as part
of President Lyndon Johnson's “War on Poverty” to ensure funding for poor children, and
it has been reauthorized eight times since its conception (Menken, 2009). NCLB
legislation made schools more accountable for the performance of its students and
teachers. However, many educational leaders largely condemned it because of its many
flaws, especially concerning unrealistic growth targets (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

26

While proponents of NCLB have suggested that its lasting legacy will be its focus
on closing the achievement gap between English-only affluent students and their peers
from lower socioeconomic households, English language learners (ELs) and students
with disabilities (SWD), one criticism of the legislation was the lack of flexibility in
assessing such students alternatively. As such, some critics argued that the unjust laws of
NCLB’s accountability model actually placed students from disadvantaged groups at a
further disadvantage in the assessments that compared them to their Caucasian and
English-only peers. The label often assigned to such subgroups, and thus the schools with
large percentages of their population coming from these subgroups, was “failure.” As the
growth targets increased as NCLB aged, it was the underperformance of subgroups that
often found schools heading into program improvement. This was especially true for EL
students in states such as California, Texas and Florida where such students made up a
large percentage of all students (Menken, 2009). Though under NCLB each state had the
freedom to develop its own assessment system, the law specified testing in both English
and mathematics and required that EL students be included in the same statewide testing
procedures that were administered to native English speakers (Menken, 2009). This
contradicts research that suggests students from second-language subgroups should be
assessed by alternative means (Kieffer, Lesaux, Rivera & Francis, 2009). A meta-analysis
of recent literature and an empirical study of testing accommodations of EL students
concluded that the language of assessment should match students’ primary language of
instruction (Kieffer et al., 2009; Pennock-Roman & Rivera, 2011). Since the law required
EL students to instead take assessments in English, such students lagged far behind their
English-only peers. For example, one recent national assessment of reading and math saw
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

27

only a small minority of EL students score at proficient levels (4% to 11%, depending on
grade and subject), compared to a third or more of native English speakers (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2009). According to the most recent census data, EL
students represent over 4.5 million students nationwide, or roughly eight percent of all K-
12 students in the United States (Abedi & Gandara, 2006). Some projections have the
number of school-aged children of immigrant families reaching nearly 18 million in the
next ten years and many will require EL support. Such data provides the framework for
the achievement gap dilemma. While NCLB succeeded in bringing attention to students
who previously may have slipped through the cracks, its assessment model was flawed
and often left behind the same students it aimed to support. Ultimately, many educators
believe the legislation did as much harm as good to American public schools (Darling-
Hammond, 2007).
Accountability
When President Bush pushed the United States Congress to sign NCLB in 2002 the
standards-based education movement that began under President Bill Clinton in the late
1990s had new rules and regulations that placed a new level of accountability on public
schools across the country (Davidson et al., 2012). In place of a previous system that
allowed educators to work in isolation in their own one-room school houses, NCLB
enacted a federal accountability system focused on closing the achievement gap between
the nation’s highest achievers and those struggling to keep pace through data-driven
decision-making (Darling-Hammond, 2007). While this landmark legislation called for
new accountability measures it also allowed states to adopt accountability systems
measuring student proficiency on standards-based state administered exams in their
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

28

states. This led to unreliable data in many states. It also led educators and politicians to
agree that there were both good outcomes and unattended consequences associated with
NCLB (Davidson et al., 2012). Most stakeholders agree that the role of the federal
government was too far-reaching and that a growth target system of accountability that
called for 100% of students to be proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics was unattainable for nearly all students (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
In California, growth targets associated with the NCLB model were attainable at
first but grew increasingly lofty by the mid-2000s (Menken, 2009). With more and more
schools being labeled failures under this model some districts took extreme action. On
August 6, 2013, eight school districts in California participating in the California Office
to Reform Education (CORE) were granted their joint request for flexibility with respect
to certain requirements under NCLB, in exchange for setting up a new accountability
system and committing to improving academic achievement for all elementary and
secondary school students in their districts (McNeal, 2013). It was the first of its kind in
the sense that traditionally waivers are granted to states, not individual districts. Although
the CORE districts; Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San
Francisco, Santa Ana, and Sanger Unified School Districts filed jointly, the waivers were
granted to each individual district. Although the California Department of Education
(CDE) should have spearheaded these reform efforts, the CORE districts’ efforts, and the
federal government’s decision to grant their waiver request, was well-timed, in between
the state’s adoption of the CCSS in 2010 and the implementation of the standards in
2014. Although it remains to be seen how successful the CORE districts were in
achieving their goals, their new system of accountability will grade schools and districts
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

29

on a barrage of new factors beyond standardized tests including cultural elements,
academic areas beyond English and math such as social science and science, and the
outsourcing of its Title I expenditures which would have fewer restrictions under the new
system by eliminating the 20% allocation to Supplemental Educational Services (SES).
The CORE waiver, titled the School Quality Improvement System (SQIS) calls for an
holistic and systematic approach to school improvement (McNeil, 2013). It focuses on
college and career readiness, a major component of the CCSS.
Since 2007, and with the expiration of NCLB, many states secured federal
funding such as Title I dollars through a waiver application process. As a caveat for such
funds, states adhered to mandates required by the federal government. An example of this
includes states tying teacher evaluations to student performance on standards-based tests
which was a mandate for states to be eligible for the Obama Administration’s Race to the
Top money (McNeil, 2013). It also contributed to the adoption of the CCSS by 43 states,
the District of Columbia and most U.S. territories (Davidson et al., 2012). As of late2014,
some early proponents of the CCSS reversed course and spoke out against the standards
citing that the political pressure tactics described above were an example of federal
government overreach. Among these critics were Republican governors such as
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. The motivation for such reversal of attitude towards
the standards is discussed later in this chapter.
Standards, Accountability and the Common Core
According to Heritage and Yeagley (2005) schools need accurate and actionable
information about what students know and can do so that they can plan accordingly for
effective learning. Student achievement should drive decisions related to education and
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

30

students can best be measured when reliable data exists. Unfortunately, much of the data
created in the era of NCLB was inconsistent, unreliable and flawed; yet it was used for
punitive measures against schools, districts and states (Baker, 2010; Davidson et al.,
2012; Heritage & Yeagley, 2005; Stecker & Kirby, 2004). Clearly, there was a need for
reliable data measurements in K-12 schools in an era of increased accountability.
Additionally, strong evidence exists that the standards and assessments created in many
states prior to CCSS implementation was inadequate in preparing students for higher
education learning. Even in California, where the CCS were considered far more rigorous
than those in many states, successful high school students entered college unprepared. As
of 2012, 60% of high school seniors who graduated with GPAs above 3.0 and who met
the a-g requirements for admission to the CSU system needed remediation in math,
English or both (CSU, 2012), The pre-CCSS system failed to prepare students for
college. While the focus on the achievement gap under NCLB indirectly increased
learning outcomes for all students, there remained much work to be done. Under CCSS
the focus will be teaching students to think critically, write based on supporting evidence
of experts and make connections across all content areas (Kirst, 2013). These are skills
applicable to higher education.
Baker (2010) concludes the CCSS were a by-product of a flawed system of
accountability under NCLB. With the adoption of the standards by the majority of states
they are de facto national standards implemented in most states at the start of the 2014-
2015 school year. If one subscribes to the idea that accountability is a good thing in
education, then one must also acknowledge a need for common standards. Students need
the luxury of a model that guides instruction and common expectations if they are to
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

31

ultimately end-up in the same place. While proponents of the CCSS, like the researcher,
might be reaching with their assertion that American students are falling behind other
nations, there is solid evidence that suggests that at the very least they are entering
college less prepared than they once were and the CCSS aim to make college and career
readiness a reality for students (Kirst, 2013).
Common Core State Standards Initiative
First initiated in 2008, the CCSS were released in 2010 by the National
Governors’ Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
A state-led effort to create a common national curriculum was developed in conjunction
with stakeholders on all levels of education including classroom teachers (Kirst, 2013).
The standards themselves consist of literacy standards for English and other core content
classes, mathematics standards and linked college and career readiness standards (CCRs)
conceived as a way of addressing concerns about the U.S. and its global competitiveness
in the years ahead (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). The standards are
research-based, internationally benchmarked, and rooted in 21
st
century skills that will
improve all K-12 students’ ability to thrive in higher education or the workplace after
high school (NGA & CCSSO 2010a, 2010b; Kirst, 2013).
The CCSS improve upon the criticisms of the former CCS and the standards in
other states in several ways:
(1) Whereas previous standards were viewed as “a mile-wide and an inch-
deep,” or rather, were criticized for their focus on breadth not depth of
content knowledge (Causey-Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011), the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

32

CCSS focus students garnering meta-cognitive skills that promote life-
long and life-wide learning (NGA, 2010b).
(2) The CCSS English Language Arts standards require regular practice
with various complex texts and their academic language, citing
evidence from literary and informational documents and building a
knowledge base through complex non-fiction (NGA, 2010a).
(3) The CCSS mathematics standards emphasize a wider focus on fewer
topics, on coherence that links concepts across grade levels and rigor
that pursues conceptual understanding and application with equal
intensity (NGA, 2010b).
(4) The CCSS college and career standards emphasize preparing students
for a 21
st
century global market and demonstrate the relevance of
academic skills in real-world settings (Kirst, 2013).
(5) Linked core content areas guided by literacy standards that apply to
social science, science and technical subjects as well as English classes
(Kirst, 2013).
This emphasis on critical thinking and higher cognitive demands represents a
change as well because the new standards indicate not only what content should be taught
but what levels of learning will occur as well (NGA & CCSSO 2010a, 2010b; Kirst,
2013). Early critics of the CCSS argued that they did not articulate to teachers how such
meta-cognitive skills and new thinking skills should be taught to students (Jenkins &
Agamba, 2013; Tienken, 2011). Proponents have argued that this is precisely the point;
the CCSS move away from the prescribed cookie-cutter curriculum created under NCLB
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

33

and towards a more layered curriculum with multiple strands and based on varying levels
of academic readiness (Kirst, 2013).
Politics in Play
The initial criticism of the CCSS also seems to contradict the more recent panic-
pushback of some politicians from the right who rallied against the CCSS on the eve of
their full implementation. They argued that the standards were a federal attempt to
control education, which traditionally and constitutionally is a state right. At the time of
this study, the CCSS were facing scrutiny from politicians in states that had been early
supporters. This criticism appeared to be more politically charged than an indictment on
the aims of the standards themselves (Chant, 2014). In March of 2014, Indiana Governor
Mike Pence signed legislation that pulled his state out of the CCSS adoption.
“I believe our students are best served when decisions about education are made
at the state and local level.” Pence expanded on that idea, suggesting that Indiana’s exit
from the Common Core could provide a model for other state governments. “I believe
when we reach the end of this process there are going to be many other states around the
country that will take a hard look at the way Indiana has taken a step back, designed our
own standards.”
Some states headed by Republican governors did follow Pence’s lead. In the
months that followed, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Oklahoma Governor
Mary Fallin rolled back CCSS requirements in their states (Chant, 2014). In late June of
2014, Jindal reversed course and signed an executive order attempting to pull his state out
of commitments to the CCSS (Layton, 2014). However, his education superintendent,
John White, quickly rebuffed Jindal and stated CCSS implementation would continue as
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

34

planned. The federal government was also equally dismissive of Jindal’s executive order,
with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan citing that Jindal had been part of the NGA
committee that developed the standards and claiming that his reversal was more about
politics than about education (Layton, 2014).
Pence, Fallin and Jindal had supported the CCSS previously from their design to
the dawn of their implementation. The three governors also lead states in need of
educational reform as Indiana, Oklahoma and Louisiana ranked close to the bottom of the
2014 Education Week Research Center’s 2014 Achievement Index, which factors into
account student performance on the NAEP, AP scores and high school graduation rates
(EWRC, 2014). That said, as the 2014-2015 school year approached the CCSS detractors
seemed to be winning the public relations game in the state of California. According to a
PACE/Rossier School of Education poll released in June of 2014, 44% of voters had a
negative impact of the new standards, while only 38% had a positive view of them
(Ballasone, 2014). The poll also revealed that the public is greatly misinformed about the
new standards, with those against the CCSS calling them, “A Washington D.C. one-size
fits all approach to education.” The criticism was greatly divided amongst political party
lines, with 56% of Republicans against the standards. Education Policy Expert Morgan
Polikoff, Assistant Professor at USC, called it a messaging problem. “In a strong
Democratic state that has seen few implementation problems, this points to a real
messaging problem for advocates of Common Core,” he said. (Ballasone, 2014)
The number of legislation efforts also increased steadily. Figure 2.2 demonstrates
that in 2014 more bills were introduced related to CCSS than in 2013. Additionally, there
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

35

was more than three times the number of bills passed in 2014 than in 2012 related to the
CCSS.

Figure 2.2 (From NCSL, 2014): CCSS bills proposed by month and year.

In the 18 months prior to implementation across the U.S.,10 states enacted laws
placing restrictions or specifications on how state boards may adopt the academic
expectations for the CCSS. In total, 50 bills were introduced in 10 states seeking changes
to the procedures by which the standards were reviewed or adopted in their states (NCSL,
2014). Most of the measures died in committee, but as were the cases in Indiana,
Oklahoma, Louisiana and other Republican-controlled states there were times where the
bills passed into law. Figure 2.3 shows the politics in play on the dawn of CCSS
implementation across the country.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

36

Figure 2.3. More than half the states that have adopted the CCSS have filed legislation
related to the assessment components of the standards. Four have looked to delay or
revoke the standards themselves. Data derived from a July, 2014 NCSL analysis of
StateNet data.

Those in the field of education had a much different view of the CCSS than the
politicians seizing a platform to speak to voters. A July 2014 Education Weekly/Gallup
survey of nearly 1,800 superintendents found that two-thirds of district superintendents
believed the CCSS will improve the quality of education in their communities (Heltin,
2014). The superintendents also believed by the same two-thirds margin that the
standards provided the right amount of rigor for students, with only 14% claiming that
they were too difficult (Heltin, 2014). Clearly, educational leaders have to be at the
forefront of the CCSS movement and as such, they must increase public awareness and
understanding of the new standards. The issue may be time or what Sayegh et al. (2004)
call a “crisis condition” given the 2014 timeline to adopt the CCSS and given all the
superintendency has become today.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

37

T od ay’s Role of the Superintendent
The role of superintendent has evolved over time (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005;
Kowalski, 2005). In “Education: The Cult of Efficiency,” Callahan (1962, 1966)
described the original role of superintendents as “teachers of teachers.” Today, the job
encompasses managerial roles in finances, politics and accountability in addition to the
traditional role as instructional leader (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). Additionally, in the age
of information, superintendents have needed to demonstrate excellent communication
skills (Houston, 2001; Kowalski, 2005). The state and federal accountability measures
under NCLB forced superintendents to combine all of these skills as their districts
focused on student achievement while promoting collaboration and accountability within
their organization (Elmore, 2004). This total package approach to leadership involves all
four of Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership with politics being the most
important. Bjork and Kowalski (2005) state that it has significantly intensified the need
for the superintendent to be politically savvy. Kowalski (2005) suggests that the political
role of the superintendent came to be following the Great Depression, when they were
first expected to mount support for educational systems. Today, they are in an even more
visible role for selling the vision for schools in their district to the public (Kowalski,
2005).
With the standards-based reform movement and accountability measures of the
last 30 years, superintendents have again returned to their historical role as instructional
leader. However, they maintained all of their other duties as managers of the day-to-day
activities, human resource experts and public relations experts (Glass et al, 2002;
Kowalski, 2005). Additionally, with the state and federal accountability measures put in
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

38

place under NCLB, the superintendent was tasked with increasing student performance
under a model that was not always fair. Since these measures were often seen as the
scorecard that labeled schools “good” or “bad,” superintendents were tasked with
becoming experts in navigating a complex system. While this was nothing new, as in the
aftermath of Gardner’s piece in the 1980’s, there was new pressure to increase graduation
rates and prepare students for a future in an unpredictable era, and the standards-based
reform efforts of the 1990’s and the era of NCLB brought efforts to tie funding for
districts to student performance on standards-based assessments. This was a new
phenomenon that characterized education at the end of the 20
th
century (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski, 2005).
CCSS Implementation Efforts: Challenges and Opportunities
Togneri and Anderson (2003) state that superintendents yield the most power
within a school district to affect policy and allocate district resources. This is significant
power during the shifts in philosophy, pedagogy and practices called for during CCSS
implementation (Kirst, 2013). As stated in Chapter 1, Superintendents will need to review
district curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, assessments, finances, PD,
teacher and administrator evaluation systems, preschool programs and other programs in
the years ahead (Kirst, 2013). These are practical concerns with political ramifications.
Although the standards were created collaboratively with stakeholders from both the K-
12 and higher education arenas, as explored earlier, building consensus on the standards
proved challenging at all levels of education and of politics. Getting all stakeholders on
board with shifts in pedagogy and practices will prove challenging. For superintendents
in California this will mean continuing to shift instructional focus from the CCS,
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

39

standards that had been in place for 15 years, towards the CCSS. The superintendents
who implemented the CCSS in their districts had to select resources and strategies and
utilize their skills wisely. They had to respect the momentum built over the three decades
prior, but they also had to clearly define the new expectations associated with the new
standards.
In addition to new standards, superintendents in California had to also implement
a redistribution of funding through Governor Jerry Brown’s Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF), which was designed to restore control of where money is spent to the
local education agencies (LEAs), as prescribed by a local control and accountability plan
(LCAP) (CDE, 2014). This required superintendents to work collaboratively with
stakeholders on all levels of K-12 education to make decisions about their funding.
Research continuously finds that when political policies alter funding for education the
resource use patterns of schools and districts remain remarkably similar to those
exhibited prior to the fiscal reform efforts (Adams, 2010; Picus, Odden, Aportela,
Mangan & Goetz, 2008; Picus & Wattenbarger, 1995). In one example, data from the
past half-century found that the percentage of the current operating education budget
spent on instruction in districts, regardless of size or demographics, has remained at 60%
although spending within instruction has shifted significantly (Picus et al., 2008).
Research that examined school finance adequacy issues also found that there is little
differentiation at the district level (Adams, 2010; Picus & Odden, 2011) and that even at
the site level, many schools have a hard time breaking from traditional models (Adams,
2010). In theory, the LCFF gave autonomy to districts to determine the best allocation of
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

40

their resources during implementation efforts of the CCSS. In this sense, there was an
opportunity for superintendents to move their districts from traditional models.
Bolman and Deal
According to Bolman and Deal (2003) organizations are “living, screaming,
political arenas that host a complex web of individual and group interests” (p. 186). Five
propositions summarize this perspective (Bolman & Deal, 2003):
1) Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups.
2) There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs,
information, interests and perceptions of reality.
3) Most important decisions involve allocation of scarce resources, or who gets
what.
4) Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to
organizational dynamics and underline power as the most important asset.
5) Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation and jockeying for
position among competing stakeholders.
Bolman and Deal (2003) also suggest that consensus is easier to achieve when everyone
shares similar values, beliefs and culture. A foundation for successful CCSS
implementation was getting all involved to view the standards as a positive continuation
of what teachers and administrators were already doing, rather than a replacement for the
things that they were doing erroneously. The responsibility for making this the point-of-
view of the district falls in part on district management and the fashion in which it
implemented the CCSS in the district. Communication and collaboration were essential.
As Kowalski (2006) states, “Communicative expectations for administrators reflect a
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

41

confluence of reform initiatives and the social environment in which they are being
pursued…. Virtually every major school improvement concept and
strategy encourages superintendents to work collaboratively with principals, teachers,
parents and other taxpayers to build and pursue collective visions” (p. 47).
Such collaboration was called for during CCSS implementation, however,
research also suggests that getting the stakeholders enthusiastic and committed to
working collaboratively about the changes was only part of the battle; sustaining such
dialogue is tough. Brazer, Rich and Ross (2010) studied three school districts in real time
and concluded that despite their superintendents' substantial efforts to engage in
collaborative strategic decision making, collaboration virtually ended once decisions
were made and districts shifted into implementation. Any time new policies are being
enacted, in a sense, the decision has already been made. This suggests that it was vital for
superintendents to involve stakeholders in the decision-making for CCSS implementation
from the early stages of their roll out of the new standards. Then, there is the need for a
continued focus on collaboration. The politics are complex, as Bolman and Deal (2003)
suggest, “the dominate group in a school district may be the teachers’ union rather than
the school board or the superintendent….Constructive politics is a possibility—indeed, a
necessary possibility if we are to create institutions and societies that are both just and
efficient” (p. 201).
Organizational change and effectiveness depend on a manager’s political skills
and constructive politicians recognize and understand this reality (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Superintendents needed to be politically savvy—to prioritize, garner support, negotiate
with adversaries such as teachers’ unions and build consensus. As Bolman and Deal
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

42

(2003) suggest, they had to ultimately determine when to adopt open-dialogue and when
they wanted to prioritize their own agendas. The CCSS called for a balanced approach of
the two extremes and a constant maneuvering between the managerial role of the
superintendent, Bolman and Deal’s human resource and structural frames, and the role
required to be a transformational change agent or visionary leader—what Bolman and
Deal refer to as the symbolic and political frames.
Management Decision Theory
The science of management decision theory suggests that intuition and emotion
influence the decision-making of leaders. Sayegh et al. (2004) examined the link of
emotions to decisions made based on intuition, especially decisions made in times of
crisis conditions such as limited time or concrete knowledge for choice consideration.
Their conceptual model of managerial decision-making underscores the role of emotions
in an intuitive decision process. In the absence of concrete knowledge, leaders are more
likely to rely on previous experiences in the decision-making process. The newness of the
CCSS meant that superintendents had few working models for successful
implementation, thus an absence of concrete knowledge existed. The CCSS was
implemented with the start of the 2014-2015 school year, and represented the burden of a
deadline, or limited time to make decisions. This suggests superintendents had to make
some decisions based on intuition and what they perceived would occur as the new
standards were implemented at their sites. With a scarcity of time to implement the
CCSS, superintendents had to be tactical with the strategies they ultimately employed.
And, in the absence of a tested model to follow for implementation, these skilled leaders
had to combine their previous experiences in a leadership role, their new knowledge of
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

43

the CCSS, their intuition based on their knowledge of stakeholders in their district and
other variables.
Summary
The panic created in 1983 by Gardner’s “A Nation at Risk,” has taken K-12
education in the U.S. to where it is today. There was both good progress and unintended
consequences associated with NCLB. A positive was the new attention given to closing
the achievement gap between the nation’s highest achieving students and its lowest,
many of whom faced the challenges associated with being EL learners, students with
disabilities or those who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.
During the 2014-2015 school year, the CCSS were implemented in most states,
Washington D.C. and many U.S. territories. In theory, the aim of these de facto national
standards was to link K-12 learning to higher education, teach students to think wider and
deeper, encourage writing across the curriculum and to make connections across core-
content areas. Few argue that these goals are not ideal, but many point out that the chief
aim of NCLB, making 100% of students in the U.S. proficient in English and math by
2014, was also ideal but that it was idealistic and impractical in application. Much
remains to be done on the part of superintendents to assure their teachers and site level
administrators that the CCSS are policy worth rallying behind. At the time of this study,
proponents of the CCSS were losing ground in the public relations battle on the dawn of
implementation in many states. It will be largely superintendents who solicit support for
the new standards in their districts and communities and who increase understanding of
the standards.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

44

This study examines the strategies, skills and resources superintendents employed
as they implemented the CCSS in their districts. The researcher was especially interested
in exploring the political piece of implementing new policy. As such, the theoretical
framework for this study relies on Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames of leadership,
with an emphasis on the political frame, and the science of managerial decision-making
under the conceptual model of Sayegh et al. (2004). With the CCSS implemented in
2014-2015 and with so many unknowns present, superintendents implementing the new
standards in their district fit their criteria for a crisis condition.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

45

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As stated in Chapter 1, a mixed methodology was used to conduct the research for
this dissertation using both qualitative and quantitative measurements. A mixed methods
study affords the researcher an opportunity to obtain qualitative and quantitative data
through the use of interviews and surveys (Creswell, 2009). The rationale for this
decision is explained throughout this chapter.
Research Questions
To achieve the purpose of the study stated in Chapter 1, the following questions
guided this dissertation:
(1) What resources, strategies and skills did superintendents draw upon when
implementing the CCSS?
(2) What barriers, either organizational or external impediments, did
superintendents encounter, or do they expect to encounter, in the years ahead?
(3) What role did superintendents’ previous experiences play in the strategies and
tactics they selected?
(4) To what extent did politics factor into the decision-making process as
superintendents implemented the CCSS?
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study
The rationale for a mixed-methods design is as follows:
Qualitative Methods
The research questions examined in this dissertation were focused on the
strategies and tactics utilized and the decisions superintendents made, while recognizing
the role politics played in implementing the CCSS in their districts. The data sought in
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

46

answering the research questions were “emergent” as each superintendent is unique and
each superintendent works in a unique setting (Merriam, 2009). Recognizing this, a
qualitative method of data analysis was necessary because it provided details about
human characteristics, behaviors and personalities essential in addressing the research
questions. It also revealed the like-characteristics and unique characteristics of each
district, as perceived by the superintendents themselves. Finally, qualitative methods
closed the gap in knowledge regarding the strategies and tactics these leaders ultimately
utilized and the thought-process and rationale behind the decisions they made.
Through interview protocols, the researcher for this study understood the role
politics and the past experiences of superintendents had in their implementation of the
CCSS. The conscious and subconscious influence these phenomena had on the strategies
and tactics superintendents ultimately utilized for CCSS implementation could not be
understood using only quantitative methods. These associations could best be identified
and understood by using qualitative methods as well. As Maxwell (2010) suggests, the
goal of a qualitative study is to provide accuracy, dependability and reliability to the data
collection process. While the perspectives of those involved and the uncovering of the
human element in a contextual comprehensive framework was essential in answering the
research questions, credibility was also essential if the research of this dissertation was to
be deemed valid. In order to establish credibility and validity, it was important to
triangulate data using multiple measurements.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

47

Quantitative Methods
Merriam (2009) explains that triangulation means using multiple sources of data
to confirm, check and compare information. By triangulating data, conclusions could be
made that are more accurate and viable because they will have been compared through
multiple measures of assessment. While qualitative measurement was important to this
research study, a quantitative methodology was employed to add perspective to the data
and to establish the necessary triangulation. The data collection method used to establish
a quantitative measurement was a survey. Superintendents were surveyed electronically
for an initial examination of the strategies, tactics and resources these leaders employed
in the implementation of the CCSS in their districts.
Research Design
Identifying and examining the strategies, tactics and resources that
superintendents in midsized unified or high school districts in California employed
during implementation of the CCSS required significant time and resources. In order to
address the research questions adequately, a mixed-methods design was required. The
study began with a quantitative survey sent to 67 superintendents in the state. Of the 67
surveys, 40 were returned electronically through a third-party website (60% return-rate).
Following an analysis of this survey data, six superintendents participated in qualitative
interviews. Additionally, documents were reviewed to support and seek specific data
based upon findings identified by the other surveys and interviews.
Sample and Population
For this research study, unique purposeful sampling was used in selecting
participants based on atypical attributes of the area of study (Merriam, 2009). In the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

48

implementation of the CCSS, only the superintendent could appropriately answer the role
politics ultimately played in the strategies and tactics employed in the implementation of
the new standards. Whereas many district leaders might be involved in selecting
strategies, tactics and best practices in the implementation phase of new standards such as
the CCSS, each of them ultimately answers to the superintendent. Furthermore, it is the
superintendent who explains the rationale for decisions made and sells them to all
stakeholders including board members, community members, site leaders and teachers.
It was important that the superintendents selected for the research in this
dissertation had at least 12 years of experience in education. The researcher was
interested in examining to what extent previous experiences, such as the implementation
of NCLB, may have influenced the strategies and tactics superintendents selected for
CCSS implementation. For this question to be answered, the researcher had to interview
respondents with enough time in education to make such associations and to address the
specific research question. Additionally, it was important that superintendents
interviewed had at least two years in their current position. This was a necessary
prerequisite for participation in this study because it ensured that they were serving as
superintendents in their current district when many of the early decisions related to CCSS
implementation were being made. Finally, seasoned experience both in education and as
a superintendent validated that they had the professional experience to respond to the
interview questions and have their responses deemed credible and valid.
It is also worth noting that although unique purposeful sampling was a primary
factor in selecting the respondents for this study, there was also an element of
convenience sampling as well. Time, location and availability were all barriers to this
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

49

study. Some dimension of convenience sampling almost always figures into sampling
selection, however, the integrity of the information obtained from the data collection
protocols would not be credible if the sample selection is made on this basis alone
(Merriam, 2009). For the purpose of this study, the convenience of interviewing
superintendents in the surrounding area was balanced by the professional experiences of
the individuals interviewed and surveyed, thus the data obtained was valid.
Instrumentation
Review of the Theoretical Framework
As a theoretical framework for demonstrating the importance of both the
managerial and political realms of leadership, the researcher focused on Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four frames of leadership: Structural, Human Resources, Political and
Symbolic. Bolman and Deal note that the political frame “is the key to success in certain
jobs (p. 278).” For this study, a focus was given to the strategies and tactics employed by
superintendents as the person in authority within a district, the manager role, and as the
one who ultimately moves a district’s teachers and site leaders towards successful CCSS
implementation and who politically “sells” both new practices and policies to the
members of their districts—the visionary leader.
As stated in Chapter 2, according to Merriam (2009), one of the clearest ways to
identify one’s theoretical framework is to attend to the literature. Most literature related
to the CCSS was written since 2008 when states first began adopting the standards and
piloting them in their districts. It is this nuance, the early stages of the CCSS and the
optimism that comes with its implementation, that drew the researcher to the CCSS in the
first place. The researcher perceived that the standards will drive the field of education in
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

50

the years ahead and that successful implementation in districts was critical. Merriam
(2009) also suggests a review of one’s own disciplinary orientation, or the lens through
which the world is viewed. Coming from the frame of reference of an educational leader
presently attempting to implement the CCSS at his site, the researcher wanted to
understand the strategies and tactics employed by superintendents as they implement
these standards in their districts. The researcher’s experiences in education had him
convinced that selling change to educators is difficult, and at times impossible, and he
wanted to explore how superintendents overcame the politics associated with
implementing the CCSS in their districts.
The science of management decision theory also suggests that intuition and
emotion influences the decision-making of leaders (Sayegh et al., 2004). The research of
Sayegh et al. (2004) examines the link of emotions to decisions made based on intuition,
especially decisions made in times of crisis conditions such as limited time or knowledge
for choice consideration. Managerial decision-making theory underscores the role of
emotions in an intuitive decision process. The newness of the CCSS meant that there are
few working models for successful implementation. Full implementation of the standards
was scheduled across districts in California during the 2014-2015 school year. This
would suggest some decisions were made based on the intuition of superintendents and
what they perceived would occur. While Bolman and Deal (2003) formed the theoretical
framework related to the balance superintendents needed between manager and visionary
leader as they navigated the politics of bringing transformational change, the conceptual
model of Sayegh et al. (2004) established a framework for the role intuition and emotion
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

51

influenced the strategies and tactics superintendents employed as district practices during
implementation efforts.
Data needed. Merriam (2009) contends that the theoretical framework, the
problem, and the research questions determine what data protocols should be used to
conduct research. For this study, the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003) was critical
based on the review of literature in this area of study. However, it also has to be
supported with aspects of the role intuition and emotion influenced decisions made by
superintendents in times of crisis conditions (Sayegh et al., 2004). Exploring the methods
utilized by superintendents implementing the CCSS in their districts required both a
quantitative and qualitative approach. A review of current literature related to
implementation of the current standards and the surveying of current superintendents, as
well as interviews and a review of documents and artifacts, was necessary. This topic
had many layers, as there were both political pieces and more practical barriers to
address. The researcher contends the political challenges of implementing the CCSS are
more complex. How did superintendents implement the CCSS for the 2014-2015 school
year with so many unknowns? How did superintendents reverse course on the current
standards after advocating for them so hard for more than 15 years while maintaining
credibility in the eyes of subordinates? How did superintendents call for site leaders and
teachers to embrace new standards that were unfamiliar to them as well? How did they
respond to critics who called the CCSS “another pendulum swing?” Such questions were
best answered by current superintendents themselves and were addressed primarily
though surveys and interviews.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

52

Interview protocol. Merriam (2009) states an interview is an opportunity to have
a conversation with purpose. The interview protocol was developed by crafting questions
that addressed the research questions. Only in asking the right questions was the
researcher able to determine the factors of influence on the strategies and tactics
superintendents employed during implementation of the CCSS in their districts.
Therefore, a pilot interview protocol was established and interview questions were
initially posed to three district-level directors. In some cases, interview questions had to
be recreated to garner the data needed to answer the research question. According to
Maxwell (2013), testing questions before the interview is critical, and this sampling
allowed the researcher to successfully test the relevance of his questions. As Merriam
(2009) suggests, the questions were open-ended and neutral in tone and allowed for the
respondents to give specific responses based on their expertise. Additionally, as Merriam
(2009) suggests, probing questions and follow-up prompts allowed the researcher to
acquire specific details of how CCSS were being implemented in the district being
studied. These probing questions allowed the respondent to demonstrate their expertise
and their own opinions rather than merely confirm or reject the bias of the researcher
(Merriam, 2009). For his study, the researcher selected a semi-structured interview
guided by 18 open-ended questions. As Merriam (2009) suggests, this format allowed the
researcher “to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging view of the expert being
interviewed” (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). The CCSS represents many unknowns, thus this
interview structure was necessary to allow for the researcher “to adjust his questioning as
new ideas emerged on the topic” (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). For example, prompts and
follow-up questions were asked at the discretion of the researcher using this semi-
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

53

structured format. This design was flexible and allowed the interviewer the ability to
follow the lead of the respondent, while still being guided by a list of questions (Merriam,
2009). The interview protocols had to be open-ended and loosely structured to garner the
unique experiences that each respondent had.
Survey protocol. Utilizing the methodology prescribed by Fink (2013), the
researcher for this study created a survey protocol of 25 questions. The questions were
purposefully established to answer the research questions, while guided by the theoretical
framework established for this dissertation. A continuous numeric scale was selected
because, if necessary, data gathered can be divided into smaller increments. This
approach allowed the researcher to collect the desired targeted data more accurately.
Additionally, the survey was piloted in order to decrease any internal or external threats
to validity. After piloting the survey questions, the researcher made the appropriate
adjustments to the survey protocol to ensure that all the questions were directly
established to answer the research questions. Of the 67 surveys sent out electronically, 40
were returned to the researcher, for a completion rate of 60%. Survey responses helped
the researcher identify potential superintendents to interview during the qualitative
research components of this dissertation.
Data Collection
To validate the research for this dissertation, multiple data sources were used to
establish triangulation. Each of the instruments utilized to collect data for the research
was derived at based on the research questions that framed the dissertation. The data
primary instruments were interviews and surveys. However, there was also a thorough
review of literature pertaining to the standards-based learning movement over the last
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

54

quarter century and the aim of the CCSS as they were implemented in most states across
the country by the 2014-2015 school year. There was also a review of documents and
artifacts pertaining to the specific districts where superintendents interviewed for this
dissertation were employed as the district leader.
Process of Getting Consent
A crucial step in conducting surveys and interviews in a mixed method research
process is gaining consent. Bogden and Biklen (2007) explain that the consent process
lays the framework for a good rapport with respondents. To obtain consent from the
participants of this study, the researcher e-mailed a detailed description of his background
and standing as a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. This e-mail described the context of the research being conducted
and the researcher’s interest in the topic. In order to secure willing participants in an
interview or survey, the researcher shared the premise and central research questions of
the study. A time frame for the survey of 10 minutes was established and interviews did
not exceed 45 minutes. The participants for the survey were asked to respond
unanimously to the survey questions to a third-party website. Interview consent was
sought via email, however, participants were ensured that their identity would be
protected through the assignment of a pseudonym and that neither they nor their district
would be named in this dissertation.
Survey Protocol
Surveys were created electronically. A link to the survey was emailed to
superintendents identified as appropriate subjects for the research through unique
purposeful sampling. The researcher was conscientious to reiterate the purpose of the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

55

study and to reinforce the confidentiality of the participants through the third-party
website. Also in regards to confidentiality, each superintendent was informed that the
results of the survey would not be shared with colleagues or stakeholders affiliated with
their district. Moreover, superintendents were informed that the researcher would be the
lone person with possession of the results of the sample.
Interview Protocol
Bogden and Biklen’s (2007) research shows that good interviews occur when
respondents are at ease, thus the researcher asked participants to choose a time and place
for their interviews. The intention of creating the possibility for free conversation in an
environment most comfortable for the respondents was key during the interview process.
Correspondences occurred with the participants by telephone and interviews were
scheduled at a time most convenient for the participants. The telephone conversation was
an effort to establish a rapport with the respondent and was an effort to make them feel
more at ease with the process. During the phone conversation, the researcher took the
opportunity to explain to participants that during the interview, they would be provided
with a hard copy of the interview questions to establish an atmosphere of full disclosure
and fairness.
Additionally, requests were made to each superintendent and permission was
granted to record the interview using the researcher’s smart phone device to capture all
the necessary data. Merriam (2009) asserts that voice recorded interviews are the best
method of capturing data for analysis. During each interview detailed notes were taken,
mostly in an effort to document observations made during the process. Immediately
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

56

following each interview, the researcher reflected on the interview and transcribed it
within 72 hours to memorialize the transcript and to add validity to the process.
Data Analysis
Once all the data was collected through interview and survey protocols, the
researcher analyzed the data and arrived at findings. Research literature served as points
of reference in order to triangulate data and validate findings. Additionally, the findings
were compared to the body of accepted academic literature related to the subject as a
method of validation.
Interviews
As mentioned previously, all interview recordings were transcribed and field
notes compiled within 72 hours of interviews. The field notes included personal
reflections and observations of the researcher’s interview experience. Ultimately, as
interviews took place, patterns and themes emerged from the responses of the
superintendents. These patterns and themes impacted the study in two ways. First, they
leant insight to the probing questions that might be asked of the next participant.
Additionally, they offered the opportunity for the researcher to adjust an interview
question to better garner the information needed to address the research questions.
Method of interview analysis. Creswell’s model guided the qualitative data analysis.
This model consists of six steps that helped the researcher interpret data and make sense
of emergent themes for analysis:
(1) Organize data and prepare for analysis
(2) Read through all data
(3) Code the data
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

57

(4) Generate descriptions
(5) Create narrative
Interpret Data
Coding. Coding is simply assigning designations to aspects of data collected
(Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam (2009), these designations or categories can be a
single word, phrases, numbers or even colors. The researchers decided to use colors to
designate the data collected. During a pilot exercise for research conducted for course
work during the researcher’s doctoral program, he color-coded data and then assigned
numbers to categorize data into consistent patterns or themes as they emerged.
Transcriptions were highlighted into five categories and subdivided again into five
numbered categories on a spreadsheet. This coding worked well and was utilized during
the researcher’s dissertation process.
Surveys
Surveys were electronically distributed to superintendents and collected by the
researcher for analysis. Analysis software built into the third-party website provided
statistics, charts and graphs to the researcher then used to decipher and delineate data. As
previously stated, 67 surveys were sent electronically to e-mail addresses of current
superintendents, of which 40 were returned to the researcher for a 60% completion rate.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the methodology for the researcher’s approach to data
collection. The goal of the mixed method approach was to increase the “credibility” of
the findings by triangulating data sources (Creswell, 2009). The researcher used the
triangulation method using multiple measures of assessment in multiple ways. For
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

58

example, several methods of data collection were utilized including conducting
interviews and surveys. Existing literature, artifacts and documents also were reviewed to
validate the findings of the interviews and surveys. The coding of analyzed interview
transcripts, survey data transcripts, field notes, and journal writing helped the researcher
identify emerging themes. These themes were analyzed using the theoretical framework
established for the dissertation: Bolman and Deal’s (2003) political frame of leadership
and Sayegh, Anthony and Perrewe’s (2004) conceptual model of managerial decision-
making guided by intuition and emotion under the stressful conditions of limited time and
knowledge.
According to Merriam (2009), the validity and reliability of a research study
depends upon the ethics of the investigator. To establish credibility and ethics, the
researcher for this dissertation was very conscientious of protecting subjects from harm
by maintaining anonymity of the people interviewed or surveyed. The researcher also
maintained the anonymity of the districts where the interviews and surveys were
conducted by assigning pseudonyms to both the districts and the stakeholders.
Exceptional care was taken in gaining entry into the interviews and surveys and by
spending time explaining to the superintendents what was to be accomplished through
this process. Finally, the researcher will share his data with the superintendents as to
establish transparency and trust. All participants were vetted through the process of
informed consent.
After all the data was collected, each data source was coded and analyzed.
Themes and patterns emerged from the data analysis and lead to the discovery of
findings. Specifically, the analysis addressed the research questions for this dissertation.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

59

The connections discovered through this process ultimately allowed the researcher to
offer recommendations to superintendents as they continue to implement the CCSS in
their districts.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

60

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Focus of the Study
This study is an examination of the strategies, tactics and resources
superintendents employed while implementing the CCSS, the impediments and
challenges they faced and the role politics played in their decision-making processes. The
CCSS moved states away from individual standards that varied in each state to a shared
set of higher and deeper standards rooted in inquiry and critical thinking (Kirst, 2013). As
such, they required major shifts in practices, pedagogy and philosophy from K-12
educators. Because change is difficult for both the individuals involved and large
organizations as cohesive bodies, the CCSS implementation had to overcome both
procedural and political obstacles. This chapter presents the findings from an analysis of
the data collected by the researcher who sought to understand how these obstacles were
overcome through strategically selected resources and roll out efforts of superintendents.
In order to ensure valid yet vast data, and to further identify strategies, tactics, leadership
styles and transformational change that works and lasts, superintendents and districts
selected for interviews which encompassed the qualitative aspects of this study varied in
profile and demographics. The researcher believed that such variation would strengthen
findings and highlight best practices identified during CCSS implementation.
A mixed-method approach that combined surveying and interviews of current
superintendents in the state of California was conducted. The superintendents surveyed
oversaw districts that were unified or high school districts and that had an ADA of at
least 9,000 students. The superintendents also had at least a dozen years in education and
at least two years in their superintendency. In total, 67 surveys were sent electronically to
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

61

e-mail addresses of superintendents in the state of which 40 were completed for a
respondent participation rate of 60%. Six superintendents were then selected from the
original list of 67 and identified as participants based on their districts’ demographics and
profile on their most recent SARC. Confidentiality of respondents was guaranteed, thus
superintendents interviewed were assigned the pseudonyms Superintendent 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 based on the sequence in which they were interviewed.
This study was conducted by a doctoral candidate at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California from 2013 to 2014. The researcher
was interested in learning more about district leaders as change agents as they rolled out
and implemented the CCSS in their districts during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school
years. The study was designed to examine the strategies, tactics and resources they
employed during the implementation of the new standards. It also adds to the growing
literature related to the standards as well as the extensive literature on organizational
change. The theoretical framework for this study was Bolman and Deal’s four frames of
leadership, Structural, Human Resources, Political and Symbolic, with an emphasis on
the political frame. Additionally, the conceptual model of managerial decision-making by
Sayegh et al. (2004) added to the theoretical framework. Their research underscores the
role of emotions in an intuitive decision process. Slavin (2002, 2003) suggests
educational practitioners often make important decisions based on intuition, gut-feelings
or fads, and the researcher wanted to gage to what extent this phenomena had on the
implementation efforts of the CCSS.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

62

Four research questions guided the study:
(1) What resources, strategies and skills did superintendents draw upon when
implementing the CCSS?
(2) What barriers, either organizational or external impediments, did
superintendents encounter, or do they expect to encounter, in the years ahead?
(3) What role did superintendents’ previous experiences play in the strategies and
tactics they selected?
(4) To what extent did politics factor into the decision-making process as
superintendents implemented the CCSS?
This chapter presents the results of the surveying and interviews of the
superintendents who were respondents for this study. It also provides a demographic
overview of the districts examined and identifies trends in data that correspond to each
individual research question.
Demographic Profile
The researcher gathered data through electronic surveys that were e-mailed to
superintendents and through in-person interviews of superintendents who met the
following criteria; 1) at least 12 years in education, 2) at least two years as
superintendent, and 3) Superintendents who led districts with at least 9,000 students. Of
the 67 surveys generated, a total of 40 surveys (60% response-rate) were returned to the
researcher. Then, the researcher arranged interviews with six superintendents. Five
interviews took place in the superintendents’ office; one was arranged through a
conference call.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

63

Survey Respondents Data Aggregated
Demographic data provides an overview of the superintendents and their districts
represented in this study. All demographic data was aggregated by the total number of
student enrollment (ADA), the type of district (high school or unified school),
socioeconomic stature (percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch), and
approximate geographical region. Six respondents surveyed stated their district’s ADA
was less than 12,000 students (15%), 10 responded that they had 12,000-18,000 students
(25%) and 24 respondents (60%) reported ADA of more than 20,000 students. Table 4.1
summarizes district size based on total enrollment.

Table 4.1

Total Number of Student Enrollment

Five of the districts examined more closely through interviews with their
superintendents were unified school districts; one was a high school district. This was
consistent with survey results of the original 40 respondents where only three of 40
superintendents identified their district as a high school district. Three of six
superintendents interviewed identified their district as a Title I district based on a high
Average Daily Attendance Frequency (n = 40) Percentage
Less than 12,000 6 15%
12,000-18,000 10 24%
18,000-20,000 0 0%
20,000+ 24 60%
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

63

percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch making their districts eligible for
Title I funding. This data is compared to state figures in tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Table 4.2

District Types and Number of Student Receiving Free and Reduced Lunch

Interview
Participants

Districts
Surveyed

California
Districts*

Type Frequency
(n=6)
Percentage
Receiving
FRL
Frequency
(n=40)
Percentage
Receiving
FRL
Frequency
(n=1046)
Percentage
Receiving
FRL
Urban 3 66% 31 77% 870 83%
Suburban 3 33% 9 67% 176 33%
*CA districts based on CDE Food, Programs, Data and Statistics Report, 2012-2013.

Table 4.3

Types of Districts

Interview
Participants

Districts
Surveyed

California
Districts*

Type Frequency
(n=6)
Percentage Frequency
(n=40)
Percentage Frequency
(n=418)
Percentage
Unified 5 83% 37 92.5% 338 81%
High
School
1 17% 3 7.5% 80 19%
*From CDE CalEdFacts, “Fingertip Facts on Education in California” 2012-2013.

Demographic data on superintendent survey respondents was disaggregated by
gender, years of experience in their current district, previous experiences, and degree
earned. Most survey respondents had been in their current position between three and five
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

64

years, with 22 of 40 respondents (55%) indicating that was also the length of time they
had spent in their current superintendency. Of the respondents, 77.5% indicated that their
current position was their first opportunity to serve as a superintendent, with only nine of
40 respondents (22.5%) reporting that they had previous experience serving as a
superintendent in another district. The majority of the respondents were male, 31 of the
40 (77.5%), and most had advanced doctoral degrees (24). A total of 22 superintendents
indicated they possessed their Ed. D. and two respondents reported having their Ph. D.
Most also came from the secondary level, with three of 40 respondents (7.5%) saying that
their teaching experience was “primarily at middle school” and 24 of the 40 respondents
(60%) stating it was “primarily at high school.”
Table 4.4 breaks down time in their current position of all survey respondents,
whereas Figure 4.1 breaks down their previous experiences in education.
Table 4.4

Years in Current Position

Years in Current
Superintendency
Frequency
(n=40)
Percentage
2 15 37.5%
3-5 22 55%
5-7 2 5%
7+ 1 2.5%

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

65

Figure 4.1. Previous experiences of superintendents surveyed.
60% of survey respondents stated their primary teaching experience was at the high
school level, while only nine of 40 (22.5%) had previous experience as a superintendent
before being selected for their current position.

Table 4.5 identifies the highest level of education the superintendents surveyed
possessed.
Table 4.5

Highest Degree Obtained

Highest Degree Obtained Frequency (n=40) Percentage
Masters’ Degree (MA) 16 40%
Doctorate (Ed. D.) 22 55%
Doctorate (Ph. D.) 2 5%

Previous Experience as a Superintendent?
No
Yes
Primary Teaching Experience Was in:
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Business
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

66

The majority of survey respondents were male (Table 4.6), however, female
respondents comprised a greater proportion of survey participants than the percentage of
women in the role historically. According to Glass, et al (2000), women make up 72% of
K-12 educators in the United States, but are only a small fraction of district leaders. The
U.S. Department of Education reported that same year that of the 13,728 superintendents
in the country, only 1,984 were female (14%).

Table 4.6

Gender of Superintendents Surveyed

Gender of Survey
Respondents
Frequency (n=40) Percentage
Male 31 77.5%
Female 9 22.5%

CCSS Implementation Efforts By Superintendents Surveyed
Surveys were sent to respondents in the spring of 2014. At that time, most
superintendents indicated that their district had been implementing the new standards for
a year or more. Twelve respondents (30%) stated that they had been implementing the
new standards for 12-18 months and 19 responded (47.5%) they had been implementing
them for 18 months or more. Only three respondents (7.5%) stated that they had been
implementing the standards for six months or less.
The superintendents had been using research, paid professional development
opportunities, conversations with colleagues or reviewing materials from the mainstream
media to increase their knowledge of the new standards (Figure 4.3). Most participants
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

67

revealed that their district was using one of two implementation models for the CCSS:
coaching through in-house stakeholders or consulting with outside experts and bringing
CCSS tools to their site leaders and teachers. All respondents felt that their district had at
least one CCSS expert, yet when asked how much understanding or knowledge of the
CCSS stakeholders in their districts had about the CCSS one year ago nearly half
responded that their stakeholders had “little” or “some” knowledge at that time (46%, or
18 of 40 respondents). The same percentage responded that stakeholders in their district
had an “average” amount of knowledge or understanding of the CCSS in the same time
frame. Most of the superintendents surveyed, however, felt that they themselves had at
least “an average” amount of knowledge about the standards a year ago (10 respondents or
25% of all respondents) with 50% of all respondents stating that they had “a great deal” of
understanding and knowledge about the CCSS. This data is displayed in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. CCSS implementation efforts.
The numbers on the left reveal the number of all respondents (n=40) who
indicated answers on a Likert-style survey from choices on the key to the right.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CCSS Knowledge of
Stakeholders Spring
2013?
Respondents CCSS
Knowledge Spring
2013?
How Much Training
About CCSS Has Been
Provided to Site
Leaders as of Spring
2014?
Little
Some
Average
A Great Deal
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

68

Table 4.7 depicts how long superintendents described implementation efforts in
their districts had been taking place as of Spring 2014.

Table 4.7

How Long Districts Had Been Implementing the CCSS as of Spring 2014

Length of Time
Implementing the CCSS
Frequency (n=40) Percentage
Less than 6 Months 3 7.5%
6 Months to 12 Months 6 15%
12 Months to 18 Months 12 30%
More than 18 Months 19 47.5%

Figure 4.3. How superintendents surveyed built expertise in the CCSS.
All 40 respondents surveyed indicated that they were learning about the CCSS through
research, district trainings and from peers. 45% indicated they had paid for their own PD
and 30% said they had read helpful articles in the mainstream media.

18
40 40 40
12
Paid PD District Training Research Peers/Colleagues Media
Frequency (n=40)
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

69

Survey Results Summary Related to CCSS Implementation Efforts
The data suggests that most respondents to the survey perceived that they
themselves had a great deal of knowledge of the CCSS. They also indicated that most of
this expertise had been developed within the 2013-2014 school year. They felt strongly
that they had provided significant opportunities for their site leaders to build the same
level of expertise by providing exposure and training in the new standards through
district provided PD opportunities. Responses indicated that the superintendents felt they
had moved teachers in their districts from slightly or “somewhat informed” about the new
standards to “well informed” about the standards through implementation efforts of 12
months or more. All respondents indicated that they had developed at least one in-house
expert on the CCSS.
Attitude Towards the CCSS of Superintendents Surveyed
Data collected through the electronic survey also indicated that respondents had a
positive feeling about the CCSS and that they believed other stakeholders also had a
similar view towards the new standards. Additionally, superintendents were fairly
confident in their districts’ willingness to fully implement the new standards during the
2014-2015 school year. Only one of 40 respondents (2.5%) felt they had “little” support
from their Board of Education (BOE) while 23 (57.5%) felt that they had “a great deal of
support.” Respondents also felt a growing sense of community awareness of the new
standards, with 15 respondents (37.5%) stating there was an “average” amount of
awareness of the CCSS in their communities and nine (22.5%) responding that there was
a “great deal” of awareness of the new standards in their communities. The majority of
respondents (67.5%) said that community feelings about the standards had “little” or
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

70

“some” impact on their implementation efforts, while 17.5% said that it had either an
“average” or a “great deal” of impact on their implementation efforts. This was the one
vastly different data component between the survey findings and findings discovered
through the interview process, which will be discussed later in this chapter. The majority
of respondents (67.5%) said that they felt empowered during the CCSS implementation
efforts while about the same number responded that they felt only “little” or “some”
pressure during implementation of the new standards.

Figure 4.4. Feelings and awareness of the CCSS frequency.
(n=40) of responses summarized above

While state efforts to implement the CCSS did trigger comparisons of NCLB
implementation amongst those who participated in the survey (72% reporting an
“average” or “a great deal” of similarities), the comparison was less appropriate at the
district level with 55% of respondents reporting an “average” or “a great deal” of
similarities between how NCLB policies were implemented in their districts and how the
CCSS are being introduced. Regardless, 90% acknowledged that previous experiences
had “a great deal” of influence on the decision-making process of leaders.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Little Some Average A Great Deal
Board Support During
Implementation
Community Awareness of
the CCSS
Feelings of Empowerment
During CCSS
Implementation
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

71

Figure 4.5. Similarities of CCSS implementation efforts to NCLB.
Frequency (n=40) of Respondents Represented Below

Readiness for the CCSS
Superintendents surveyed responded that they were “somewhat ready” or “ready”
to implement new standards in the areas of English Language Arts (ELA) and math as
well as the new CCR standards as Figure 4.6 demonstrates.

Figure 4.6. Feelings of readiness for CCSS implementation based on frequency (n=40) of
responses

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Little Some Average A Great Deal
NCLB at State Level
NCLB at District Level
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELA Math CCRs
Readiness for CCSS Standards
Not Ready
Somewhat Ready
Ready
Well Prepared
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

72

Interview Participants
Six interview participants were purposefully selected based on their unique
characteristics and attributes including years of experience, gender, district demographics
and other criteria (Table 4.8). These superintendents oversaw district with approximate
ADA ranging from 9,500 to almost 25,000 students. Of this sample, five of six (83%) of
the superintendents who were interviewed were male, five of six (83%) had earned their
doctorates and five of six (83%) stated that their primary teaching experience had been at
the high school level. However, half of the interview participants had blended teaching
experience at either the elementary and middle school levels or a combination of the
middle school and high school levels. All six superintendents (100%) had been site level
principals and five of six (83%) had held one or more district positions for at least three
years prior to being named superintendent. Their levels of experience as superintendents
ranged from two years to 13 years of experience. One-third (33%) had been
superintendents in other districts prior to being named superintendent in their current
district and one-third (33%) had held Assistant Superintendent positions or Deputy
Superintendent roles in other districts prior to being selected for their current
superintendency.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

73

Table 4.8

Demographics of Interview Participants

Pseudonym
District
Type
District
Size
Years in
Current
Position
Previously a
Superintendent
Possess a
Doctorate
Superintendent 1 Urban 15,000 2 No No
Superintendent 2
Suburban 17,000 13 No Yes
Superintendent 3
Suburban 9,500 3 No Yes
Superintendent 4
Suburban 16,000 4 Yes Yes
Superintendent 5
Urban 24,000 3 No Yes
Superintendent 6
Urban 23,000 4 Yes Yes

The districts led by the superintendents interviewed also had similarities and
differences amongst their student demographics as their testing data and demographics
revealed on their most recent SARC reports. (CDE, 2014). Superintendent 1’s district,
despite steady progress, was still 35 points behind the statewide API target goal of 800.
Superintendent 3’s district was one of the highest performing districts in the state and had
an API score of 922. In total, five of six, or 83%, of the school districts examined for this
study had surpassed the statewide API goal of 800. Table 4.9 displays district
demographics compared to API performance for the six districts examined in this
chapter.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

74

Table 4.9

Districts Examined For This Study

District Superintendent 2013 API
Free and
Reduced
Lunch
White

Hispanic
Black

Asian
District 1 Supt 1 765 90% 02% \ 84% 11% \ 01%
District 2 Supt 2 811 50% 43% \ 48% 01% \ 03%
District 3 Supt 3 922 10% 25% \ 12% 01% \ 60%
District 4* Supt 4 837 12% 59% \ 15% 01% \ 08%
District 5 Supt 5 867 70% 15% \ 70% 04% \ 06%
District 6 Supt 6 861 63% 48% \ 33% 02% \ 04%
*District 4 was a high school district. All other districts were unified school districts.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 examined, what resources, strategies and skills did
superintendents draw upon when implementing the CCSS?
Several common themes emerged in analysis of the data collected: 1) All six
superintendents interviewed stated their leadership style was collaborative in nature and
that they believed strongly in involving other stakeholders in the decision-making
process, 2) Five of six superintendents (83%) reported that although their instructional
services department at the district office was their primary contact when making
decisions, they had also recruited and obtained teacher involvement built on a coaching-
model during CCSS implementation, 3) Four of six superintendents (66%) stated that
although they viewed the CCSS as a major shift in education, they stressed a point of
view where the district was building on what teachers and sites were already doing, 4)
Four of six superintendents (66%) referenced pilot testing of the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as a resource when implementing the CCSS, and 5) All
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

75

six superintendents referenced some form of new funding as a resource for CCSS
implementation, although what type of funds were allocated to districts varied widely
based on the demographics of their districts. For example, Districts 3, 4 and 5 (50%)
referenced funding based on recent bond initiatives that had passed in their communities
as a resource for technological infrastructure. In contrast, Districts 1 and 2 referenced
allocating a portion of their federal Title I dollars, distributed based on a high percentage
of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, to CCSS implementation. Additionally,
each superintendent interviewed was optimistic that the return of some state funding lost
during the recent fiscal crisis, coupled with the redistribution of funds through the LCFF
would have a positive impact on their districts’ ability to fully implement the CCSS
during the 2014-2015 school year.
Only 50% of the superintendents interviewed said they had relied on hiring
outside consultants to lead their CCSS implementation efforts, and some were highly
critical of this approach. According to Superintendent 3:
My theory on professional development is that people coming to you, or, that
sending your people to workshops is a very poor way of changing instructional
practices… the best instructional PD comes when teachers collaborate and when
you give them the opportunity to see other teachers teach… Some districts are
going to say that they had an expert come in and teach the Common Core to staff,
that they were given a binder with the standards and the scope and sequence and
that they implemented the Common Core. I disagree: I believe such an approach
only allows these districts to say they have implemented the Common Core, but
that such districts are not truly going to see the changes called for with the new
standards.

Superintendent 3 described himself as a “true champion of the coaching model”
and reported that his vision of non-negotiable collaboration had been a real success in his
district:
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

76

You start with a good theory, but there are a lot of theories that never materialize
or turn into much… I am pleased in that what I believe in as a leader, as the one
who put things in a certain direction… it seems to be the right direction and I
think that people are on board with it, it is growing, it is thriving in what is a
pretty scary and pretty dense moment in education for a lot of people… That is
pretty darn gratifying.

The superintendents also reported communication with the community and
parents as important, however the approaches they utilized varied. Four of six (66%)
superintendents hosted parent nights at their sites to inform the community about the
CCSS, two of six (33%) superintendents stated that they blogged or tweeted messages to
the community, two of six (33%) reported that they inserted mailers in the utility bills of
residents and two of six (33%) had held community forums to answer questions from the
community during their CCSS implementation.
Collaboration
Data collected through the interview process revealed that each superintendent put
a heavy emphasis on collaboration in their leadership approach and towards CCSS
implementation. Superintendent 1, the participant with the least amount of tenure in this
district, reported that his “greenness” in his role required him to take a collaborative
approach to leadership. He viewed it as “key to his success” in his district based on the
resistance the top-down approach of his predecessor had succumbed to. Superintendent 2,
in contrast, was the longest tenured superintendent interviewed for this study with 13
years of experience. She also described her leadership style as “inclusive and
collaborative,” and she attributed this to her lengthy tenure and success in one district.
She stated this inclusive approach allowed her to successfully implement the CCSS in her
district:
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

77

Frankly, any decision I have ever made in isolation has never been of the same
quality as the ones I make when I surround myself with great thinkers… with the
Common Core implementation gets back to educating stakeholders… reassuring
the community that preparing our students for what they will have to do in the 21
st

century workplace is a good thing… reminding the teacher who wants to cry
about pendulum swings that while that may be, it ain’t going to swing back to the
70’s… whatever your core beliefs are about the Common Core, you have to work
towards making that every stakeholder’s shared vision. The Common Core is an
easy sell, but that sell is easier for me because I know this community and I know
this district.

Coaching Models and a Focus on Best Practices
Each district examined had a traditional hierarchy with the superintendent at the
top of the district pyramid and as the one who is ultimately accountable to the school
board. Beneath them, instructionally was either a Deputy Superintendent or Assistant
Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. This second-in-command oversaw an
Instructional Services division of anywhere from three to five other employees with titles
ranging from other assistant superintendent roles, to directors, to teachers on special
assignment (TOSAs). All six superintendents interviewed for this study stressed this
manpower alone was not enough personnel to involve in the decision-making process and
their implementation of the CCSS. Five of six (83%) interviewed participants used some
form of a coaching model in their districts, with teachers taking the lead to offset this
shortage of administrators.
Superintendent 2 hosts bi-monthly PD with site level administrators. It was her
expectation that the site leaders then take what they have learned and lead PD on
instructional practices at the site level. Superintendent 4 also started bi-monthly meetings
amongst principals and amongst assistant principals upon his arrival to his district three
years ago, which also coincided with the state of California’s adoption of the CCSS. He
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

78

stated that at least one of these meetings is about a focus on best practices, which drives
his district’s implementation efforts of the new standards:
Three years ago they rarely had [meetings], now we do so regularly with one
focused on PD of best practices and one focused on leadership development,
which will also be needed to implement something as big as the Common Core.
This was the start of instructional change in our district.

The other tool Superintendent 4 cited as a key resource in his district’s CCSS
implementation was the use of a coaching model:
Fast forward to the present and we are having completely teacher-led PD by
teachers across the district. We have instructional rounds at all our sites, we have
a summer institute that is completely led, coordinated and implemented by our
teachers and it is all about Common Core… we have come a long way in a
relatively short period of time and I think it was a combination of a major thing
like the Common Core coming along and us recognizing that we need to work
together and do it right.

Superintendent 3 utilized CCSS funds to take 10 “highly regarded and highly
accomplished teachers” out of their classrooms and insert them as coaches at sites
throughout the district.
We identified the best… teachers who already had mastery practices that were
Common Core laced, teachers with technology know-how, teachers that modeled
and developed those 21
st
century skills and we made them teachers of our
teachers. This allows their practices to reach more students, and we think that this
is a good thing.

Superintendent 5 also described his district as “an in-house district.” He reported
that District 5 had implemented a Subject Area Council (SAC), Digital Learning Coaches
(DLC) and 105 “Fellows” who coach the 850 teachers in his district. Like Districts 3 and
4, District 5 focused on “best practices” rather than rolling out new standards in their
districts through a dedicated coaching model.
We already have 105 new ‘Fellows’ in line who want to train to train other
teachers at their sites as well… I think the ‘Tech-stravaganza’ our Digital Coaches
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

79

put on at the end of last year, where the Fellows shared some of their best lessons
and some of their work was a big deal with buy-in… it was just really powerful
stuff, the kind of stuff that is hard to describe with words.

Superintendents 4, 5 and 6 each also stressed a focus on best practices as opposed
to the new standards. This approach, they agreed, allowed teachers and site leaders to feel
as though the CCSS were building on what they are already doing as opposed to
replacing previous efforts with the old standards. This was a calculated tactic in their
ability to successfully sell the new standards to stakeholders and then implement them in
their districts. Although each agreed the CCSS were in reality a major shift. Said
Superintendent 6:
I truly believe we’re still using a model that is centuries old and in my opinion we
are not keeping up with the needs of the kids. I see the Common Core as an
opportunity to do something different, to break the mold…if we don’t bail out on
it. What frustrates me about education is that it is a slow process to change
anything. We collect all this data, but then we do not always utilize the data to
make the necessary changes… Part of it is that you are breaking the mold from
the past, one of the hardest things to do, especially in successful districts where
you must fight the notion that ‘we have always done it this way.’

Superintendent 6 reported that it was this core belief that had him realistic about
the CCSS implementation from the start. “My philosophy from the get-go was that this
was a five- to seven-year plan and that even then, you are going to be analyzing and
reevaluating,” he said.
Use of Funding
As stated earlier, all six superintendents (100%) referenced the use of new or
returned funding as an important resource in the CCSS implementation efforts in their
districts. Five of six (83%) used either CCSS money, or funds through a bond initiative to
improve infrastructure in their district. Two superintendents (33%) utilized Title I dollars
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

80

to increase students’ access to technology in the classroom in their districts as well. The
superintendents interviewed for this study stated that they expected the commitment to
technology in the classrooms to shape their implementation of the CCSS in both the
short- and long-term. Superintendent 4 explained:
When we got the CCSS money, people were surprised I committed 1/3 of the
money to infrastructure… the reality is when you prepare to put the latest
technology in the hands of your teachers and of your kids, you are preparing to
change instructional practices. And, to be honest, the 21
st
skills and the CCSS
require that we do that.

Moreover, all six superintendents (100%) stated that funding from the state
earmarked for successful implementation of the new standards was utilized in part to
restore work calendars and salaries for faculty and staff to levels prior to the recent fiscal
crisis. This commitment to practical pieces of CCSS implementation was key.
Superintendent 4 acknowledged that this was a strategy with political ramifications as
well:
We are coming off a budget crisis…it was traumatic, no matter what some outside
education might say, it was… People were pink slipped, people were let go, and
many others went without raises for many years. This has an impact on what you
are doing as an organization. With the Common Core money and the LCFF we
are able to compensate our teachers a little more, and you know not only is it the
right thing to do, but it also has a tremendous impact on their psyche. Here we are
asking them to do some drastically different things, and it is great that we are able
to put their feelings and mindset in a much better place.

Summary of Results: Research Question 1
The results of research question 1 suggest that superintendents employed a variety
of resources and strategies during the implementation of the CCSS. One chief aim of the
new standards—common and consistent practices across districts—was indeed occurring.
The six superintendents interviewed for this study all acknowledged that communication
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

81

and collaboration were essential pieces for a healthy organization when implementing
major shifts in practice. This is supported by the extensive literature and research
dedicated to organizational change and leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003: Fullan 2002;
2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2002a). Moreover, while the majority of superintendents
interviewed for this study recognized that the CCSS are a major change in current
pedagogy and practices, there was a need to reassure teachers and site administrators that
they were also an extension of the work that had already been accomplished during the
previous three decades in an era of accountability and increased emphasis on standards-
based learning and assessments in K-12 education. As such, superintendents interviewed
for this study had a clear awareness of Bolman and Deal’s symbolic frame of leadership,
and demonstrated a keen awareness of the importance stakeholders’ feelings and attitudes
played in successful CCSS implementation.
Like the survey data collected, the data from six interviews of current
superintendents in the state of California suggests that superintendents relied on a
combination of outside experts, building in-house capacity, increased technology, and
restored funding when implementing the CCSS. The return of funding lost during the
recent fiscal crises of the late 2000’s, coupled with new funding through several avenues,
allowed superintendents to address practical concerns related to CCSS implementation
such as salaries of employees and improved infrastructure to increase access to
technology in the classroom. In this sense, the superintendents interviewed in this study
were aware of Bolman and Deal’s structural frame, equally important in healthy
organizations. The structural challenges these superintendents faced during CCSS
implementation were also similar and will be discussed in the next section. Finally, the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

82

use of a coaching model speaks to Bolman and Deal’s human resource frame and the
importance of getting the right people in the right positions to succeed.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, what barriers, either organizational or external
impediments, did superintendents encounter, or do they expect to encounter, in the years
ahead?
The data analysis from this study supported aspects of Sayegh, Anthony and
Perrewe’s (2004) definition of “crisis condition;” the absence of concrete knowledge and
the pressures of a timeline when implementing something new. All six superintendents
(100%) who participated in interviews for this study stated that time was an impediment
or challenge to their implementation efforts. Other common themes in regards to
challenges and impediments faced during CCSS implementation which emerged from the
interview process for this study included: 1) meeting the technological demands for the
SBAC assessment and 21
st
century learning in classrooms, 2) implementing a curriculum
management system appropriate for the new standards, and 3) the reality that change of
such magnitude is difficult for both the individual and for large organizations such as
school districts.
Time
Survey questions posed meant to gauge participants’ readiness for the CCSS
implementation consistently had respondents suggesting their districts were “ready” or
“somewhat ready” to implement the CCSS. Additionally, 47.5% of respondents to the
survey suggested they had been implementing the CCSS for 18 months or more.
Superintendents interviewed for this study, however, all agreed that time was an
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

83

impediment to implementation. Superintendents 3, 4 and 6 each cited calls to delay
SBAC testing for another year “valid,” while Superintendent 2 acknowledged her district
would not truly implement all aspects of the CCSS in the 2014-2015 school year.
The reality is, we are not going to be fully implemented next year… frankly I
would like to see the district that is. We are going to pretend that we are because
the assessment will be here, but that isn’t the reality… you do not change your
teaching style, your beliefs, your methodology… simply because you had the
opportunity to attend some PD. (Superintendent 2)

Superintendent 6 also suggested the CCSS implementation would be a continuous
and evolving process; however, he also stated that any delays to the SBAC
implementation efforts needed to be well thought out by the state.
Next year, we’re quote, ‘fully implemented,’ whatever that means… the reality is
that I have said this will be a five- to seven-year process from the very start, and
that from there it will be about learning and about making the right adjustments…
As far as next year, the calls to delay testing for another year are valid, but at a
minimum I think that the state has to figure out a way to get some data to the
parents, even if it is raw data that indicates, ‘your child answered 70 of 106
questions correctly’ or something to that effect, because this generation of parents
expects to get results of how their child is doing. (Superintendent 6)

Although all six superintendents interviewed for this study indicated that they
were pleased by the teacher buy-in for the CCSS as well as the overall enthusiasm for the
new standards, words like “daunting” and “vastness” were used to describe the
magnitude and volume of implementing the CCSS and all that they consist of.
Technology
Four of six (66%) of the superintendents interviewed said that despite a
commitment to improving technology and infrastructure, those variables offered a real
challenge. Five of the six (83%) indicated that their pilot testing of the SBAC in the
spring of the 2013-2014 school year went well from a district perspective, although there
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

84

were some difficulties on the states’ end. Two of the six (33%) said they had “overcome”
or “conquered” the technology pieces based on their experiences with the pilot testing.
Both of these superintendents described their districts as “well-off” or “affluent” and
indicated they had passed lucrative bond initiatives within the last four years and then
dedicated a large percentage of the funds to infrastructure in anticipation of the CCSS
implementation. This is statistically significant. All six (100%) of the superintendents
interviewed said much was learned during the pilot testing.
We called the pilot testing we agreed to at each school the largest PD we were
going to do district wide. We learned a lot. Teachers were teamed in threes and
fours and administered the test. A role was to circulate the testing room, to look at
the questions and to reflect… I am on target with what kids need to know, or
perhaps I am not and, wow, I see the outcomes side of this and now I must change
my process a little bit. (Superintendent 4)

Curriculum Management
Five of the six (83%) superintendents stated the management of curriculum posed
a major challenge. Three of these four (50% overall) indicated this challenge was both a
fiscal challenge as well as a political one. “Some teachers are very attached to the
curriculum materials they utilize to an end where it has a negative impact on their
instruction… getting them to let go, especially when they can’t quite yet see what all of
their materials are going to look like in the next era, is a real challenge,” Superintendent 2
explained. Superintendent 3 felt that an effective curriculum management system would
be the key to successful CCSS implementation in the years ahead.
Our approach to Common Core is not, ‘Here is a manual, here is the scope and
sequence, here is a binder now you go implement’… we have teachers who are
great teachers, we have to continue to populate a curriculum management system
that teaches these standards with new materials as the textbook is no longer the
curriculum, the teachers should be part of the development of the lessons, but not
the only piece because we know they can’t do the whole thing, all of the lesson
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

85

development… there is a lot of great stuff out there and we need people who can
coordinate all that and then who are willing to do the work to shift their
practices… what this window of time, what the two-year CCSS money and what
other things have allowed us to do is get back to the idea that people need training
but you’ve got [an] infrastructure of support so that we are focused and staying
the course and not simply jumping all over the place. (Superintendent 3)

Superintendents 4 and 5 also indicated that management of curriculum was a
challenge or impediment to implementation of the new standards. Both agreed that a
focus on building on what teachers were already doing and a continued focus on best
instructional practices, rather than the new standards themselves, were key in overcoming
this challenge. Said one superintendent interviewed for this study:
Our biggest challenge has been the linguistics of it all. Managing new
(technological) devices that will improve instruction in the classroom, managing
the new standards and understanding them in a way that will have an instant and a
long-term impact on instruction, making sure teachers know what is out there
online, because there is a lot of good out there and then there is some that is not so
good. The point is, we didn’t just go to Pearson or some other distributor and say,
‘Give us what you’ve got for the Core,’ we’ve been using the content from the old
textbooks and curating our own digital content from the web and putting it in a
digital management system… and so all this coordinating of curriculum has been
the challenge….but Common Core builds on where we are as a district
instructionally, and so what you typically hear from our teachers at this point is
that this is what they went into teaching for in the first place… they appreciate
that they are not being given a script to recite, but instead an opportunity to get
kids to think, and to write, et cetera, and those are good things. (Superintendent 5)

Organizational Change
The most frequent responses from superintendents interviewed for this study to
questions posed to determine challenges and impediments faced during implementation
of the CCSS dealt with the broader challenge of enacting change to large entities such as
schools and districts. “There’s that old adage, ‘I like change, you go first,’ nobody likes
change,” said Superintendent 4. Superintendent 2 stated her district had strategically
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

86

“gone slow to go fast,” while Superintendent 5 worried about current students and their
studies in the face of what he called, “midstream change.” Four of six (66%)
superintendents interviewed indicated fear of the unknown was a barrier to changes
called for by the CCSS. Said one:
I really believe that fear and change are the factors in organizational change and
leadership development that have to be variables that we as leaders are constantly
aware of… I have this philosophy about pioneers and campers… you go with
your pioneers… you empower them and you let them go… What happens to the
campers? Well I believe they want to go too, but fear holds them back. The role of
your pioneers is to grab a camper or two and to bring them away from base camp
and towards the edge of their comfort zone. They are scared, and they might
retreat back to camp, and that is okay… in the end your pioneers are going to help
you take most of your campers where they need to go. (Superintendent 4)

As Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest, the challenges in moving individuals and
organizations to change is literally more than 500 years old and dates back to
Machiavelli. Unlike the 16
th
century Italian diplomat’s top-down approach, the
superintendents interviewed for this study focused on a collaborative model when
attempting to implement the CCSS and the shifts in pedagogy that the new standards
required. All six superintendents (100%) interviewed referenced the politics of bringing
organizational change, which will be discussed in a later section of this study.
Summary of Results: Research Question 2
The results of research question 2 revealed three consistent impediments to the
CCSS implementation efforts of the six districts examined closely by this study: 1) time,
2) technology, and 3) curriculum management. Although, like the majority (77%) of
survey respondents who reported that they had been implementing the CCSS for more
than a year, the superintendents interviewed for this study still considered the timeline for
implementation a challenge in their implementation efforts. The interview process also
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

87

supported survey data that suggested technology and curriculum were barriers to
overcome. Research question two revealed that superintendents interviewed for this study
shared similar views on practical barriers, and challenges within Bolman and Deal’s
structural frame of leadership, during CCSS implementation.
Moreover, the superintendents interviewed by the researcher for this study agreed
the broader challenge of enacting change to large organizations was the biggest challenge
that they faced during CCSS implementation efforts in their districts. This is supported by
endless research related to leaders enacting change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2002;
2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008) As Kirst (2013) suggests, the CCSS were a major shift in
philosophy and pedagogy and, as such, called for significant changes in all aspects of
education. In the years ahead existing state and district policies will need to be aligned
including: curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, K-12 and college assessments,
K-12 finances, professional development (PD), teacher preparation programs, teacher and
administrator evaluation systems, preschool programs and other programs (Kirst, 2013).
The superintendents examined in this study were well aware of the magnitude of the
changes called for with the CCSS and the challenges and impediments when
implementing change of such magnitude and, as such, they demonstrated leadership skills
found within Bolman and Deal’s symbolic and political frames.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 examined, what role did superintendents’ previous
experiences play in the strategies and tactics they selected?
Survey data collected for this study using a Likert Scale suggested that 90% of
those surveyed felt previous experiences had “a great deal” of influence on the decision-
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

88

making of leaders. All six interview participants for this study (100%) agreed that their
previous experiences had a significant impact on the strategies and tactics that they
employed during CCSS implementation. The superintendents interviewed saw parallels
to their experiences with NCLB and the implementation efforts of the previous standards
and they leaned in part on those experiences. Additionally, their prior experiences with
stakeholders in their districts were utilized even more often to make intuitive decisions
related to CCSS implementation. Common themes emerged during the course of the
interview process, including the importance of past experiences and the importance of
intuition and gut feelings in the decision-making process of the six skilled leaders
interviewed for this study.
Impact of Previous Experiences on Decision-Making
All six superintendents interviewed for this study acknowledged the influence
previous experiences played in the decisions they made during CCSS implementation.
Three of six (50%) described the roll-out of the previous standards as “poor,” “horrible,”
or “ridiculous.” Four of six (66%) stated that the CCSS were a much easier
implementation than the accountability pieces of NCLB because of the punitive measures
of the latter. They used descriptors such as “a necessary evil,” or “blessing and curse,”
when speaking of the legacy of NCLB, and most, five of six (83%), saw both positives
and unintended consequences with the legislation. Said one superintendent:
NCLB was a necessary evil in a lot of ways to get us to where we are headed
next. It benefitted our subgroups in EL and SPED far more than anyone else, and
so from that aspect NCLB was very good. From the punitive side, it was
ridiculous... What an interesting model was created when the goal was 100%
proficiency, yet one of the subgroups was EL students who by definition are
limited in their proficiency of English… Yes, there were flaws, but ultimately
education needed NCLB to remind us of our obligation to educate all kids. CCSS
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

89

is here to remind us of what it is we are educating them for, the future.
(Superintendent 6)

Superintendent 2 also reflected on her previous experiences as she strategized her
implementation efforts of the CCSS. “…There were times in the past I was standing in
front of a room and trying to sell NCLB or Program Improvement and that was difficult
because I did not necessarily believe in it,” she said.
…Common Core is an easy sell because it was a long time coming... All we have
to do is describe the 21
st
century to our parents. Is there anybody who does not
want our children to be competitive and successful adults? When was the last time
you solved a problem in the workplace with an A, B, C, or D response? How do
we solve problems? Well, we collaborate, we communicate, we analyze and we
research and that is Common Core. (Superintendent 2)

Superintendent 3 stated that his experiences in other less affluent districts had
taught him how to take full benefit of leading in his current district, one of the highest
performing districts in Southern California. The “political chess,” as he described it, is
easier in districts with such resources.
We passed a 218 million dollar construction bond… we passed a 3.2 million
dollar parcel tax… so everything a superintendent does has politics associated
with it, but one better be careful to make sure that at the end of the day all of these
things add up to something. My experiences in the past have helped me to make
sure that things all add up here. (Superintendent 3)

Superintendent 5 stated that there were lessons learned from the CCS
implementation efforts that should guide experienced leaders in their efforts with the new
standards.
We learned a lot from the late-90s and from the implementation of the old
standards. I mean, I was in a district where it took four or five years for some
teachers to acknowledge that we had standards and that they should be
used….One mistake I am trying to avoid is talking too much about the Common
Core standards themselves, but I am using softer language that focuses on the
ideas of Common Core… rigor, technology, real-world application…but I am not
selling nor defending the standards. This decision came from bad memories and
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

90

bad experiences with the way the old standards were put in place. (Superintendent
5)

Superintendent 4 was opposed to the notion that he was selling something to
stakeholders, however, he acknowledged that previous experiences played a role in how
he implemented the CCSS in his district.
I don’t act like I am selling anything, in fact I think anytime an instructional
leader says they have to sell it, they’ve probably missed [something] somewhere
along the line…but you do have to know your district, your community and your
board because without knowing those things you can have all the good data you’d
like and you’re not going to be successful with implementation… in example,
some folks thought I was crazy when I said I wasn’t going to do a roll-out, but my
gut and my intuition, based on my previous experiences in this community told
me it was not the best way to do it here. Now, had I been the superintendent in
another district where instruction was poor and where kids were looked at as
anything less than capable, I may have had a different approach, but that was not
the case here and so I would argue with anyone that that was probably not the way
to do it here.

Using a Likert Scale, 37.5% of the 40 survey respondents said current
implementation efforts at the state level of the CCSS could be compared to previous
efforts such as NCLB. A majority of the survey participants (80%) said their district’s
implementation efforts compared to those experiences. Four of six (66%) of
superintendents interviewed for this study saw some similarities in implementation of the
CCSS compared to NCLB or the previous standards, the CCS. However, they were much
more drawn into conversations about what broader impact experiences in general had on
their approach to implementation of the CCSS. All six superintendents interviewed
agreed that intuition and feelings of the gut influenced their decision making and process
in implementing the CCSS. The role of intuition in explained in the next section of this
study.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

91

Intuition and Gut Feelings
The superintendents interviewed for this study made an important connection to
the role of intuition and implementation of the CCSS in their districts; each recognized
that gut feelings played a significant factor in the decisions they made, however, each
also perceived their feelings of intuition as ones developed through previous experiences.
As such, they used phrases such as “a starting point,” an “initial reaction,” a “well-
informed gut-check,” or a “feeling reaffirmed by others” when describing the role of their
instincts or intuition on implementation efforts of the CCSS.
[One’s gut-feelings] are a big deal… I think every great educator, great teacher,
great administrator, great leader, if being honest, follows their gut. You tell
yourself you know something is going to be the outcome because you know your
audience, which allows you to anticipate their reaction. But, really what that
means is that you have so much experience in one place or in one field that you
know what is going to happen because chances are you’ve been there in some
capacity before. (Superintendent 5)

Superintendent 4 stated, “It is your instincts that lead you, but so often those instincts are
refined by your experiences.” In example, Superintendent 4 acknowledged that he is
constantly looking at what has worked in other places when deciding how to implement
new policies. However, he is conscious of the fact that the same approach may not
always be effective in his own district.
A lot of the implementation phase (of CCSS) just gets back to change leadership.
Our implementation is about instruction, but part of it is also about humans and
about accepting change. We as leaders better pay attention to that, which is where
I believe your instincts tend to take over. I think that is a good thing.
(Superintendent 4)

Superintendent 3 described the role of intuition and of feelings of the gut as a
two-way street. “What is your initial reaction?” he said. “Then you go to the brain, then
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

92

back to the gut, and when it all lines-up things are easy.” Asked about when the three
don’t align, he shared:
Bill Clinton was categorized as a 360° leader. I try to model myself on that
approach… I try to ask people a lot of questions about what they think and what
they would do. So, yeah, it is all about my gut, but it is a really well-informed gut,
which is also really influenced by what people around me say. (Superintendent 3)

Superintendent 2, the longest tenured leader interviewed for this study, also
cautioned leaders about ignoring their intuition.
The very few times I have gone against my intuition I have later said aloud, ‘I
knew it.’ Intuitively, I knew the road we should have gone down, and for
whatever reason I got talked into leading us down another road and I later
regretted it…. So for me the starting point is always the first instinct or the gut
feeling I have, based on my time and experience in education and in this
community… From there I get together with my team and we look for evidence or
data to take to the board, but the first feelings about something is where I start,
and that was my approach with all the aspects of rolling out Common Core.
(Superintendent 2)

Summary of Results: Research Question 3
The results of research question 3 revealed the link of intuition on the decision-
making process of leaders eluded to in the research (Sayegh et al., 2004; Slavin 2002;
2003) that contributed to the theoretical framework of this study. The superintendents
interviewed in the qualitative aspects of this mixed methods study recognized the link
between instincts, gut feelings and their past experiences. They saw the combination as a
starting point in their decision-making process. Each superintendent acknowledged that
their intuition as to how implementation of the CCSS would be perceived by members of
the community, members of the board and stakeholders in their districts played a key role
in how they ultimately implemented the CCSS in their districts.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

93

Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, to what extent, did politics factor into the decision-
making process as superintendents implemented the CCSS?
Politics were a factor at the local, state and federal levels during CCSS
implementation according to the superintendents examined by this study. At the local
level, survey data from 40 superintendents revealed that 87.5% of respondents felt either
an “average” or “a great deal” of support from their school board as they implemented
the CCSS in their districts. In contrast, only 39.5% stated they had an “average” to “great
deal” of pressure while implementing the new standards, while 67.5% stated that they felt
a “great deal” of empowerment during implementation efforts. Four of six
superintendents interviewed (66%) also referenced board feelings and attitudes as a huge
factor in the strategies and tactics they used when implementing the standards.
Superintendents also saw comparisons of implementation efforts of the CCSS to
previous implementation efforts at state level, such as the accountability model of NCLB
or the previous CCS standards. Of the 40 survey respondents, 75% stated that there was
an “average” to “great deal” of similarities between the state’s implementation of NCLB
to the implementation of the CCSS, while 66% of those interviewed saw similarities
when questioned by the researcher. Both the quantitative and qualitative data gathered for
this study suggested that there was an absence of community awareness of the new
standards being implemented. According to a June 2014 poll conducted by the Rossier
School of Education at USC in partnership with PACE, only 47% of voters indicated they
were familiar with the CCSS. Although this was an increase from a June 2013 poll,
where only 29% indicated they were familiar with the standards, the numbers still suggest
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

94

there is work to do in the way of educating voters about the new standards. This data
supports the beliefs of superintendents interviewed for this survey, five of six (83%)
indicated their communities were not yet familiar with the CCSS as demonstrated in
Table 4.10.

Table 4.10

How would you categorize community involvement and awareness during CCSS
implementation?

Supt. 1 Supt. 2 Supt. 3 Supt. 4 Supt. 5 Supt. 6
“Non-existent
for the most
part, despite
our efforts.”
“No
pushback, but
not a lot of
understandin
g of the
standards
either.”
“Hundreds of
parents are
turning out
for our parent
nights
because they
are in the
know… there
are politics,
sure, but in
the end it
comes down
to collabor-
ation and to
working from
interest.”
“Our
community
outreach
efforts are
political
show, they
aren’t well
attended.”
“It depends
which part of
town…
regardless we
speak of our
instructional
practices, not
about
Common
Core. Our
board prefers
soft
language.”
“Not very
good… And
that is local
politics…
Less than
20% of the
population
votes and not
all of them
have kids in
the schools,
so many are
unaware.”

Surprisingly, 67.5% of survey respondents stated that the presence of external variables
such as the community members’ feelings towards the CCSS has “little” impact on their
decision-making. The qualitative data gathered by the interview process suggested it was
an essential component of successful implementation of the CCSS. As Superintendent 4
explained:
Your board and your community play a big part in how you are going to do this,
or not do this and you better be aware of it all. At the end of the day you really do
have an obligation to your community and to your kids. (Superintendent 4)
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

95

As outlined in Chapter Two of this study, politics escalated at the federal level as
the 2014-2015 school year approached and as the CCSS were implemented in most states
across the country. However, the superintendents interviewed stated that they had only a
few encounters with opponents of the CCSS at local board meetings and were quick to
describe them as “nut jobs,” “crazies,” “agenda-driven,” or “misinformed and out of
touch with the reality.” In short, the politics at the federal level had little to no impact on
the decision-making of the superintendents who were interviewed for this study, with
Superintendent 4 calling the national buzz “political football,” and Superintendent 5
calling it “political theater.” Superintendent 5 did acknowledge an understanding of the
political landscape as important.
In one part of town—I know it is a conservative group of affluent and well-off
people—my gut cautions me about speaking about the Common Core directly. So
instead, I might talk about the best practices and the technology my district is
launching and they will think it is great, not realizing we are talking about how
this is a reaction to the foundation of Common Core. In another part of town,
perhaps a Hispanic pocket where they think anything President Obama does is
great, I can talk about the Common Core and get no pushback. (Superintendent 5)

Each superintendent interviewed did underscore the role of politics during the
implementation of the CCSS in their districts. Three common themes emerged from the
interview process: 1) All six (100%) of the superintendents interviewed described the
community and board as a major piece of their CCSS implementation; 2) Five of six
(83%) superintendents described the political aspects as the most important element of
CCSS implementation and stated such politics had a significant part in their decision-
making process; 3) Five of six (83%) stated that there were political pieces associated
with how the CCSS were rolled out to teachers in their districts.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

96

Community and Board Communication
Each superintendent interviewed for this study indicated that they had the final
authority as to what their districts did instructionally relative to the CCSS. They reiterated
that their instincts and intuition based on years of experience impacted the strategies and
tactics they employed for implementation of the new standards, and that these intangibles
served as a starting point as they collaborated with an instructional team and made
informed decisions relative to instruction. Where the superintendents interviewed felt a
greater sense of individual responsibility for successful CCSS implementation was in the
area of messaging to stakeholders in the district, community members and the board. In
example, Superintendent 5 did not implement a formal rollout of the new standards based
on the desires of his board members who wanted “a softer language approach focused on
instructional practices, Common Core unadvertised” whereas Superintendent 1 reported
that his board requested CCSS updates at each meeting “to educate themselves and the
audience about the new standards.”
Although each leader felt the community awareness lagged significantly behind
the awareness of those in education, each superintendent interviewed felt they had made
community outreach efforts to raise public awareness of the new standards. Table 4.11
summarizes some of their efforts. The most common approach was parent nights, which
took place in five of six (83%) districts examined for this study. Social media, such as
Twitter and blogging was used by only two of six (33%) superintendents interviewed,
three of six (50%) sent e-mail blasts to parent groups, with mailers—still the most
common written channel used to communicate with parents—being utilized by four of six
superintendents (66%).
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

97

Table 4.11

Most Used Community Outreach Efforts for Raising Awareness of the CCSS

Supt. 1
Presentations
at board
meetings,
parent
nights,
district
website and
mailers.
Supt. 2
Parent
nights,
district
websites,
PTSA
meetings
and e-mail
blasts.
Supt. 3
Blog,
Twitter, e-
mail blasts,
parent
nights led
by coaches,
board
meetings,
mailer in
utility bill
quarterly.
Supt. 4
E-mail, PTA
meetings,
community
forums,
mailer and
conversations.
Supt. 5
“Bright
spots” at
board
meetings
that
highlight
best
instructional
practices,
website,
Twitter,
blog, and
mailers.
Supt. 6
Parent
nights,
mailers,
district
website,
LCAP
meetings
helped a
lot.

Four of six (66%) of the superintendents interviewed for this study highlighted the
LCAP meetings as an example of required political outreach efforts associated with
CCSS implementation. Superintendent 6 stated there were lessons learned through the
LCAP process as well.
LCAP, obviously, helped us educate the community. In that example, the
community is literally required to partake in the development of our goals and our
spending in accordance with the LCFF legislation. But that was also educational
for us in terms of how to communicate with the public…. You try to give a lot of
preemptive communication, and it ignored. Typically people only pay attention
when there are problems. What we learned from LCAP is that less is more… you
have to get people all the factual information with as few details as possible, once
you start getting specific they stop paying attention. On target, simple messages
are the keys otherwise it is a bad version of that old game, Telephone. We have to
remind ourselves to ‘Keep it Simple Stupid.’ We tried to.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

98

Superintendent 3 also said the fashion in which LCAP was enforced in his district
was political.
The way I did LCAP was one big ‘ubercommittee’ rather than have an EL
committee, a staff committee, and so on… we have one giant committee with all
the interests at the table and we worked from there. We met eight times, but that is
how we do things, we focus on common vision not on our differences. The truth
is, those are political decisions.

Politics in Play
All six superintendents interviewed (100%) stated that the political pieces to
successful CCSS implementation were more important than practical pieces. Table 4.12
summarizes responses from interview participants when asked about the role of politics
in CCSS implementation.
Table 4.12: The Role of Politics in CCSS Implementation
Supt. 1
“What
leadership
role does not
deal with
politics? I do
not think
there are
any. If you
don’t sell the
Common
Core you
won’t be at
your post to
see it
implemented
in your
schools. That
is the
reality.”
Supt. 2
“I don’t
know if
politics are
more
difficult
than
practical
barriers, but
they are
surely more
important.
My time in
district
gives me the
trust of the
teachers and
the
community,
but when
change
comes
around there
are still
politics.”
Supt. 3
“Big… how
do we deal
with the
politics of
the
Common
Core? We
brand
Common
Core… You
work with
ACSA, and
CSEA and
with the
teachers
union
because
those are
pieces, but
you also
brand and
market your
product…
right now
Supt. 4
“The
Common
Core is
political
football… but
if you look at
the games
going on,
whether on
TV or at a
board
meeting, they
aren’t really
about issues
with the
standards
themselves it
is about the
politics of it
all.”
Supt. 5
“ The
mistake
most people
make is
trying to
defend
Common
Core… that
is how you
get caught-
up in the
politics… if
you keep
focus on the
instructional
practices,
and get
people to
agree they
are good,
you can then
say, ‘that is
how we
interpret the
Supt. 6
“They
are a
constant
and they
can make
or break
you. My
biggest
fear is
that we
will
abandon
Common
Core
because
of the
politics
tied to it.
That, in
my
opinion
would be
a big
mistake.”
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

99

that is the
Common
Core.”
Common
Core.”
The superintendents equated politics as an aspect of leadership that emerges
whenever there is change. The politics were perceived as more important when
implementing change from the top-down. Since CCSS implementation was the
enforcement of adopted policy, top-down implementation was viewed as necessary at
times. That said, the superintendents interviewed for this study often cited collaboration
as a mechanism for soliciting buy-in during their implementation efforts of the new
standards.
Political Roll-out to Teachers
Collaboration was also frequently cited as a strategy associated with getting
teachers on-board with the new standards. In total, the word “collaboration” was
referenced 91 times through the review of transcripts of the six interviews conducted for
this study. As referenced earlier in this chapter, coaching models were employed by five
of the six superintendents interviewed (83%). Although this was often referenced as a
way to ensure best practices were in place in most classrooms, it was also viewed as a
way to overcome teacher resistance to change. “You make them feel apart of it, you get
better buy-in… I don’t think that is a secret,” Superintendent 3 stated. For Superintendent
2, collaboration amongst stakeholders was part political and part philosophical.
Consensus building gives one social capital with the teachers, and certainly there
is a level of trust and respect for me after three decades in the district…. But it
goes beyond that too with Common Core... I think the educational leader
implementing Common Core should model Common Core skills in their
leadership style… if you want to develop well-rounded students, you should
develop well-rounded staff, and it starts with modeling that you are a well-
rounded and well-developed person. With Common Core, we should model the
skills we expect to develop in others.
Summary of Results: Research Question Four
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

100

The results of research question four revealed that the superintendents who
participated in this study agreed with Bolman and Deal’s (2003) assertion that politics are
“the key to success in certain jobs” (p. 278), including successful implementation of the
CCSS. The superintendents who participated in interviews for this study recognized
politics were in play at the local, state and federal level and that these politics had a
significant impact on the strategies and skills they employed during implementation of
the new standards. Politics not only impacted decisions made as to what resources were
ultimately utilized, but also how and when those resources were implemented. While
most superintendents who participated in this study felt that they had the support of their
board of education, they also realized that the support lasted only so long as the
stakeholders attitudes towards the CCSS were positive. Additionally, although most of
these leaders felt that the community awareness of the new standards lagged behind the
awareness of educators, they agreed that anticipated feelings and attitudes from
community members factored in their decision-making process.
Summary
This chapter examined the results of survey data and interviews to identify the
strategies, skills and resources superintendents employed while implementing the CCSS
and the politics in play. Data analysis of research question one revealed five themes
related to CCSS implementation strategies utilized by the superintendents interviewed for
this study: 1) a collaborative model was perceived as most effective; 2) a coaching model
was preferred over training led by consultants from outside the organization; 3) the tactic
of implementing new practices built on instructional practices already in place rather than
replacing existing instructional practices was utilized, although the leaders agreed the
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

101

CCSS were a major shift in pedagogy; 4) Pilot testing of the SBAC was sought by all six
superintendents interviewed by the researcher; and 5) New funding through CCSS
money, bond money, Title I money or some combination of resources was utilized to
overcome practical barriers for CCSS implementation efforts.
Research question two explored impediments or challenges superintendents
encountered during implementation of the new standards. Survey data and interview
responses supported one aspect of management decision theory examined by Sayegh et
al. (2004), that organizational leaders view the presence of a timeline to meet a goal as a
crisis condition. Time was seen as a significant burden to implementing the new
standards. Three other common themes emerged during the interview process for this
study related to impediments for implementing the CCSS: 1) technology, 2) curriculum
management, and 3) change of such magnitude being difficult for stakeholders.
Data gathered to examine research question three, which explored the impact of
previous experiences on CCSS implementation efforts, found that superintendents often
rely on gut feelings or intuition when implementing change. These feelings are often
based on their previous experiences, thus experiences of the past impacted
implementation efforts of the CCSS. This also is consistent with research related to
leadership and management (Sayegh et al., 2004; Slavin, 2002; 2003)
Finally, the results of data collected related to research question four, which
asked about the role of politics in implementation of the CCSS, determined that politics
played a vital part of the decision-making process of superintendents as they
implemented the new standards.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

102

Overall, superintendents were strategic in the tactics they utilized for CCSS
implementation efforts and they viewed politics as a major part of the decision-making
process whenever leaders are implementing change of magnitude on large entities or
organizations. The findings presented in this study were based on a mixed methodology
and multiple data sources which served to strengthen their validity. The summary,
conclusions and implications for future research are presented in Chapter Five.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

103

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
The strategies, tactics and resources superintendents employed as they
implemented the CCSS in their districts were consistent with previous reform efforts
amongst educational leaders looking to implement significant organizational change. As
Kirst (2013) suggested, the superintendents who participated in this study viewed the new
standards and the philosophy behind them as major shifts in philosophy and pedagogy.
Like Bolman and Deal (2003), they also recognized the important role of politics in play,
and the need to solicit buy-in from stakeholders. Moreover, the superintendents played
the traditional role of instructional leader (Callahan, 1966), and the newer roles of great
collaborators and great managers of people (Kowalski, 2005). Superintendents
recognized that change of such magnitude was a cultural shock, difficult for participants
to grapple with, and that it required a balance of innovation and new ideas with respect
for traditions and for cultural values of the past. This is consistent with the seemingly
endless research on leaders looking to implement change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter
& Cohen, 2008; Fullan, 2001; 2012; Schein, 2004).
The purpose of this study was to identify the strategies, tactics and resources
superintendents employed during implementation efforts of the CCSS and the politics of
installing change of such magnitude in a field that is often slow to change. The study
borrowed from the theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames of
leadership, Structural, Human Resources, Symbolic and Political, with an emphasis on
the political frame. With the expanded role of today’s superintendent, the study also
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

104

utilized the existing conceptual framework on management decision theory from Sayegh,
Anthony and Perrewe (2004), who state that in crisis conditions, such as a scarcity of
time or knowledge when implementing change, skilled leaders will rely on intuition and
emotion, which is largely driven by their previous experiences. Four research questions
guided the focus and served as the foundation for this study:
(1) What resources, strategies and skills did superintendents draw upon when
implementing the CCSS?
(2) What barriers, either organizational or external impediments, did
superintendents encounter, or do they expect to encounter, in the years ahead?
(3) What role did superintendents’ previous experiences play in the strategies,
tactics and resources they selected?
(4) To what extent did politics factor into the decision-making process as
superintendents implemented the CCSS?
Chapters one through four provided an overview of the study; a review of existing
literature relative to the study; the methodology and design of the study; and the findings
of surveys, interviews and triangulation of data sources. This chapter summaries the
findings and provides recommendations for future research.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

105

Summary of Findings
A review of literature pertaining to the CCSS and the data analysis from
surveying 40 superintendents and interviewing six superintendents in the state of
California revealed common themes related to CCSS implementation:
1) A collaborative model was perceived as most effective during implementation
of the new standards, with a coaching model of teachers leading other teachers
preferred over training led by outside consultants.
2) New instructional practices built on practices already in place were utilized,
even though the leaders perceived the CCSS as a major shift in pedagogy. The
superintendents perceived this decision as part-best practice and part-politics
in their decision-making process.
3) New funding through CCSS money, bond money, Title I money or some
combination of resources was utilized to overcome practical barriers for CCSS
implementation efforts such as inadequate technology, curriculum
management or lack of other resources.
4) Political pieces were considered far more important than practical pieces in
regards to successful CCSS implementation.
5) A looming timeline for implementation, the 2014-2015 school year, and the
difficulty in implementing change of such magnitude were among the greatest
challenges superintendents reported during their implementation efforts.
6) The role of the superintendent has evolved into a merger of the historical role
of instructional leader and a role created more recently comprised of manager,
communicator and visionary leader.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

106

7) Intuition and gut feelings play a significant role in the decision-making
process of superintendents and such intuitive feelings are largely driven by
their previous experiences.
8) While the CCSS are in part a pendulum swing in education built on the legacy
of previous standards-based learning efforts, accountability pieces associated
with NCLB and other tried, tested and ultimately replaced models, they are
also viewed by leaders in K-12 education as an opportunity to bring the field
up to speed in a changing world and as a new opportunity to better prepare
students for the workforce in the 21st century.
Research Question 1
According to data gathered through a mixed-methods approach for this study,
CCSS implementation strategies, tactics and resources utilized by the superintendents
included: 1) a collaborative model, which was perceived as most effective for soliciting
buy-in from teachers; 2) a coaching model, largely preferred over training led by
consultants outside the organization; 3) the tactic of implementing new practices built on
instructional practices already in place rather than replacing existing instructional
practices was utilized, although the leaders agreed the CCSS were a major shift in
pedagogy; 4) Pilot testing of the SBAC was sought by all six superintendents interviewed
by the researcher; and 5) New funding through CCSS money, bond money, Title I money
or some combination of resources was utilized to overcome practical barriers for CCSS
implementation efforts.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

107

Research Question 2
Research question 2 explored impediments or challenges superintendents
encountered during implementation of the new standards. Three other common themes
emerged during the interview process for this study related to impediments for
implementing the CCSS: 1) technology, 2) curriculum management, and 3) change of
such magnitude being difficult for stakeholders.
Survey data and interview responses also supported one aspect of management
decision theory examined by Sayegh, Anthony and Perrewe (2004), that organizational
leaders view the presence of a timeline to meet a goal as a crisis condition. Time was a
significant burden to implementing the new standards according to superintendents
surveyed and interviewed for this study, even though 77.5% of all participants indicated
they had been implementing the new standards for more than one year.
Research Question 3
Data gathered to examine research question three, which explored the impact of
previous experiences on CCSS implementation efforts, found that superintendents often
relied on gut feelings or intuition when implementing the CCSS, or change in general.
These feelings were often based on their previous experiences, thus experiences of the
past impacted implementation efforts of the CCSS and will continue to impact decisions
made in the future. This is supported by research related to leadership and management
(Sayegh et al., 2004; Slavin, 2002; 2003).
Research Question 4
The results of data collected related to research question 4, which asked about
the role of politics in the implementation of the CCSS, determined that politics played a
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

108

vital part of the decision-making process of superintendents as they implemented the new
standards. The politics at all levels impacted the decision-making process of leaders at the
local level. Although the CCSS are a set of new standards, the superintendents who
participated in this study saw them as something more, as an opportunity to not only lead
change in pedagogy but also to be transformational change agents who alter the
philosophy of stakeholders in their districts in the years ahead.
Implications for Practice
The implications of this study are of consequence to a series of stakeholders in the
arena of K-12 education. School boards will need to select qualified leaders as their
superintendents—individuals who can implement the major shifts in pedagogy required
by the Common Core and who can maneuver the politics in play when implementing
organizational change. Superintendents will have to be leaders experienced enough to
lean on their previous experiences and intuitive instincts when there is no clear blueprint
to follow, but who are innovative enough to meet the demands of the evolving role of
leadership and the evolving K-12 setting. Teachers will have to alter their practices to
meet the demands of the new standards. Students will have to engage in a new approach
to learning. Districts, in general, will have to develop new assessments, adopt new
curriculum and improve infrastructure that allows new technology to get into the hands of
students. These practical realities are secondary to the political realities. Successful
implementation of the CCSS will require building on the positive outcomes of previous
standards-based learning policies, losing the punitive measures associated with the
accountability model while still holding schools accountable for their students, and
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

109

staying the course with CCSS implementation efforts during the likely challenges that
await while transitioning to the new standards.
Recommendations for Future Research
The following recommendations for future research are advised based on the
findings of this study:
1) Future research should replicate this study after the CCSS has been
implemented over a longer period of time, as this study was conducted prior to
the full-implementation efforts of the states that adopted them. The researcher
recommends two-year intervals for a span of 10 years to determine if the
predictions and intuitive feelings superintendents examined for this study
made were indeed accurate predictors of what transpired with CCSS
implementation.
2) The researcher recommends a thorough study of the College and Career
Readiness standards adopted in conjunction with the ELA and math standards
adopted through the CCSS. The superintendents interviewed for this study
each expressed concerns about their districts’ capacity to successfully
implement them. Additionally, each participant spoke about the standards in
broad philosophical terms and seemed to struggle to convey how their districts
would implement this aspect of the CCSS.
3) Future research should replicate this study in other states that adopted the
CCSS to explore the impact of environment, demographics and other
variables on implementation efforts.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

110

4) The researcher also recommends a meta-analysis comparing student progress
and achievement in states that adopted the CCSS to the states that either opted
out or who kept their existing standards. At the time this study was conducted,
political pushback had seen efforts to repeal or alter the adoption of the CCSS
in 10 states. Seven states in total had not adopted the CCSS as of July, 2014.
5) Future research should consider replicating this study over a large sample size
of survey and interview participants.
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that the strategies and skills superintendents
employed as they implemented the CCSS were largely determined by the politics in play.
The decisions made by these skilled leaders, as they attempted to shift their districts’
instructional practices and organizational philosophy to those of the new standards, were
also largely decisions based on their intuition of what might occur. These feelings of the
gut were developed based on their experiences of the past and their perception of their
community, sites and stakeholders. This, however, is no different than the thought
process of leaders in any field who are implementing organizational change; there are
always politics in play, which require leaders who possess the ability to evaluate the
scene, read scenarios and make educated and informed predictions about the future.
As the CCSS come of age and are in place in states across the country in the years
ahead, teachers will remain the most critical component of successful implementation of
the standards. After all, it will be teachers who introduce the standards directly to the
students who must learn them. However, it will be the superintendents who continue to
evolve in an ever-changing and evolving role, who will ensure that the goals of the new
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

111

standards—the development of critical thinkers with meta-cognitive skills to succeed in a
changing world; exposure to a broader library of both new genres of literature and non-
fiction resources; increased access to technological advances for all students; and the
development of 21
st
century skills that will truly create college- and career-ready
graduates—are the goals of their districts which will guide instructional pedagogy and
learning in the next era.
In short, the role of the superintendent has never been more important than it is
today. School boards will be under intense pressure to find well-rounded leaders with
enough experience to lean on when new challenges arise, but with enough vision to know
when new innovation and ideas are required. Superintendents must utilize the symbolic,
structural, human resources and political frames of leadership Bolman and Deal (2003)
outline as present in healthy organizations. Superintendents should embrace collaborative
leadership styles that make their vision of the CCSS a shared vision for stakeholders in
their districts. Stakeholders must buy-in to the vision of their leaders for the course set to
stay straight and for the changes to be long lasting.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

112

References
Adams, J. (2010). Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious
learning goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
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. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/964184584?accountid=14749
Baker, K. (2010): A bad idea: National standards based on test scores. Journal of
Scholarship and Practice. 7 (3), 60-67.
Ballasone, M. (2014). California rejects teacher tenure laws for California: New poll

shows public has also soured on the common core. Retrieved from

https://news.usc.edu/64633/california-voters-reject-tenure-layoff-rules-for-public-

school-teachers/

Bjork, L., & Kowalski, T. J. (Eds). (2005). The Contemporary Superintendent:
Preparation, Practice and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bodgen, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Bolman and Deal (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd.
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brazer, S. Rich, W. & Ross, S. (2010). Collaborative strategic decision making in

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

113

school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 48 (2), p. 196-217.

Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2010). K-12 Common Core Standards for ELA and
Literacy Standards. Retrieved March 1, 2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov//re/cc/
California Department of Education. (2012), Children Nutrition Programs: Data and
Statistics Report. State of California.
California Department of Education. (2012). District Organization Handbook. State of
California.
California State University. (2012). Early Assessment Program. Retrieved August, 29,

2012 from http://eap2012.ets.org.

California Department of Education. (2014). Local Control Funding Formula Overview.
Retrieved July 1, 2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
Callahan, R.E. (1962): Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces
that have shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Callahan, R.E. (1966): The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. East Lansing,
MI: National Center for Research on Teaching Learning. (ERIC Docs
Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410).
Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look back at testing,
school reform, no child left behind, and implications for students of color. The
Journal of Negro Education, 74 (4), 332-434.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

114

Chant, I. (2014). Higher Ed Administrators Seek to Stem States’ Rush Away From
Common Core. Library Journal, June 23, 2014. Retrieved from
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/06/academic-libraries/higher-ed-administrators-
seek-to-stem-states-rush-away-from-common-core/#
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony
of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10 (3), 245-260.
Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. (2012). Fifty Ways to Leave a
Child Behind: Discrepancies in States’ Implementation of NCLB. RAND
Corporation and Spencer Foundation.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student
achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30 (3), 418-446.
Doyle, K. (2012). Powerful alignment: Building consensus around the common core state
standards. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22, 7-23. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314310744?accountid=14749
EdSource. (2014). Highlighting student success: Local Control Funding Formula guide.
Retrieved July 5, 2014 from http://edsource.org/publications/local-control-
funding-formula-guide#.U8PUWF4ipuY
Edwards, M. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and
responsibilities in the 21st century. Lincoln, NE: Universe.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

115

Education Week Research Center (2014). District disruption and revival, school systems

reshape to compete and improve, a special supplement to education week’s

quality counts 2014 report. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2014/shr/16shr.us.h33.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington,
D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountability leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134-142.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA. Sage.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. (2012). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, D. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to
the nation by a national commission on excellence in education. Retrieved
November 3 from www.ed.gov/pubs/NatatRisk/title.html
Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brummer, C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency
2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Gonzales, P. Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S.
fourth and eighth graders in an international context. Washington, D.C.:
International Center for Educational Statistics.
Hanushek, E.A., & Lindseth, A.A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

116

Helfin, L. (July 1, 2014). Common Core Will Improve Education, Most District Chiefs
Say. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.com/ew/articles/2014/07/01/36gallup.h33.html

Heritage. M. & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement: Challenges and
prospects. Yearbook of the national society for the study of education 104: 320-
339. DOI 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00035.x
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlsetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
University of Southern California Urban Education. (Accessed through ARES,
Spring, 2014).
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21
st
century: It’s not just a job it is a calling.
Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (6), p. 429-433. Retreived from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621320
Jenkins, S. & Agamba, J. J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional
development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,
17 (2), 69-79.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N. K., Rivera, M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Accommodations for
English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on
effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1168-1201.
Kirst, M. W. (2013). The common core meets state policy: This changes almost
everything. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Educators (PACE).
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

117

Kotter, J. P., and Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how
people change their organizations. Boston, MA. Harvard Business School of
Publishing Corporation.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolutions of school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54 (2), 101-117.
Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Layton, L. (2014, June 18). Jindal says he is withdrawing lousiana from the common

core. The Washington Post. Retreived from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jindal-withdraws-la-from-common-core-

standards-program/2014/06/18/17088c40-f719-11e3-8aa9-

dad2ec039789_story.html

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington D.C. The Education School
Project.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McNeil, M. (2013). US department of education grants California CORE districts’

waiver. Education weekly. Retrieved from

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-

12/2013/08/us_education_department_grants.html

Menken, K. (2009). No child left behind and its effects on language policy. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 103-117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0267190509090096
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

118

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Council on State Legislatures. (2008). 2008–2009 policies for the jurisdiction of
the education committee: National standards. Retrieved October, 2013, from
www.ncsl.org/statefed/educate.htm
National Council on State Legislatures. (2014). Presentation on 2014 Legislation to

suspend, delay or opt out of ccss implementation. Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/common-core-state-standards-

legislation.aspx

National Governors Association. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S.
Students Receive a World Class Education. A Report by the National Governors
Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of the Chief State
School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language
arts and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects.
Washington, D.C. Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of the Chief State
School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics.
Washington, D.C. Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of the Chief State
School Officers. (2012). Trends in state implementation of the Common Core
State Standards: Educators effectiveness. Washington, D.C. Authors.
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

119

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425
(2002).
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Today’s World: Vol 1.
Picus, L.O. and Odden, A.R. (2011). Improving school performance when budgets are

tight. Education Week.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/01/kappan_odden.html. Accessed on

March 14, 2014.

Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M.T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing

school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following

adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and

Associates. www.legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/Resources.pdf.

Picus, L.O. and Wattenbarger, J.L. (1995). Where does the money go? Resource

allocation for elementary and secondary schools. Yearbook of AEF. (Volume 16).

SAGE Pub.

Polikoff, M., McEachin, A., Wrabel, S. and Duque, M. (2013). The waive of the future:
School accountability in the waiver era. Paper presented at the 2013 conference of
the Association for Education Finance and Policy.
Porter, M. & Nohria, N. (2010). What is leadership: The CEO’s role in large, complex
organizations. In Nohria, N. & Khurana, R. (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory
and practice (pp. 433-473). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rothman, R. (2012). A common core of readiness. Educational Leadership, 69(7), 10-15.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312424708?accountid=14749
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

120

Sayegh, L., Anthony, W. and Perrewe, P. (2004). Managerial decision making under
crisis: The role of emotion in a decision process. Human Resource Management
Review, 14 (2), 179-199.
Schleicher, A. (2006): PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world.
OECD Briefing. Retrieved on July 2, 2014 from www.pisa.oecd.org.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational
practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31 (7), 15-21.
Slavin, R. E. (2003). A researcher’s guide to scientifically based research. Educational
Leadership, 60 (5), 12-16.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby,
Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other
sectors (pp. 1-7). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation
Stevens, R., Bransford, J., & Stevens, A. (2005). LIFE Center Lifelong and Lifewide
Diagram. (2005). Retrieved from http://life-slc.org/about/citationdetails.html
Tienken, C.H. (2011). Common core state standards: The emperor has no clothes, or
evidence. Kappa Delta Pi, 47 (2), 58-62.
Tienken, C. H., & Canton, D. (2009). National curriculum standards: Let‘s think it over.
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6(3), 3-9.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, D.C.:
Learning First Alliance.

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

121

Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
[Date]
Dear Superintendent,
My name is Thomas G. Crowther, and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. Presently, I am researching
the strategies and tactics Superintendents employed during the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and I am hoping to learn about such efforts in
your district.
The purpose of this study is to explore the strategies, tactics and decision-making
processes superintendents utilized while maneuvering the politics of implementing the
CCSS. Specifically, this dissertation examines the strategies and tactics superintendents
implemented as they sold the CCSS to teachers and site administrators in their districts
politically, and the impediments they faced when implementing organizational changes
called for by the changing politics. It is my expectation to add to the growing body of
research and literature related to CCSS implementation efforts. At the very least, this
process will educate me as a current site administrator and aspiring educational leader in
a nearby district.
The following criteria were established in the distribution of this survey to
individuals as determined by the research:
1. The superintendent’s district has an ADA of at least 9,000 students and had
begun CCSS implementation efforts during the 2013-2014 bridge year to the
new standards.
2. The superintendent had at least 12 years in education and at least two years in
their current position as superintendent.
3. The district had statistical data readily available on its web site, and
documentation of the CCSS being implemented in its district readily
available.
Your responses will remain confidential and your identity will not be identifiable
in any reports or data generated for this study.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study. Your prompt response
to the link below is greatly appreciated. It is my hope that this brief survey will not only
be a benefit to the profession of educational leadership, but that it might also prove a
valuable reflection piece for individual generous enough to participate.
Respectfully,

Thomas G. Crowther
tcrowthe@usc.edu, (818) 281-1022

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

122

Appendix B: Superintendent Survey
The Strategies and Tactics Superintendents Employ as they Implement the
Common Core State Standards and the Politics in Play
1. INFORMATION SHEET:
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the strategies, tactics and decision-making
processes superintendents utilized while maneuvering the politics of implementing
the CCSS. Specifically, this dissertation examines the strategies and tactics
superintendents selected as they politically sold the CCSS to teachers and site
administrators in their districts, and, the impediments they faced when implementing
the organizational changes called for by changing politics. In the absences of concrete
knowledge to drive decision-making, leaders turn to intuition, emotion and past
experiences in making decisions, especially under the pressure of a timeline (Sayegh,
Anthony, & Perrewe, 2004). This dissertation then also examines the influence
superintendents’ prior experiences had on the strategies and tactics they selected for
CCSS implementation. A mixed methods study will be conducted in which
implementation of the CCSS was explored in a variety of settings via surveys and
interviews of current superintendents.
Participant Involvement
Participants in this study are current superintendents in unified school districts in the
state of California. You will be asked to complete this survey through an e-mail link
that will connect you to the third party, SurveyMonkey.com. The estimated time for
completion of this survey is no more than 20 minutes. All information shared will be
kept confidential. The final question in this process will ask you of your willingness
to participate in a follow-up interview. Should you elect to participate as an
interviewee, your name and identity will be changed and a pseudonym assigned.
Although there is no compensation, nor any direct benefit to you as a participant, it is
the hope of the researcher that a participant’s reflection on their current processes for
implementing the CCSS will prove to be beneficial to participants.
Confidentiality
There will be no identifying information about you obtained through this study. Your
name, address, or other personal data shall not be collected during this survey, unless
you agree to future participation as an interview candidate. Should you volunteer to
be interviewed, your information shall be coded and presented as general data. If you
provide specific information that is quoted or described in the study, your name and
your district’s name shall be assigned a pseudonym to protect your privacy and
identity.
Investigator’s Contact Information IRB Contact Information
Thomas Crowther University Park IRB Office
(818) 281-1022 Stonier Hall, Rm 22a, Los Angeles, CA
90089
tcrowthe@usc.edu (213) 821-5272, upirb@usc.edu
2. PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. What is your gender?
A. Male B. Female
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

123

2. What degree(s) do you hold?
A. Bachelor’s
B. Master’s
C. Ed.D.
D. Ph.D.

3. How many years have you served in your current position?
A. 2 years
B. 3-5 years
C. 5-7 years
D. 7+ years

4. Did you have prior experience as a superintendent in another district prior to
accepting your current position?
A. Yes
B. No

5. Is your background primarily in
A. Elementary level education
B. Middle School level education
C. High School level education
D. Business
E. Other (please specify) ______________________________________

6. What credentials do you hold? Mark all that apply.
A. Multiple Subject
B. Single Subject
C. Education Specialist
D. Administrative Service Credential
If you possess a single subject, please specify here: ___________________

7. What is your district’s average daily attendance?
A. Fewer than 10,000
B. 10,000-15,000
C. 15,000-18,000
D. 18,000-20,000
E. More than 20,000

8. How have you been learning about the CCSS? Select all that apply.
A. Paid training opportunities
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

124

B. District training opportunities
C. Research
D. Peers and/or colleagues
E. Media

9. How long has your district been implementing the CCSS?
A. Less than six months
B. Six months to a year
C. One year to 18 months
D. More than 18 months

10. Training for stakeholders in your district includes (Select all that apply):
A. District workshops
B. On-Site PD from outside parties
C. On-Site PD from district personnel
D. Out-of-District workshops for site leaders
E. Out-of-District workshops for teachers
F. Something else: _________________________________________

For the next series of items, please select the number or statement that best represents
how you feel about the knowledge, preparation, and receptiveness to the CCSS in your
district.

1. How much understanding or knowledge of the CCSS did you have one year ago?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

2. How much understanding or knowledge about the CCSS would you say others in
your district had one year ago?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

3. How much training has been provided to site leaders in your district?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

4. How much of a direct benefit to CCSS implementation did such training have?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

5. How much have site leaders bought into CCSS?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

125

6. The goals of the CCSS have been explained to all stakeholders in your district.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

7. The paradigm shifts and changes in standards have been explained.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

8. The CCSS have been looked at alongside the previous standards (CCS).
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

9. How much has your district used outside consultants or coaches in the
implementation efforts of the CCSS?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

10. How much has your district invested in materials, such as sample lessons, during
CCSS implementation efforts?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

11. You have been provided sufficient funding to implement the CCSS.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

12. You sense excitement as the CCSS is rolled out in your district.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

13. You sense resistance as the CCSS is rolled out in your district.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

14. A district-wide plan is in place for CCSS implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

15. Do you feel support from your Board of Education during implementation
procedures?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

126

16. Do you feel community awareness of the CCSS?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

17. The presence of external variables, such as community members’ feelings towards
the CCSS, impact your decision-making.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

18. As a superintendent, you feel empowered during CCSS implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

19. As a superintendent, you feel pressure during CCSS implementation.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

20. Your district has at least one in-house expert on the CCSS.
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

21. How much does the CCSS implementation at the state level compare to previous
implementation of something new, such as NCLB?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

22. How much does the CCSS implementation at the district level compare to these
previous experiences?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

23. How much do previous experiences influence the decision-making of leaders?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

24. How ready are your sites to implement the CCSS literacy standards?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

25. How ready are your sites to implement the CCSS math standards?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A
GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

127

26. How ready are your sites to implement the CCSS College and Career Readiness
standards?
1 2 3 4 5
Little Some Average A Great Deal N/A

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. You may add additional
comments in the box below.

Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview related to this
topic? If so, please provide your contact information in the spaces provided
below.

Printed Name Signature Date Contact Information

I agree to be audio taped as part of this study

Printed Name Signature Date Contact Information

Thank you for participating in this survey. If you are interested in receiving copies
of the dissertation, including findings of this survey, please contact
tcrowthe@usc.edu.

Sincerely,

Thomas G. Crowther
Ed.D. Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

128

Appendix C: Interview Protocol

Interviewer: Thomas G. Crowther Date: _____________________________
Pseudonym: _________________ Phone: ______________________________
Start Time: _________________ End Time: ___________________________

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the strategies, tactics and decision-making processes
superintendents utilized while maneuvering the politics of implementing the CCSS.
Specifically, this dissertation examines the strategies and tactics superintendents selected as
they politically sold the CCSS to teachers and site administrators in their districts, and, the
impediments they faced when implementing the organizational changes called for by
changing politics. In the absences of concrete knowledge to drive decision-making, leaders
turn to intuition, emotion and past experiences in making decisions, especially under the
pressure of a timeline (Sayegh, Anthony, & Perrewe, 2004). This dissertation then also
examines the influence superintendents’ prior experiences had on the strategies and tactics
they selected for CCSS implementation. A mixed methods study will be conducted in which
implementation of the CCSS was explored in a variety of settings via surveys and interviews
of current superintendents.
Participant Involvement
Participants in this study are current superintendents in unified school districts in the state of
California. The estimated time for completion of this interview is no more than 45 minutes.
All information shared will be kept confidential. Although there is no compensation, nor any
direct benefit to you as a participant, it is the hope of the researcher that a participant’s
reflection on their current processes for implementing the CCSS will prove to be beneficial to
them as an educational leader and change agent.
Confidentiality
Information collected shall be coded and presented as general data. If you provide specific
information that is quoted or described in the study, your name and your district’s name shall
be assigned a pseudonym to protect your privacy and identity.
Investigator’s Information IRB Contact Information
Thomas Crowther University Park IRB Office
(818) 281-1022 Stonier Hall, Rm 22a, Los Angeles, CA 90089
tcrowthe@usc.edu (213) 821-5272, upirb@usc.edu

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

129

Introduction:

Good afternoon, thank you for joining me today. My purpose is to explore how
superintendents are implementing the Common Core State Standards in their districts.
My findings will be used in a dissertation towards partial fulfillment of my Ed. D. from
the Rossier School of Education at U.S.C. We will be discussing the strategies and tactics
you utilized when implementing the CCSS in your district, the role of politics in your
decision-making process and the impediments or barriers you faced. The purpose of this
interview, however, is to focus on the leadership you practices you demonstrated when
implementing organizational change.

Your identity will be kept confidential, as all participants and their organizations will
be given pseudonyms in order to secure more authentic responses. I would like to record
this conversation so that it can be transcribed and coded accurately, would that be okay?

This interview will take 30-45 minutes. Many of the questions are open-ended,
encouraging you to draw on recollection of your previous experiences and encouraging
me to expand questioning when necessary. Do you have any questions at this time about
this interview or my purpose here today?

I. Background:

1) Let’s start by having you briefly describe your background and your experiences
related to your current position as a superintendent. (Possible follow-up questions
to secure specifics like time as a superintendent, time in the district, etc.)

2) To get a better sense of your role as a superintendent, describe your duties related
to the areas of curriculum and instruction in your district.

3) Imagine you and I take an elevator ride to the top of a tall building… what would
you tell me if I asked about the Common Core State Standards?

4) How do you compare the rollout and implementation efforts of the CCSS to No
Child Left Behind at the site level? Local level? State level? Federal level?

5) What do you think the differences might be between how the CCSS is viewed
atop a district versus how if might be viewed by a teacher in the classroom?

II. Planning

6) What are some challenges leaders face in preparing to implement the CCSS?

7) What has your district been doing to date to prepare for Common Core
implementation?

GETTING TO THE CORE AND THE POLITICS IN PLAY

130

8) Where do you think your progress might put you in comparison of the work being
done in like districts?

9) What has surprised you to date? What are you most pleased by?

10) Many districts bring in outside help when implementing change, has your district
called any CCSS experts or outside consultants to train administrators or teachers
about CCSS? If so, what has that experience been like?

11) What are practical barriers to successful implementation of the CCSS? What
might political barriers be?

12) The CCSS have a focus on college and career readiness… what does that look
like to you?

III. Leadership In Practice:
I would like to shift the focus of these questions to the organizational change aspect of
implementing something new… With that in mind:

13) Why are the Common Core State Standards more than just another pendulum
swing in education? In other words, pretend I am a veteran teacher well respected
in your district who is reluctant to buy-in to the CCSS… tell me why I should get
on aboard with you?

14) What leadership strategies have you founded necessary for implementing the
CCSS in your district?

15) What role does politics play in implementing change?

16) What organizational challenges have you encountered during your
implementation efforts and how have you dealt with them?

17) How important is district and community culture? How do you bring
transformational change without rocking the establishment?

18) How might the CCSS shape educational leadership in the future?

Thank you for your time and your responses… This completes the interview unless you
have any questions for me?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

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

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

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

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of networks and mentorships to champion women as superintendents in southern California

Asset Metadata

Creator Crowther, Thomas G. (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/21/2014

Defense Date 09/23/2014

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

Tag accountability,buy-in,CCSS,changing role of the superintendent,common core,four frames of leadership,leadership,management-decision theory,OAI-PMH Harvest,Politics,standards,superintendents

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Britz, Jan (committee member), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member)

Creator Email tcrowthe@usc.edu,tomcrowther@burbankusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-508621

Unique identifier UC11298663

Identifier etd-CrowtherTh-3023.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-508621 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CrowtherTh-3023.pdf

Dmrecord 508621

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Crowther, Thomas G.

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