Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Disruptions to the traditional textbook narrative: lessons from district leaders and teachers in California
(USC Thesis Other)
Disruptions to the traditional textbook narrative: lessons from district leaders and teachers in California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 1
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TRADITIONAL TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE: LESSONS FROM
DISTRICT LEADERS AND TEACHERS IN CALIFORNIA
by
Shauna Campbell
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Urban Education Policy)
May 2020
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables …………..…………………………………………………………………………7
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..8
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………9
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………10
Why Do Curriculum Materials Matter?.............................................................................13
The Longstanding Narrative on Textbook Adoptions…………………………………...14
Sources of Potential Disruption to the Longstanding Narrative…………………………17
Technology………………………………………………………………………17
The Common Core State Standards……………………………………………...19
Changes to State-Level Adoptions……………………………………………….20
Research Agenda………………………………………………………………………...21
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………22
Study 1: The Formalized Processes Districts Use to Evaluate Textbooks………………………24
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..25
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………26
Prior Literature…………………………………………………………………………...29
The Importance of Textbooks……………………………………………………29
State Textbook Adoptions……………………………………………….31
School District Adoption Processes……………………………………...32
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..33
Background………………………………………………………………………………36
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..38
Sampling…………………………………………………………………………38
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 3
Data………………………………………………………………………………40
Threats to Validity……………………………………………………………….41
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..42
Results……………………………………………………………………………………42
Winnowing: The Process of Narrowing the Pool of Potential Textbooks……….43
Isomorphism in the Winnowing Process………………………………...44
Heterogeneity in the Winnowing Process………………………………..45
Evaluating: The Elaborate Process of Selecting a Textbook…………………….48
Isomorphism in the Evaluation Process………………………………….48
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..53
Implications for Policy…………………………………………………………...............56
Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………….59
Study 2: Offloading, Adapting, and Improvising under the CCSS: Curriculum Materials Use
Among California Eighth-Grade Math Teachers………………………………………...64
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..65
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………66
Prior Literature…………………………………………………………………………...69
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..72
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………75
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..75
Sampling Strategy………………………………………………………………..76
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..76
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..77
Findings………………………………………………………………………………….78
Teacher Resources……………………………………………………………….79
Understanding of the CCSS…..………………………………………….79
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 4
Content Knowledge……………………………………………………...82
Attitudes Toward Adopted Materials…………………………………….83
Alignment………………………………………………………..84
Usability………………………………………………………….86
Pacing…………………………………………………………….87
Difficulty…………………………………………………………88
Curriculum Resources……………………………………………………89
Autonomy………………………………………………………..90
Professional Development……………………………………….91
Adopting a curriculum…………………………………………...94
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..97
Offloading………………………………………………………………………..98
Adapting………………………………………………………………………….99
Improvising……………………………………………………………………..101
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………...103
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..104
Study 3: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professional Development for Implementing the
Common Core State Standards and Aligned Curriculum Materials……………………107
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………108
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..109
Theoretical Perspective…………………………………………………………………113
Teacher Learning and Standards-Based Reforms………………………………114
Teacher Learning and Curriculum Materials…………………………………...115
Teacher Learning and Professional Development……………………………...116
Prior Research…………………………………………………………………………..118
Professional Development and Standards-Based Reforms……………………..118
Professional Development about Content Knowledge and Pedagogical
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 5
Content Knowledge…………………………………………………………….120
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………122
Findings………………………………………………………………………………...125
Professional Development Related to the CCSS……………………………….126
Effective Professional Development……………………………………126
Extensive but Ineffective Professional Development…………………..131
Ineffective and Limited Professional Development……………………132
No Professional Development………………………………………….133
Professional Development from Alternative Sources…………………..134
Professional Development from Alternative Sources…………………………..138
Effective Professional Development……………………………………138
Ineffective Professional Development………………………………….142
Other Professional Development……………………………………………….147
Tools and Pedagogy…………………………………………………….148
Mentoring and Coaching………………………………………………..150
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………152
Weaknesses in Professional Development……………………………………...152
Variation in Learning Opportunities for Teachers……………………...153
Unclear Information about the CCSS…………………………………..154
Prioritizing Curriculum Materials over Standards……………………...157
Policy Implications……………………………………………………………………..158
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………...160
Areas for Future Research……………………………………………………………...160
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 6
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...161
References………………………………………………………………………………………163
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………...174
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 7
List of Tables
Study 1
Table 1.1. District characteristics and adopted math textbooks for district leader sample………61
Study 2
Table 2.1. District characteristics, adopted math textbooks, and number of teachers………….106
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 8
List of Figures
Study 2
Figure 2.1. The design capacity for enactment framework…………………………………......73
Figure 2.2 Adapted design capacity framework including Common Core-specific factors……74
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 9
Abstract
Textbooks are a widely used educational intervention that can affect student achievement;
however, we know little about how textbooks get from the publisher to the classroom. In the first
study in this paper, we use a lens of institutional theory and interviews with district leaders in a
stratified random sample of 34 California school districts to investigate the ways textbook
adoption practices vary and predict adoption decisions. We find isomorphic, highly formalized
adoption processes in most districts. However, we observe some differences along dimensions of
district size, technological interest/infrastructure, and English learner concentration. Given this
variation, we also wonder how the content of curriculum materials is mediated through teacher
decision-making in the context of the most recent educational reform measure, the Common
Core State Standards. Even in schools or districts that uniformly adopt a curriculum, teachers
may not use the curriculum as intended, particularly if they represent a significant change from
previous materials. The Common Core State Standards are more rigorous than previous
standards, and while many states have adopted the standards, the curriculum materials to support
them have not been adequately vetted. In the second study in this paper, we analyze how teachers
make decisions about how to use the materials, based on internal factors like personal beliefs and
external factors like the messages communicated by school leaders. Teacher decisions to offload,
adapt, or improvise lesson planning with district-adopted materials reflects ideology and
understanding of the standards. District-level decisions also influence the way teachers use
adopted materials. In the third study in this paper, we analyze the role of professional
development in communicating messages to teachers about the use of curriculum materials to
implement the Common Core State Standards.California adopted the CCSS for math officially in
2014, but many districts began evaluating, adopting, and implementing the standards and aligned
curriculum materials prior to 2014. While we know that professional development is considered
an important input in helping teachers align their instruction to new standards, we do not have
evidence that districts provide effective or meaningful professional development opportunities to
support teachers. This study uses interviews with 65 teachers in diverse California districts to
examine professional development opportunities provided to teachers during the first few years
of implementation of the CCSS. These interview data provide a picture of the type and scope of
training that teachers received prior to implementation of the new standards, as well as training
on adopted curriculum materials.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 10
Introduction
Curriculum materials have been a topic of scholarly study for several decades, with a
predominant narrative focusing on the importance of the traditional classroom textbook as a
mediator of teaching and learning. The staid and stolid textbook achieved ubiquity as a symbol
of content that teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn. The textbook
has been nearly universally adopted across grades, subjects, schools, and districts, turning it into
a standard classroom feature over the years. Students may find their textbooks waiting patiently
on their desks on the first day of school. Some students might excitedly crack open the spine and
inhale the fresh-off-the-printing-press perfume of a new book, while other classmates groan at
the prospect of heaving these heavy volumes back and forth from home. New books can
represent the promise of an enriching and challenging academic curriculum, or the burden of
knowledge they are expected to remember by year’s end. While students know that they might
never make it to, say, the chapters of a history book covering the 1970s and 80s, the pages inside
provide a schematic for learning over the course of a year.
With textbooks being embedded in the collective understanding of American education,
their form and content could easily be taken for granted. We’ve all used textbooks during our
own school days, so we may not even question some basic aspects of the publication and use of
these materials. For example, who determines the content of textbooks? Who chooses which
textbooks end up in students’ hands? Do teachers follow the textbook strictly in order, and do
they cover all of the topics? How can we tell if one textbook is better than another? Why do
textbooks seem to keep getting longer? And does the subject matter really change from year to
year? Isn’t math, for example, basically the same now as it was ten or even fifty years ago?
Some notable groups, including publishers, policymakers, and researchers, have a more
vested interest the questions above, and their answers have framed a narrative that has remained
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 11
consistent for the last forty years. The research on curriculum materials, dating back to the late
1970s and almost exclusively focused on traditional single-subject textbooks, describes a system
heavily influenced by large, increasingly consolidated textbook publishing houses and state
boards of education that determine the content of textbooks (e.g., Bernstein, 1985; English, 1980;
Farr & Tulley, 1985; Tulley, 1985). The narrative states that the driving forces behind the
publication of new textbooks are standards-based reforms and the curriculum needs of the
largest, most influential states (Finn & Ravitch, 2004). Standards-based reforms are linked to
textbook content and quality because alignment between the standards and curriculum materials
is thought to be a key component in improving the quality of instruction (Smith & O’Day, 1990).
Publishers align the newest editions of their textbooks to the standards and adoption cycles of the
largest states, California and Texas, because they represent the largest markets (e.g., Bowler,
1978; Finn & Ravitch, 2004; Stein, et al., 2001). Not wanting to limit their sales to these two
markets, publishers also include material aligned to the standards adopted in other states,
resulting in lengthy, bloated, and diluted curriculum loaded with ancillary components (Reys,
Reys, & Chavez, 2004; Schmidt & McKnight, 2012; Tulley, 1985). The pressures of selling to
multiple markets with differing standards result in low-quality, overly long textbooks that are not
meaningfully aligned to any standards (Follett, 1985; Reys, Reys, & Chavez, 2004). Even though
these materials might be “approved” by state boards of education before districts can purchase
and use them, the length of the books and the lack of experience of the evaluators prohibit
anything more than a cursory and superficial stamp of approval. Therefore, the materials that end
up in teachers’ hands are not adequate to support teacher understanding of new standards or
student learning, despite claims of alignment from publishers.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 12
This narrative needs examination because it is incomplete and outdated. The research on
textbooks is limited to precisely that: textbooks. Meanwhile, the curriculum materials market has
diversified in recent years and now includes options like digital textbooks, open educational
resources, and individualized learning options. The research on curriculum materials needs to
encompass the resources that are available to teachers beyond the traditional, single-subject,
hardcover textbook. The narrative on textbook adoptions is also incomplete because it neglects
an important group of decision-makers: district-level leaders who make curriculum materials
selections. The textbook narrative describes the influence of the state boards of education in
selecting and approving materials, and it describes how state standards and textbook publishers
influence both content and quality of resources that are available for adoption. However, district
officials (such as superintendents or directors of curriculum and instruction) have a role in the
evaluation, selection, and implementation of materials even in states where materials need to be
“approved” by the state board of education before being adopted. The literature on textbooks
does not account for the influence of district leaders in making decisions about curriculum
materials. The textbook narrative may also need to be revised to reflect changes in state
standards. The longstanding narrative emphasizes the influence of standards adopted in
California and Texas because these states hold the largest share of the textbook market.
However, a majority of state have recently adopted some version of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS), representing the closest that we have come to a national set of K-12 academic
standards. For the first time since textbook adoptions have been widely studied, a majority of
students are being held to similar academic standards, meaning that the nature of the textbook
market has changed. Instead of writing materials specifically for the states with the largest
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 13
market share, publishers may choose to write materials that would be adopted by the largest
number of districts in Common Core-adopting states.
To explore the need for revision to the traditional textbook narrative, I present the
findings from two studies on curriculum materials adoptions in California. The study of
curriculum materials has historically been challenged by the lack of comprehensive data on
adopted materials. Our research team found a source of publicly available data that includes
information on the adopted materials in California schools. The School Accountability Report
Card (SARC) is a mandatory document that each school must produce by the end of the
academic year, listing the availability and adoption year of their current curriculum materials.
There is substantial variation in the quality of these data since they are published at the school
level, but our database represents one of the largest known sources of information on curriculum
materials adoptions. We used the reported materials, as well as school-level indicators of student
achievement and size, to create a sample of districts representing the diversity across California.
We conducted interviews with school district leaders and teachers regarding the evaluation,
adoption, and implementation of curriculum materials to see if the longstanding narrative about
textbooks remains relevant.
Why Do Curriculum Materials Matter?
Curriculum materials are an often overlooked but important policy intervention. Perhaps
the most compelling evidence for studying curriculum materials is the experimental and quasi-
experimental evidence indicating that the choice of one set of materials over another can predict
differences in student achievement. These studies are not large in number, but they use rigorous
methods and consistently find that curriculum materials selection predicts differences in student
achievement. Agodini and Harris (2010) used random assignment of four popular elementary
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 14
math books and found relative differences up to 0.17 standard deviations in student achievement,
a difference that persisted into the next year. Bhatt and Koedel (2012) used statewide Indiana
adoption data and found similar achievement effects associated with elementary math materials
adoptions. Bhatt and colleagues (2013) used similar data in Florida and again found that the
selection of one curriculum over another was associated with statistically significant differences
in student achievement as measured on end-of-year exams. Our own research team (Polikoff,
2017) found student achievement effects associated with elementary math textbooks used in
California. We compared relative student achievement effects associated with schools using the
four most commonly adopted elementary math textbooks pre-Common Core. We found that one
title in particular was associated with a 0.05 to 0.10 standard deviation in student achievement,
and that the effects persisted for several years following the adoption.
These findings are encouraging because there is also evidence that the cost of one
curriculum over another is marginal at the district level (Boser, Chingos, & Straus, 2015). This
means that with access to information about the relative quality of curriculum materials, districts
can purchase curriculum materials without much additional cost that can have a real impact on
student achievement. In our study of California elementary math textbooks, we found that the
effect sizes were twice as large for students in who received free or reduced-price lunch,
indicating that the selection of one set of materials over another can produce even greater effects
for low-SES schools. This is highly encouraging evidence that curriculum materials represent an
affordable, relatively straightforward intervention that can improve student achievement.
The Longstanding Narrative on Textbook Adoptions
Much of the literature on textbook adoptions has focused on the influence of the state
department of education on the quality and content of textbooks. Historically, twenty-one states
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 15
(mostly located in the South and West) have been characterized as “state-adoption states,”
meaning that standards-aligned textbooks are selected by a state-level committee (e.g., Finn &
Ravitch, 2004; Tulley, 1985; Zeringue, et al., 2010). Though state-level adoptions vary in their
restrictiveness, districts are required or at least incentivized to adopt materials that have been
selected by the committee. Usually there is a provision of state-level funding for materials
purchased from the approved list. The remaining states are considered “open territory states,”
where adoption decisions are made at the district or school level.
The supposed intentions of state-level adoptions are to provide a uniform curriculum of
the highest quality and to protect local districts from the burden of conducting evaluations of
new materials (Stein, et al., 2001; Tulley, 1985). The interest in requiring some sort of
“standardized” textbook actually dates back to the one-room schoolhouse days of the 1850s,
when students came to school with the books they had in their homes (Farr & Tulley, 1985).
Teachers complained about the inability to teach lessons with all students using different
curriculum materials, which led to legislation allowing schools to require that parents provide
certain books. Still, when students moved between schools or districts, they could find that their
peers were using an entirely different set of books. Student mobility led to a push to adopt
standard materials at the state level. Statewide textbook adoptions were also intended to make
the cost of books more affordable through large-volume negotiations with publishers (Tulley,
1985). They were thought to relieve local districts of the time and cost of conducting evaluations,
and it was assumed that professional committees at the state level were better trained at selecting
high-quality materials.
Critics of the textbook adoption process argue that these intentions have not historically
been met in practice. Criticism of textbook adoption committees rose in the 1980s and again in
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 16
the early 2000s, coinciding with the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Critics
argued that evaluation committees consisted of laypeople rather than educators, received
minimal training on how to evaluate materials, were heavily influenced by publisher
demonstrations rather than objective measures of quality, and were apt to select materials that
looked familiar (Bernstein, 1985; English, 1980; Farr, Tulley, & Powell, 1987; Finn & Ravitch,
2004; Reys & Reys, 2006; Stein, et al., 2001; Tulley & Farr, 1990). Researchers have also been
critical of the lack of time allotted to evaluating materials, noting that textbooks each number
into the hundreds of pages, not including ancillary components like student workbooks, leveled
readers, or practice books (Follett, 1985). They argue that there is simply not enough time for a
committee to meaningfully examine multiple volumes under consideration. One of the main
goals of the state-level adoption committee is to ease this burden from local schools, but with
that comes a trade-off. Local districts are perhaps in the best position to evaluate and select
materials for their student populations (Ezarik, 2005; McLaughlin, 1990; Reys & Reys, 2006;
Stein, et al., 2001). Adoptions could be more effective, and more likely to be implemented, if
they were conducted at the local level, despite the burdens associated with the evaluation process
(Stein, et al., 2001).
From the days of the one-room schoolhouse, where teachers desired uniformity among
materials to aid in teaching, textbook adoptions have been associated with standardization of
curriculum (Farr & Tulley, 1985). One of the intentions of the state-level adoption process is to
allow students to move between school districts without loss of instructional content (Tulley,
1985). Similarly, one of the goals standards-based reforms is to create consistency across various
educational inputs so students receive a coherent message about learning goals (Smith & O’Day,
1990). However, the curriculum materials that teachers end up using are only “aligned” to the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 17
publishers’ interpretations of the standards (Brown, 2009). The language of the standards can be
misinterpreted by curriculum writers and publishers (Finn & Ravitch, 2004). There is evidence
that even “aligned” curriculum materials fail to meet the true expectations of content and rigor
determined by the standards (e.g., Polikoff, 2015). Publishers are incentivized to sell large
volumes of materials quickly after states have adopted new standards, and the largest textbook
markets are the states of California and Texas, which have historically adopted materials at the
state level. Therefore, researchers argue that the standards adopted in California and Texas
practically determine the content of curriculum materials sold nationally (e.g., Bowler, 1978;
English, 1980, Finn & Ravitch, 2004). So, while aligned curriculum materials are an essential
component for successful standards-based reforms, there is skepticism that the materials are truly
aligned in a meaningful way.
The general themes that emerge in the textbook narrative from the last forty years can be
summed up broadly. Textbooks are an important component to standards-based reforms, but they
are lacking in quality and poorly aligned to the standards. This is because of the influence of
state boards of education, who are inadequately prepared to evaluate materials, and because
textbook publishers just want to earn money through sales to the largest states. The most
powerful influences on the content and quality of textbooks are the departments of education in
the largest states (Texas and California), and publishers’ materials are written to reflect the needs
of those states at the expense of other states.
Sources of Potential Disruption to the Longstanding Narrative
Technology
The current educational landscape is being shaped by changes in technology and policy,
implying that the traditional textbook narrative might need to be updated. Technological
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 18
advances have changed the very nature of the textbook, so much so that the concept of a
traditional, single-subject, hardcover textbook may soon become outdated. Most, if not all,
textbooks are now available in digital or hybrid print-digital formats. Many publishers also
produce softcover, consumable versions of the textbook. We assume that these changes can
influence the way districts evaluate materials, the way teachers structure their lessons, and the
way students interact with materials, but we do not yet have any research to support this
assumption.
The influence of technology means that we need to reconsider how we define
“curriculum materials” and the ways that we assess policy issues related to access and
implementation. The State Educational Technology Directors Association published a
comprehensive report about educational technology in 2012 (Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levin).
The writers argue that technology has the ability to either widen or narrow the existing
achievement gap in education. Persistently low-performing schools are at a disadvantage if they
lack the technology that more successful schools have adopted. The authors also argue that
schools do their students a disservice if they are not adequately preparing them to succeed in an
increasingly technology-reliant world.
Technology has also created a new understanding of professional community for
teachers. Teachers now have access to resources from other educators around the country who
are teaching the same standards. In a recent nationally representative survey, nearly 100 percent
of teachers report using online resources at least once per week to plan lessons (Opfer, et al.,
2016). Teachers report using sharing sites such as Pinterest and Teachers Pay Teachers, search
engines such as Google, and lesson plan aggregators such as LearnZillion to help them in their
lesson planning. Teachers in focus groups about CCSS implementation and supplemental
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 19
resources note that they value online resources from other teachers because these materials have
been tried and tested in actual classrooms (Bugler, et al., 2017; Chen-Gaddini, et al., 2017;
Marple, et al., 2017). Teachers in these focus groups indicate that they trust the professional
advice of other teachers, even though they might not know each other personally. The nature of
technology is expanding the traditional boundaries of teacher professional networks, opening up
a range of resources previously unavailable to them.
The Common Core State Standards
The CCSS, which have been adopted in 42 states and Washington, D.C., share this goal
of providing students with consistent learning messages regardless of location or educational
circumstances. The writers and adopters of the CCSS share the philosophy that:
High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and
students with a set of clear expectations to ensure that all students have the
skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life upon
graduation from high school, regardless of where they live. These standards are
aligned to the expectations of colleges, workforce training programs, and
employers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students are well
prepared to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and
abroad. Unlike previous state standards, which varied widely from state to
state, the Common Core enables collaboration among states on a range of tools
and policies, including the:
• Development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials
• Development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment
systems that replace existing state testing systems in order to measure student
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 20
performance annually and provide teachers with specific feedback to help
ensure students are on the path to success
• Development of tools and other supports to help educators and schools ensure
all students are able to learn the new standards. [from corestandards.org]
With the CCSS providing the closest approximation to a national set of standards that the
United States has ever seen, there is reason to be hopeful that the quality and alignment of
curriculum materials could improve. Publishers can now produce one book narrowed to reflect
the content of one set of standards without loss of market share. Evaluations of early editions of
CCSS-aligned math books are not promising, indicating that fourth grade math books were not
more than 40 percent in proportional alignment with the CCSS (Polikoff, 2015), but we could
imagine that revised editions of the books may be more aligned to the content and intellectual
rigor required by the CCSS.
Changes to State-Level Adoptions
Restrictive state-level policies on textbook adoptions have been the focus of much of the
narrative on curriculum materials (Bernstein, 1985; English, 1980; Farr & Tulley, 1985; Finn &
Ravitch, 2004; Reys & Reys, 2006; Stein, et al., 2001; Tulley, 1985). However, recent
regulations have relaxed some of the policies around curriculum materials adoptions, meaning
that a greater degree of local control is being given in states that were traditionally characterized
by a state-wide adoption process (Gewertz, 2015). In California, coinciding with the
implementation of the CCSS and the adoption of new curriculum materials aligned to the
standards, Assembly Bill 1246 grants new flexibility to districts. Under this bill, the Department
of Education’s list of approved materials becomes advisory rather than mandatory. The bill gives
districts the opportunity to conduct their own evaluations of curriculum materials entirely
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 21
independent of the state’s approved list, as long as they provide documentation of their review.
The bill also stipulates that teachers need to be the majority voice in the selection of curriculum
materials.
Research Agenda
The changes described above indicate that the notion of the traditional textbook adoption
cycle may be outdated. Any one of these changes individually is enough to create a disruption to
the traditional cycle of textbook adoptions, but together, they create an entirely different
landscape in which curriculum materials are evaluated, selected, and implemented. Even though
recent reports have called for the collection of data on curriculum materials, this information is
largely decentralized (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012). However, we have found a few states that
do collect school-level information on materials adoptions. Our research team spent several years
collecting data on adopted curriculum materials in California from the adoption of the Common
Core State Standards through the 2016-2017 academic year. These descriptive data provide a
picture of the distribution of materials throughout the state, allowing us to note patterns in
adoptions, market share by publisher, and associations between adopted materials and student
achievement. The descriptive data on textbook adoptions were paired with district-level student
demographic data and achievement data. Members of the research team used propensity score
matching to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the most widely adopted pre-Common Core
math textbooks (Koedel, et al., 2017).
While descriptive and quantitative data can provide a picture of patterns of adoption and
associated effects on student achievement, they do not provide information about the adoption
process itself. The descriptive data do not provide insight into district- and school-level
mechanisms that shape the decisions about how materials get selected and used. To complement
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 22
the descriptive and quantitative work on how materials get adopted, and how teachers make
decisions about how the materials get used in class, we also conducted interviews with district
leaders and teachers across California. Representing 34 diverse districts, the leaders and teachers
and our sample were selected based on characteristics that we predicted would have some
influence on the ways materials get adopted and used. More information on sampling methods
and criteria is described in Paper 1 and in Koedel, et al., 2017. Our sampling strategy has
allowed us to qualitatively explore issues related to curriculum materials evaluations, selection,
and implementation across a representative group of California districts. We are able to look for
patterns across districts with similar characteristics, and we are able to identify district-level
factors associated with differences in the adoption of curriculum materials.
Research Questions
We were interested in a qualitative understanding of the current curriculum materials
adoption landscape, in light of changes in technology, the adoption of the CCSS, and relaxed
district-level expectations for adopting “approved” materials. These three changes in California
provide an opportunity to understand the criteria that matter as district leaders evaluate and select
curriculum materials, such as the influence of teachers, student characteristics, and budget on
adoption decisions. We were also interested in the influence of the standards themselves on the
adoption process—how do district leaders view the importance of standards alignment in the
selection of new curriculum materials? And finally, once materials arrive in teachers’ hands, how
are they used? Do teachers implement these materials with fidelity, or do they make changes to
the adopted materials to better suit the needs of their students?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 23
There are two focal areas of research here: district-level decisions about curriculum
materials adoptions, and teacher-level decisions about curriculum materials implementation. For
the study of district-level decision-making, we identify two research questions:
1. How do California school districts make decisions about which textbooks to adopt in the
core subjects?
2. How do adoption practices vary according to district size, performance level, or other
descriptive variables?
We evaluate these questions using a lens of institutional theory in an attempt to understand the
factors that districts use to legitimize the evaluation and adoption of curriculum materials.
Our research questions for the study of teacher implementation are:
1. How do attitudes and understanding around new materials and standards influence the
ways in which California eighth-grade math teachers implement the new materials and
standards?
2. How do district-level processes related to the adoption and implementation of new
standards and materials influence teacher decision-making around implementation?
To answer these questions, we apply Brown’s (2002, 2009) design theory of curriculum
materials implementation, which assesses how resources affect teachers’ decision to offload,
adapt, or improvise with adopted materials.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 24
Study 1: The Formalized Processes Districts Use to Evaluate Textbooks
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 25
Abstract
Textbooks are a widely used educational intervention that can affect student achievement, and
the marginal cost of choosing a more effective textbook is typically small. However, we know
little about how textbooks get from the publisher to the classroom. We use a lens of institutional
theory and interviews with district leaders in a stratified random sample of 34 California school
districts to investigate the ways textbook adoption practices vary and predict adoption decisions.
We find isomorphic, highly formalized adoption processes in most districts. However, we
observe some differences along dimensions of district size, technological interest/infrastructure,
and English learner concentration. We recommend states produce and update lists of high quality
materials early and often, and that they use a highly rigorous evaluation process. We also
recommend states experiment with encouraging similar districts to partner on textbook
evaluation and adoption to respond to district demands for information and capacity building
around curricula.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 26
In recent years education scholars have called for increased study of the role of
curriculum materials, such as textbooks, as a potential policy intervention to improve student
learning (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012; Confrey, 2006; National Research Council, 2004).
Textbooks have been the primary curriculum material used by teachers since the mid-1800s, and
they remain nearly universal in their reach as a policy instrument—nearly all teachers report
using textbooks on at least a weekly basis (e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1996; Farr & Tulley, 1985; Opfer,
et al., 2016; Reys, Reys, & Chavez, 2004). Improving student achievement through exposure to
better textbooks (and other curriculum materials) is an appealing and straightforward policy
intervention given the small but growing body of empirical evidence showing that the choice of
one textbook over another can have meaningful effects on student achievement (Agodini &
Harris, 2010; Bhatt & Koedel, 2012; Polikoff, 2017).
1
Moreover, it is well-documented that
textbooks vary broadly along other dimensions, such as content coverage, meaning that students
may be exposed to different content based on the materials used in their classrooms (Schmidt &
McKnight, 2012). Differences in access to high-quality instructional materials are thought to be
so important that families in California successfully filed a civil suit against the state Department
of Education arguing for regulation of the quality of adopted materials across the state (Eliezer
Williams, et al., v. the State of California, et al., 2000).
A large body of research describes how textbooks are evaluated and selected at the state
level. Another body of research focuses on the ways in which teachers implement the materials
provided to them. However, there is very little research about the role of the local school district
in the textbook adoption process, which is a serious limitation of the literature because districts
are the unit ultimately responsible for which textbooks are adopted and used by students and
teachers (we are aware of just one unpublished paper focused on school districts by Zeringue, et
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 27
al., 2010). Given districts’ central role, policy efforts aimed at improving curriculum adoption
decisions—as has been advocated by many of late (e.g., Boser, Chingos, & Straus, 2015;
Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012; Kane, 2016; Polikoff, 2017)—must understand and account for
their processes. The objective of this study is to contribute to the thin literature on how districts
choose curriculum materials.
Now is an especially appropriate time to study school district textbook adoptions for two
reasons. First, the curriculum materials market is clearly changing. While textbooks remain
prevalent, recent survey data indicate that teachers are increasingly using materials such as open
education resources, adaptive learning software, and digital textbooks as well (Marple, et al.,
2017; Opfer, et. al., 2016). While some of these resources are selected by individual teachers, the
extent to which district adoption processes constrain or support the use of these non-traditional
resources is unclear.
Second, curriculum materials may play an important role in supporting the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and other ‘college- and career-
readiness’ standards. Standards-aligned materials such as textbooks are seen as necessary for
providing teachers with consistent messages to successfully implement new standards (Smith &
O’Day, 1990). The CCSS represent a shift in both content and pedagogy compared to previous
sets of standards (Porter, et al., 2011). We do not know the extent to which districts consider
standards alignment in their decision-making about new curriculum materials, or whether this
has become more important with the CCSS. In many states, the department of education already
compiles a list of vetted, aligned materials, but we do not know whether districts perceive these
lists to be sufficient or lacking, or the extent to which districts have their own processes they use
to supplement efforts by the state in this regard.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 28
For our study we interview 34 district leaders in California regarding curriculum
materials adoptions. We are interested in the influence of factors such as technology, standards
alignment, and stakeholder opinions in the adoption of new materials. Understanding existing
textbook adoption processes is essential to crafting policy that can result in better materials in the
hands of teachers. As textbooks have an important influence on students’ opportunities to learn
specific content and skills (Bhatt, Koedel & Lehmann, 2013; Kurz, 2011; McDonnell, 1995;
Schmidt, et al., 2001), a thorough understanding of textbook adoptions may offer leverage for
identifying and ameliorating curriculum-related inequities. Specifically, we address two main
research questions:
1) How do California school districts make decisions about which textbooks to
adopt in the core subjects?
2) How do adoption practices vary according to district size, performance level, or
other descriptive variables?
We explore these questions with semi-structured interviews of school district leaders. We
selected the majority of our districts using a stratified random sample based on three criteria that
we expected to be associated with differences in curriculum material adoptions.
Using a lens of institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), we find that districts adopt
certain isomorphic processes for the selection and evaluation of curriculum materials. These
processes include the use of district-specific selection criteria to narrow the field of options, the
use of an evaluation rubric or toolkit, and the collection of teacher feedback, typically through
the piloting of materials. District processes also vary in some ways; the differences are primarily
driven by characteristics such as the proportion of ELL students and a district’s technological
infrastructure. We also find that small districts are constrained from adopting the elaborate,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 29
formalized processes that exist in larger districts. We do not find evidence that student-
achievement efficacy is given consideration in districts’ adoption decisions, which is
unsurprising given the lack of efficacy evidence available for most curricular choices (Bhatt &
Koedel, 2012; Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012; Polikoff, 2017). More generally, there is little
evidence that any external, objective evaluation source is consulted in most districts (e.g., just 5
of the 34 districts we interviewed considered reviews of materials from EdReports).
Our work identifies the state-approved curriculum list in California as a potentially
powerful leverage point for affecting which curriculum materials are adopted by individual
districts, as districts rely heavily on the list. However, challenges we identify that impede the
influence of the state list include (a) some districts lack confidence in the state vetting process,
and (b) the timeline of waiting for state lists can be problematic, especially if state assessments
are to be rolled out before the state list is approved. Our interviews also reveal clear interest
among districts in collaboration during the adoption process, especially smaller districts. Policy
effort to help coordinate collaboration among districts that serve similar student populations and
likely have similar needs would help to reduce the work burden for individual districts (e.g., by
minimizing duplicate work). It could also lead to improved adoptions by facilitating deeper
reviews of the various curriculum alternatives.
Prior Literature
The Importance of Textbooks
There is a large and growing body of research showing that textbooks matter for student
learning. One recent experimental study and several recent quasi-experimental studies
demonstrate that elementary mathematics textbooks differ in their effects on student
achievement. Agodini and Harris (2010) randomly assigned schools to use one of four
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 30
elementary math curricula. They found achievement impacts as large as 0.17 standard deviations.
Using statewide textbook adoption data, studies in Indiana (Bhatt & Koedel, 2012) and Florida
(Bhatt et al., 2013) have shown textbook impacts of similar magnitudes. In our own work, we
have analyzed school-level textbook adoption data in California and found that a commonly
adopted elementary math textbook raised student achievement by 0.05 to 0.10 standard
deviations relative to three other books, and that the achievement effect persisted across at least
the first four years post-adoption (Author, 2017). In that study, textbook effects also appeared to
promote educational equity, as the impacts were twice as large for students who received free or
reduced-price lunch than those who did not. These effects are especially noteworthy because the
marginal cost of choosing one textbook over another is often very low (most textbooks cost
about the same amount), so the cost effectiveness of this intervention is quite high (Boser,
Chingos, & Straus, 2015).
The precise reasons why textbooks differ in their effects on student learning is not
known. An intuitive hypothesis is that it is differences in textbook content that matter.
Researchers have found evidence that textbooks themselves do vary in their cognitive demand
and alignment to the standards (Polikoff, 2015). There is also variation in the content covered
both within grade levels and within subjects (Schmidt & McKnight, 2012). It may also be that
some textbooks are easier to implement or come with more effective professional development.
The evaluation performed by Agodini & Harris (2010) suggested that differences in teacher
training were correlated with textbook effects, for instance. While more research is needed to
understand mechanisms, it is quite clear that textbooks can affect student learning at scale.
Textbook effects on student achievement also have important equity implications.
Differences in textbook quality were a central component in the Eliezer Williams, et al., v. the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 31
State of California, et al. civil case, in which the plaintiffs—over one hundred California
students—argued that the state failed to provide equitable access to high-quality instructional
materials. The settlement of the Williams case included allocation of additional funds for
instructional materials in low-achieving schools, indicating that equitable access to high-quality
materials is a matter of importance to both families and the courts.
State Textbook Adoptions
The first wave of research on curriculum materials rose in the 1980s and focused on the
state-level textbook adoptions practiced in 22 states (e.g., English, 1980; Farr & Tulley, 1985;
Follett, 1985; Tulley, 1985; Tyson-Bernstein, 1988). Adoption committees composed of
educators and laypeople were implemented to evaluate the large numbers of textbooks available
to local districts. The intention of the adoption committees was to conduct a meaningful study of
alignment between curriculum materials and state standards, indicating to local districts that the
approved materials satisfied the expectations of state guidelines. This was thought to not only
ease the burden on local districts (evaluating curriculum materials requires time and human
resources) but also to provide consistency in the quality of materials used in districts.
Researchers studying state-level textbook adoptions have been overwhelmingly critical of
the process and claim that it “perpetuates mediocre textbooks” (Farr & Tulley, 1985). This work
argues that textbook publishers, trying to sell their books to the largest possible number of
classrooms, write material that appeals to multiple sets of (often conflicting) state standards. As a
result, the content of materials is broad but not deep and is largely determined by the standards
adopted in the largest states, California and Texas (e.g., Bowler, 1978; English, 1980, Finn &
Ravitch, 2004). Publisher efforts to appeal to the needs of many states and many standards have
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 32
historically resulted in textbooks described as “an inch deep and a mile wide” (Porter, 1989;
Schmidt & McKnight, 2012).
A second wave of textbook research arose in association with the implementation of
standards-based reforms, particularly the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Curriculum
materials are considered an important dimension to successful standards-based reforms, but
teachers need materials that consistently reinforce the content, pedagogy, and goals written into
the standards (McLaughlin, 1990; Smith & O’Day, 1990). Some scholars have expressed
concern that NCLB—and the pacing guidelines and scripted lessons that it generated—
negatively affected the quality of textbooks (Finn & Ravitch, 2004; Reys & Reys, 2006; Schmidt
& McKnight, 2012). Publishers rushed to print books aligned to the new standards, but critics
argued these volumes sacrificed quality to appeal to a broad market (e.g., Finn & Ravitch, 2004;
Schmidt & McKnight, 2012). Furthermore, state adoption committees lacked the time to
adequately evaluate materials, the training to use evaluation measures, research-based
information about textbooks, and foundational knowledge of education research and pedagogy
(Stein, et al., 2001).
School District Adoption Processes
As noted in the introduction, a prominent hole in the extant research literature is with
respect to the role of school districts in evaluating and adopting new curriculum materials. We
know of only one unpublished paper on this topic. Zeringue and colleagues (2010) analyzed
legislative documents and interviewed over 150 K-12 district leaders in eight states. They
identified four phases of a typical adoption cycle: preparing (forming committees, developing
rubrics), narrowing (reviewing standards, sampling other districts), evaluating (using rubrics and
piloting), and deciding (conducting a formal teacher vote or committee decision). The five
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 33
factors that mattered most to district leaders in making a final decision were alignment,
anticipated level of teacher buy-in, evaluation of “quality” of materials, information from
additional sources such as neighboring districts, and the advocacy of curriculum leaders for a
specific program.
We aim to build on the Zeringue et al. (2010) study to both expand on the very thin
evidence base on this important topic and update our knowledge base for the present era. Many
states are moving away from formal statewide textbook adoptions (Gewertz, 2015). California—
historically cited as one of the two states most influential to textbook publishers (e.g., English,
1980)—now follows an ‘advisory’ model, where the Department of Education publishes a list of
approved materials, but districts are not required to adopt from that list. The traditional
understanding of a state adoption might be disrupted by more flexibility at the district level.
Districts also have access to an unprecedented variety of curriculum resources (e.g., digital
textbooks, collaborative online sharing platforms such as Teachers Pay Teachers and the Google
Suite for Education, open education resources), and new tools and information are available to
aid decision-makers in the adoption process (e.g., the Achieve the Core toolkit, independent
evaluations from EdReports and the What Works Clearinghouse). Finally, there is no evidence to
date on district adoption processes post-CCSS. These standards reflect a different content focus
and level of cognitive demand than the standards previously adopted in most states (Porter et al.,
2011). The CCSS also represent a nearly nationwide adoption of a consistent set of standards,
which may change how districts think about curriculum materials.
Theoretical Framework
We use a lens of institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) to study textbook adoptions
in the context of organizational behavior and policy. Meyer and Rowan argue that formal
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 34
organizational structures arise from a desire for institutional legitimacy. Organizations (such as
school districts) may adopt standard organizational structures to build legitimacy, particularly for
practices that lack inherent objectivity (such as evaluating the quality of curriculum materials).
Institutions look to one another to inform their practices, creating a tendency for institutions—
especially those with similar characteristics—to adopt isomorphic organizational structures.
Examining textbook adoptions through this lens, we expect school districts to adopt
broadly similar organizational structures and processes to evaluate and select curriculum
materials. Based on prior research, we expect these processes to include a) formal personnel,
such as Assistant Superintendents of Curriculum, to lead the selection and implementation of
materials, b) committees of teachers to analyze the available materials and make an adoption
recommendation, c) some sort of ‘objective’ or quantifiable measure to determine quality of
materials, and d) approval by parents and/or school boards. We expect these ceremonial
structures to be more elaborate in larger, more bureaucratic districts. We explore this factor by
using enrollment size as one of the criteria in our sampling.
Research does not provide a consensus on what good curriculum materials look like, or
even how to define or measure quality. Studies on the efficacy of particular curriculum materials
are scant, and we don’t have clear evidence about the specific features that make some materials
more effective than others. Elaborate practices to evaluate curricula give the illusion that school
districts know what they are doing and have the capacity to spend public dollars wisely.
Traditional public schools are also being challenged with increasing competition from online,
hybrid, magnet, private, and charter schools. We expect this competition to encourage traditional
public schools to look to one another in developing complex evaluation and adoption processes.
Our interview questions are designed to probe each district’s process, characterize the roles of
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 35
actors involved, and detail the steps taken to reach a formal decision. Our use of a stratified
random sample allows us to compare and contrast processes across institutions that share similar
characteristics. We are also interested in the potential involvement of external stakeholders, who
might be engaged in district adoption processes to enhance legitimacy through authority (Weber,
1947). Our interview questions probe on the roles of the important players outside of the
traditional public school, such as community members and textbook publishers.
Institutional legitimacy provides a framework for examining differences in districts that
choose to adopt textbooks from the state-approved list versus materials that have not been
approved. Since the state changed its laws in 2013, California school districts have more control
over the books they purchase (under the previous state policy, districts could only use state
textbook funds to purchase on-list books).
4
The state’s list of approved textbooks is now merely
advisory, meaning districts can choose any materials on or off the list, although if they select off-
list materials, they must submit documentation that the materials meet the California standards.
This process may be burdensome for districts, so we expect districts that adopt off-list materials
to have resources that enable them to complete the additional documentation.
While districts have more flexibility in adoption decisions than in the past, our data show
that the majority of districts still adopted on-list math books as of 2015-2016. This may reflect
districts’ trust in the California approval process, although it also makes sense that districts
would continue to adopt from the state-approved list to increase the appearance of legitimacy
because textbooks on the list have a degree of formal legitimacy that off-list books lack. This
legitimacy is potentially important when districts present their chosen books to school boards
and parents. We sampled districts based on whether they reported adopting an on-list or off-list
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 36
book in the most recent mathematics adoption cycle, in order to probe whether processes or
structures differed systematically between schools making these different decisions.
Accountability measures add another layer of policy context to local district decision-
making, including decisions about the curriculum materials that will help districts meet
accountability standards. State-level accountability measures meaningfully affect school policies
and practices (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). We therefore expected that accountability measures would
affect the formal structures and processes used by districts to make curriculum decisions, even
though California has dramatically relaxed accountability in recent years (the state took a year
off from administering assessments during the Common Core transition and has not used formal
school accountability measures since 2013-14). We use student achievement levels (average
math achievement)—a proxy for the threat of accountability and the urgency to improve school
performance—as our third criterion in our sampling.
Background
The data for this project are nested within a larger, ongoing study of curriculum material
adoptions in five states. We have collected data on adopted materials (title, adoption year, and
grades used) in math and science in these states. We have linked these data with demographic
and student achievement data to investigate questions about the equitable distribution of high-
quality materials, the impact of specific textbook series on student achievement (Koedel et al.,
2017), and trends in the usage of materials.
In California, one of the five states in our study, we have been able to collect information
on adopted textbooks due to a condition of the Williams case settlement mentioned above. The
plaintiffs, representing students and families in low-income schools, argued that the state was
providing insufficient oversight over how resources were allocated to students. The state of
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 37
California now requires every public school to publish information about the quality and
availability of their textbooks on the yearly School Accountability Report Card (SARC) online.
While the SARC textbook data are a rich source of information for our quantitative work,
they are not without their challenges. For instance, there is substantial variation in the quality and
completeness of the SARCs. In many cases, schools only report the publisher of a textbook
(many publishers produce multiple series), and in other cases, schools only report using
‘sufficient’ materials. Additionally, the SARC data tell us nothing about the extent to which
teachers actually use the materials listed, nor about how district decisions were made.
At the beginning of a textbook adoption cycle, the California Department of Education
(CDE) publishes a call for materials, and publishers can choose to submit materials to be
evaluated for state adoption. Materials are evaluated by a trained committee using an evaluation
toolkit provided by the CDE. Historically, textbook adoptions have occurred on a 6- to 8-year
cycle, with district funding for instructional materials following a state adoption. Recently, the
restrictions on categorical funding in California have been relaxed, and now districts may choose
materials from the state-approved list or may purchase any other materials provided they meet
the requirements of the state standards. The most recent list of approved math materials was
published January, 2014, although some schools began adopting Common Core-aligned math
materials as early as 2012 (and thus did not have the list as a resource). However, most districts
waited until after the state list was released to make a decision, with the majority adopting during
the 2014-15 or 2015-16 school years.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 38
Methods
Sampling
Our larger research project focuses on the selection, implementation, and achievement
effects of curriculum materials. The goal is to deepen our understanding of effective materials
and how they end up teachers’ classrooms. We recognize, however, that merely producing
research on textbook effects will do little to improve the quality of materials in classrooms if
educators do not consider such information in adoption decisions. Thus, we seek to gain a more
detailed understanding of the evaluation and adoption process itself, to better understand how
information on textbook quality might be used in the adoption process. In California, textbook
adoptions occur at the district level; our research design is based on the idea that district leaders
in charge of curriculum adoptions can provide insight into the factors that matter most in
evaluating and adopting materials. We conducted semi-structured interviews with district leaders
in public school districts across California from fall of 2015 to spring of 2017. By fall 2015,
approximately 60% of public school districts had officially adopted a Common Core-aligned
math curriculum in grades k-8, and by spring 2017, that number had risen to nearly 100%.
We restricted our sample to traditional public K-8 schools in California to reduce the
variation in curriculum adoptions related to school type. We excluded charter schools, alternative
schools, online schools, etc. because they are exempt from some of the SARC requirements that
traditional public schools must meet. We also restricted our study by focusing on mathematics
textbooks, the subject of the majority of the literature on curricular effectiveness.
We identified districts using a stratified random sample at the school level, although
interviews were conducted with district leaders, so in essence we sampled districts with
probability proportional to the number of schools they had. We chose three sampling criteria on
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 39
which to stratify. The first criterion was a categorical variable identifying the type of
mathematics textbook adoption based on the SARC data.
5
Adoptions were categorized as (1)
from the 2014 California approved list, (2) not on the California approved list but still ‘Common
Core aligned’, (3) not Common Core aligned (i.e., still using a book from a prior adoption), and
(4) not listed on the SARC (e.g., unclear titles, missing data).
6
This allowed us to capture
variation across districts related to their choice of adopted materials. Our second criterion was a
school size indicator (either above or below the median student enrollment in California). We
used school size as one of our criteria because we suspected it might be related to our theoretical
framework of institutional theory (e.g., bureaucracies differ according to district size). Our third
criterion was an achievement measure at the school level (either above or below the state median
performance on the most recent state mathematics test). We chose achievement as a sampling
criterion as a proxy for accountability pressure. We expected that accountability might affect
districts’ adoption processes (though, at the time of the study, California had very limited school
accountability during the transition from NCLB to ESSA).
We categorized schools according to these three criteria, sorting them into 16 possible
cells (four textbook types, two sizes, two performance levels). We used random number
generators to sort schools within each cell, and we began recruiting from the top of the list in
each cell, replacing only as needed. Our goal was to include interviews with district leaders from
exactly two districts representing schools in each cell. We used district websites to identify the
person most directly responsible for curriculum and instruction in each selected district. We were
looking for individuals with a title such as Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction, although in smaller districts this person could work as a principal or even teacher at
an individual school (see Table 1 for more information about our final sample).
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 40
Individuals were contacted via email and asked to participate in an interview about
curriculum materials adoptions with an incentive of an Amazon gift card. If an individual
declined or did not respond after three attempts, the district was replaced by the next randomly
selected district in the cell. If an individual indicated that someone else in the district was more
responsible for textbook adoptions, we targeted that person instead. We continued contacting
districts until we had two interviews for each of the 16 cells in our sampling criteria. In total, we
contacted over 100 districts before we satisfied the sampling criteria, yielding a response rate of
about 30 percent. We added to our sample district leaders from two of the largest districts in
California, giving us a final sample of 34 districts. These two interviews were included
purposively to account for the variation in district size in California; proportionally there are
more small districts than large districts, and we wanted to offset a skew toward smaller districts
in our interview data.
Data
We developed our interview protocol to reflect both the extant literature on textbook
adoption and the theoretical framework described above. We asked district leaders to describe
the overall process of vetting and selecting curriculum materials in their district; the role of
teachers, parents, and other stakeholders; the influence of textbook publishers; the quality of
materials and how quality is evaluated; alignment of materials to the Common Core State
Standards; and implementation of materials once adopted.
7
The interview questions were
iteratively edited by the research team and were grounded in the context of Common Core math
standards. The full interview protocol is available upon request.
The district leaders who participated reflect the diversity across California districts. In
many districts there is one person who oversees the adoption of new curriculum materials. In
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 41
larger districts, there may be two or more people in charge. For example, in one district, we
spoke to the person in charge of K-5 curriculum materials adoptions and the person in charge of
6-8 adoptions. However, in the smallest districts, the person in charge of curriculum adoptions
might be the superintendent (who might also be a principal and a teacher), or in one case, a third-
grade teacher. Based on our sample alone, the job of supervising curriculum adoptions has a high
turnover rate; more than half of our respondents had been in the position for less than three years.
Threats to Validity
There are at least two threats to validity we think are important to note. First, while we
intended to select schools based on an entirely random stratified sample, we did purposefully
include two districts to capture variation in district size. We think the inclusion of these two large
districts, the largest in our sample, is important to reflect the diverse nature of California
districts. Considering our theoretical framework of institutional theory, we thought it particularly
important to include districts serving large numbers of students with layers of bureaucracy and
multiple personnel responsible for the adoption of curriculum materials. In any case, the results
we describe below do not meaningfully differ if we exclude the two largest districts.
A second validity threat in our study is with regard to bias associated with who chose to
respond to our invitation. It is possible that the district leaders who responded (or the districts
they represent) differ in either observable or unobservable ways from the district leaders who did
not respond. An analysis of district demographics, size, and urbanicity (available upon request)
suggests the participating districts are heterogeneous in their characteristics and do not
meaningfully differ on observable characteristics from those that did not agree, but it may be that
they differ on unobservable characteristics or that the district leaders themselves differ in some
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 42
way. While our work therefore represents a wide range of California districts, generalizations to
all districts in the state or districts in other states should be made cautiously.
Analysis
We analyzed our interviews in NVivo software using a combination of a priori and
emergent codes (Creswell, 2009). We began with a predetermined set of codes that reflected the
general topics and questions raised in our interview protocol. Two independent raters coded
each interview using these codes for coarse-grained analysis. Raters then discussed their
findings, noting similarities and discrepant events in the coding process, using these findings to
create a more fine-grained set of emergent codes. The raters then re-analyzed the data in an
iterative process using the emergent codes. The coders used a data matrix to capture the
frequency of certain elements of the curriculum materials adoption process (Miles & Huberman,
1994). The data matrix allows for visual representation of the important elements. Each row
represents one case or district, and each column an element of the adoption process that occurred
across multiple sites (e.g., forming a committee; attending a county publisher fair). The data
matrix allows for a tabular representation of a large set of qualitative data with long responses.
Each cell in the table represents the presence or absence of the adoption element, or in some
cases, a quote illustrating the process.
Results
The purpose of the interviews is to understand the processes involved in the evaluation
and adoption of curriculum materials, paying particular attention to the context of adoptions in
the Common Core era. District leaders describe similar processes of evaluating and adopting
curriculum materials, which we attribute to institutional isomorphism. Between-district
differences in evaluation processes exist largely because of specific district characteristics,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 43
namely the percentage of ELL students, district size, and access to technology. Small districts are
particularly constrained from adopting the legitimizing ceremonial practices seen in larger
districts due to lack of personnel resources.
Our interviews suggest the adoption process in each district is broken down into two
main stages: an initial ‘winnowing’ phase that narrows the pool of potential textbooks, and an
evaluation stage that includes a closer look at select materials. Within both stages, we see
evidence of districts adopting isomorphic practices, as well as differences attributable to
individual district characteristics. Table 2 contains illustrative quotes and details from four
districts in our sample. We use the same numbering scheme for the districts in Table 2 as in
Table 1 for convenience. We refer to these example districts and others to describe our results.
Winnowing: The Process of Narrowing the Pool of Potential Textbooks
We identify two distinctive trends in the winnowing process: district isomorphism
(districts resembling each other) and district heterogeneity.
Isomorphism in the Winnowing Process
Districts do not have time to evaluate every program on the list of CDE-approved
curricula. District leaders also recognize immediately that certain programs will not meet the
needs of their students and can be excluded from evaluation. The CDE approved seven series for
elementary mathematics, fifteen series in middle grades, and ten titles for Algebra 1. Every
district leader we interviewed identified selection criteria based on the needs of the district that
were used to significantly narrow the pool of viable candidates. The selection criteria are
generally easily observable characteristics – examples include ELL accessibility or a digital
platform – that enable districts to quickly limit the number of textbooks to a manageable number
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 44
(usually two or three) to evaluate in depth. The winnowing phase is usually completed by district
personnel with at most a small subgroup of teacher leaders.
The general process for winnowing the viable candidates looks similar regardless of
district size, though district leaders in larger districts feel different constraints from those in
small districts. In the small District 3, a committee of subject-area specialists and teacher
representatives from each grade examined state-approved materials at the county office of
education. They used a state-created rubric to reduce the number of potential textbooks that
would be piloted in schools. In District 34, the largest in our sample, the process was similar,
except that the committee included six district-level administrators, two district-level
instructional leaders, and coordinators focusing on both special education and
multilingual/multicultural education. Table 2 contains illustrative quotes and information about
the adoption process, including the influence of the state-approved list and the specific members
of the evaluation committee. The districts are ordered from largest (District 34) to smallest
(District 6). Looking across the row describing the involvement of committee members, we see
that the larger districts more purposefully select individuals representing specific interests, such
as special education teachers and coaches in charge of math departments.
Even in districts that do not adopt off the state list, the process is similar. In a mid-sized
district (District 13) that eventually adopted an off-list book, the process began by bringing in
publishers of both on- and off-list materials to make short presentations to teacher
representatives, resulting in the selection of two books for piloting based on evaluation against a
rubric. The only exception we found to this general structure was in the two districts that decided
to create their own units of study rather than adopting an existing book; in these districts, the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 45
decision to create units of study came from district leadership and preempted any examination of
available books.
Heterogeneity in the Winnowing Process
Of course, there is also heterogeneity in the processes that districts use to narrow the
field of possible textbooks. Some of these differences are related to the criteria that we used to
stratify our sample, while other unexpected differences appeared in our coding. The three main
differences we saw in the winnowing process were 1) the choice to limit evaluations to CDE-
approved books or to consider off-list materials, 2) the timing of the adoption, and 3) the
influence of certain district characteristics (in particular, a high proportion of ELL students and a
reliable technology infrastructure).
Our sampling criteria included an indicator for the type of material adopted (on-list or
off-list) because we expected that districts adopting off-list materials might have different
evaluation criteria and processes than districts adopting on-list books. In general we did not find
that the winnowing processes differed between these two types of districts; what differed were
district leaders’ attitudes toward the state-approved list. Some district leaders expressed the
opinion that materials on the state-approved list were fully aligned to the standards and thus
represented an adequate selection set in order to make the first cut.
The state review takes into account the articulation between the grade
levels, whether it has enough content on each of the standards. I mean
that's the purpose of the state review. (District 30)
In contrast, in districts that decided to evaluate off-list materials, leaders often cited concerns
about the quality and rigor of the CDE evaluation process. Five district leaders explicitly
described concerns that the CDE evaluation “set the bar too low,” meaning that the criteria were
not rigorous enough. For example, a District 31 leader who participated in the statewide adoption
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 46
process said, “At the state level, it was all about [the standard] being there, not necessarily the
quality of how it met the criteria…. it was more like a checklist.” Many other district leaders
implicitly suggested the CDE rubric was inadequate for judging alignment because they found it
necessary to complete another alignment evaluation in the district.
Another factor that varied across districts was the timing of the decision to start the
adoption process. Some districts decided to adopt materials early, when the first editions of
CCSS-aligned textbooks were published (i.e., before the state even put out a list). For these
districts, the most pressing consideration was getting materials aligned to the new standards into
teachers’ hands.
[The teachers] were desperate to use the materials because moving
to the Common Core they hadn’t taught that before. We had a lot
of training in the Common Core, and what the standards were, and
what they looked like and what you were supposed to teach. It’s
the how to that’s kind of missing. At least the materials gave them
a how to, and it gave them a road map, so that they weren’t just
trying to figure it out on their own. (District 3)
But districts that adopted materials in the early years of the Common Core rollout had a limited
selection. Publisher materials were scant (and, some district leaders noted, not fully aligned to
the new standards), and the state approved list was not yet published.
Many districts intentionally waited to adopt materials that were state-approved or simply
better aligned, often noting that publishers rushed getting their books to meet the strict timeline
for CDE approval. One district leader felt that, “at the time when materials were coming out,
back in the beginning days of Common Core, they were just retooled versions of the old
standards” (District 25). We heard a variation on this refrain from 19 districts—publishers had
simply “slapped a new cover on an old book” and labeled it CCSS aligned.
[T]here was not a textbook…that met the toolkit requirements….
[M]ost of them were just a makeover of what the publishers had
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 47
done in the past and they really weren’t dramatically different. …
They really weren’t aligned to the Common Core in a meaningful
way. (District 3)
…we looked at math materials, and we were very disappointed in
what we saw. Most of the publishers had just taken the regular
programs and thrown in a couple of Common Core words … but
there was no real change in the instructional materials and there
was no evidence that there was a true understanding of what the
difference was between CCSS and the old CST standards.
(District 33)
While some district leaders regretted the adoption decisions that had been made during an
early adoption, leaders in districts that adopted late were generally happy with their decision to
wait for better materials.
We tend to be a district that adopts at the end of the cycle rather than the
beginning, because we really wanna take our time, and we're a district that
does not feel like the textbook drives our instruction…. It's a resource for
implementation of the standards. (District 22)
They also used the opportunity to gather information from other districts that made the decision
to adopt early.
Then we have the ability to let a district adopt, and then talk to the
teachers. Call 'em up on the phone say, ‘You've had it for the year,
how did you like it?’ Currently, we're looking at that with language
arts, and everybody jumped into something called [textbook title]
8
,
and now we're starting to see people wishing they'd got [a different
textbook]. (District 6)
In short, the perceived preparedness of publishers to provide materials aligned to the CCSS was a
theme in many of our interviews. Leaders were hesitant about investing time and money into an
adoption process if none of the materials were adequate, and some districts forewent adoptions
altogether until materials had been vetted by other districts.
A final factor affecting the winnowing process is the constraint imposed by district
characteristics. The two most influential characteristics we observed were the percentage of
English language learners and the technological capabilities of the district. One leader of a
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 48
district with a high proportion of ELL students felt that there were only two programs with
sufficient ELL support on the state list. These were the only two programs that were evaluated in
that district. Technology also arose as an important selection criterion in materials adoptions.
Districts without a reliable technology infrastructure (bandwidth, one-to-one devices, etc.) felt
they could not adopt a curriculum with a heavy digital component. In contrast, some districts
were so heavily invested in technology that they only considered heavily digital programs.
However, district leaders felt ambivalent about the available technology from major publishers
and only wanted to invest in technology that was meaningfully articulated with the standards.
Then the other thing we’re looking at is how is technology used in the
program. Is it stand-alone? Is it embedded in a way that guides students
to purposely use the technology during the learning process, or is it a
separate thing? Does it allow the teacher to turn the whole process over to
the kids, and the teacher doesn’t really get involved, or is it a
collaborative process and an ongoing—in other words, is it very
purposeful? (District 33)
Evaluating: The Elaborate Process of Selecting a Textbook
We also see evidence of both isomorphism and heterogeneity in the processes that
districts use to evaluate curriculum materials.
Isomorphism in the Evaluation Process
Once district leaders have winnowed the pool of potential materials for adoption, the
evaluation process begins. Every district leader interviewed, regardless of district characteristics,
described some sort of evaluation criteria—quantitative, qualitative, or both—using data
collected from multiple sources who had viewed the materials. The processes vary in complexity
and formality, but the same basic principles apply across districts. Districts form adoption
committees composed of teachers, coaches, school leaders, and district personnel. The
committees evaluate two or three potential curricula using some sort of agreed-upon criteria to
represent “quality.” Measures of quality reflect the needs of the district rather than an objective
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 49
definition of ‘high-quality textbooks, because there is no consensus on what makes a curriculum
high-quality.
Some districts have the ability to pilot materials, and in nearly all districts teacher input is
the greatest factor in the adoption decision. The local school board gives a final seal of approval
once materials are selected, but the school board did not overrule a decision in any of the districts
we interviewed (the school board votes are clearly seen as pro forma). Again, Table 2 contains
examples of the evaluation process from four diverse districts. The table highlights district
differences in the core features of the evaluation process.
Heterogeneity in the Evaluation Process
While the basic process is the same across districts, there are some important differences,
and almost all of these occur predictably along the dimension of district size. Small districts lack
the resources of larger districts, limiting their ability to pilot and evaluate extensively. While
larger districts typically have complex evaluation rubrics and criteria in place, small districts do
not rely as heavily on ceremonial, legitimizing processes due to resource constraints. Small
districts are also limited by the amount of time it takes to conduct evaluations and pilots, the cost
of long-term evaluations, and the ability to communicate and negotiate with publishers. In larger
districts there is usually a district employee that specifically leads the evaluation process, but
smaller districts do not have someone in this role. They rely on principals, superintendents, and
teachers to oversee the selection of curriculum materials. In an extreme case, in a small district
with only two elementary schools, a third-grade teacher became the self-selected person in
charge of curriculum adoptions because there was no one else to fill the role. Table 2 includes
illustrative examples of the differences between small and large districts at all stages of the
evaluation process.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 50
In large districts, one or more committees of district personnel usually lead the
evaluation, including instructional coaches, teachers on special assignment, and representative
teachers selected by the district. Smaller districts typically do not have personnel to specifically
handle textbook adoptions and instead involve all or most of their teachers. Table 2 shows
examples of the makeup of adoption committees. Note that larger districts might use committees
at two separate stages, and teachers are only involved in the final stage. Some larger districts
gather feedback from teachers using surveys or have teachers working together in professional
learning communities, grade groups, or across grade levels to evaluate materials.
One surprising finding was the influence of the county office of education in formalizing
and facilitating the evaluation process.
9
All districts rely on the county office of education as an
intermediary between the state and local levels, but the county office serves a different function
depending on district size. In larger districts, the county office organizes publisher fairs, adapts
the CDE evaluation rubric for easier use, and conducts trainings and professional development.
In smaller districts, the county office facilitates collaboration among other small districts in the
area (in some cases, the county office even facilitates a county-wide textbook adoption, which
small district leaders say is necessary given the high student mobility in these mostly rural areas).
Smaller districts tend to have such a small number of teachers that professional development is
difficult without collaboration with nearby districts. Small districts also have more leverage with
publishers if they purchase materials collectively. Examples of the role of the county office of
education are evident in the quotes in Table 2. District 32 uses the county office’s toolkit as an
evaluation resource, while District 6 relies on the county office as a means of connecting to other
districts. Lacking the resources to bring publishers to their small, rural district, the district leader
instead gathers information at county meetings.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 51
The central element of the evaluation process is the rubric or other tool used to rate the
“quality” of materials. In most districts we interviewed, there is some sort of formalized process
with criteria used to ostensibly measure the quality of materials. Definitions of quality vary by
district and reflect the needs of the district’s unique student population as well as the resources
available to the district. These procedures also make the process more efficient and manageable:
middle school math textbooks can be over a thousand pages long, and there is simply not enough
time to evaluate an entire volume closely, let alone multiple volumes. Therefore, rubrics and
other quantifiable, objective evaluation criteria are necessary to legitimize the process of
attempting to measure quality of a textbook.
Some districts use measures such as the textbook’s index or scope and sequence as crude
indicators of alignment to the standards. The CDE publishes an alignment toolkit to aid district
leaders in their evaluations, but the district leaders we interviewed said this tool was too long and
dense to use in its entirety. Instead, they relied on evaluation rubrics adapted by the county,
online toolkits such as the IMET, or internally developed alignment tools. Other districts use
processes like curriculum mapping, standards tracing, or highlighting the essential standards:
We look through, obviously, the appendix…and find that there are the
standards in there. Then …we choose multiple standards to do a…
standards trace…. [I]n the index, they’ll show the standard and then what
pages it’s addressed on….Then you go look. You start seeing, how is that
standard addressed? As you look at it, you find out, is it fully addressing
that standard? It’s a pretty arduous process, but it’s one that’s worthwhile.
(District 11)
This district leader makes the important point that examining alignment is a challenging
task, but it is one that is performed out of necessity in districts that do not think the CDE’s
evaluations are adequate or that publisher claims of alignment are accurate. The formalized
process of evaluating alignment internally lends a legitimacy to the evaluation criteria and is
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 52
used to justify the adoption of one textbook over another. Not all districts have the capacity to
complete an internal evaluation, so the processes used reflect the capabilities and the local
context of the district. Table 2 illustrates the variation in formality of evaluations across districts.
The two larger districts prioritized objective and quantitative measures of “quality,” using tools
like a checklist of criteria to meet the needs of all students. In the smallest districts, leaders often
did not use any formalized tool for evaluating materials. Instead, all teachers involved in the use
of the materials under consideration had a chance to look through them.
Leaders from some districts talk about the flow and the feel of the text. “The only way to
know is to use it,” said one principal-superintendent-teacher in a small, rural district (District 6).
This district leader described the context of the school and the limitations of a textbook adoption:
[It’s a ] little tiny school [where] everyone wears a lot of hats. Everyone
is—the lady that has the second/third grade room is the department head
of second grade, and third grade, and etcetera. We can't pilot. We can look
at what other districts are doing easily, whenever we get together with co-
teachers from different schools, and say, “What are you doing?”
Lacking a rubric, one leader told us, “I think it’s just a matter of getting it in your hand and kind
of looking at it and seeing if it’s gonna be what’s gonna be good for your kids or what they’re
gonna get the most benefit from. It’s kind of subjective” (District 7). Small district leaders did
not feel hindered by the lack of formal adoption criteria. In smaller districts, leaders also feel
comfortable letting individual teachers use different curricula for different groups of students
depending on their needs. In the smallest districts that we interviewed, teachers have fewer than
ten students in a class, and that could include multiple grade levels. In districts of this size,
students essentially have individualized learning options because teachers have the flexibility to
do that.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 53
In the end, the formalized evaluation procedure does not reliably work to select the ‘best’
materials. The procedure does try to find the program that will appeal to the largest number of
teachers with the least amount of disruption. District leaders describe how ultimately, it comes
down to a teacher vote. The guiding principle is to find a curriculum that meets consensus.
We’re gonna have to come to consensus on something. The state
toolkit has a lot of information in it about how to go through that
process and what a consensus means. Consensus doesn’t mean that
it’s everybody’s favorite curriculum. It means that on balance,
after discussing everyone decides they can live with it—that it’s
the best choice for the majority of the people given the criteria that
you’re looking at it and all the factors that you’re considering.
(District 9)
In some cases, one dominant group of teachers could sway others’ opinions. In some districts,
teachers wanted the program that was most familiar to them, even though district leaders did not
think it was the highest-quality option. Thus the formalization and legitimization of the
evaluation process does not necessarily lead to the best choice.
Discussion
We used interviews to gain an understanding of how districts make decisions about the
adoption of curriculum materials in the Common Core era. We used a stratified random sample,
augmented with two large, purposefully selected districts, to obtain diversity in characteristics
we thought would be associated with adoption decisions, based on prior literature and theory.
Using the lens of institutional theory, we expected to find that districts would adopt elaborate
ceremonial practices to formalize and legitimize their textbook adoption processes. We see that
this is largely the case. The level of formality and the measures used for evaluation vary by
district. Larger districts tend to employ the most elaborate, multi-layered, and “objective”
approaches to curriculum materials evaluations. These districts use multiple levels of committees
to make selection decisions, including individuals representing many groups of stakeholders.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 54
Larger districts also divide the function of the curriculum leader into multiple roles; e.g., with
separate individuals responsible for adoptions in each grade band. In these large districts, only a
small proportion of individuals have a voice in the evaluation of curriculum materials.
In smaller districts, the ceremonial processes for curriculum adoptions still exist, but they
are less formalized. In these districts, individuals in charge of materials adoptions usually
perform multiple other roles within the district, such as superintendent, principal, or teacher.
Furthermore, all or most of the educators who will use the adopted materials have a potential
voice in the adoption. In small districts, the measures used tend to be less quantifiable and more
based on the “feel” or “flow” of the materials, or other subjective measures. These districts are
also more constrained by material and personnel resources, such as piloting challenges and
difficulty in getting professional development support from publishers
Research suggests that American textbooks are often lacking in quality and poorly
aligned to standards (Finn & Ravitch, 2004; Polikoff, 2015; Schmidt & McKnight, 2012). Some
independent agencies such as EdReports provide evaluations of curricula, but these reports may
not be available before a district makes an adoption decision and may not be used even if they
are available (for example, only five of the districts we interviewed mentioned EdReports when
we asked about external sources of information). Moreover, even district leaders who consulted
EdReports lamented the small number of programs that were rated as being sufficiently aligned
to the CCSS. In the absence of objective measures of quality, the state list often guides district
selections, and district-level evaluations of curriculum materials take on an air of legitimacy
through rubrics and processes that provide a proxy for “quality” in textbooks. What constitutes
quality for one district might not for another. The institutionalized procedures used for
evaluations reflect local context and needs. Factors such as district size, access to technology,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 55
student demographics, perceived teacher buy-in, and the textbook’s appearance are all proxy
measures for quality. District leaders gather information from other sources--usually nearby
districts with similar characteristics--when their adoption timeline gives them this flexibility.
One measure of quality, alignment to the Common Core, is met with skepticism from
district leaders. Leaders overwhelmingly expressed the feeling that textbooks, especially in the
first years of Common Core adoption, were nominally but not substantively aligned to the
standards. Interestingly, the ceremonial processes in place at the state level—the evaluation
procedures meant to ensure alignment—are inadequate in the eyes of many district leaders.
Multiple district leaders noted that the criteria for approval on the CDE adopted materials list
was setting a low bar to measure alignment, and most districts conduct some kind of internal
alignment analysis. Still, these internal alignment analyses are typically superficial, and the large
majority of districts end up choosing from the state list.
Accountability measures did not matter to districts in the ways we predicted. We
expected to hear district leaders in low-performing districts describe different processes than
those in high-performing districts; however, we saw no clear pattern. The one place
accountability came up in our interviews was in smaller districts, where leaders often said they
were less concerned about the pressures of accountability, because the CDE did not interfere
with them. These findings were surprising because research on curriculum use during the No
Child Left Behind era indicates that accountability was a factor in how districts consider and use
curriculum materials (e.g., Booher-Jennings, 2006; Finn & Ravitch, 2004; Jacob, 2005). District
leaders did express a need for materials to be aligned to the CCSS, and they also noted that they
wanted materials that correlated with the types of questions on the upcoming accountability tests,
but these answers did not differ systematically based on district performance levels.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 56
District leaders in California are balancing many changes: in the types of resources
available to students, the pedagogical strategies demanded by new standards, increasing numbers
of English language learners, new state testing and accountability regimes, and students and
teachers with differing levels of comfort with technology. They often receive conflicting sets of
demands from the state, county, teachers, principals, students, and community members. They
are charged with leading the selection of the best materials for their diverse students. Many of
them are new to the role, having never been in charge of curriculum adoptions before. And in
smaller districts, they are also serving in other capacities. As one district leader explained:
How do I navigate all those choices—the need to really come up
with a really good working structure for adopting the curriculum
that will be politically savvy and bring in all the groups and get
buy-in and get people moving in the direction that’s really the best
teaching … and really get instruction moving in a way that’s
benefiting all of our kids in our district. Just getting there is
daunting when I have to figure out how can I quickly figure out the
framework when [it’s] like 1,000 pages. (District 9)
Given the challenges associated with the selection of curriculum materials, and all of the external
pressures, it is perhaps not surprising that district leaders turn to isomorphic and ceremonial
practices to evaluate materials. While the elaborate processes do not predict differences in
materials adoptions, the processes seem to be important for establishing the legitimacy of the
ultimate selection.
Implications for Policy
Our interviews suggest several implications for policymaking around the issue of
curriculum materials adoptions. One takeaway is that teachers represent a majority opinion in
textbook evaluations. A handful of district leaders even referenced the fact that state education
code requires teachers to be the majority voice in textbook adoption decisions. However, nearly
all of the district leaders in our sample felt that resource constraints limited the ways in which
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 57
teachers could meaningfully contribute to the textbook evaluation process. In order to make
informed decisions, teachers need training on the standards themselves, then on the measures
used to evaluate textbook alignment and quality. Many district leaders mentioned that the lack of
high-quality teacher professional development around textbook evaluations was the biggest
obstacle in the adoption process. A recommendation based on our study is that textbook adoption
cycles build time for teachers to be trained in the standards and evaluation criteria.
This recommendation is supported by research on the role of teacher professional
networks in successful implementation of new policies (e.g., Coburn & Stein, 2006; Coburn, et
al., 2012). Coburn and colleagues (2012) studied the role of teacher professional communities as
social networks and found that networks with strong ties, interactions, and teacher expertise were
associated with sustainability of new pedagogical strategies, even as administrative support
weakened. We expect that sustained professional networks on the evaluation of textbooks—
building internal expertise and affording multiple opportunities for interaction—can support the
textbook evaluation and adoption process.
Another theme in our interviews was the need for high-quality, reliable, independent
information about textbooks. Over half of our interviewees questioned whether CCSS-aligned
textbooks were authentically aligned to the content and pedagogy of the standards. A few
interviewees expressed interest in learning about the results of our achievement-based efficacy
research, and we are planning to follow up with a report on our findings. Policymakers could
heed the request for better information by providing clear, concise, actionable, and relevant
information about the textbooks under consideration for adoption. This is also an area where
organizations promoting policy-relevant research and dissemination can contribute.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 58
District leaders also described how they used local networks to discuss curriculum
efficacy with other nearby districts. Policymakers at the state or county level could facilitate and
promote information-sharing between districts with similar characteristics to make this process
more efficient. One of the surprising findings was the importance of the county office of
education in textbook adoptions, driven in part by districts’ interest in collaborating with each
other. Beyond relying informally on county offices to facilitate collaborations, interventions that
are more proactive in fostering this type of behavior merit consideration. For example, consider a
group of ten small districts with similar student populations. Although each district individually
might lack the resources to devote considerable staff time to the adoption process, an
intervention that provided a relatively small amount of centralized money could be used to
support a cross-district team to evaluate curriculum materials. Such an intervention would reduce
redundant work and potentially provide a deeper understanding of curriculum choices to
participating districts, contextualized appropriately for the collaborative.
We conclude that there are opportunities to help districts make more informed decisions
about textbook adoptions. These largely revolve around the state providing clear ratings of
textbook quality as early as possible and encouraging districts to collaborate where appropriate.
Recent work in Louisiana suggests that state’s efforts to get better materials adopted is paying
off, with more districts adopting top-tier materials (as rated by the state) and more teachers
demonstrating knowledge of the standards (Kaufman, Thompson, & Opfer, 2016). Still, we
expect that without forced centralization there will always be a great deal of district-to-district
variation in adoption choices. And without more evidence about which materials work and why,
districts will continue to be hampered in their ability to make these critical curricular decisions.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 59
Endnotes
1
To date this work is concentrated in elementary mathematics.
2
The large majority of textbook adoptions are the district level in California (and, to our
knowledge, around the country). Charters, magnets, and online/hybrid schools are sometimes
exceptions to district-level adoptions and are excluded from our analysis.
3
The funding structure for supplies such as textbooks has also changed since the last textbook
adoption cycle. Adoptions were suspended entirely for several years as the state moved to a
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which allows more discretion at the district level.
4
We chose mathematics because very few California schools had purchased Common Core-
aligned ELA materials by the time we began sampling (the state adoption in ELA was later than
in mathematics).
6
We classify a book as ‘Common Core aligned’ if the publisher indicates such, even though
many such claims of alignment may be inaccurate (Polikoff, 2015).
7
In some instances we spoke with district leaders about the ELA adoption because this was the
most recent adoption in the district. However, we always probed about the differences between
subjects in adoption processes, and no districts reported process differences.
8
Textbook titles and publishers have been blinded in district leader quotes to ensure anonymity.
District textbook adoptions are available in Table 1.
9
California is divided into 58 regional county offices of education consisting of elected officials.
County offices oversee operations of multiple districts, performing administrative and
managerial tasks related to curriculum, budget, professional development, and alternative
education placements.
Running head: DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 60
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 61
Table 1
District Interviewee Size
Achievement
level
Adopted Math Books
Adoption
Year
1 Superintendent Small low Eureka Math 2015-16
2
Superintendent-Principal and
Math Teacher
Small high
Math E xpressions(K-5); Big
Ideas(6-8)
unknown
3 District Superintendent Small low enVision unknown
4 Superintendent Small low
Houghton Mifflin(K-5);
Pearson Prentice Hall,
California series(6-8); CPM
Algebra Connections(8)
2015-16
5 Superintendent of 2 districts Small high enVision(K-5); Big Ideas(6-8) 2014-15
6 Superintendent Small* low
My Math(K-6); CPM(7-8);
Edgenuity (supplemental)
2014-15
7 Third Grade Teacher Small* high
Eureka; My Math; Singapore
Math; Big Ideas (6-8)
unknown
8
Director of Curriculum
Instruction and Assessment
Small* low i3 by SRA 2013-14
9
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Medium high
GO! Math (K-2); enVision(3-
5); CPM(6-8)
2014-15
10 Assistant Superintendent Medium high
Engage NY(K-5); Utah Math(6-
8)
2014-15
11
Coordinator of Curriculum,
Instruction, Assessment,
and LCAP
Medium high
Math in Focus; Glencoe;
Pearson CA Algebra 1
2014-15
12
Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services
Medium high
Swun Math (K-5); Glencoe (6-
8); Houghton Mifflin
Integrated Math (7-8)
2014-15
13
Director of Curriculum
Instruction and Assessment.
Medium low
Pearson Investigations(K-5);
CPM(6-8); enVision
(supplemental)
2014-15
14
Associate Superintendent of
Educational Services
Medium high GO! Math 2014-15
15
Director of Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessment
Medium* high My Math unknown
16
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Medium* high
Math E xpressions(K-5); Big
Ideas(6-8)
2015-16
17
Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction
Medium* high enVision unknown
18
Assistant Superintendent for
Educational Services
Large high Engage NY 2015-16
19
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Large low
Eureka(K-5); Carnegie Math(6-
8); internally developed units
of study
2014-15
20
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction; Director of
Secondary Education
(grades 6-12)
Large low
enVision; Pearson
International Math
2015-16
21
Assistant Superintendent of
Elementary Education
Large low Engage NY(K-6); CPM 6-8 unknown
22
Director of
Preschool/Elementary
Education
Large high Math E xpressions 2015-16
23
Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services
Large high My Math 2015-16
24 Director of Curriculum Large high
enVision; Bridges in
Mathematics; McDougal
Littell; Holt
2014-15
25
Assistant Superintendent of
Education Services
Large low
My Math(K-6); McGraw-Hill
California Math(6-8);McGraw-
Hill Pre-Algebra(7)
2015-16
26
Assistant Director of
Elementary Education
Large low
MyMath; Glencoe California
Math
unknown
27 Chief Academic Officer Large low Carnegie 2014-15
28
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Large high
Math E xpressions;
SpringBoard
2014-15
29
Executive Director for
Curriculum and Professional
Development
Large low teacher-created units of study 2014-15
30
Deputy Superintendent for
Educational Services
Large* high
enVision; GO! Math; ST Math
(supplemental)
2015-16
31
Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Large* low
Eureka; Springboard
(supplemental)
2014-15
32
Assistant Superintendent,
Curriculum & Instruction -
Pre-Gr. 5
Very large high
Math E xpressions(K-5); GO!
Math (6-8)
2015-16
33
Executive Director,
Secondary Education
Very large high units of study unknown
34
Elementary Math
Coordinator
Very large low My Math 2015-16
District Characteristics and Adopted Math Textbooks for District Leader Sample
Note . District names have been blinded. Small districts have < 1000 students; medium districts have 1000-10,000;
large districts have 10,000-50,000; very large districts have >50,000 students. Book titles in bold are on the state-
approved list. Adoption year is the most recent adoption year for any district K-8 mathematics textbooks; some
listed books may have been adopted in earlier years.
*These districts only serve elementary and middle school students.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 62
District
Number
34 28 3 6
District Size
(Student
Enrollment)
Very Large (50,000 or above) Large (10,000-50,000) Small (1,000 or fewer) Small (1,000 or fewer)
Interviewee Elementary Math Coordinator Director of Curriculum and
Instruction
Superintendent Superintendent/Principal/Teacher
Committee
Members
First review committee:
• 2 coordinators from Division of
Instruction and
• 6 representatives from “local”
districts
• Coordinator of special education
• Representative from multi-
lingual/multi-cultural education
Second review committee:
• Teachers
• Union representatives
• Administrators
First review committee:
• Teacher from each site
• Director of elementary and
secondary education
• Union representative
• Assistant superintendent of
instruction
• Program manager
• Secondary ELA coach
Second review committees
(organized by grade groups):
• Grades K-5
• Grades 6-8
• Algebra 1
• Reading or math specialist
• Representatives from each grade group
None (all teachers involved in selection)
Role and
Perception of
the State-
Approved List
"We were instructed to select off the
state list by our Chief Academic
Officer... We were not allowed to
select anything that was not on the
state list. The state does the adoption.
We do the selecting. We made the cut
to I believe 6 programs from the
initial list of 12 to 15."
"The director…of assessment and
accountability....looked at what’s [on
the state adoption list].…From there
we will bring it back to our
committee first, cuz there may be
seven/eight books on there, but it
doesn’t have a technology part…We
try to look at just three textbooks…so
we’re not looking at eight of them in
depth."
"We went through that entire process [of
evaluating materials on the state-approved
list] for math and when we got down to
decision making time, there was not a
textbook that was that met the toolkit
requirements Common Core aligned. What
the committee determined was most of them
were just a makeover of what the publishers
had done in the past and they really weren’t
dramatically different. They really weren’t
conceptionally based. They really weren’t
aligned to the Common Core in a
meaningful way."
"There used to be harder deadlines as to when we
would have to buy, but right now, because of the
roll-out of Common Core--and also because the
adoptions used to be every ten years, now they're
every six, seven years--we can wait. We can sit
and watch, and see what happens....[A]nother
factor for adopting, from a small school's point of
view, is we have the ability to use a bigger bag of
tricks...a bigger set of curriculum."
Publisher
Involvement
None until books are adopted
(publishers provide non-mandatory
teacher training)
"We went to a book fair, curriculum
fair, at our county office. Publishers
are there....[T]he publishers from the
potential texts being reviewed were
invited to do a presentation for each
group….[W]e give a whole day
devoted to publishers talking about
what’s in front of us, the
curriculum—they do a very good job.
They go through all the components
and they give us the foundation we
need, in order to then dive deeper
into the curriculum, to make the right
decision."
"The publishers were involved in that
they...have publishing fairs. We don’t hold
one here because we’re so small, but they
hold them in the valley. We send our team to
the publisher’s fair."
"We don’t get the reps up here....We sometimes
encounter those people down at the county seat,
when we have our monthly meetings of all the
superintendents. It's rare when we'll see what the
city school sees, where they'll have four or five
different publishers to look at all the material. We
rely on seeing what circles through....After
everybody's started—when the piloting's
beginning to wind down, and a couple of districts
are adopting, that's when we'll take notice, and
say, 'Who likes what?"'
Toolkit/Rubric "We choose an assessment instrument
that we then adapted for our use. It
was the Chief State School Officer's
Rubric. We edited it, turned it into an
Excel document that would allow us
to tally easily, and then used that as
our rubric for making the cut. "
"[T]he evaluation of the materials is
based on five different components:
(1) alignment with content
standards; (2) program
organization; (3) assessment; (4)
universal access to include English
learners, special education and
gifted and talented education; (5)
instructional planning and support."
"[T]he state framework comes out, and then
publishers write to the criteria in the state
framework. Then so the toolkit is based on
the criteria in the state’s framework."
[Adapted by the Curriculum and Instruction
Steering Committee]
None
Training "We met with our local district math
coordinators to go through [the
evaluation rubric] and literally do a
training on it before we entered into
the review process, which took about
a week of eight to ten hour days."
"They reviewed the current math
data... They evaluated the new math
framework, consisting of information
on metacognition, the eight
mathematical practices, and
modeling types for mathematics.
They also... reviewed and discussed
the publishers’ criteria or what was
developed for publishers to assist in
writing new math textbooks. Also...
they participated in the Smarter
Balance Training Test, in order to
orient teachers at that time, cuz that
was first year of SBEC, in order to
orientate them to what the new
assessments were going to look like."
"[T]he county facilitates bringing together a
team of teachers from every such district
and they go through training of the toolkit.
Then, once they’re very familiar with the
toolkit, and what to look for in the textbook,
then they start looking at the text."
None
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 63
Evaluation
Process and
Criteria
"We broke into grade level specific
groups. We had each grade level
specific group look at least at two
publisher resources.Then we took all
those rankings and compiled them.
[My partner] and I did the initial cut
on the alignment of the lessons to the
standards just in a very simple
counting the lessons, matching it to
the standards, finding a percentage.
Everything else was done by the
coordinator teams, anything that was
evaluated from the rubric....We're
looking not only at English learners,
but our standard English learners,
our special education students, our
gifted students, at our population of
disadvantage socioeconomically,
foster youth, particular concerns for
things like achievement gaps....I'll
have to say the minimal bar set by the
state was really low....[O]ne of the
things that ranked very high...was the
amount of assessment choices
available to the teacher."
“[T]he teachers shared out their
findings from their evaluations of all
potential texts, regarding how well
the texts introduced and supported
the California State Standards….
[T]heir evaluation on
assessments…both formative—so
quizzes, quick checks, chapter tests,
and also summative SBAC-like tests
were evaluated for thoroughness.
[They also evaluated] universal
access, intervention, English learner
support, use of the manipulatives, the
ease of the material, and the overall
impression.”
"The things that are really important to
our district are alignment to the standards.
Not just a superficial alignment to the
standards, but to be really, really connected
to the standards. What we find when we
look at textbooks is that sometimes they say
that it, the lesson addresses a particular
standard, but when you look at it carefully,
you can see how well or how deeply it
addresses that standard....In our district, we
have a larger EL population than a lot of
other districts in our county, so the EL
materials [are] really important. What kind
of an intervention is embedded in the
material....[Y]ou‘ll pick certain standards
and you look at those standards across
different publishers. If there’s let’s say five
publishers...you’ll pick RL3.1, then you look
at how well they cover that standard across
all the different publishers."
“[T]he only way is to use them. Then they tell you,
‘I hate this,’ or, ‘I like this.’… There were still
problems with [the previous curriculum], just
technical problems. Misspellings and things like
that, a couple of wrong answers here and there,
and if you didn’t know 'em, you would get that
uneasy moment when they would say, ‘Teacher,
the book is wrong.’ That's just a hard one to get
past. We're finding problems with every—all the
printed curriculum. You get one of those, it's a
real show-stopper. You lose all your credibility—
you lose all your credibility as a teacher, and then
the curriculum loses credibility, especially when
you have a parent sitting at a parent-conference
going, ‘Let's go to Problem 12, Lesson 4,’ and you
go, ‘Oh, god, that's wrong, we steer everybody
around it.’ They go, ‘I'm a taxpayer. I'm paying a
lot of money.’”
Piloting None None "There’s a repository of text that are...in a
different county that’s got a bigger space.
They all go down there. They start looking
at the text. They compare them to the
criteria in the toolkit, and then they make a
recommendation for the three or four—
usually two or three, sometimes four print
publishers. Then, at the school level, we
order those. Then they’re piloted."
None
“Little tiny school that everyone wears a lot of
hats. Everyone is—the lady that has the second,
third grade room is the department head of second
grade, and third grade, and etcetera. We can't
pilot....In our district, we pay attention to what
other districts are doing. Districts who pilot a
book...Sometimes they may pilot one, and not like
it, so another year goes on where they pilot a
second book. If we tried to do that with our four
teachers, it would mud up the process of teaching
children, right?"
Adoption
Decision
"We went through a rigorous process
to rank eligible programs based on
local district and central district first
cuts, then teacher committee with
administrators and union
representative second cuts, and then
we presented the ranked list to the
board. The board then voted to select
the first ranked program."
"They come back for the last
meeting….[E]ach individual member
had the choice to vote for one of the
three texts or to continue an
additional year using the current
program."
"There’s a facilitator through all of this but
it’s really about teacher discussion more
than it is administrative discussion….We
have gone with the committee’s
recommendation...since I’ve been here, for
ELA and for math."
“On the site council, we have five stakeholders—
community stakeholders, sometimes parents,
sometimes grandparents. They get a chance to
look at it, but I notice that they kinda glaze over
when we show 'em some giant curriculum with
three, or four books, and we're showin' the online
stuff…[I]t's hard for them to even imagine that
half your curriculum is out on the Cloud. They
don't even know what the Cloud is.”
Technology Not a factor in evaluation "[S]ome textbooks were
removed...for the following reason.
The program ...was 100 percent
digital, so we cannot do that
here.We’re not equipped to do 100
percent digital….[W]e saw a really
great curriculum when we were at
one of the county curriculum fair.
Unfortunately, it was 100 percent
technology. To me that’s the biggest
obstacle right now. We as a district
are not at capacity where we can
handle curriculum that is 100
percent technology…[O]ur obstacle
is our technology
infrastructure….We’re not a one-to-
one district…[W]e have computer
carts. Some schools may have 5 carts
with 30 computers and …teachers
have to schedule time to use them,
which is very difficult."
"[W]e always purchase a technology
component."
"[W]e just adopted...one of the many online, all-
encompassing [programs]—and I'm hoping that
our eighth graders will leave [the traditional
textbook], and go straight to [the online
program's] version of math. Which would be an
interesting thing for the publishers, because
they're gonna quit selling books... 'cuz everybody's
online."
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 64
Study 2: Offloading, Adapting, and Improvising under the CCSS: Curriculum Materials
Use Among California Eighth-Grade Math Teachers
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 65
Abstract
Curriculum materials are an important mediator between state standards and student learning,
and teachers mediate the way these materials are presented to students. Even in schools or
districts that uniformly adopt a curriculum, teachers may not use the curriculum as intended,
particularly if they represent a significant change from previous materials. The Common Core
State Standards are more rigorous than previous standards, and while many states have adopted
the standards, the curriculum materials to support them have not been adequately vetted.
Teachers have to make decisions about how to use the materials, based on internal factors like
personal beliefs and external factors like the messages communicated by school leaders. Teacher
decisions to offload, adapt, or improvise lesson planning with district-adopted materials reflects
ideology and understanding of the standards. District-level decisions also influence the way
teachers use adopted materials.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 66
States adopt new academic standards hoping to see an increase in student achievement
scores. To support teachers in the successful implementation of new standards, many schools and
districts adopt standards-aligned curriculum materials. Teachers might implement the new
curriculum with fidelity and in line with the intentions of the new standards, or they may decide
to change aspects of the adopted curriculum (Brown, 2009; Reys, Reys, & Chavez, 2004; Stein
& Kaufman, 2010). There are a multitude of reasons why teachers might make changes to the
adopted materials, from situational factors like classroom management and student ability levels
to personal factors like pedagogical beliefs, content knowledge, and understanding of the
standards (Remillard & Bryans, 2004). Schools and districts may influence teacher decision-
making around curriculum materials by building capacity for teachers to learn about the
standards and curriculum materials, or by setting expectations for teacher use of new materials.
Unpacking teacher decisions around curriculum materials use is important in evaluating the
success of standards-based reforms. Curriculum materials mediate the relationship between the
standards and student learning, and teachers further mediate that relationship through their
decisions on how to use materials (Tarr, et al., 2006).
It is particularly important to consider teacher use of materials aligned to standards that
represent a significant departure from previous standards. Publishers’ materials offer an
interpretation of the content and pedagogy of new standards, but they may not reflect the true
nature of the intended reforms (Hill, 2001). Teacher decisions about implementation reflect their
own understanding of the standards, which again may or may not reflect the intentions behind
the standards (Hill, 2001; Spillane, 2009). Recently, many states adopted some version of the
Common Core States Standards (CCSS), which represent a significant change in rigor of
instruction and in pedagogical strategies (Porter, et al., 2011). Teachers could benefit from
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 67
training on the shifts between previous standards and the CCSS, and their instructional choices
about curriculum materials may reflect their understanding of these shifts. Teachers may use
CCSS-aligned materials in ways that reflect the actual changes in the standards, but their
instructional choices could be impacted by the quality and alignment of the materials provided to
them. Recent nationally representative surveys indicate that teachers do perceive the new
standards as representing a shift from their previous state standards (Opfer, et al., 2016; Bugler,
et al., 2017; Chen-Gaddini, et al., 2017; Marple, et al., 2017). However, these same surveys
indicate that many teachers do not feel adequately supported by adopted curriculum materials or
professional development opportunities provided by their schools, and that teachers might be
struggling to understand and implement the CCSS as intended (Bugler, et al., 2017; Chen-
Gaddini, et al., 2017; Marple, et al., 2017).
The theory of action behind standards-based reforms is to improve instruction through
rigorous academic expectations, providing schools and teachers with high-quality, aligned
materials to support the enactment of these standards (Smith & O’Day, 1990). This suggests that
for the CCSS to be successful, teachers need access to clear and consistent messaging from the
inputs aligned to the standards: adopted materials, professional development, pacing guidelines,
and assessments, for example. California adopted a version of the CCSS with implementation of
new math standards beginning in 2012. However, districts had a great deal of flexibility in how
they rolled out the new standards to their teachers and in the selection of curriculum materials
aligned to the standards. This variation creates an interesting dimension to study regarding
teacher decision-making around curriculum materials—are there particular district-level
decisions that affect teacher decisions about how to use materials? This study uses interviews
with teachers in diverse districts across California to analyze trends in implementation of CCSS-
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 68
aligned math materials. We are interested in the ways that district characteristics and decisions
around the adoption of new materials influence the ways in which teachers implement the
adopted materials. We are also interested in factors that are not attributable to district-level
characteristics—the thought processes that are specific to individual teachers as they make sense
of the rigorous new standards and decide how best to teach in alignment with these standards.
The literature on teacher implementation of curriculum materials has not coalesced
around a singular theoretical framework (Lloyd, Remillard, & Herbal-Eisenman, 2009;
Remillard, 2004). Some researchers have looked at the internal processes that influence teacher
decision-making. Others have tried to empirically measure the degree of alignment between the
intended curriculum (determined by the content of the standards and the adopted materials) and
the enacted curriculum (the actual content that teachers teach) (e.g., Freeman & Porter, 1989).
Brown (2009) proposes a framework that takes into account internal, teacher-level factors and
external, institutional factors related to curriculum. He suggests that teachers, influenced by
personal and district-level factors, choose among three ways of interacting with adopted
materials: offloading, adapting, and improvising. We utilize Brown’s theoretical framework to
analyze the implementation of Common Core-aligned math materials used by eighth-grade math
teachers in diverse districts across California. We find that teachers’ decisions to offload, adapt,
or improvise with their curriculum materials are influenced by what Brown refers to as “teacher
resources” and “curricular resources.” We update his framework by naming specific features of
the CCSS as teacher resources and curriculum resources. We find that, while individual “teacher
resources” explain much of the variation in implementation of CCSS-aligned math materials,
there are also clear sources of “curricular resources” that can be controlled at the district or
school level. This finding leads to policy recommendations for district and school leaders
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 69
looking to improve teacher experiences related to the implementation of standards-aligned
curriculum materials.
Prior Literature
The study of curriculum materials and their implementation is frequently associated with
standards-based reform, with curriculum materials positioned as a policy instrument aimed at
increasing student achievement (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1992; Snyder, Bolin,
& Zumwalt, 1992). The theory of action behind standards-based reform states that teachers need
access to high-quality, well-aligned curriculum materials in order to implement new standards.
The development of rigorous sets of academic standards, beginning with the Standards from the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 1989, saw an associated interest in measuring
the effectiveness of curriculum materials used to implement the new standards (Lloyd,
Remillard, & Herbal-Eisenman, 2009). Funding from the National Science Foundation provided
a legitimizing influence on the need for research on curriculum materials. The legislation around
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) during the early 2000s created even more pressure to
“prove” that the standards were working. This was the era of supposed “teacher-proof”
curriculum materials, which were intended to be so explicitly aligned to state standards, and so
tightly scripted, that any teacher could implement the curriculum with fidelity just by following
the instructions in the teacher’s guide (e.g., Archer, 2005; Schoenfeld, 2002).
Research questions related to curriculum materials during the NCLB era reflect the
interest in evaluating fidelity of implementation. Some researchers note that these types of
implementation studies assume that fidelity to the written curriculum is achievable (Remillard,
2005). Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that teachers are idiosyncratic, influenced by a
variety of internal and external factors. Teachers interpret the goals of the adopted curriculum
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 70
and assess whether those goals are consistent with their own; they may consciously or
unconsciously adapt the adopted curriculum to align with their personal goals (Remillard, 2005;
Ben-Peretz, 1990). They might remove, add, or modify parts of the adopted curriculum to
reconcile their goals with the goals of the written material (Remillard, 1992; Tarr, et al., 2008).
Research also indicates that teachers feel constrained by institutional policies that require them to
adhere closely to the intended curriculum (Remillard, 2005), and that teachers show evidence of
resisting scripted curricula (Cohen, 1990; Remillard, 1992; Wilson, 1990).
Teachers may also assume that they are implementing the materials with fidelity, when in
actuality they are misunderstanding the intentions of the reform, the language of the standards, or
the pedagogical strategies recommended in adopted materials (Hill, 2001; Spillane & Zeuli,
1999). When learning about and implementing new standards, teachers have a tendency to
interpret new ideas in line with existing schemas (Spillane, Reimer, & Reiser, 2002). Teachers
may erroneously believe that their teaching practices are already in line with new reforms
because they have interpreted these ideas to align with their prior beliefs and teaching practices.
Policy changes involving deep, substantive changes (such as the CCSS) are particularly difficult
to implement, as they require teachers to drastically rewrite existing schemas. Teachers are more
likely to understand and implement curriculum changes that are aligned with their personal
pedagogies (Chavez, 2006; Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Stein & Kaufman, 2010). Providing
teachers with the opportunity to learn, understand, interpret, and process new standards are a
component of successful implementation (Collopy, 2003; Remillard, 2000; Van Zoest & Bohl,
2002). School and district leaders can provide messages that will hopefully support teachers and
be consistent with the goals of reforms, but it may be challenging to overcome the influence of
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 71
teachers’ prior experiences, personal beliefs, knowledge, and background characteristics (Clark
& Peterson, 1986; Lloyd, 1999; Manouchehri & Goodman, 2000; Thompson, 1984).
The majority of literature on teacher implementation of curriculum materials pre-dates
the adoption of the CCSS, so we know little about the qualitative nature of implementation of
these standards. A handful of small-scale studies were conducted in the earliest years of
implementation (Martinie, Kim, & Abernathy, 2016; Swars & Chestnutt, 2016), and found that
teachers were still in the beginning processes of understanding the changes called for by the new
standards. This study addresses that gap in the literature by collecting interview data with over
60 teachers in districts randomly sampled within strata that could contribute to variation in
curriculum materials use. These interviews were conducted several years after teachers had
begun implementing the CCSS, allowing us to probe on their depth of experience. We also
interviewed multiple teachers per district, allowing us to notice trends between teachers within
the same district and across districts with different characteristics. While teachers in recent
surveys report that the CCSS represent a pedagogical shift, we do not know the extent to which
that shift is reflected in decisions about implementation of adopted materials. Teachers could be
using new, CC-aligned materials in ways that are more pedagogically consistent with previous
standards.
Theoretical Framework
Proponents of standards-based reforms view well-aligned, high-quality curriculum
materials as a key component to successful implementation of new standards (Smith & O’Day,
1990). This assumption holds provided that (1) curriculum materials are aligned with the true
intentions of the standards and (2) teachers interpret these cues in alignment with the intended
nature of the standards. The theory of action behind standards-based reform is predicated on the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 72
idea that cues in the written curriculum will bring about the intended actions of reforms. Some
researchers caution against this type of thinking because the language of the standards has no
objective meaning; educators implementing new standards must draw on their own
understanding of ambiguous words such as “construct” and “concept” to interpret the intentions
of the original policies (e.g., Hill, 2001; Spillane, Reimer, & Reiser, 2002; Spillane & Zeuli,
1999). Standards and curriculum materials are merely the representation of abstract ideas, and
teacher decision-making around these materials is influenced by institutional and personal
factors.
Brown (2002; 2009) argues that standards and aligned curriculum materials should not be
seen as a policy instrument unto themselves, but rather as tools or artifacts that mediate the
relationship between standards and student learning. Tools or artifacts signal affordances or
constraints through embedded cues, but they are still open to interpretation (Brown, 2002; 2009;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Brown compares this framework for studying implementation
to a design perspective, wherein teachers interpret messages from situational and internal factors.
Even using the same materials or teaching in the same school, teachers can arrive at different
interpretations of the same message, can misunderstand new ideas as familiar, or may focus on
superficial features of new standards and miss the deeper pedagogical changes.
Brown (2002; 2009) identifies “teacher resources” and “curriculum resources” that
influence the way teachers implement curriculum materials (see Figure 2.1.) Curricular resources
include the external messages contained in the materials and standards themselves: the
representation of ideas, the nature of the physical objects, and the procedures related to
implementation of the materials. Teacher resources are the internal factors that influence
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 73
teachers’ use of curriculum materials, including their goals and beliefs, pedagogical knowledge,
and subject matter knowledge.
Figure 2.1. The Design Capacity for Enactment framework.
Brown posits that teachers are motivated by these factors as they make decisions about
curriculum materials. Teachers choose between three ways of using curriculum materials. They
offload when they adhere closely to the written materials—they “offload” the work of lesson
planning and use the written materials without modification. They adapt when they make
changes to the written materials, and they improvise when they abandon the written materials in
favor of alternative resources, such as their own planning. A teacher may offload the work of
lesson planning if she thinks the adopted materials are well aligned to her goals, to the standards,
and to her pedagogical style. She may adapt the adopted curriculum by omitting, supplementing,
or editing parts of the lesson to better align with her teaching goals. If she feels that the adopted
materials fail to meet her goals entirely, she may improvise by using other resources. The choice
between offloading, adapting, or improvising is a result of the curricular and personal resources
that teachers call upon when planning lessons. The decisions can be read as reflections of
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 74
teachers’ understanding of the standards, interpretation of the adopted materials, perception of
alignment to the goals of the standards, etc.
We adopt Brown’s framework for understanding teacher implementation of the CCSS
and aligned materials, but we also adapt it to make it specific to the context of our study. We
articulate the specific “curricular resources” and “teacher resources” that we see as influential to
the decisions teachers make about CCSS implementation.
Figure 2.2 Adapted Design Capacity framework including Common Core-specific factors.
The curricular resources that we think are specifically related to CCSS implementation are: the
characteristics of the district’s adoption process (e.g., timing of the adoption, involvement of the
teachers), pacing guidelines provided by the district, the CCSS themselves, professional
development that the teacher received regarding the CCSS, and professional development or
training specific to the adopted curriculum materials. The teacher resources that we identify
related to the implementation of the CCSS are prior experiences, pedagogical beliefs, goals,
content knowledge, understanding of the standards, and attitudes toward the standards and
adopted materials. We are especially interested in how teachers’ attitudes toward the CCSS and
adopted materials are related to decisions to offload, adapt or improvise, and we see these
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 75
attitudes as being related to teachers’ understanding of the standards. These internal, teacher-
level resources are no doubt influenced by external, curricular resources, such as the messages
included in trainings and materials provided by the district.
Research questions
1. How do attitudes and understanding around new materials and standards influence the
ways in which California eighth-grade math teachers implement the new materials and
standards?
2. How do district-level processes related to the adoption and implementation of new
standards and materials influence teacher decision-making around implementation?
Methods
The interviews with eighth-grade math teachers were embedded in a larger research
project on curriculum materials adoptions in California, a state where curriculum materials
adoptions are conducted at the district level. California is one of the few states that requires
schools to provide information on adopted materials. We collected curriculum materials
information from all K-8 public schools as reported on the yearly School Accountability Report
Card (SARC), available publicly online. We used stratified random sampling to select districts to
participate in our survey (see below for sampling criteria), and we contacted district leaders
responsible for curriculum and instructional materials. Our teacher interview sample was
selected from the districts where a district leader agreed to an interview. We focused on math
materials and teachers because, at the time of our interviews, nearly 100 percent of CA school
districts had adopted CCSS-aligned math materials. Implementation of the CC math standards
began as early as 2012 in California, while districts were still in the process of evaluating and
selecting CC-aligned materials for English/language arts at the time of our interviews. We
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 76
bounded our sample further by including only teachers of eighth grade math (a meaningful year
in math education research because it often influences tracking for students throughout high
school and beyond). For the analysis in this paper, we also bounded the sample by district size.
California has some of the largest school districts in the country as well as some of the smallest.
For example, Los Angeles Unified School District has a thousand eighth grade math teachers,
while other districts have one eighth grade math teacher that may also be the principal and
superintendent of the district. To reduce variation in our study, we focused on districts with more
than one eighth grade math teacher and fewer than 20.
Sampling Strategy
Our sampling criteria were based on factors that we assumed to be related to differences
in curriculum materials adoptions. Our teacher sample is drawn from districts in which district
leaders had already participated in an interview about curriculum materials evaluations and
adoptions. To create the district sample, we stratified and randomly selected districts based on
three criteria: enrollment size, average student achievement level, and type of adopted materials.
We identified four types of adopted materials for our sampling criteria: materials approved by
the CA DOE and aligned to the CCSS, materials not approved by the DOE but still aligned to the
CCSS, materials not aligned to the CCSS (e.g., materials that had not been updated since the
adoption of new standards), and materials that were unclear based on the information provided
on the SARCs.
Data Collection
Within each district where a curriculum leader participated in an interview, we sought
contact information for all the teachers of eighth grade math. In some cases, this information was
available on school and district websites; in other cases, we called district offices and asked for
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 77
the information. Our goal was to interview three teachers within each district that had been
sampled. We oversampled in the larger districts to increase our overall sample size and to try to
reach a representative proportion of teachers in each district. In larger districts, this also allowed
us to interview teachers in different schools so we could probe on implementation differences
that might be related to school-level characteristics, rather than district-level or individual
teacher characteristics.
In smaller districts, all of the eighth-grade math teachers in the district were contacted via
email; in larger districts, teachers were contacted in batches, with individuals being replaced if
they did not respond. The email asked for participation in an approximately 45-minute phone
interview for which they would receive a $100 gift card. Table 2.1 contains information about
the final sample, including approximate district enrollment and relative student achievement
status, as well as the adopted curriculum materials according to the district SARCs. Some
information is blinded to protect the anonymity of respondents.
Interviews were conducted via phone, recorded, and transcribed during the months of
February to June of 2017. Members of the research team used a semi-structured interview
protocol developed and refined by the research team. The interview protocol was developed to
reflect themes in the literature on implementation, standards-based reforms, curriculum
materials, and the CCSS. See Appendix A for the entire interview protocol.
Analysis
Interview data were coded in Excel using coarse-grained codes generated from the topics
in the interview protocol. Each teacher interview was coded according to the broad categories
represented in the interview protocol, such as “perception of standards” and “supplemental
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 78
resources.” We later refined these a priori codes based on emergent findings in the data
(Creswell, 2009).
Using Excel for coding allowed us to create a data matrix, with each teacher recorded in a
row and codes recorded in columns. A data matrix is suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994)
as a way to visually display large numbers of responses. It was also an effective way to analyze
teacher responses both across and within districts. We recorded memos for each teacher
interviews, but we also looked across teacher interviews in each district and recorded memos on
the general patterns that emerged. We were also able to look for patterns across topics in the
entire sample. We used Miles and Huberman’s recommended strategies for drawing conclusions
from the data, particularly counting and clustering of general themes and findings. We also noted
discrepant events and disconfirming evidence.
Findings
The teachers in our sample have a range of teaching experience, from a half year of
teaching to 37 years. Many of the teachers have taught multiple grades and subjects over the
years, and many of them taught in different schools and districts, including charter schools. It is
therefore not surprising that, even within the same district or school, teacher experiences around
the implementation of the CCSS and adopted materials vary. A textbook that one teacher
considers to be too rigorous and challenging may be considered by another teacher to be too
easy. One teacher may feel that the adopted textbook does not include enough practice problems
for struggling students, while a teacher in the same district using the same textbook may feel that
the book contains too many practice problems and not enough critical thinking questions. These
between-teacher differences are supported by prior literature on teacher decision-making, which
emphasizes the importance of experiences, beliefs, and content knowledge on implementation
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 79
decisions. We discuss the teacher resources that were most commonly cited by teachers in our
sample: understanding of the CCSS, mathematical content knowledge related to the new
standards, and attitudes toward adopted materials.
Our interviews also revealed that curriculum resources affect decisions about offloading,
adapting, and improvising. When we look at responses across the teachers in our sample, we find
three curriculum resources that teachers find particularly influential in their decisions to offload,
adapt, and improvise: professional development related to the standards and new materials, the
timeline of adopting new materials, and the amount of professional autonomy that teachers have
in implementation.
Teacher Resources
We find the most compelling explanations for decision-making around the
implementation of the new standards and aligned materials to stem from three teacher resources:
their understanding of the CCSS, content knowledge, and their opinions on the district-adopted
materials. It is important to note that none of the teachers in our sample report implementing
their district-adopted curriculum with fidelity. Every teacher in our sample uses resources
outside of those provided by the district.
Understanding of the CCSS
We asked teachers about the biggest instructional changes that are called for in the new
standards. Teachers in our sample want their lessons to reflect the instructional shifts of the
CCSS, and they make decisions about how to use curriculum materials based on their
understanding of what the new standards are asking students to do. Some teachers see the CCSS
as a dramatic shift from the previous California state standards, while others feel that there is no
difference. Some teachers think that they have been “teaching the Common Core since before the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 80
Common Core.” These teachers feel that they did not need to make changes to their instructional
practices because they were already using pedagogical strategies aligned to the CCSS. As one
teacher explains, “I don’t think they’re radically different. Good teaching is still good teaching”
(District 14).
The changes most consistently cited by teachers in our sample are related to critical
thinking. Teachers feel that the CCSSM expect students to move beyond procedural knowledge
and recall. Rather than simply solving for a correct answer, students might be asked to solve for
multiple answers, or to explain why one answer is correct and another is not.
What I’m learning is that we want students to figure out why they do math the
way they do. What’s the point of it, how to get to it, and use more critical thinking
along the lines with the standards. (District 17)
The way that I see that Common Core is just trying to be able to get students to
think more deeply about problems, and think critically, and be able to explain
what they’re doing, rather than just routinely solving problems by memorization
without really understanding what they’re doing….There’s a lot more analyzing,
there’s a lot more explaining, and trying to get the students to understand those
core concepts, rather than just oh, I multiply because that’s what the teacher said.
(District 21)
Teachers feel that the CCSSM call for students to derive mathematical formulas through
discovery and application. This is different from the way most teachers in the sample have
traditionally taught math, where they present a formula at the beginning of the lesson and ask
students to practice it. One teacher explains, “They don’t start with a formula. They want you to
discover the formula hopefully in the end, but they want you to use your acquired knowledge and
then discover it yourself” (District 1). These explanations indicate that teachers recognize that
the change in standards requires a change in pedagogical approach, with an emphasis on student
discovery and analysis. Therefore, teachers make decisions about offloading, adapting, and
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 81
improvising lessons based on the adopted materials’ alignment to these objectives laid out in the
CCSS. One teacher explains:
I don't think the standards themselves are the big change with Common Core. It's
the practices. Before Common Core, we had a very non-Common Core textbook,
and it was very much, ‘here's how do you the math, do a whole bunch of
problems of varying difficulty, more problems, more problems, and then at the
very end, just a pinch of application. Here's how you use it in a word problem.’
Then we move on real quick….I'd say we've turned that completely around with
Common Core. It's almost always, why would you do this? When would this be
useful? Application first, every single time. Generate the math from the
application, and then you can practice. (District 19)
This teacher’s comparison of textbooks pre- and post-adoption of the CCSS indicates that she
does use the adopted materials to inform her lesson planning, and that she may offload some of
the lesson plans by using the adopted materials. In doing so, she has realized that the structure of
the typical math lesson has changed to align with the mathematical practices associated with the
CCSSM. Many teachers feel that the CC-aligned textbooks do not support the types of changes
that are called for by the new standards, creating an additional challenge in trying to implement
the new teaching practices.
I wanna say the only thing that I feel is the difference between the old standards
and the new standards is just the way we think about how the students are
learning the material. I feel the textbooks are almost exactly the same. That makes
you as a teacher have to think about how are you going to present the material in a
way that the students are going to be able to organically discover something.
(District 23)
Student-centered learning is another shift that many teachers report under the CCSSM,
“Now you have to spend more time on collaborative activities and discovery and less telling,
more asking good questions and guiding,” says one teacher in District 14. This teacher describes
this as a challenge for her, but she notes that the relationship with her students has changed from
being adversarial to being partners in discovery and inquiry. She calls herself a “tour guide” for
their math discovery. Another teacher explains:
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 82
It does require a change in mindset because the teacher role is no longer the—
all—the one who knows everything and knows all—knows what’s right and
what’s wrong. They may have to change their approach because it’s not just about
taking notes or writing everything the teacher says, but it’s also—now it’s about
promoting discussion and trying to understand—get to the root of the concepts
and understanding the concepts. (District 18)
Teachers that see student-centered learning as a focus of the CCSS may evaluate adopted
materials for their ability to achieve this goal. If the materials reflect student-centered learning,
they can be implemented through offloading; if they do not include a student-centered
component, teachers may need to adapt or improvise. In general, teachers’ understanding of the
shifts in the standards are reflected in their choices to offload, adapt, or improvise with materials.
If teachers perceive that the adopted materials are aligned with the shifts in the standards, then
offloading is possible. However, if the adopted materials do not address teachers’ understanding
of the shifts in the standards, they may look for additional resources.
Content Knowledge
The teachers in our sample all feel confident in their own mathematical abilities, and this
confidence affects their use of curriculum materials. Some teachers tell us that they use the
materials given to them by their district, but they do not consult the teacher’s edition. They feel
that they understand math, and math teaching, well enough to follow their own judgment on how
to implement the lessons. A few teachers say that they consulted the teacher’s edition or
followed the adopted curriculum with more fidelity during the first year of implementation but
have since relied on their own judgement.
The first year, I looked in the teacher's guide every day….Now I have a record of
the notes that I did with the kids, so now I reference my own notes, and…once
every week or two, I find myself actually in the teacher's edition because I already
got enough meat out of it to fill a school year. There's more in it that I'm not
actually using, but the first time I went through it is when I took out I wanted
from it. (District 9)
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 83
Teachers’ confidence in their own math knowledge is associated with their confidence in making
adaptations to the curriculum materials or improvising entirely.
Creating it ourselves, we know exactly what we’re trying to get across, and it’s
easier for us to make sure that we’re addressing the standard that way. I feel pretty
confident teaching a lesson I’ve created versus going off of one that’s given to me
that I might not necessarily understand the point of what they’re wanting the
students to do and why. (District 2)
Some of the teachers think that the content knowledge and pedagogical shifts required to
implement the CCSS require a change of mindset. In their opinion, the CCSS require a deeper
conceptual understanding of math and are more work to implement. “It’s more work than I’m
used to doing because I feel I’m re-learning content all over again,” says one teacher (District
13). Some teachers in our sample feel that teachers of younger grades are not equipped to
understand the mathematical changes called for by the CCSS. They feel that elementary teachers
still teach rote memorization over conceptual knowledge. They also suspect that elementary
teachers implement the adopted materials with greater fidelity because they do not have the
mathematical content knowledge to make decisions about adapting or improvising.
Attitudes Toward Adopted Materials
The teachers in our sample have mixed feelings about their adopted materials; even
teachers who are enthusiastic about adopted materials identify areas of weakness where they
need to supplement. None of the teachers in our sample offload all of the work of implementing
the CCSS onto district-adopted materials because they do not perceive the adopted materials to
be sufficient. The majority of teachers feel that their adopted textbook offers some good
resources, but they view the adopted materials as only one resource among many that they use to
plan and implement lessons. Many teachers feel that the district adopted the “least bad”
textbooks out of the options available at the time, but they recognize that no curriculum is
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 84
perfect. Teacher opinions on a few aspects of the adopted curriculum are particularly influential
in their decisions to offload, adapt, or improvise.
Alignment. The majority of teachers think that alignment to the standards is one of the
most important features of an adopted curriculum, and teachers who think their curriculum is
well aligned to the CCSS are comfortable offloading their lesson planning onto the adopted
curriculum. Some teachers assume that materials are CCSS-aligned if they have been approved
by the state or the district. However, a large number of teachers feel that publishers did not
meaningfully align their books to the Common Core, especially in the earliest years of CCSS
implementation.
No, the first few versions of the publishers’ books looked just like—we literally
turned it page for page….Side by side, we were like, ‘all they did was name it
Common Core and find the standard to match it.’ They really didn't do anything
in those first versions. (District 4)
Some teachers feel that, in response to the new standards, publishers simply made their books
longer, rather than better aligned. Teachers describe how books have gotten longer over the
years, and while the intention of the Common Core is to tighten the focus of content standards to
a smaller number of standards, the publishers have simply added more problems to the books,
meaning that there is more material to cover rather than less.
What they did from the seventh accelerated is, they just took chapters out of the
eighth-grade book and literally whacked them onto the end of the seventh-grade
book. I feel like that’s a little lazy. Because it’s not necessarily making the
material deeper and broader. It’s just like, here’s some extra. Here’s some more.
Let’s whack it on. It necessitates a faster pace so that you can do less of the
activities, again. (District 14)
Teachers who think that curriculum publishers did a poor job of aligning their materials to the
CCSS think that they need to use other materials to meet the demands of the standards. They feel
that publisher materials are lacking in quality and therefore the work of lesson planning cannot
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 85
be offloaded on publisher materials. Instead, these teachers are relying on outside sources that
they perceive to be better aligned.
[I]ndividual lessons can range basically from unacceptable to quite good. Even so,
within a standard, as you’re probably familiar with, the standards can be quite
broad. In many cases, the textbook doesn’t seem to address all the aspects of a
given standard so that you either have to provide supplementary materials or just
do it out of direct instruction and get modeling to get the material across. ( District
6)
We have had to use additional resources. We can’t just settle on just using the [Go
Math]. There isn’t enough quality in it in order to make it a full, 100-percent
program. If you just used the book itself and nothing else, it wouldn’t be enough
for them to learn the entire curriculum. (District 17)
Some teachers describe the adopted curriculum as a “starting point” that they use as a reference
for finding other resources. They might follow the scope and sequence articulated in the adopted
curriculum, but they use other resources that they think address the same standards in a different
way. Many teachers describe a process of “curating” resources to fit the needs of their students.
Almost all of the teachers describe using the internet to help find supplemental materials. Some
teachers describe searching commonly used sites like Teachers Pay Teachers to find lessons on a
specific standard. Several teachers mention the ease of finding materials aligned to the CCSSM
online because so many teachers across the country are using the same sets of standards. These
teachers feel more comfortable offloading the work if the lesson plans were created and used by
other teachers, rather than a textbook publisher. Numerous teachers describe how the nearly
national adoption of the CCSS have made the work of offloading much easier, because there are
so many other teachers nationally teaching to the same standards.
There are also teachers in our sample who think that the book may be aligned to the
standards, but it’s too confusing. Here is one teacher explaining that she doesn’t think the content
of math books needs to change dramatically even with the adoption of new standards. “I like
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 86
older textbooks because math is math” (District 20). She drives around to local high schools to
pick up old textbooks that are being discarded because “the older textbooks were more simple in
the way they explained things.” This teacher improvises much of her teaching, and she believes
she is still teaching in alignment with the CCSS. She doesn’t think that new materials and
confusing materials are required to implement the new standards.
Usability. Teachers like offloading the work of lesson planning if they perceive the
adopted curriculum to be “usable” or straightforward to implement. Some of the features that
improve usability are a well-structured teacher’s guide, clear articulation of objectives and
standards alignment, a digital edition of the textbook, assessments and homework aligned to the
day’s lesson, scaffolded problems to reach high- and low-achieving students, review problems,
and lessons that provide sufficient and realistic guidelines for implementation. This teacher
describes how features of the textbook make it more usable, and therefore easier for him to
offload the work of lesson planning.
Also, the way they structured their lesson, it was really Common Core-based. It
wasn’t like a standards-based, trying to be adapted, it was created for Common
Core. When you look at the structure of it, there’s inquiry labs. They let you know
when the kids should be collaborating, when the kids could write. They walk you
through those lessons for guided practice, independent practice, Common Core
spiral review. They do the examples. They do vocabulary…. Really, you could
take this—any teacher could take this and just go from like, say, page one to page
five, and meet all the Common Core needs of a lesson. (District 11)
Some teachers think that the technology components of the adopted curriculum improve
usability. Nearly all of the teachers in our sample use technology themselves or with their
students on a regular basis (at least once per week). The majority of teachers agree that a
technology component, well aligned and complementary to the content of the adopted
curriculum, is a valuable resource. Teachers are generally satisfied with the digital components
of their adopted curriculum, often more so than they are with the print version. Some teachers
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 87
enjoy the adaptability and customization available in digital lessons and assessments. Teachers
also note that digital features tend to be updated more frequently than a physical textbook, which
needs to be reproduced every year. For this reason, some teachers notice that digital materials are
becoming better aligned to the CCSSM over the years, while the print version stays the same.
On hindsight, I think the book was hastily put together, but they cannot change
the book anymore. Once you buy the book, it’s set for seven years or six years,
five years, whatever. The contract is gonna be the same book. The online version
is changing and getting modified, and the standards are getting better aligned.
(District 7)
Some teachers explicitly mention wanting a book that is more traditional, familiar, or
“normal.” One teacher describes her experience on the adoption committee. The book that she
wanted was not adopted, but she preferred it because, “It's just everything was traditionally
spelled out in the textbook. You've got the concept. You've got examples worked out for you.
You know how a math book normally is? It was right there.” In contrast, the book that was
selected, “goes off on…a tangent on the first day where they're supposed to discover things,”
which she feels is a struggle for her students. (District 18)
Pacing. Some teachers feel that the pacing of lessons in the adopted curriculum is not
appropriate for their students. One teacher notes that the pacing varies greatly between lessons,
and in his first year of implementation, he found that some lessons took much longer than
intended by the textbook authors, while others took much less time. Most teachers feel that the
pacing expectations are too fast, particularly for students performing below grade level or
learning English as a second language. These students need more practice and reinforcement,
and the pacing of most textbooks assumes that students are performing at grade level.
Great in theory, not practical, not realistic. It had a sequential order where the
expectation is that these students would already come in with solid foundational
math skills. Ideally, it would work great if all your students were advanced and
they were high and you could go through the motion very quickly. It doesn’t
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 88
account for different students at different levels, different needs. Differentiated
instruction is not heavily focused on with the curriculum. (District 13)
Pacing is a frequent reason that teachers adapt or improvise with the district-adopted materials. If
teachers feel that the curriculum is moving faster than their students’ ability levels allow, they
may use additional resources and class time for reinforcement.
Many teachers feel that the pacing of the district-adopted textbook is too fast because the
textbook authors assume that students have prior knowledge of a topic, or that they have strong
foundational skills and procedural fluency in math.
Some of the content requires prior knowledge. If you’re one of the gap kids,
which is what we call the kids that got tossed into Common Core in the middle of
their education. It has a lot of pre-reqs, prior knowledge stuff that they’re
assuming you have, and they don’t. It doesn’t really provide that as a way to
remediate those skills that they don’t have. We’ve overseen a lot of students that
are really, really struggling who wouldn’t have normally struggled. (District 18)
Teachers adapt their adopted materials to reflect a more appropriate pace for their
students, typically spending more time on introductions to new topics and on practice
problems and reinforcement.
Difficulty. Difficulty is related to pacing. Many teachers feel that the standards, the
adopted materials, or both are too challenging for their students. All of the teachers in our sample
report at least some struggling students. Teachers feel that English language learners and
students reading below grade level struggle because the CCSS is more language-heavy than
previous standards. A couple of teachers feel that the achievement gap between English speakers
and English language learners has been exacerbated by the language-heavy CCSS-aligned
curriculum materials. They describe how they can offload the lesson and hope that other students
will help them understand, because adapting materials into languages other than English is not
feasible.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 89
Even students who are native English speakers may struggle with the challenges of a
CCSS curriculum. Teachers see students’ ability levels as a barrier preventing them from
offloading the lesson planning. They feel the need to modify the adopted curriculum because it is
not suitable for their students. For example, discovery learning, which many teachers see as a
hallmark of the CCSS, can be a challenge with students who do not have prerequisite knowledge.
The problem is with the students that I have they just are not equipped,
foundationally, in their math skills to go on the voyage of this discovery. If you
have them working together, like we're encouraged to do all the time, it's like, do
you know how to do it? No. Do you know how to do it? No. (District 18)
Teachers also feel that the difficulty of problems is scaled too quickly. They feel that the
adopted curriculum provides students with a limited number of opportunities to practice a new
skill before moving on to a different skill or a more complicated application. Many teachers
compared the CCSS-aligned textbooks to earlier textbooks filled with “drill and kill” problems—
long sets of problems in which students practiced a procedure or computation repetitively
without application. While most teachers note that the CCSS expects students to move beyond
these types of problems, some teachers feel that their students’ foundational math skills are so
low that they need more repetition. The need for additional practice problems is a common
reason why teachers improvise, calling upon resources that build these skills.
Curriculum Resources
While teacher resources explain some of the decisions to offload, adapt, or improvise
with adopted curriculum materials, there are also factors related to the curriculum resources
themselves. Looking across the sample of teachers, we find three key curriculum resources that
influence teachers’ implementation decisions.
Autonomy. Teachers’ perceptions of the amount of autonomy they have over their
teaching is an important consideration in implementation. Teachers in our sample almost
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 90
universally feel that they have a great deal of autonomy in their instructional choices, as long as
they are teaching to the CCSS. “They just let me do whatever….As long as we're…teaching to
standards, I feel like I have quite a bit of autonomy,” is how one teacher describes her perception
of autonomy (District 22). For some teachers, autonomy means they can feel free to adapt the
adopted curriculum materials or improvise with other materials. They may choose to offload
with the district-adopted materials, but it is not required.
My administrators, as long as I teach the Common Core Standards, they are okay
with me teaching it how I would like. I can use the textbook, I can use online
resources,…I can teach it however I prefer, as long as I teach the Common Core
State Standards. (District 20)
All teachers acknowledge the caveat that, while they may improvise and adapt with
resources, they are still expected to teach a specific set of content, and there is a measure of
accountability to the district.
Well, we have the textbook, and we have the pacing guide from the district, and
the benchmark tests from the district are based on the pacing guide and what's
going on out of the textbook. I would say we might have some autonomy on how
we present the materials, but not much autonomy on what we're expected to teach.
(District 18)
For some teachers, the accountability of teaching the standards signals that they do not have
much autonomy. There are a small number of teachers in our sample who feel compelled to use
the district-adopted materials as the primary resource for teaching.
That is very debatable. Different teachers have different opinions about that. I feel
like I have zero because since I am hired to teach eighth-grade Common Core
math, I need to teach these standards to the best of my ability, and I need to use
the textbook that's adopted. (District 9)
The vast majority of teachers feel that they can use the adopted curriculum materials as
they wish. Teachers do not feel compelled to offload all of their work onto the district-adopted
materials. They feel that they can adapt the adopted materials or improvise by finding their own
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 91
resources. “No one would be concerned if I wasn't using the book,” says one teacher (District
19), while another says, “I think we're allowed to do anything…. they don't care if we're using a
textbook or what kind of materials we're using” (District 11). Another teacher, who feels that the
administration “strongly encourages” them to teach from the adopted textbook, feels that she
satisfies that expectation by using the materials for homework and extra credit (District 22).
Professional development. The professional development opportunities provided by
districts and schools have a role in teacher understanding of the new standards and curriculum
materials, which can lead to differences in implementation. Teachers seem to benefit from early,
ongoing, and meaningful professional development around the instructional shifts in the
standards. Some districts introduced teachers to the instructional changes in the CCSS years
before implementation began, so teachers could gradually introduce CCSS-aligned practices into
their lessons. Some districts did not provide professional development on the CCSS until
implementation began, and some teachers in our sample claim they have never received district-
provided professional development on the CCSS. One teacher says that the only training she’s
received on the CCSS is what she’s learned on her own (District 10). Teachers who change
districts may also miss out on trainings that were provided in the earliest years of an adoption.
As one teacher explains, “We, also, have at my school a lot of teacher turnover. I am currently
the only math teacher who has been at this school for longer than two years. I’m the only person
who had curriculum training” (District 10). Another teacher in a different district says, “The only
person that trained me was the teacher before” (District 15).
Teachers that did receive training on the new standards report varying degrees of quality,
but many teachers feel that their district-provided training left them inadequately prepared to
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 92
implement the new standards. These teachers were left feeling uncertain about the instructional
shifts laid out in the CCSS and how they should go about aligning their lessons to the standards.
In general, I feel like the information about the transition to Common Core was
spotty. That’s something that has always kind of bothered me. We talk a big talk
about Common Core this, Common Core that. We talked about it as a district a
little bit. I don’t even know if there’s a coherent philosophy of, what is California
Common Core? Assuming that we were supposed to completely revolutionize our
teaching overnight two years ago, gee, it would have been nice to know more
about it. I think that this idea that we’re gonna just have new standards, let’s drop
it on everybody all at once. I think it wasn’t really thought out. (District 14)
Teachers that felt more knowledgeable about the CCSS prior to implementation seem
more comfortable making adaptations to the adopted materials if the materials are not well
aligned or not rigorous enough. Some teachers feel that the curriculum is only “scratching the
surface” of the changes called for by the CCSS, particularly in the area of abstract, conceptual
reasoning. Some teachers think that the book doesn’t ask students to go “deep enough” into the
process skills related to the CCSSM.
As we have become more comfortable with the standards and as I personally have
become more knowledgeable and comfortable with the standards, I have noticed
that there are places where I don’t think that the textbook is perfectly aligned with
the new standards. There are things that I—there are individual sections that I
think are good. There are other sections that are quite frankly weak or even not up
to standard for that particular standard. Honestly, last year I used—I’ve gotten to
where I used the textbook as a resource. I don’t really teach the textbook. We
currently still use the textbook as something of a pacing guide. I honestly, as I
say, I think of it as a resource. (District 6)
In addition to training on the standards, some districts provide training on the adopted
materials. In most cases, these are publisher-provided trainings that last one day or a half day.
Teachers feel that publisher trainings focus on the features of the materials—such as digital
components, alignment, or the layout of the textbook—rather than pedagogical strategies or best
practices in implementation.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 93
Well, the people that did the training, they’re not teachers, so they just show you
the nuts and bolts. A lot of it was the online component of the different resources
online. How to set up the tests, how to set up the rosters for your kids. They went
through the textbooks and showed us their different—what all the icons mean in
it. (District 15)
Several teachers felt that the publisher representatives were unprepared to provide training, or
they lacked the knowledge base necessary to be effective in training teachers.
The training was, the book was new, the people that were doing the training
weren’t that—I didn’t feel like were that familiar with it. The questions that we
had, they weren’t really able to answer, so it wasn’t that effective, in my opinion.
It probably was an hour, maybe two. (District 21)
Teachers’ attitudes toward professional development reveal that the perceived expertise
of the trainer is a crucial factor in evaluating the effectiveness of the training. Some teachers that
we interviewed question the credibility of trainers who have not been educators or who have not
implemented the new standards and materials. Eighth-grade math teachers want professional
development from other eighth-grade math teachers who have had experience with the materials
and standards.
The training, however, was conducted by teachers who haven’t been in the
classroom in at least five years. These teachers were probably second grade
teachers who became curriculum specialists. They taught units of study. Now,
you’ve never taught algebra, so why would I listen to you?...I need somebody to
come in and teach negative exponents. I need somebody to come in and talk about
the concept of polynomials. I need someone to come in and get these kids to grab
hold of some of the abstract concepts of algebra that they don’t have a clue about.
Nobody ever wants to do that. Our coaches don’t want to do that because they
can’t. (District 20)
The perceived credibility of trainers adds to teachers’ trust in the adopted materials and
the ability to offload lesson planning. They believe they can offload if other teachers,
teaching the same grade level and content, can prove that it’s effective. Representatives
from curriculum publishers do not have this credibility; nor do teachers without direct
experience implementing the materials with the same populations of students. The
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 94
teacher quoted above says that district leaders heard feedback from teachers and changed
the structure of professional development.
This year, they actually brought in educational consultants who have just left the
classroom, who had a wealth of information in the form of authentic and
meaningful activities to do in class, that were differentiated for the students, so
that was something I didn’t have to worry about doing. It was great fun for the
kids. The lady who presented it was very engaging for both teacher and students.
She actually came into our classroom and modeled the lessons for us. (District 20)
This teacher’s description—“that was something I didn’t have to worry about doing”—captures a
key component of the decision to offload by using adopted materials. If teachers feel that they
can implement the adopted curriculum without worrying—about differentiation, about
alignment, about usability, about pacing—they are likely to offload.
Adopting a curriculum. The most unexpected and universal finding across districts is
that teachers want a district-approved curriculum. Our sample contained teachers who had been
using the same CCSS-aligned curriculum for years, teachers who had piloted a different CCSS-
aligned curriculum every year, and teachers in districts that had not adopted a curriculum. In
every case, teachers overwhelmingly prefer to have an adopted curriculum to serve as a
“foundation,” “backbone,” or “skeleton.” None of the teachers in our sample offload the entire
burden of lesson planning onto the adopted curriculum, but nearly all teachers want the option of
offloading. Teachers express relief and gratitude over having a curriculum to enable offloading.
The first year we went to teaching Common Core, we did have the [GO Math!]
textbook. Honestly, that first year it was a God-send in the sense that with a
brand-new set of—a brand new curriculum that had significant differences from
the previous California Math Standards. It was very helpful having somebody
else’s idea of what you should teach in what order. (District 6)
Teachers in districts that did not adopt a curriculum in the first year of implementation of
the CCSS were left with two options: adapt older materials to make them CC-aligned, or
improvise entirely, finding resources wherever they could. The burden of adapting or
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 95
improvising every lesson is unrealistic for the majority of teachers. Teachers lack the time to
search for resources, evaluate alignment to the standards, or create their own materials,
especially when they’re also trying to make sense of the language and expectations of
challenging new standards. Some teachers were told in the earliest years of CCSS
implementation that they could easily find resources online because so many other states had
adopted the same standards. While this is true, teachers found the sheer volume of material to be
a barrier to meaningful selection.
It was just one of these weird things like, ‘Oh, no. You’ll be fine. You have all of
these online resources. We’re gonna make this page and you’re all gonna click on
this page and all these resources are gonna be available to you.’ The common
feedback that every teacher was giving is there’s no organization, there’s no
structure, there’s no skeleton to really follow. It was really hard for teachers to
map out the progression of lessons and how you implement each standard within
a content area. We basically have created a total ball of confusion in our district.
Every teacher, every school—I would say every school, every grade level, and
every teacher is doing their own thing. We’ve all been on survival mode for the
last few years. I think 2 years ago, I was working about 15 to 16 hours a day just
literally—I mean, we had to make our own tests. We had nothing to hand out to
the kids. It was like, ‘I don’t even know what the standard means right now, but I
have to teach something to it.’ (District 12)
Some teachers also felt resentful about doing work that they perceived to be outside of
their job responsibilities. A number of teachers expressed the feeling that their job is to teach the
standards, but they expect to be given the materials to do so.
It’s actually so overwhelming that a lot of times I say, ‘Okay. I’ll just build my
own.’…You can invest more time tryin’ to find the perfect worksheet, project,
whatever you’re looking for online. It’s probably out there, or you can just look
quickly and if you don’t see it, build your own. (District 6)
While some teachers felt resentful of the administration, others felt resentment aimed at
publishers. Teachers want the ability to offload their lesson planning by using publisher-
created, aligned materials, and they feel that publishers are not uploading their end of the
bargain by publishing sub-par materials.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 96
Everybody just is like, ‘Can the publishers get it together? Can they get me
materials that are actually aligned to what I'm supposed to test? Can they show
me what happens when you teach that?’ I don't understand how they think that
the profession of teaching is to design your own curriculum. I don't think that's the
profession. Design your own pacing, design your own test. I wasn't taught to do
that in education. I was taught to connect with kids and to affect them. To write
your lesson plan and stuff, to sorta come up with my own materials, is radically
different. I don't know. Then if that’s the case they need to train teachers to do
that, and it's not happening. (District 4)
The following teacher describes the work that she and another eighth-grade math teacher did to
curate and create CCSS-aligned materials during the first few years of implementation.
At the beginning, actually, we were pretty resentful, because the district is not
paying us to do that. We chose to do it because we knew that what was being
provided to us was inadequate. What we were creating was by far better than
anything that just once, or we found at the time, could provide for us. It’s
frustrating putting in––we literally put in hundreds of hours of our own time to
figure out what to use, and then to create it. (District 12)
It is worth noting that teachers who do have an adopted curriculum are not necessarily
happy with it. However, these teachers feel that they have the autonomy to adapt the adopted
curriculum as they see fit, and they appreciate having materials to serve as a backbone to their
lesson planning. It relieves some of the stress related to implementation of a new set of
standards. The challenge of improvising or adapting is what drove some teachers to select
textbooks that were not considered well-aligned to the CCSS. Teachers simply wanted the option
of offloading.
I think I actually voted for the text book because I was tired of waiting around and
just finding resources. It was just either to have something and pick and choose
what I wanted and tweaked what I didn’t want. (District 13).
Ultimately, district leaders face a challenge when selecting new materials to support the
implementation of new standards. Nearly all of the teachers and district leaders in our sample
feel that the earliest versions of CC-aligned materials from publishers were not adequate to
address the standards and did not represent a meaningful change from previous materials. Many
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 97
district leaders in our sample did not want to invest time and money into resources that fell
below their expectations, and they did not want teachers working from materials that were not
well aligned to the new standards. The first years of implementation of the CCSSM were a
challenge for all teachers, but particularly those who did not have an adopted curriculum to serve
as a foundation for their lesson planning. Teachers and district leaders report that implementation
has become easier each year, but some teachers are still searching for aligned materials because
they do not have any provided by their district. These teachers seem to feel the greatest burden
with implementation of the CCSSM. Teachers who were provided with a curriculum from the
district might be critical of the quality and alignment of the materials, but they feel free to adapt
them as needed.
Discussion
Our results align with theories about curriculum materials use as a complex interaction
between teacher, physical resources, and district characteristics (e.g., Brown, 2002, 2009;
Remillard, 2005; Stein & Kim, 2009). The findings reflect the beliefs of some researchers that
using curriculum materials as a policy instrument in standards-based reform is not a
straightforward “guarantee of instructional change” (Brown, 2009, p. 18). Teachers rely on
decision-making heuristics related to the resources available to them. This includes internal
factors such as prior experiences, content knowledge, and beliefs about teaching. It also includes
external factors related to the content of the standards, district decision-making around the
adoption of new materials, and the content of adopted materials. Teachers’ decisions on how to
implement the new standards and materials reflect their perception of both internal and external
constraints. We find that Brown’s design theory for curriculum materials is an appropriate lens
for understanding the factors that contribute to teacher decisions on implementing new standards
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 98
and materials. Our findings support his contention that “teacher resources” and “curriculum
resources” interact with each other and contribute to decisions around implementation.
Nearly all of the teachers in our sample feel that they are teaching in alignment with the
CCSS, whether they use district-adopted resources or their own supplemental resources.
Teachers’ decisions to offload, adapt, or improvise with adopted materials are a reflection of how
they interpret the standards. We know from prior literature on standards-based reforms that both
teachers and curriculum publishers can misinterpret the language of the standards (Hill, 2001;
Spillane, Reimer, & Reiser, 2002). To summarize our findings, we consider the following
questions, which we think can be relevant for policymakers, district leaders, and curriculum
designers:
In the context of the newly adopted CCSS, what are the conditions that make
teachers more likely to offload the work of lesson planning by using adopted
materials? What are the conditions or considerations that foster adaptation and
improvisation?
Offloading
Offloading is most similar in construct to strict “fidelity of implementation,” which has
historically been a focus of many studies of curriculum implementation. We do not know of any
studies measuring the fidelity of implementation to the CCSS, and this may be a reflection of the
changing nature of the standards and associated accountability measures. We do consider
offloading, or fidelity, to be worth considering in the context of the CCSS, at the very least
because of prior research indicating that the actual alignment of CCSS materials is so low
(Polikoff, 2015).
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 99
It is important to emphasize that everyone in our sample of teachers expressed positive
attitudes toward their understanding of the CCSS. While teachers are supportive of the shift in
standards, we did not measure teachers’ actual knowledge of the content and pedagogy
determined by the Common Core eighth grade math standards. Teacher understanding of the true
shifts in the standards appears to vary considerably. Some teachers think that the new standards
are not any different than previous standards because they have always been using strategies
aligned to the CCSSM. Other teachers think there is no change because they seem to have
limited knowledge of the new standards. Other teachers are more reflective and recognize that
the CCSSM requires a deeper conceptual understanding of mathematical processes and the use
of pedagogical strategies that emphasize collaboration, explanation, and application. Regardless,
teachers are comfortable offloading when the adopted curriculum meets their expectations for
alignment to the CCSS.
All of the teachers in our sample would prefer to have the option of offloading the work
of lesson planning. Teachers in districts that adopted materials early were grateful to have the
option of offloading the work during the transition to the new standards. Teachers who did not
have an adopted curriculum were forced to improvise, causing stress, resentment, and frustration.
They feel that the burden of improvisation should not be their responsibility.
Adapting
It may be more meaningful for researchers, policymakers, district leaders, and curriculum
designers to consider the factors that inspire teachers to adapt the curriculum. None of the
teachers in our sample offload entirely; all of the teachers adapt or improvise. From our teachers’
self-reporting, it appears that adaptation is the most common form of curriculum materials use.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 100
The majority of teachers describe using the district-adopted curriculum to serve as a backbone
for adaptation, but they feel that it is insufficient in meeting the needs of all students.
One of the primary reasons for adaptation is skepticism about the quality and alignment
of publishers’ CC-aligned materials. Many teachers feel that publishers rushed to get their CC-
aligned materials to the printing presses without making meaningful changes to earlier editions
of the materials. Teachers’ complaints about CCSS alignment generally fall into one of two
categories. Some teachers feel that the adopted materials only “scratch the surface” of the deep
conceptual thinking, problem solving, application, and synthesis required by the CCSS. In these
cases, teachers adapt the curriculum to make it more challenging, reflecting the true demands of
the new standards. They “scale up” the difficulty of the adopted materials to align with more
complex mathematical processes and critical thinking. In the other category are teachers who feel
that the adopted materials are already too challenging for their students, usually because their
students struggle with reading, computational fluency, and prerequisite knowledge required by
the CCSS-aligned text. Teachers’ assessment of student ability levels has a tremendous influence
on their decision to adapt curriculum materials. They do not feel that their students are capable of
performing complex mathematical operations if they are unable to quickly recall facts or
procedures. Some of the teachers who feel that the curriculum is only “scratching the surface” of
the CCSS may also feel that the materials are too challenging for their students. There are
teachers in our sample who recognize that the adopted materials do not reflect the true
conceptual change required by the CCSS, yet they feel the materials are still too difficult for their
students. They adapt the curriculum knowing that the adaptations may not reflect the CCSS, but
they feel it’s necessary to support their students.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 101
We also find a relationship between understanding of the standards and the choice to
adapt the curriculum. Teachers who feel confident in their knowledge of the CCSS also feel that
they can identify the areas of misalignment between the standards and the adopted curriculum
and make adaptations accordingly. Teachers that received extensive training on the standards,
rather than the curriculum materials, feel confident in using the curriculum materials as a tool
rather than the only resources for planning lessons. They feel able to identify areas of
misalignment between the standards and the adopted materials, and they feel it necessary to
address the misalignment by adapting the curriculum. We did not observe teachers’ instruction or
lesson plans, so we cannot verify that the adaptations are truly aligned to the standards. However,
we do find it worth noting that teachers who received training focused on the standards
themselves find the adopted materials to be one resources out of many in implementing the
CCSS.
Improvising
While many teachers improvise part-time, few teachers improvise the entire curriculum.
The primary reason for full-time improvisation is that teachers do not have an adopted
curriculum. Some teachers worked in districts that had not yet adopted an official math
curriculum at the time of our interviews. These teachers are improvising out of necessity, not
because they want to. A couple of districts relied on open educational resources, which in
practice means that teachers are responsible for curating lessons from a variety of online
resources. Still other teachers report that they do not have an adopted curriculum, while the
district reports that they have an adoption on their SARC. This seems to be a problem unique to
larger districts with high teacher turnover. Teachers who are new to the district may not receive
any sort of induction or training on the materials that other teachers in the district are using. One
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 102
teacher in our sample had no idea that the books he was using were not the same books that other
teachers in his district were using. Another teacher did not use his district-adopted book because
he was retiring at the end of the year and did not feel like he had time (or incentive) to invest in
learning the new materials. He continued using the same resources that he had used in the past
because he felt he had seen student success with these materials.
Without evaluating whether improvisation is “good” or “bad” for implementing the
CCSS, these findings do raise some concerns. It seems less than ideal to expect teachers to
improvise when they do not feel prepared or supported enough to do so. This challenge can be
anticipated by districts prior to the adoption of new standards if they have a curriculum in place
to support teachers. Even a “bridge” curriculum is perceived as better than a curriculum that
teachers need to improvise entirely. It also seems inopportune for teachers to be using the wrong
curriculum because they do not know the curriculum that the district has adopted, or because
they do not have the materials. These problems are straightforward to address if districts are
proactive in providing new teachers with an induction that includes curriculum materials.
Teachers that improvise because they are retiring, or because they do not see the need to learn a
new curriculum, are a more challenging matter. In Brown’s framework, these teachers seem to
be heavily influenced by the internal “teacher resources.” The retiring teacher seemed to be most
strongly influenced by the goal of teaching math to his students in the same way that he’d been
using successfully. He was not opposed to the CCSS or the adoption of new materials, but new
methods did not align with his personal pedagogical approach.
Limitations
One limitation to our study is that we only interviewed eighth grade math teachers. There
is no reason to believe that the findings from this sample of teachers would reflect the attitudes
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 103
and opinions of teachers of other grades and subjects. We bounded the sample to eighth grade to
control for variation between grades and subjects. However, we might expect to find different
perspectives on the CCSS and adopted curriculum materials among ELA teachers, elementary
teachers, and high school teachers. Elementary teachers in particular might have a different
experience implementing the CCSS because most elementary teachers teach math and ELA,
meaning they would have been required to learn two new sets of standards and two new curricula
in the span of a few years. As noted by the eighth grade teachers in our study, elementary
teachers are not required to have the same level of subject-specific content knowledge as middle
and high school teachers. Some of the teachers in our sample believe this would have an impact
on elementary teachers’ understanding of the conceptual thinking required by the CCSS in math.
ELA teachers in California might have different opinions on the CCSS and adopted materials
because many schools in California last adopted new ELA materials in the early 2000s. ELA
teachers may have a different experience adopting new materials because they had gone so long
without them.
Another limitation is that we only used one-time self-reported measures from teachers.
We could improve the validity of the results through the use of classroom observations, teacher
logs, or multiple interviews with the same teachers at different points in time.
It is also important to consider that unobservable characteristics could contribute to
differences that are not accounted for in the analysis. We invited all of the eighth grade math
teachers in our selected districts to participate in an interview, but we did not get a response from
every teacher. The unobservable characteristics that motivated teachers to respond to our emails
may be associated with differences in opinions on the CCSS and adopted materials that are not
accounted for in the analysis.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 104
Conclusions
To date, there has been little research on the implementation of CCSS-aligned materials.
Previous qualitative research on the implementation of the CCSS has been limited to small
sample sizes and was conducted very early in the transition to the new standards (Martinie, Kim,
& Abernathy, 2016; Swars & Chestnutt, 2016). This study improves on the existing qualitative
research on CCSS implementation by using a purposive sampling strategy to collect interviews
across California, one of the largest and most diverse states. The sample reflects both urban and
rural districts, teachers with high populations of ELL students, and variety in the average
socioeconomic status and achievement scores of the schools. This research is also different from
other qualitative implementation studies of the CCSS because it captures the experiences of
teachers who have been following the new standards for years. Some of the teachers in our
sample have been implementing CC-aligned strategies for five years or more. These interviews
reflect the experiences of teachers who have participated in evaluations and adoptions of new
materials in their districts. We also captured teachers at various stages of in the adoption cycle.
While some teachers have been using the same CC-aligned materials for years, other districts
have yet to adopt materials, meaning that teachers need to find their own resources aligned to the
CCSSM. Our study participants represent a broader cross-section of experience with CC-aligned
math materials than other studies on CCSS implementation, which have focused on teachers in
districts that have already adopted materials.
Our findings indicate that teacher implementation of new standards and curriculum
materials is influenced by internal “teacher resources” and external “curriculum resources.” The
findings are supported by prior literature on teacher implementation of curriculum materials, but
our data add insight into the specific contextual factors that influence adoption of CCSS-aligned
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 105
materials. By focusing our sample on the narrow band of eighth grade math, but strategically
sampling districts with different materials and characteristics, we are able to examine
implementation differences two ways: the differences attributable to individual teacher attitudes
and opinions, and the differences attributable to district practices. We find that teacher decisions
to offload, adapt, or improvise with adopted curriculum materials reflect “teacher resources”
such as knowledge of the standards, attitudes toward the adopted materials, perception of student
ability level, and pedagogical beliefs. We also find that “curricular resources” that matter include
the professional development provided by districts and the autonomy given to teachers to make
changes to the adopted curriculum. These findings can be relevant to district leaders,
policymakers, and curriculum designers as they consider whether they want teachers to make
substantive changes to the curriculum, or whether they expect teachers to implement adopted
materials with fidelity.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 106
Table 2.1
District Characteristics, Adopted Math Textbooks, and Number of Teachers per District
District Enrollment
Achievement
level Adopted Eighth Grade Math Books Adoption Year
Number of
Eighth Grade
Math Teachers
Number of
Teacher
Interviews
1 Medium high
CPM(6-8)
2014-15 5-10 1
2 Medium high
Utah Math(6-8)
2014-15 5-10 1
3 Medium high
Glencoe; Pearson CA Algebra 1
2014-15 1-5 2
4 Medium high Glencoe (6-8); Houghton Mifflin
Integrated Math (7-8)
2014-15 1-5 3
5 Medium low
CPM(6-8); enVision (supplemental)
2014-15 5-10 1
6 Medium high
GO! Math
2014-15 1-5 1
7 Medium high
Big Ideas(6-8)
2015-16 1-5 1
8 Medium high
enVision
unknown 1-5 3
9 Large high
Engage NY
2015-16 5-10 3
10 Large low
Carnegie Math(6-8); internally
developed units of study
2014-15 1-5 2
11 Large low
enVision; Pearson International Math
2015-16 5-10 3
12 Large low
CPM 6-8
unknown 10-20 4
13 Large high Math Expressions 2015-16 10-20 3
14 Large high My Math 2015-16 10-20 2
15 Large high
enVision; Bridges in Mathematics;
McDougal Littell; Holt
2014-15 10-20 3
16 Large low
McGraw-Hill California Math(6-8)
2015-16 5-10 1
17 Large low
Glencoe California Math
unknown 10-20 4
18 Large low
Carnegie
2014-15 10-20 3
19 Large high
Math Expressions; SpringBoard
2014-15 10-20 3
20 Large low
teacher-created units of study
2014-15 >20 4
21 Large high
enVision; GO! Math; ST Math
(supplemental)
2015-16 10-20 4
22 Large low
Eureka; Springboard (supplemental)
2014-15 10-20 2
23 Large high
Math Expressions(K-5); GO! Math
(6-8)
2015-16 >20 5
Note. District names have been blinded. Small districts have < 1000 students; medium districts have 1000-10,000; large districts have 10,000-
50,000; very large districts have >50,000 students. Book titles in bold are on the state-approved list. Adoption year is the most recent adoption
year for any district K-8 mathematics textbooks; some listed books may have been adopted in earlier years.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 107
Study 3: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professional Development for Implementing the
Common Core State Standards and Aligned Curriculum Materials
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 108
Abstract
Professional development is one of several inputs designed to support the implementation of
standards-based reforms such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). California adopted
the CCSS for math officially in 2014, but many districts began evaluating, adopting, and
implementing the standards and aligned curriculum materials prior to 2014. While we know that
professional development is considered an important input in helping teachers align their
instruction to new standards, we do not have evidence that districts provide effective or
meaningful professional development opportunities to support teachers. The present study uses
interviews with 65 teachers in diverse California districts to examine professional development
opportunities provided to teachers during the first few years of implementation of the CCSS.
These interview data provide a picture of the type and scope of training that teachers received
prior to implementation of the new standards, as well as training on adopted curriculum
materials.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 109
Professional development is considered to be one of the key inputs in the successful
implementation of standards-based reforms (Smith & O’Day, 1990). Evidence from a large body
of research suggests that the specific activities and strategies used during professional
development have an impact on teacher learning, and therefore what teachers do in the
classroom. For example, professional development focused on building teachers’ knowledge of
math content or pedagogy can increase their understanding of the best strategies to use when
teaching math (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Kersting, Sherin, & Stigler, 2014; van Es &
Sherin, 2017). However, we know relatively little about the professional development that
teachers receive related to the implementation of new standards. We believe that professional
development during the implementation of new standards provides a space and time for teachers
to learn about the new standards. We think that understanding the content of professional
development related to the implementation of new standards can provide valuable insight into
the types of learning that teachers engage in as they enact new standards.
Recently, a majority of states adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which
many researchers believe represent a substantive shift when compared to previous sets of state
standards. Looking specifically at math, the CCSS focus on fewer content standards but greater
depth of understanding of mathematical processes such as communication and application
(Porter, et al., 2011; Schmidt & Houang, 2012). The standards are also written to build a clear
and consistent learning progression through the grades, building on students’ foundational
understanding of a topic with slightly more sophisticated work each year. The CCSS place a
greater emphasis on rigor, precision, communication, collaboration, and conceptual
understanding than many previous sets of state standards. While the standards are intended to
provide expectations and goals for student learning, “they do not dictate how teachers should
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 110
teach,” according to the authors (corestandards.org). The authors of the standards intend for
teachers to “devise their own lesson plans and curriculum, and tailor their instruction to the
individual needs of the students in their classrooms” (corestandards.org). This means that the
standards do not provide specific instructions on how to teach; they are meant to be interpreted
by teachers, but successful implementation depends on teachers’ ability to interpret the standards
in a way that supports the goals of the standards. This is where we think professional
development could be instrumental in supporting teachers as they learn about and make
interpretations about the standards.
Prior research informs us that many factors contribute to teachers’ interpretation of
reforms, including personal beliefs, organizational context, and prior knowledge (Coburn, 2001,
2003, 2004, 2005; Hill, 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Spillane, 2009). They also receive
messages from inputs aligned to support implementation, including professional development
and curriculum materials. Unfortunately, research and evaluations of CCSS-aligned curriculum
materials suggest that these materials are not well aligned to the cognitive demands of the
standards (Polikoff, 2015) and do not sufficiently capture coherence, rigor, focus, and depth of
the standards (see EdReports.org for evaluations of many CCSS-aligned curriculum materials). If
the aligned curriculum materials are not communicating clear and consistent messages about the
standards, this leaves professional development as a place where teachers can still improve their
learning about the standards.
Survey data from teachers across California (e.g., Perry, et al., 2015) and nationally (e.g.,
Kaufman, Thompson, & Opfer, 2016) indicate that teachers did receive training on the standards,
and they generally feel confident in their knowledge of the changes called for in the CCSS.
While teachers report feeling confident about their knowledge, these same surveys indicate a
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 111
lack of understanding of the content changes required by the CCSS and the pedagogical practices
that should align with these content changes. For example, on a recent national survey, only 4
percent of eighth-grade math teachers were able to correctly identify the math standards that
were specific to eighth grade (Kaufman, et. al., 2018). There is a disparity between teachers’
perception of knowledge of the standards, and the degree to which they report engaging in
practices aligned to the standards. We argue that understanding the professional development
that teachers received surrounding the adoption and implementation of the CCSS is important for
understanding this disparity.
The content of professional development related to standards implementation is not well
understood. One barrier to understanding professional development related to the standards is
that it can be highly decentralized—it is often up to the discretion of school or district leaders to
provide this training to teachers, or to select a third-party provider. Schools and districts are
sometimes thought to be in the best position to determine the needs of teachers, but the
professional development that leaders choose is influenced by their own understanding of the
standards (Coburn, 2005). Unfortunately, recent national data shows that school leaders do not
have the requisite knowledge of the CCSS to support teachers’ professional development,
particularly in the higher grades (Kaufman & Tsai, 2018; Perry, et al., 2015).
Ultimately, teachers carry the responsibility of instructing their students using content
and pedagogy that aligns with the CCSS, but their understanding of the CCSS can be affected by
the messages they received through professional development. For this reason, we might
question whether professional development related to the CCSS is adequate to support the
necessary changes in teachers’ thinking. We examine this issue through interviews with 65
eighth-grade math teachers in 30 California school districts. We interviewed teachers during the
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 112
2016-2017 school year. In California, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
(CCSSM) were officially adopted in 2014, but many districts began evaluating and adopting new
materials aligned to the standards starting in the 2011-2012 academic year (CITE OUR
DISTRICT PAPER). We asked teachers about the professional development they received on the
standards themselves and on curriculum materials aligned to the standards. We were interested in
learning whether teachers were given coherent, consistent messages about the content changes in
the CCSSM and the pedagogical shifts that would align to these changes. We see professional
development around the CCSSM as an opportunity for school and district leaders to build
teachers’ capacity around content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge needed to
implement the new standards. Therefore, we were also interested in understanding the types of
knowledge that teachers gained to support their learning about the content and pedagogy of the
new standards. Our research questions are:
1. How do teachers describe the professional development that they received to
implement the CCSSM, and to what extent do teachers find this professional
development effective in helping them understand and implement the standards?
2. To what extent do teachers report receiving professional development that supports
the acquisition of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge related to
the CCSSM?
Across the teachers in our sample, we find that reports of professional development vary
within schools and districts. Generally speaking, teachers do not describe professional
development experiences that reflect the shifts necessary for implementing the CCSSM.
Teachers were more likely to receive professional development related to curriculum materials,
typically provided by the publishers, than they were about the changes in the standards, and
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 113
teachers did not find publisher-provided professional development to be helpful in understanding
and implementing the new standards. Regarding the professional development that teachers
received specific to the new standards, there is almost no consistency between districts. Some
teachers received no training from their district, while others received “too much.” There is little
evidence that the professional development on the CCSSM facilitated changes in content
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge that would be necessary for teachers to
meaningfully align their instruction to the standards. These results provide some insight to
explain the recent survey data indicating that teachers have not changed their instructional
practices to align with the CCSSM (Perry, et al., Kaufman & Tsai, 2018). Fortunately, there is
evidence that well-aligned professional development is not only possible but may increase
teachers’ knowledge of the changes in content and pedagogy needed for CCSSM implementation
(Kaufman, Thompson, & Opfer, 2018). We offer suggestions for improved professional
development aligned to the standards to support teachers going forward.
Theoretical Perspective
We situate our analysis from the theoretical perspective of teacher learning. We believe
implementation of new standards and materials require learning on behalf of the teacher as much
as the students. We assume that curriculum materials and standards alone do not dictate
implementation; they are merely guideposts that are open to interpretation by individual teachers,
based on complex factors like prior experiences, beliefs, and values (e.g., Brown, 2009;
Remillard, 2000). The implementation of new standards and materials may require significant
changes in teachers’ thinking, especially if the new content is dramatically different from
previous content. It may require teachers to understand new pedagogical strategies or familiarize
themselves with topics they have not previously taught. The adoption of new standards and
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 114
materials comes with the implicit assumption that teachers will learn the new content and
integrate it into their teaching. This may be particularly challenging when the new standards or
materials vary drastically from those that teachers already understand.
Teacher Learning and Standards-Based Reforms
Prior literature on standards-based reforms indicates that teachers may not always
implement standards in a manner consistent with the intended reforms, even when teachers think
their instruction is aligned to the standards (Coburn, 2003; Hill, 2001; Spillane, 2009). The
standards themselves can only provide written recommendations, and there is a great deal of
interpretation involved in understanding the language of the standards. When there is ambiguity
in the language of the standards, teachers will fill in the blanks with available information, such
as prior experiences, assumptions, and beliefs about teaching. In this ambiguous space, there is a
great opportunity for teacher learning about the content of the new standards. This is where
teacher learning is important—it is not enough for them to be given a new set of rigorous
standards with changes in pedagogy and content. Teachers need time and guidance for their own
learning about the standards to occur before they can be expected to align their instruction.
The CCSSM were designed to represent a significant conceptual shift in how teachers
teach and students learn (e.g., Porter, et al., 2011; Schmidt & Houang, 2012). The standards aim
to move student thinking away from recall and simple application, with a focus on deepening
conceptual understanding, communication, and analyzing. The CCSSM encourage teachers to
build on students’ ideas, mathematical thinking, and misunderstandings to help them with deeper
concept development rather than memorization. This type of instruction represents a shift from
the way many teachers learned math and the way that math has been taught in the past. Teachers
can hold deeply internalized, subconscious schemas about what math is and how it should be
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 115
taught (e.g., Remillard, 2000). Understanding and implementing the CCSSM requires teachers to
uncover their prior thinking about math. Uncovering preexisting ideas requires teachers to think
deeply about the process of learning math in addition to the concepts and skills that are being
taught (Lampert, Heaton, & Ball, 1994; Remillard, 2000; Schifter, 1998). These changes can
require teachers to unlearn previous strategies and replace them with new ones (Ball, 1997;
Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Heaton, 1994). Research indicates that this work is challenging,
requiring significant learning and awareness about the alignment of new and old pedagogical
strategies (e.g., Ball, 1997; Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Remillard, 2000; Thompson, 1984). Teachers
would therefore benefit from time to develop new pedagogical strategies, understandings about
math content, expectations for student understanding, and mental images of what this teaching
might look like (Cohen, 1989; Remillard, 2000; Schifter, 1998). This is the foundation of the
argument for providing teachers with time for their own learning to occur prior to implementing
new content.
Teacher Learning and Curriculum Materials
Research also indicates that certain types of exercises activate teacher learning.
Importantly, active engagement with the materials or standards seems to be more effective than
passive learning—the written materials alone provide opportunities for learning, but teachers
need to analyze the materials, evaluate their effectiveness, and think about them through
students’ eyes (e.g., Remillard, 2000). When learning new math strategies, teachers benefit from
experiencing the activities in the same ways that students would, because this allows them to
anticipate student thinking and confusion (Franke, et. al., 1997; Remillard & Bryans, 2004;
Schifter, 1998). The opportunity for learning about new curriculum materials can give teachers a
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 116
solid foundation to make more informed choices about when to appropriate tasks from the
curriculum materials or invent their own (Remillard, 2000).
Teacher use of curriculum materials can be affected by prior experiences and beliefs.
Many studies indicate that even teachers using the same curriculum materials may use them in
different ways based on factors such as prior experiences, beliefs, and knowledge about the
content area (e.g., Chavez, 2003; Collopy, 2003; Fennema & Franke, 1992; Senk & Thompson,
2003; Sherin & Drake, 2009; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993; Tarr, et al., 2006).
Differences between teachers’ beliefs and experiences have implications for how teachers choose
to implement new materials. The scope and sequence of topics in a math textbook often
influences what teachers teach and when they teach it (e.g., Grouws & Smith, 2000; Grouws,
Smith, & Stein, 2004), but the how of teaching is more interpretive and variable. For this reason,
it is important that teachers have a solid foundational understanding of the underlying
mathematical content and supporting pedagogical strategies involved in implementing new
standards and materials. Providing teachers with a space to learn about the foundations of new
content is a way to minimize the differences in instruction that could result in differences in
student achievement. Individual schools and districts could ameliorate the lack of training in the
content areas by providing opportunities for teacher learning during professional development
(Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993).
Teacher Learning and Professional Development
One way to ensure that teachers have time for the necessary learning about new standards
and materials is by providing professional development at the school or district level. There are
specific types of activities that schools and districts can use to encourage teacher learning during
professional development. For example, teachers benefit from professional development that
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 117
allows them to take ownership of new materials rather than passively implement them (e.g.,
Brown, 2009; Remillard, 2000). Teachers are more engaged in active learning when they adapt
written materials rather than use them verbatim—adapting materials for students requires
teachers to think about how students will view the material. Teachers can anticipate student
struggles, plan for engagement and differentiation, and make connections to past and future
lessons. When teachers think critically about student misunderstandings, they can explore the
broader mathematical ideas underlying the confusion (Hill, Ball, &Schilling, 2008).
Professional development can also provide teachers with time to engage in learning with
their peers. Professional learning communities are one type of professional development that can
be particularly effective at encouraging peer-to-peer communication and collaboration (e.g.,
Stein & Brown, 1997). Professional learning communities are often structured to be ongoing,
with teachers meeting regularly with the same group of peers to support each other’s learning
and teaching.
This leads to an important consideration about how professional development can support
teacher learning. Consistently, researchers agree that in order to be effective, teacher learning
needs to be ongoing. Studies on professional development find that pedagogical changes (such as
those indicated by the CCSSM) occur over long periods of time (Loucks-Horsley, 1996;
Remillard, 2000). Teachers need multiple opportunities to interact with and practice new
pedagogical techniques and reflect on their implementation. Teachers implementing a
challenging new math curriculum need ongoing professional support or they will struggle (Stein
& Smith, 1996). Therefore, professional development could be most helpful when it allows
multiple ongoing opportunities to engage with the same content knowledge or pedagogical
strategies, with time for feedback, support, and reflection. Sosniak and Stodolsky (1993) believe
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 118
that the primary challenge for teachers in implementing any new reform is the competing
demands from multiple levels within a school or district. They believe that teachers struggle with
the “rapidly multiplying and frequently inconsistent policies, recommendation, and support
services intended to promote educational improvement” (p. 271). They believe that consistency
is key: when teachers receive multiple messages about what or how they should be learning, this
creates a demand on teachers’ attention.
Prior Research
Our study examines the professional development that California math teachers received
to implement the CCSSM. To situate our study, we review the historical relationship between
professional development and standards-based reform. We also present findings from recent data
on the implementation of the CCSS. Finally, we describe how professional development can be
used to increase teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, two constructs
that we think are important in relating standards-based reforms to teacher learning.
Professional Development and Standards-Based Reforms
Successful implementation of new standards is predicated on teacher understanding of
the true intentions of the reforms. This often requires changes in mindset, attitude, and
pedagogical practice. However, research indicates that teachers historically have had uneven
knowledge about new standards, leading to a great deal of variation in implementation (Coburn
2001, 2004; Cohen & Ball 1990; Spillane & Zeuli 1999). Messages about new standards are
typically transmitted from a state department of education, and are then interpreted by county
offices of education, school district leaders, school leaders, and finally teachers. There are many
places along this communication chain where messages can be interpreted and modified based
on individual understanding (Hill, 2001; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999). Professional development was
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 119
historically considered a critical component in standards-based reforms because it is a space for
teachers to hear clear and consistent messaging about the reforms (Smith & O’Day, 1990).
Professional development is typically determined locally, by schools or districts rather than state
departments of education.
The CCSSM require changes in specialized content knowledge and aligned instructional
practices (Schmidt & Houang, 2012). The standards were written to reflect research on how
students learn math and develop reasoning and understanding over time (Cobb & Jackson, 2011),
with progression and development of topics occurring throughout the grades. The emphasis on
learning trajectories means that some topics got shifted to different grades (Sztajn, Confrey,
Wilson, Edgington 2012). Teachers in each grade are also expected to incorporate eight process
standards (the Standards for Mathematical Practices, or SMPs) into their daily lessons, in
addition to the targeted math concepts. Even before the official adoption of the CCSSM,
researchers argued that teachers would need to make changes to their instructional practices, and
they would need professional development to facilitate this (Lee, Zhang, & Yin, 2011; Schmidt
& Houang, 2012). Early national survey data, in the first years of widespread CCSS adoption,
indicates that teachers did not feel adequately prepared by professional development to
implement the standards. However, ongoing studies of CCSS implementation indicate that both
teachers and school leaders feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the standards to implement
them (Hamilton, et al., 2016; Perry, et al., 2015). It is unclear where this knowledge comes from,
given that teachers do not feel that they were adequately prepared to implement the standards
through professional development. Researchers recommend that district and school leaders
provide more professional development time for professional learning communities,
walkthroughs, demonstrations, and coaching (Perry, et al., 2015). They recommend professional
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 120
development focused not just on the content of the standards but also how the standards are
related to content knowledge and pedagogical choices.
Curriculum materials are intended to be another central component of standards-based
reforms (Smith & O’Day, 1990). If the materials are aligned to the content and cognitive demand
of the standards, then teachers should theoretically be able to use materials to help guide their
instructional choices. However, curriculum materials are, at best, only moderately aligned to the
standards (Polikoff, 2015), both in terms of the content covered and the cognitive demand of the
content. This is to suggest that we cannot expect teachers to open a CCSS-aligned textbook and
use it to perfectly align their instruction to the new standards. Teachers would need to draw upon
their own understanding of the standards to recognize the gaps in alignment between the
materials and the standards.
Professional Development about Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Teachers require specialized knowledge of the subject matter they teach (content
knowledge) and the best strategies to use to teach the content to students (pedagogical content
knowledge). Successful implementation of the CCSS requires teachers to have an understanding
of the changes in content standards, which means they may need to focus their teaching on new
strands of content knowledge. It also requires teachers to learn new strategies for teaching, which
means expanding their pedagogical content knowledge.
The concept of pedagogical content knowledge was introduced by Shulman (1986) to
describe the specialized knowledge needed for teaching that goes beyond knowledge of the
subject matter. Subsequent researchers have broken the larger construct of pedagogical content
knowledge down into more specific types of knowledge. For example, Borko and Putnam (1996)
recognize that knowledge specific for teaching includes knowledge of the subject matter,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 121
knowledge of pedagogy, and knowledge of pedagogical practices that are best used for a given
subject matter. Ball and her team of researchers distinguish between common content
knowledge—the knowledge that most people have after attending school—and specialized
content knowledge—an understanding of how to teach those concepts to students, through the
use of appropriate language, representations, procedures, and assessment (e.g., Ball & Bass,
2000; Ball, Lubienski, & Mewborn, 2001; Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Common content
knowledge includes knowing how to compute a two-digit multiplication problem using a
standard algorithm. Specialized content knowledge includes knowing that there are multiple
algorithms to solve a two-digit multiplication problem, linking the algorithms to prior concepts
like place value, choosing appropriate models and problems to represent each algorithm,
recognizing why a student made an error in calculating the answer, and planning ahead to future
lessons that will build on these concepts.
Professional development can be used to deepen teachers’ understanding of mathematics,
their ability to interpret and respond to student thinking, and their ability to understand the
sequencing of math topics and their relationship to each other (e.g, Bell, Wilson, Higgins, &
McCoach, 2010). Increased pedagogical knowledge has been associated with teachers’ ability to
identify causal relationships between teacher inputs and student outputs (Kersting, et. al., 2014).
Researchers have found specific strategies used during professional development can increase
teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: analyzing video clips of
themselves or other teachers teaching, analyzing student work, observing other teachers,
reflecting on their own teaching, creating standards-aligned lesson plans, and creating
assessments that authentically measure student learning (Kersting, et. al., 2014; Santagata, 2011;
Van Es & Sherin, 2010).
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 122
While we know that content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are both
important components for teacher learning and teaching, we do not have an understanding of
how these constructs were used to help teachers implement the CCSS. The present study
attempts to shed some qualitative insight into this area. Previous studies of content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge have rigorously developed test items to quantitatively
measure these constructs, but it is beyond the scope of our study to create items that could
directly measure knowledge related to the CCSS. However, we think our study can be used in
conversation with other quantitative data gathered during CCSS implementation to provide an
understanding for the gaps in teacher knowledge that these other studies have noted. Many
researchers have argued that the implementation of the CCSSM require teachers to use
specialized knowledge of math and the pedagogical strategies that best support student learning
(e.g., Schmidt & Huoang, 2012; Swars & Chestnutt, 2016). And while survey data indicate that
teachers implementing the CCSS may have gaps in their understanding of the standards and best
pedagogical strategies, there has been little explanation for how these gaps appear. We hope that
studying the opportunities that districts provided teachers to acquire content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge can shed some insight into the reason for the gaps in
understanding the standards.
Methods
Our respondents came from districts that had been selected for this project through a
random sample stratified by district size, student achievement, and type of adopted materials (for
details on sampling methods, see).
We wanted to interview at least three eighth grade math teachers in every district where a
district leader had completed an interview. We consulted district websites for contact
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 123
information for eighth grade math teachers. In some cases, we called district offices to clarify
which teachers taught eighth grade math. In districts with five or fewer eighth grade math
teachers, we contacted all teachers. In larger districts, we contacted teachers in random batches
of ten (this meant that some of the larger districts resulted in more than 3 interviews if more than
3 teachers agreed to participate). We emailed teachers asking if they would participate in a 45-
minute phone interview regarding the implementation of the CCSS and adopted materials.
Teachers who did not respond to the first email were contacted two additional times before they
were removed from our list. In districts with more than five teachers, we replaced names on the
list with new names until we had reached at least 3 interviews. In total, we conducted 65
interviews with teachers from 30 districts across California. While our initial district sample
included 34 districts, there were some districts in which teachers never responded to our
interview requests. Interviews were conducted via phone, recorded, and transcribed. Interviewers
followed a semi-structured interview protocol developed by members of the research team. The
interviews were intentionally focused on several key ideas around the evaluation, selection, and
implementation of curriculum materials, based on review of the literature about curriculum
materials use and standards-based reforms.
Qualitative coding included a primary round of coarse-grained codes based on the broad
categories of the interview protocol (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These coarse-grained codes
were used to create an Excel spreadsheet in which each row represented one teacher’s responses
in each of the broad categories: “materials training,” “Common Core training,” “district
training,” “ongoing training,” “professional collaboration,” and “additional needs.” Each
individual teacher’s interview responses were coded using these categories; responses were
copied from interview transcripts and pasted into the Excel sheet. Responses for a given teacher
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 124
might fit more than one category, in which case the response was pasted into each appropriate
category. In this way, responses could be double-coded.
The Excel matric allowed us to look for themes across the broad coding categories, to
look at patterns within districts, and to compare responses across districts. For example, we
could examine the responses of teachers within a particular district who received professional
development, noting similarities and discrepancies. We were also able to compare these teachers’
responses to those in other districts with similar professional development experience.
Based on the theoretical framework on teacher learning, and prior literature on standards-
based reform, professional development, and curriculum materials, we made a primary
distinction between professional development on the standards and professional development on
curriculum materials. Some teachers received one type of training while some received neither
or both. In general, teachers within a given district report receiving the same types of
professional development (e.g., all of the teachers in a given district note that they received
professional development on curriculum materials but not the standards), but we do note
discrepant cases. These discrepant cases are largely attributed to teacher turnover within districts:
a teacher moving to a new district in the 2015-2016 school year would not have received the
professional development that was given to teachers in the 2014-2015 school year.
During interviews, teachers were asked to describe the extent to which the professional
development provided by their districts prepared them to implement the new standards and
standards-aligned materials. We used teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness to further analyze the
broad categories of professional development on the standards and professional development on
curriculum materials. Therefore, within the broad category of professional development related
to the CCSS, findings are sub-categorized based on the perceived level of effectiveness and
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 125
extensiveness, as reported by teachers. In general, these opinions are consistent across teachers
within the same district, but we do note instances of discrepancy where teachers in the same
district held differing opinions about the quality of professional development. We also describe
the characteristics related to individual teachers that might contribute to these differing opinions
(e.g., years of teaching experience).
The coding rubric also indicated that some aspects of professional development did not
fit into either of the aforementioned categories. For example, some teachers did not receive any
training from their district or school, but they did receive training in a prior district or during
graduate school. Additionally, some districts provided teachers with discretionary funds to attend
professional development of their choosing. After discussing the findings on professional
development specifically related to the standards and curriculum materials, we discuss these
alternative types of professional development that do not fit in either category.
Findings
Overall, the majority of teachers interviewed (40/65)
1
reported receiving professional
development related to newly adopted curriculum materials, but far fewer teachers remember
receiving training from the district about the standards alone (12/65)
2
. It is important to note that
there is some fuzziness in these counts because we are relying on teachers’ memories of trainings
that they may have received years prior to our interviews. Also, some teachers have taught in
multiple districts during the implementation of the CCSS, and others were enrolled in teacher
certification programs where they learned about the standards. Our count includes teachers that
1
This count includes all teachers that described a mandatory district-provided professional development related to
the implementation of new curriculum materials. This number also includes a teacher that received a professional
development on curriculum materials in her previous district before transferring to her current district.
2
This count includes teachers that describe a mandatory district-provided professional development specific to the
CCSS, including training that focused on the CCSS broadly but not necessarily specific to math.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 126
reported receiving training on the standards or materials in their school district, but these counts
do not include teachers who said they learned about the standards during their teacher
certification programs.
Across the 30 districts in the sample, only seven appeared to provide training specific to
the CCSS, according to the recollection of teachers in these districts. Meanwhile, teachers in 24
out of 30 districts remember receiving training on the curriculum materials. There is a great deal
of variation in the type and duration of professional development within these two categories, so
we discuss each separately, beginning with the professional development specific to the CCSS.
We also questioned teachers about the changes that they associated with the CCSS when
compared to previous state standards. Our theoretical framework for analyzing the effectiveness
of professional development is based on teacher learning, so in addition to the descriptions of
professional development, we also describe the changes that teachers associate with the CCSS as
a proxy for what they have learned about the new standards.
Professional Development Related to the CCSS
Some teachers could not recall if they received training on the standards, and three
teachers were certain that they did not receive any. Teachers in the 7 districts that provided
CCSS professional development described variation in the extensiveness and perceived
effectiveness of the training. This variation occurred not only between districts, but also among
teachers in the same district. To organize findings, we categorize the professional development
according to teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness and extensiveness. We also describe the ways
that teachers’ descriptions of changes with the CCSS relate to their learning through professional
development.
Effective Professional Development
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 127
Teachers in three districts perceived their districts’ professional development on the
standards to be extensive and effective. The professional development in these districts shared
four characteristics in common: it was ongoing, it began prior to implementation of the CCSS, it
encouraged teacher learning, and it included active teacher involvement. The teachers who
reported receiving effective professional development also believe that the CCSS represent a
significant shift in pedagogical strategy when compared to the previous standards.
One district with effective professional development created professional learning
communities for teachers to meet and discuss the standards. The teachers did not receive
structured training from an outside expert; instead, they were expected to make sense of the new
standards by learning with their peers. One teacher explained,
It was just sort of teacher-led meetings, where we worked together to try to figure
out what was happening, but there was no specific Common Core standards
expert that came in to tell us, or describe, which were the most important
standards, or how our teaching was gonna change. We just knew that it was gonna
change.
Teachers in this district expressed consistent opinions about the amount of time they were given
to collaborate with their peers. They also described actively working together to deconstruct the
expectations of the CCSSM, then creating shared curriculum documents. The “living document”
is shared with all middle school math teachers in the district, and teachers regularly meet to
discuss and edit the document. The teachers in this district also collaborated with a district math
coach on the instructional shifts that facilitate implementation of the CCSS. The teachers note
that they received no outside training on the standards or curriculum materials. Everything that
they learned about the CCSS was through professional learning communities.
Teachers in this district described collaboration and interaction with peers that shaped
their understanding of the CCSS over time. They also noted that their learning about the new
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 128
standards was ongoing. They described the ways that the CCSS have changed their pedagogical
strategies by focusing on mathematical processes rather than pure content knowledge. For one
teacher, the biggest change is an emphasis on communication:
I think the main thing for me is the language, the responding, the communication
part. We’ve been really working a lot on dialogue in the classroom, and creating
exchanges, not only between teacher and student, but also between student and
student. In other words, students are responding to other students, and there’s a
mathematical discourse that’s taking place in the classroom.
Another teacher learned to focus on getting students to notice patterns and learned that all
teachers K-12 should be emphasizing these skills with students:
It's the Common Core math practices, that mathematicians all, for example, look
for structure. Well, what does it mean to look for structure as opposed to looking
for pattern? What's the difference between structure and pattern? It’s the
overarching, the habits of mind, the overall practices of math that we're supposed
to be teaching K-12. Kindergarten through twelfth grade has the same math
practices, but different content every year.
One teacher gave a much more detailed example of how his teaching was influenced by the
previous standards, but learning about the shifts required to implement the CCSS, he focused on
different pedagogical strategies. Previously, his pedagogical practices included an emphasis on
memorization and test-taking skills:
I feel like the last standards kind of pushed for rote memorization, and the
multiple choice format a lotta times caused kids to just recognize the right answer,
rather than produce the right answer. I think that, a lotta times, with the CST, it
was really—I was guilty of teaching test-taking strategies. In other words, I would
show kids how to eliminate a couple of possibilities.
He felt that successful implementation of the CCSS required him to change his teaching style, to
“teach for understanding,” and for students to explain their reasoning and “learn for
understanding.”
The other two districts with effective professional development were both small, remote
districts that did not have the capacity to provide professional development internally. Instead,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 129
they collaborated with neighboring districts and used independent companies to provide training
on the new standards. For example, one teacher explains that her district has only two schools
and one of the schools has 30 students. But by meeting with other teachers across the county to
engage in professional development, they were able to learn and plan collaboratively. One
teacher in one of these small, remote districts said that she felt well prepared to teach the
standards because she received “a ton” of training. Her district sent her to other trainings across
the county, and she felt knowledgeable about the CCSS prior to implementation.
Well, first we learned about the structure of the Common Core. The mathematical
practices and the concepts and all that. Then we met in groups and we learned
about the progressions of the standards in our grade levels. Talked about the
standards that were before and the ones that were leading in and then where that
was going. That vertical alignment.
This teacher did not receive professional development specific to her district’s adopted
curriculum materials, but she found it helpful to engage in conversation with other teachers using
other materials across the county. This type of professional development, agnostic to a specific
set of curriculum materials, allowed them to focus on truly understanding the standards. She
developed lessons in tandem with other teachers and felt this allowed for “different ways to look
at the problems.” She also participated in sample lessons with the other teachers in her
professional development: “Teachers would come and do the sample lessons with us so we’d
learn from the student perspective.” She called the training “intensive” and noted that it was
ongoing. She felt prepared and knowledgeable about the changes required to implement the
CCSS, and noted that she learned to change the way she thought about teaching math. She
explained that understanding pedagogical strategies to support the CCSS was hard because it
forced her to think differently about how she previously learned and taught math.
It’s teaching kids how to think. That’s why it’s so hard. Because even for myself,
I was taught the same way that we were teaching before. I wasn’t being taught
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 130
how to look deep. I was taught how to do something. “Well, why do we do it that
way?” “Because that’s the rule.” Right? We’re having to get away from that.
We’re having to teach why. It’s a big difference. You have to know how to think,
and you have to know why. You have to be able to tell why it makes sense. That’s
huge. I never had to tell why.
The final district that provided effective professional development was also small and
remote, and it partnered with neighboring districts to hire independent consulting companies to
train teachers on the standards. We interviewed both eighth-grade math teachers from this
district, and they found it useful that the consultants focused on conceptual change associated
with the CCSS. The teachers learned about the pedagogical changes that would be required in
order to effectively implement the CCSS, rather than specifics about content. One of the teachers
came to the conclusion that, “Common Core is a huge shift. It’s a huge way that we teach, and
it’s different. It’s how you teach. Not necessarily what you teach, because it is what we teach
too, but it’s also how you teach it.” She learned that the CCSS is more rigorous than previous
standards. She also felt that her previous years of teaching, and the pedagogical strategies that
she used, did not adequately prepare her to implement the CCSS. Specifically, she previously
focused on direct instruction, and the CCSS have required her to step away from that
pedagogical approach because it did not encourage rigorous thinking in her students.
The rigor of Common Core is huge. Where we were with direct instruction didn’t
prepare us in any way, shape, or form. I was a completely traditional teacher
before. Before that when we taught math, it was I stood up there, I would do
problems, I would model ‘em just like I learned, probably how you learned, and
then you were given 20 problems in a problem set and told to go do it. There
wasn’t any talking. You could hear a pin drop in my class, and you either got it or
you didn’t.
The other teacher in the district said she had to move from being the center of the stage to
being “just the facilitator in the classroom, and really letting them discover things.” She
learned to emphasize teamwork because the CCSS require students to learn from each
other rather than their teacher. She found that there are far fewer standards, but they are
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 131
deeper than the previous standards and require her to “teach things a completely different
way, and show ‘em how to discover things.” As an example, she described she taught the
Pythagorean Theorem differently after adopting the CCSS—instead of showing a formula
for students to memorize, she taught them how the formula was derived.
The three districts where teachers received effective professional development share
different socioeconomic characteristics, student demographics, and student performance data.
However, the teachers in these districts all received professional development specifically related
to understanding the pedagogical shifts that they would need to make to implement the CCSS.
Whether through professional learning communities, outside facilitators, or classroom
observations, these teachers learned about the CCSS through ongoing professional development
that focused on the substantive changes in the CCSS and how it should be reflected in
pedagogical practice.
Extensive but Ineffective Professional Development
It is apparently not enough for professional development to be extensive, because there
are two districts where teachers felt they had received an extensive quantity of professional
development but found it to be ineffective. One teacher explains that his district began several
years prior to implementation by providing a three-hour preview of the upcoming standards but
called it “generic. That wasn’t specific just to math. It was kind of like a unified type thing” with
the entire school. During the first years of implementation, all of the math teachers attended a
week-long training provided by an external university partner that does professional
development around the CCSS. All of the teachers that we interviewed in this district felt
frustrated by this extensive training because it took them out of their classroom for an entire
week. They missed instructional time, and they felt that the content of the professional
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 132
development was more appropriate for teachers who did not understand math. They felt that,
while the training focused on teacher learning, they did not learn new pedagogical strategies.
It was more focused on deepening your understanding of math, just our
understanding, not necessarily teaching you how to teach your kids, and it was
five days…. It wasn’t, “Here’s how you apply this.” It was good for some of the
people who aren’t very strong in math, and it tried to do that, but a lot of us were
just left sitting there, saying, “Okay, I don’t see the value of this for my
classroom.”
In this district, it is interesting that teachers were provided the time and space for learning about
the CCSS, but they did not find it effective because they did not connect it to practical
pedagogical strategies.
This sentiment is echoed in the other district where the teacher interviewed felt that the
extensive professional development was ineffective because it dramatically impeded his ability
to teach. The teacher in this district describes the CCSS-related professional development as,
“Pretty heavy, even to the point of complaining. They pull us out a lot of class for professional
development. They took us out, I think, probably almost close to one time every month—once a
month.” This teacher’s opinion illustrates the difficult balance that districts must strike when
organizing professional development—teachers indicate that the effectiveness of the training
must outweigh the need for them to be in the classroom teaching.
Ineffective and Limited Professional Development
Teachers in a few districts received professional development on the standards that they
categorized as ineffective. For example, two teachers say that they have received training on the
CCSS broadly, but not necessarily specific to math instruction. One teacher explained that his
district provided training about the CCSS, but it focused on the language arts standards rather
than math. Another teacher explains that, at the same time that the CCSS were adopted, her
district also adopted a standards-based grading policy. She feels that the changes in the grading
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 133
system were a bigger change than the standards themselves, and most of the professional
development has focused on the impact of the CCSS on grading policies, rather than the content
of the standards.
For example, one teacher says that, “We don’t really focus on content specific stuff. It’s
whatever our principal tells us that we have to do. We don’t really have a say in what is being
offered, but they barely happen.” Her professional developments typically occur during staff
meetings and focus on strategies for English language learners or behavior management. This
teacher has never received district training on curriculum materials or the CCSS.
No Professional Development
A few teachers in our sample were emphatic that they did not receive any professional
development related to the CCSSM from their school or district. Two of these teachers, who
taught in the same district, said that the only training they received on the CCSSM was what they
sought out on their own. One of those teachers explained that she came to district in 2012, and
while there may have been CCSS-aligned professional development prior to her arrival, she had
not received any district training on the CCSSM since 2012. She explained, “We were given a
poster to post in our classroom with the Standards of Mathematical Practices on it. We were
never really told or given any guidance to how to do those things or anything else.”
These teachers, and others in different districts, believe that professional development
around the standards would have been beneficial for their understanding and could have made a
difference in their instruction. For example, one teacher says that she did not feel supported by
the district in understanding the instructional shifts required by the CCSSM. When we asked her
to describe the changes in instruction related to the implementation of the new standards, she
said she wasn’t sure beyond group work and more reading and writing in math. Teachers were
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 134
asked if there were any additional resources that they wish their district had provided prior to the
implementation of the CCSS. Teachers who received little or no training on the CCSS provided
interesting insight into the types of learning that they wish had been fostered through
professional development. For example, one teacher struggled to understand the connections
between topics:
Just the layout and the sequence of their concepts. Why we were moving from
this and why it was lumped with this? Because I think, like I said before, since I
think we’re all learning this way, we were taught purely computational skills. I
didn’t see the connection between having this concept come before this one. I
didn’t make that connection until after I taught it.
Another teacher said that her school needed more experienced teachers with knowledge of the
standards. She felt that the teaching staff were too inexperienced overall due to high turnover.
Another teacher would have liked ongoing information and discussion about successful
curriculum materials and technology to implement the CCSS based on data. She was specifically
interested in understanding the relationship between student growth and selection of materials. A
couple of teachers felt that any training related to the standards would have been helpful. In the
absence of any structured professional development related to the standards, these teachers felt
that any time dedicated to learning about the CCSS would have helped with implementation.
Professional Development from Alternative Sources
Some teachers received professional development from sources outside of their school,
such as their teacher credentialing programs or optional trainings. For example, in one district,
three of the four teachers that we interviewed said they did not receive any training on the
standards. The one teacher who did receive training in the district explained that he attended a
voluntary, paid professional development after school. He explained that the district offered a
series of afterschool training sessions covering topics related to understanding and implementing
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 135
the CCSS. However, he explained that, “I would walk in at times, I would be the only person in
there.” This teacher felt that most teachers are too busy at the end of the day to spend more time
in a voluntary professional development.
They like to say it was because it wasn’t well advertised, but I kinda think it was
just because of the fact that people get tired….I don’t have to worry about going
home with children. A lot of ‘em are young people that have young ones at home,
and they wanna go home ‘cause they’ve been away at school all day long.
Even though this district did offer structured opportunities for teachers to learn about the CCSS,
apparently few teachers engaged in these opportunities. The other teachers in the district who
had received no training about the CCSS did not see significant differences between the CCSS
and prior standards. Here are two other teachers in the district explaining the shifts between the
previous standards and the CCSS.
It keeps me more aware about different ways to learn a concept. That’s pretty
much it. Major changes, no. Minor adjustments, yes. Maybe a bigger focus on
students’ output and collaboration and different ways to learn information, and
different ways to assess and show mastery.
Wow, that’s a really tough question to answer. I’m gonna say yes and no. The
previous standards were more procedural. Our emphasis was, “Show the kids how
to do it.” We did and they knew how to do it. They knew how to factor a
polynomial. They just didn’t know when they should factor a polynomial.
In the absence of professional development time to foster their own learning about the CCSS,
these teachers saw very little reason to change their pedagogical practices. The second teacher
explained that the difference between the CCSS and previous standards was, “Common Core,
theoretically, you’re supposed to be able to help the kids be able to go deeper,” but did not offer
examples of concrete pedagogical changes that he’d made. This is because,
What I like about Common Core--and this has always been the type of teacher
that I’ve been. I always want my students to understand why they’re doing what
they’re doing. This is not just an empty exercise. You need to know why you need
to know this. That’s what I like about Common Core, because we’re actually
helping them learn how to think.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 136
This teacher appears to have aligned his schema of the CCSS with his existing pedagogical
practices, rather than examine the deeper shifts that might be needed to implement the new
standards. He appeared to have a surface-level understanding of the CCSS and used it to justify
the fact that he did not make significant changes to his pedagogical practice.
Teachers had discretion over their professional development in several districts. Some
teachers find this option to be effective, such as the teacher who attended the Silicon Valley
Training Institute for a week over the summer. He found that week-long training to be effective
because it he learned how to teach “re-engagement lessons” that encouraged students to look
critically at their answers and evaluate their incorrect responses. However, some teachers found
it burdensome to search out their own professional development sessions. As one teacher said,
“We as a staff don’t know where to go, and leadership isn’t really giving us any insight.” In
another district, a teacher explained that she did not think she should have to spend her
professional development money on training related to the CCSS because, if it is expected by the
district that she understand the CCSS, the district should have to provide those trainings.
Three teachers in our sample say they received training on the CCSS while in
credentialing programs or college. These newer teachers explain that they’ve “only ever taught
the Common Core,” meaning they aren’t familiar with the older standards. One teacher explains
that he did not receive CCSS training at the district, but he felt well prepared by his credentialing
program.
I did my credentialing program this last year, so it was all Common Core aligned.
I got a lot through there. With the math standards, it was a lot of our professor
having us do things in nontraditional ways to set it up. They really drilled it in as,
instead of it being “you learn this skill and get an A,” it’s, “these are a variety of
different approaches to, ultimately, get to ensure that you understand how
everything’s interconnected and interrelated.”
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 137
Other teachers received CCSS training in previous districts where they taught. For
example, even though this teacher did not receive any CCSS preparation in her current district,
she felt well prepared by her previous district. She felt appreciative of the various resources that
her previous district had provided, including a math coach, a curriculum specialist, and learning
strategies such as thinking maps and literacy within math. This teacher specifically noted the
extent to which her professional development encouraged her own learning: “I also felt like it
was very clear learning about Common Core and how to implement it. We also had training
quite often. I know we met at least once a month.” She felt that, during her first year of teaching,
she learned so many strategies that she couldn’t implement all of them. But over the years, she
was able to go back to her notes from professional development sessions and review the tools
that she had learned previously. For this teacher, the extensive and ongoing professional
development contributed to cumulative knowledge about the CCSS and strategies to implement
them.
While I might've never used it in the first year, I now am at a place where I can
use it. It was just like having—they used to call it tools in your toolbelt, and you
were just gathering up tools. And you might not have known what it was or what
to do with it, but later on, you were like, oh, this would be the perfect time to do
what I learned then.
She also noted that her district used a variety of strategies to encourage learning, including
classroom observations, feedback, reflection, and videotaping. Her administration also held
teachers accountable for putting into practice the strategies that they learned during professional
development.
So they were constantly in your classroom making sure that you were
incorporating these things. And while many teachers are not a fan, I was actually
a huge fan of having other teachers in my classroom giving feedback. I didn't
mind being recorded or going over that with administration or peers. That was
something that I actually really enjoyed, because I felt like I grew the most.
There's nothing like when you watch yourself teach and watch different things
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 138
and interactions and fix it. I felt like that put it into practice method made it
more—cemented it more in your actual practice.
While few teachers in our sample received district-provided professional development
about the CCSS, we do see evidence that such professional development can be effective at
encouraging teacher learning around the standards. The teachers who received extensive and
effective training talked about learning to support implementation with new pedagogical
strategies.
Professional Development Related to Curriculum Materials
Professional development specifically related to the implementation of new curriculum
materials was reported by --- percent of teachers. Curriculum materials training was most
frequently conducted by the publisher as a component of a new curriculum adoption. Teachers
described publisher trainings as being focused on the changes in the new textbooks, such as the
digital features and assessments. These trainings lasted anywhere from an hour or two to several
days, and in some cases the publisher provided ongoing professional development. The quality
and quantity of training seems to vary by publisher. The opinions on publisher-provided
professional development are remarkably consistent across teachers, even teachers in different
districts. We describe the professional development on curriculum materials according to
teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness, as we did with the professional development on the
standards.
Effective Professional Development
There are two curriculum programs that came with effective professional development:
College Preparatory Math (CPM) and PowerTeaching Math by Success for All (SFA). CPM was
used by a few teachers in small- to medium-sized districts in our sample, and the SFA
curriculum was only used by one small district. The CPM teachers noted that the program came
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 139
with extensive and effective professional development. Two teachers in different districts
described receiving a week of training on the curriculum during the summer, where they were
led “lesson by lesson” through the materials. They were then supported through monthly follow-
up sessions where they collaborated with other teachers in the area. For one teacher, the regular
meetings with other teachers helped him to feel that he was less alone in solving problems with
the curriculum.
You attend the follow-up session and then they will ask you what happened,
where are you now. Then we share what works, what didn’t work, what’s your
suggestion, which topics you want to skip––things like that. It’s like collaboration
with teacher from other schools. You know that you’re not alone having those
problems.
This teacher believes that the professional development provided by CPM was included with the
purchase of the curriculum materials. He estimates that he received 50 hours of training from the
publishers, and the training was focused on implementation and collaboration with other teachers
using the same curriculum.
Another teacher using CPM feels that the curriculum, and the accompanying extensive
professional development, have caused him to fundamentally change the way he approaches
math instruction. He explains that his teaching now is significantly different than the way he
learned math. The CPM curriculum uses a lot of exploratory learning to engage students and
begin a lesson. This teacher was reflective in the struggles that he had to undergo to adjust to a
new way of teaching, but he felt that the struggle for teachers mirrored the struggle that students
were going through. He called it a “growing process,” and thought that students could only be
successful at the CCSS when their teachers were successfully understanding and implementing
it. He also reflected on feeling less confident as a teacher now—he believed that he was very
successful as a teacher using the “old way” of teaching math including “direct instruction,” but
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 140
he believed in the power of the CCSS and aligned pedagogical strategies at improving student
outcomes.
The three teachers that we interviewed who used CPM all shared this sense of
continuous learning about the new materials and the CCSS more broadly, and they felt supported
through the professional learning opportunities provided by the publishers. Whether it can be
directly attributed to the CPM materials and training or to other factors, these teachers were
notably reflective to their own struggles with implementing the CCSS, but they believed in their
ability to grow and continue learning. These teachers all noted the importance of teachers’
learning in order to successfully implement the new standards. They also drastically changed
their pedagogical approach to align with the expectations of the CCSS.
Interestingly, we interviewed teachers in other districts that did not use the CPM
curriculum but had piloted it. They noted that the curriculum was not adopted by their district
because of the dramatic shift in pedagogy that was necessary to use the curriculum materials, and
because the expectations for professional development were too daunting:
The way that that came about was CPM was one of the piloting, and some people
really liked that, but it turns out that the district couldn't support the training that it
would take for that, and that is a really big leap. If the high school doesn't follow
through with that, it's not effective.
It was extremely complicated for the math teachers to teach it. I’m thinking that’s
the reason why it wasn’t adopted, but all the great math teachers in our district
really loved this book because it really pushed not just the students, but the
teachers, to teach Common Core the way it should be taught, where the kids had
to really dig deep and figure out the math without being explained. It’s been
around for a while, and a lot of people find it difficult to teach, because it’s very
deep. That’s the best thing going out there, because it requires the teacher to do
everything to prepare the lesson.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 141
From these anecdotal cases, it seems that the extensive professional development and teacher
learning needed to implement CPM were a turnoff to districts looking for materials that were
easy for teachers to implement.
The other notable program that came with effective professional development is the
PowerTeaching Math curriculum from SFA. Only one small district in our sample used this
program, but both teachers were enthusiastic about the quality of the materials, the effectiveness
of the ongoing professional development, and the changes that they’ve made to their pedagogical
practices to support implementation of the CCSSM. They were able to cite specific examples of
this change, and they both believe that the curriculum materials and the professional
development provided by the publisher were essential to this change.
One teacher in this district explained that the curriculum comes with a “point coach” that
visited the school once per month for the first three years of implementation. Now in their fourth
year, the point coach visited approximately three times per year. One of the dramatic pedagogical
changes called for in the curriculum, and supported by the point coach, was the focus on
collaborative work. Both teachers noted that truly meaningful collaborative work among eighth-
grade students could be difficult, but they felt successful at it over time. They used strategies like
“random call” using Popsicle sticks, where all members of the team were expected to be equally
accountable for earning “team points” so they could be a “super team.” The super team label was
earned from a combination of collaboration points and points for completing homework and
classwork. These teachers explained that their classwork is now entirely centered around
grouping.
The teachers using the SFA curriculum also mentioned that “every year we have a
training with new teachers and old teachers, depending on the level of the staff.” This teacher led
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 142
one of the trainings for the new staff members because she was experienced with the curriculum.
This was not a widely used curriculum, but the teachers knew the other districts in their area that
use it. They also collaborated with teachers across the country who were using the same
materials—they attended a yearly conference, and there was constant email access to the regional
“point coach” so “we discuss what’s happening in other schools, if it’s different or if there’s
something I need to learn to improve here.”
From these five teachers that used CPM and PowerTeaching Math, it is apparent that
publisher-provided professional development can be successful at encouraging teacher learning.
The teachers described here were all able to clearly articulate ways that their pedagogical
approaches have changed dramatically to support CCSS implementation, and the ongoing and
extensive professional development was a key component of helping them with that shift.
Notably, they continued to meet with other practitioners using the materials and encountering the
same challenges with the new teaching strategies, but they felt more confident after actively
engaging in learning with their peers.
Ineffective Professional Development
The vast majority of professional development from publishers was regarded as
ineffective for a number of reasons. First, the content of the training focused on superficial
changes to the layout and format of the book, rather than substantive changes related to
implementation of the new standards. One teacher explained, “None of the training was involved
on actually looking at the content of the book. It was just, ‘How is this book formatted?’” And
another teacher explained, “They walked us through the features of the book in one day.”
Teachers felt that these trainings were unnecessary because the newly adopted books were
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 143
almost identical to previous editions, and the materials were “self-explanatory,” in the words of
some teachers.
I found maybe 60 percent of the information presented helpful because the book
is very self-explanatory and easy to navigate through. I didn’t feel like a whole
day training was necessary. I felt like half a day training could have covered…the
bigger picture of what the company was presenting or what the company was
offering.
Teachers who received these types of professional development training sessions from the
publisher generally felt they were a waste of time that could have been devoted to something
more meaningful. The textbook trainings typically lasted for a few hours and focused on
superficial features of the book.
We got a training from the textbook manufacturer. They sent a rep to show us
how it works and everything. It was one day, and I think it was four hours. A lot
of it was the online component of the different resources online. How to set up the
tests, how to set up the rosters for your kids. They went through the textbooks and
showed us what all the icons mean in it.
While some teachers found this information to be helpful, the general consensus is that the
professional development time would have been more useful if it was spent on a more
meaningful interaction with the materials. For example, one teacher would have liked answers to
the question, “Why we were moving from this and why it was lumped with this?” instead of
simply discussing “just the layout and the sequence of their concepts.”
Second, some teachers felt that the trainers were unprepared to demonstrate the new
material. Some teachers hypothesized that, in the rush of getting printed materials into
circulation, the publisher representatives were simply not well versed in the substantive matters
that teachers wanted to discuss. This limited their opportunity to engage in real learning around
the materials and their role in supporting the CCSS. As one teacher noted about her Go Math
training:
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 144
The book was new, the people that were doing the training weren’t that familiar
with it. The questions that we had, they weren’t really able to answer, so it wasn’t
that effective, in my opinion. It probably was an hour, maybe two.
Some teachers also noticed that the materials themselves were not “ready” to be fully
implemented. There were errors in the print materials, and the digital features that were promised
by the curriculum developers were not available at the time of implementation.
The first training we had was somewhat problematic because the rep was in part
introducing us to the online tools. Those tools were evolving, let’s say. There
were things that we have today that we didn’t have three years ago. There were
things that she basically said, “Hey, you’re gonna be able to do this, but it hasn’t
been implemented yet, so I can’t do this for you.”
Teachers who noticed that the materials and trainers were not ready felt that these sessions were
not an efficient use of their limited time for professional development.
Third, teachers felt that the trainings did not directly apply to classroom teaching. They
felt that the publisher representatives gave standard, prepared presentations that did not reflect
the realities of classroom teaching.
Well, we did have a meeting in the beginning of the school year on how to use the
book and how to use the website. If that’s what you mean by training, then yes,
we did. If you mean by how to actually implement it in a classroom setting, not
very much. It was half a day, so I wanna say four hours or so.
Teachers felt that the inability to connect to classroom teaching stemmed from the fact that the
publisher representatives were salespeople rather than experienced teachers who had
implemented the materials in actual classrooms. As one teacher explained, “Well, the people that
did the training, they’re not teachers, so they just show you the nuts and bolts.” One teacher left
the training feeling like, “it’s not like this is gonna help me tomorrow.” Several teachers echoed
the feeling that, even after sitting through a professional development related to the materials,
this was still not preparation for using the materials in class.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 145
How much can be said about how to use a textbook?...[T]hey have their program,
they have their two-day thing, and we have to pretty much see how it works in our
world and then adjust.
Teachers did not have the opportunity to engage in meaningful, active learning with the materials
during these professional development sessions, so they left knowing that they would need to do
extensive work on their own to make the curriculum work in their classrooms. Some teachers
noted an additional challenge was adapting the professional development training to eighth grade
math. Many times, these publisher trainings included all middle school teachers, and in the
words of one teacher, “the needs of eighth-grade teachers were different than the needs of sixth-
grade teachers.” Teachers in our sample wanted to specifically learn about implementing new
materials from other teachers of the same grade and subject.
The training, however, was conducted by teachers who haven’t been in the
classroom in at least five years. These teachers were probably second grade
teachers who became curriculum specialists. Now, you’ve never taught algebra,
so why would I listen to you?
This suggests that teachers trust their peers as experts in the field, and they evaluate the quality
of professional development based on the expertise of the presenter. It was disheartening for
many teachers to sit through a long professional development session feeling that the material
was not applicable to them, knowing they had more work to do before they could implement the
materials in their classroom.
Finally, teachers felt overwhelmed—by the abundance of resources included in the new
curriculum materials, by the varied ability levels of their students, by the need to adapt resources
to meet the needs of their students—and they do not feel that the professional development from
publishers only added to this feeling. While the publisher representatives rolled out the “bells
and whistles” associated with the new curriculum materials, teachers actually wanted a narrowed
focus on the items that were truly essential for implementing the new materials. “I would’ve
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 146
liked to have had some help deciding what I should and shouldn’t teach, because I can’t teach it
all,” reflected one teacher. Some felt that the focus on the “shiny” new curriculum features
overlooked the fact that many of their students were struggling with basic arithmetic or reading
skills. For example, one teacher lamented that, “Some of them can't add and subtract, so it
becomes pretty difficult to find just problems that the kids can do and they have access to.”
Teachers need to make decisions about what gets taught and what doesn’t get taught, and they
wanted some help in making those decisions. They felt that they couldn’t reasonably implement
all of the strategies introduced during these professional development sessions.
I think we have too much. That’s the problem. A lot of the times when we go to
trainings and things, there’s a lot great “bells and whistles.” We tell a lot of the
young teachers, “Just focus on one thing.” The hard part is, there’s too much out
there to choose from. They’re all helpful; but if you try to do everything, you’ll
never be good at it.
Rather than learning about all of the possibilities they could pursue with new materials, teachers
wanted to focus on the most necessary and practical features that could meet their students’
needs.
For all of these reasons, the majority of teachers found professional development from
the publishing companies to be ineffective. They felt it was an inefficient use of their time
because the training was superficial and unnecessary, and it did not address significant changes
to the CCSS and aligned teaching strategies. Teachers did not feel that the professional
development related to curriculum materials prepared them to teach the CCSSM. Instead of
learning about how the new materials supported the pedagogical shifts determined by the CCSS,
they instead learned about superfluous features of a curriculum that were not applicable to their
teaching. They noted a lack of opportunity to make the materials their own; they knew they
would have to make significant adaptations once back in their own classrooms. There were many
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 147
questions left unanswered about how implementation would actually work in their classrooms,
and they were left to figure this out on their own.
There was one discrepancy in these findings—a veteran teacher found the publisher
training to be very helpful because it focused on technology. This teacher feels that the publisher
training allowed him to become very proficient using the online components of the curriculum
materials, and therefore it was one of the most effective and valuable trainings he had ever
received.
I had one of the best trainings I had, and I’m in my 60s. I thought the guy was
fantastic. Great training. In fact, I became so good at it—and I’m not really a
technology person. I’m not that, but I got to be really good at HMH Player. I got
good at My HRW assigning. How to assign assignments with—online and things.
It was very intuitive for me, so if it’s easy for me, I know it’s good for teachers.
This type of learning is not necessarily helpful in implementing the CCSS, and this teacher was
also in his last year of teaching before retiring. He was aligned with other teachers in feeling
overwhelmed by the different expectations placed on teachers regarding the new curriculum
materials and standards, but he opted not to experiment with new strategies.
We’ve been hit with so many different things that in my last year, this is where I
would probably be a little bit different than other teachers. I’m not experimenting
all over the place. I’m going what’s tried and true for an eighth grader getting
prepared to get to algebra in ninth grade.
In this case where the teacher found the publisher training to be effective, he unfortunately was
not willing to implement massive changes in his pedagogy. He believed he knew the “tried and
true” ways to teach eighth grade math, so for him the professional development related to
superficial features, such as the digital components of the curriculum, was effective. For other
teachers who recognized that the CCSS required a shift in teaching, professional development on
the curriculum materials did not provide a chance to engage in learning.
Other Professional Development
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 148
Teachers also described other professional development sessions that were not directly
related to the implementation of the CCSS or new math materials. We think these are worth
describing because they lend insight into the types of training that teachers are receiving instead
of training on the standards and materials. The professional development sessions that teachers
recalled were largely considered effective, even when they did not directly address the CCSS.
Even in these cases, teachers were often engaged in learning about pedagogical strategies that
could be applied to math teaching. These professional development offerings fall broadly into
two categories: (1) tools and pedagogy and (2) mentoring and coaching.
Tools and Pedagogy
There were numerous examples of professional development centered around a specific
tool, a pedagogical strategy, or a trend in classroom management that districts wanted to
emphasize through professional development. These sessions were frequently provided by a
consulting expert in a specific pedagogical strategy that is subject-agnostic. For example, one
teacher attended a professional development on “visible learning,” which he found he could
incorporate in his class because it can be used across the curriculum. Another teacher described
professional development on a district-adopted tool called the 4 Cs:
Well, my school site has done a good job with giving us tools to promote what
they call the four C’s. Creativity, critical thinking, collaboration. I forgot the last
one. They’ve given us activities to do, using tools like thinking maps, for
example, which is just another way of saying a graphic organizer. It’s a permeable
graphic organizer, so you can add to it. Not static. That has helped.
This teacher felt that the 4 Cs were transferable to her math class, and the skills of creativity,
critical thinking, and collaboration are certainly aligned with the goals of the CCSS. In this way,
even without directly focusing on the content of the CCSS, the teacher still learned pedagogical
strategies that could be used to better align her instruction to the goals of the standards.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 149
In one district where we were able to interview all of the eighth-grade math teachers, the
teachers consistently felt that the district-provided training on the CCSS was ineffective, though
extensive. The district leaders recognized that teachers were still struggling with aligning their
pedagogical practices to the new standards, so they hired an independent consultant to lead a
two-day training on how teachers could incorporate the SMPs with the problems in the adopted
textbooks. She showed video clips of her teaching students using the same types of problems,
and she worked with teachers to adapt the problems in their textbook to better align with the
SMPs.
[The presenter] was very helpful because she showed us examples, videos on the
screen. Here’s actually what it looks like in the class. That was the only
professional development that I’ve been to that was that helpful and that proactive
and actually getting this in your classroom.
Another important component of this professional development was follow-up. The teachers
knew that the presenter was scheduled to come back for a follow-up a few months later, and that
encouraged them to really try to implement the strategies that she gave them.
Most of the time when you go to things, it’s like, “Okay, here’s all this stuff.
Okay, great. Bye. See you never.” We go and we say, “Okay, we’re gonna try
this,” and then we never do, and there’s never a checkup, they never give us time
to do it together, so it’s like, “Okay, I don’t have time for this.” We aren’t able to
apply what we did. Most of the time when we go to these type of things, it’s not
helpful.
This professional development was different because teachers were given time to work
together and they knew there would be a checkup. Together, these two features encouraged the
teachers to apply what they’d learned. It was also important that all of the middle school math
teachers in the district attended the same training, so the messaging was consistent across three
grades and multiple middle schools. Compare this with the experience of a teacher whose district
sent him to multiple workshops at a nearby university: “Mostly it’s all targeted on how to put
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 150
them in groups and have the math talk and all that, but eventually back to the classroom it’s not
working that well.” This teacher had trouble taking the pedagogical strategies (e.g., math talks)
back to the classroom because there was no follow-through.
A couple of teachers worked in districts that adopted broad behavior and pedagogy
systems, such as “restorative justice.” One teacher in a district using restorative justice noted that
the professional development was “not necessarily on the Common Core itself. It’s more on
overall behaviors of students and getting the schools to have the climates for learning.” However,
establishing a climate that encourages learning can be an important component in executing
systemic reforms.
Mentoring and Coaching
Several teachers described structural changes to the types of professional development
that their district provided, as districts moved toward a mentoring or coaching format with
ongoing opportunities for reflection and support. One teacher explained that her district moved to
a type of training that allowed teachers to film themselves and reflect on their teaching:
This year, they’re approaching it a little differently. It used to be we would just go
and they would give us information. Now, they are having us teach a lesson and
then report back on how it went.
Teachers received mentoring and coaching from math lead teachers, district personnel, support
staff, teachers in different schools, and consultants hired by the district. One teacher noted that,
“I’ve been mentored by multiple different math teachers, even on different sites. Watching them
teach and seeing different aspects.” These professional development structures have been
recommended by researchers studying the CCSS and previous standards-based reforms.
Teachers benefit from learning from their peers through observation and reflection, so it is
encouraging that some districts have adopted these processes.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 151
Even in districts where teachers received no professional development specifically related
to the standards, there may be opportunities for coaching, reflection, and learning. For example,
in a district that did not provide CCSS professional development, a teacher was grateful for the
coaching that he received from a full-time instructional support person at his school. He used her
guidance to understand how to use the newly adopted online testing software.
We also have an instructional coach full-time at our school site that can always
answer questions. It helps a lot. The instructional coach sat down and gave me a
one-on-one tutorial on how to navigate through Illuminate and used the online
testing program. On the first day that I actually gave the test, she was in the
classroom and assisted me. She was great.
While the teacher found the aide helpful in learning how to use the testing software, he did not
appear to use the opportunity to build on his math content knowledge or pedagogical content
knowledge related to the standards. Another teacher in the same district found the instructional
aide to be helpful because she had prior teaching experience and was able to model effective
teaching strategies.
[She] had a wealth of information in the form of authentic and meaningful
activities to do in class, that were differentiated for the students. It was great fun
for the kids. The lady who presented it was very engaging for both teacher and
students. She actually came into our classroom and modeled the lessons for us.
The teachers in this district found the instructional assistants to be useful because of their direct
prior experience with teaching, their presence in the classroom during lessons, their ability to
model effective teaching, and their ongoing support throughout the year. The aides were able to
address individual teachers’ questions and concerns in real-time in the classroom, but individual
differences between teachers contribute to differences in the type of content they address with
the instructional aide. For some teachers, the aide might provide assistance in using software, but
for other teachers, she may provide pedagogical strategies that are more deeply connected to
implementing the CCSS.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 152
Discussion
Our interviews reveal that the majority of teachers in our sample either did not receive or
do not remember receiving professional development specifically related to the CCSS. While the
majority of teachers did receive training on adopted curriculum materials, these trainings were
not perceived to be effective. This indicates that teachers missed out on opportunities to engage
in meaningful learning around the standards and the materials. They did not have the opportunity
to understand the significant shifts in both math content and pedagogical content knowledge
required to implement the CCSS. This suggests that teachers were not adequately prepared
through professional development to understand or successfully implement the new standards.
Below, we discuss some of the overarching trends that we noticed in comparing effective and
ineffective professional development in light of what we know about best practices to encourage
teacher learning. We argue that teachers did not have sufficient opportunities to develop their
content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge through learning opportunities. We
discuss the ways in which schools and districts could have supported teachers’ understanding
and implementation of the CCSS better by fostering professional learning.
Weaknesses in Professional Development
While we did not formally assess teachers’ knowledge of the standards, through
interviews we were able to probe deeply about their understanding of the CCSS and the
accompanying pedagogical shifts that teachers have adopted. We believe that teachers’
recollections of professional development related to the standards provide insight into the types
of learning activities that teachers were afforded while implementing the CCSS. We asked
teachers about the changes they associate with the CCSS as a way to gauge their understanding
of the standards. Our qualitative findings support the quantitative data recently collected by
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 153
RAND and WestEd researchers: teachers have a limited knowledge of the instructional shifts
between the previous California standards and the CCSSM Using nationally representative data
from the American Teacher Panel, RAND researchers found that teachers overidentified the
standards that were not in their grade, and they had difficulty ranking the progression of
standards between grades (Opfer, et al., 2017). Importantly, the majority of teachers in this panel
were using CCSS-aligned materials. Researchers drew the conclusion that messages from
materials alone is not sufficient for teacher learning about the standards; the researchers
concluded that ongoing professional development around the standards is necessary. The prior
studies were not structured to find the reasons why teachers are lacking this knowledge, but we
believe that poor professional development and professional learning opportunities offer some
explanation.
Variation in Learning Opportunities for Teachers
One overarching trend we notice is uneven opportunities for learning about the standards
and materials both within districts and between districts. Within districts, teacher turnover is
probably the biggest cause of differences in professional development opportunities that
encouraged learning about the standards. Teachers who moved between districts or who entered
the teaching profession after the first year of CCSS implementation generally did not receive
training about the standards in their district. If they were lucky, they received training in their
previous district or their credentialing program. There are also districts that give teachers
discretion to attend their own professional development, or that provide optional professional
development after school. Consider, for example, the district where four out of five teachers say
that there was no training on the standards, and one teacher says he has attended multiple
afterschool professional development sessions on topics related to teaching to the CCSS. We
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 154
would expect this teacher to have engaged in different learning opportunities when compared to
his four colleagues who did not attend any training.
Between districts, there is variation in both the extensiveness and perceived effectiveness
of the professional development received. Teachers in a few districts felt well prepared with
professional development opportunities that encouraged learning about the standards or the
pedagogical strategies that would support implementation of new curriculum materials.
However, in only 7 out of 30 districts in our sample did teachers receive any kind of training
specific to the standards. Additionally, the only two curricula with professional development that
teachers considered effective were CPM and PowerTeaching Math by SFA. These two curricula
were used by a total of 6 teachers in our sample of 65. These figures indicate that effective
learning about the standards or standards-aligned curriculum materials is not evenly distributed
among teachers in our sample. While there is undoubtedly variation that we did not capture
based on our sampling of only eighth-grade math teachers, this still suggests that CA teachers
were not evenly exposed to the same learning opportunities around the CCSS. Combined with
the evidence that teacher learning about the standards is essential for effective implementation,
we can assume that the variation in learning opportunities might be related to variation in
implementation.
Unclear Information about the CCSS
Teachers in our sample felt conflicting feelings about the information given to them
regarding the CCSS. Many teachers felt overwhelmed by too much information: they note the
abundance of curriculum resources that they will never have time to use, or the multitude of
strategies and tools that districts encourage them to use. As one teacher noted, “The hard part is,
there’s too much out there to choose from. They’re all helpful, but if you try to do everything,
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 155
you’ll never be good at it.” The information overload can be difficult to manage if teachers are
not given time to process the information, make sense of it in terms of their own teaching, and
learn when and why it would be applicable.
At the same time, some teachers feel that there was too little information prior to
implementation, and they were not prepared. Several teachers expressed the concern that, in the
early years of adoption, they simply did not know what the true intentions of the CCSS were.
In general, I feel like the information about the transition to Common Core was
spotty. That’s something that has always kind of bothered me. I don’t even know
if there’s a coherent philosophy of, what is California Common Core? Assuming
that we were supposed to completely revolutionize our teaching overnight two
years ago, gee, it would have been nice to know more about it.
This teacher brings up two important points. First, teachers need to understand the
coherence of the standards. Coherent and consistent messaging about the standards is central to
the successful implantation of standards-based reforms (e.g., Smith & O’Day, 1990). Second,
teachers anticipated that the CCSS required them to “revolutionize” their teaching, but they did
not know how. As another teacher stated, “At the beginning, I thought it was just so
overwhelming. It’s like this big ambiguous thing, nobody really knew what it was.” Other
teachers in our sample echoed this idea, such as the teacher who said,
There was no specific Common Core standards expert that came in to tell us, or
describe, which were the most important standards, or how our teaching was
gonna change. We just knew that it was gonna change.
Fortunately, this latter teacher worked in a district that facilitated professional learning
communities for teachers to work together, and with instructional coaches, to develop their own
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 156
understanding of the CCSS. The teachers in this district were able to work through the lack of
district-provided information and make sense of the standards as a team.
Other teachers were not so fortunate and felt that many questions about the overall
intentions of the CCSS were left unanswered. One teacher explains that it would have been
helpful to have a training that explained the rationale, scope, and sequence of the CCSS: “Just
the layout and the sequence of their concepts. Why we were moving from this and why it was
lumped with this?” One of the intentions behind the development of the CCSS was to build a
clear progression of learning through each grade level (Cobb & Jackson, 2011). But for this and
other teachers, the importance of vertical learning progressions was not made clear. For her,
teaching has historically focused on computation and fluency rather than building deep
connections between topics and grade levels. She explains, “I think we’re all learning this way,
we were taught purely computational skills. I didn’t see the connection between having this
concept come before this one. I didn’t make that connection until after I taught it.” In the
absence of learning about the intentions of the standards through professional development, this
teacher had to learn by doing. She learned about the progression of the standards as she
implemented them and did not understand why her lessons were structured that way until after
she taught them. As previous literature on both standards-based reforms and curriculum
materials tells us, it is not enough to simply give teachers written documents and expect them to
implement with fidelity (e.g., Brown, 2009; Hill, 2001; Remillard, 2000). Teachers make
interpretations about the standards and materials based on prior experiences, beliefs, and
available information. A recent largescale RAND study suggests that teachers are actually not
improving their understanding of the CCSS through implementation—over the years, teachers
are not reporting engaging in more CCSS-aligned pedagogical practices, and they are not any
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 157
better at recognizing grade-level standards (Opfer, et al., 2018). This could be because teachers
are filling in their understanding of the CCSS with prior knowledge that is not aligned with best
CCSS practices. Professional development that provides teachers with learning opportunities
could potentially ameliorate this problem.
Prioritizing Curriculum Materials over Standards
The majority of our teachers received training on the curriculum materials rather than the
standards. We do not know whether district leaders intended for the curriculum materials training
to be a proxy for training about the standards, but it is clear that curriculum materials trainings
did not provide teachers with the opportunity to expand the content knowledge or pedagogical
content knowledge needed to implement the standards. Teachers’ opinions of publisher-provided
training sessions were
overwhelmingly negative. The trainings focused on superficial features of the books, and
teachers considered these features to be self-explanatory. The presenters lacked actual classroom
teaching experience and were not prepared or able to discuss the deeper shifts in the standards
and how this would affect teaching. Teachers received a tutorial on the new materials rather than
an opportunity to examine the content shifts in the standards and think about how they might use
the materials to support the content shifts.
It is also potentially worrisome that teachers found the new standards-aligned materials to
be self-explanatory. Prior literature on teacher learning and curriculum materials (e.g., Brown,
2009; Remillard, 2000) indicates that teachers have a tendency to use new materials in old ways.
If they think that the superficial changes to the textbook are indicative of the changes in the
standards themselves, this could be especially problematic. Training on curriculum materials that
is solely focused on superficial features could minimize the actual pedagogical and content
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 158
knowledge shifts that are intended by the CCSS. Additionally, our own research suggests that the
early editions of CCSS-aligned curriculum materials were poorly aligned to the content
knowledge and the cognitive demands of the new standards (Polikoff, 2015). This suggests that
teachers need more than just a “self-explanatory” textbook to build their content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge around the CCSS. The curriculum materials alone are unlikely to
provide the needed learning opportunities.
Policy Implications
Prior research on standards-based reform indicates that teacher involvement is essential
for successful implementation. Teachers are best able to implement the reforms if they
understand the intended nature of the reforms and have the tools to implement the changes (e.g.,
Hill, 2001; Lipsky, 1980; Smith & O’Day, 1990; Spillane, 2009). Unfortunately, very few of the
65 teachers interviewed in our sample report receiving the kind of professional development that
encourages true understanding of the new standards. As with all sweeping policies, the CCSS
will be evaluated according to their effectiveness at improving student learning outcomes.
However, if students are not learning from teachers who truly understand the nature of the
intended reforms, we might not expect student outcomes to change significantly. Our data
indicate that many teachers have not significantly modified their teaching practice in alignment
with the CCSS because they simply were not given the school- or district-level support to do so.
This fact needs to be considered when we are evaluating the success or failure of the CCSS as a
policy intervention.
One barrier for providing high-quality professional development opportunities may come
from lack of knowledge at the district level. Recent evidence suggests that a more centralized
approach to professional development may improve teacher understanding around the standards.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 159
In Louisiana, RAND researchers found evidence that a consistent, aligned, top-down focus on
professional development from the state Department of Education (LADOE) supported teacher
understanding of the content and pedagogical shifts required to teach CCSS math. A centralized,
statewide database of professional development vendors was created to help districts evaluate
and select for specific content or strategies. For example, districts can find professional
development vendors who specialize in building content knowledge, assessing student work, or
improving classroom management. Perhaps even more importantly, the LADOE also rates
professional development that is specifically aligned to their highest-rated curriculum materials.
This has encouraged vendors (e.g., LearnZillion) to develop high-quality professional
development that specifically aligns their national curriculum to the LADOE standards. This
system has encouraged more consistent messaging about what teachers should be learning in
professional development, while also giving districts the opportunity to select based on the needs
of their teachers.
A similar approach to centralizing information about professional development might be
appropriate in California. Following the lead of Louisiana, the CA DOE could vet and
recommend providers of professional development that communicate consistent messages about
the reforms. Louisiana’s state-wide professional development portal is a useful example of a way
to disseminate information about high-quality training with consistent messaging. California
districts historically have had a great deal of independence in selecting professional development
for teachers, but we have evidence that districts might benefit from more state-level support. We
might expect that teachers will be better able to align their instructional practices to the intended
reforms, and we also might expect reduced variation in student achievement if all districts have
access to the same high-quality professional development.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 160
Limitations
This study uses self-reported interview data on teacher’ experiences with professional
development related to the CCSS and new curriculum materials. The nature of the study suggests
several limitations. First, we asked teachers to remember professional development that may
have occurred several years prior to the time of our interview. Teachers who report that they did
not receive any district training on the CCSS may have simply forgotten. We also only
interviewed each teacher once—had we followed up with teachers after they had time to reflect
on our questions, they may have remembered additional professional development that they
received. We did not provide teachers with a copy of the interview protocol prior to our
interview. Had we done so, they might have had more time to reflect and remember other
professional development related to the standards or adopted materials.
We imagine that there is a great deal of variation in the content of professional
development depending on the grade level and subject that teachers teach. Our interviews were
conducted only with eighth-grade math teachers in one state. Our results are not representative of
the professional development experiences of all teachers who are implementing the CCSS. One
of the defining characteristics of professional development is its decentralized nature, meaning
that it is difficult to draw largescale conclusions about the content of professional development.
However, our qualitative interviews provide a window into one subject and grade band during a
particular period of implementation of a new set of standards. There is a need for ongoing
research about the types of professional development opportunities offered to teachers in
different states, using different curriculum materials, and teaching different grades and subject
areas.
Areas for Future Research
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 161
Because this study was limited to eighth-grade math teachers, it would be worthwhile to
conduct interviews with teachers of other grade spans and subject areas to see if they had similar
experiences with professional development. Some of the teachers in our sample felt that the
professional development they received was more appropriate for teachers in younger grades or
teachers who were not math experts, so it would be interesting to compare the experiences of
these types of teachers with the teachers in our sample.
It would also be useful to conduct future research on professional development using
multiple data sources. This could be done through observational studies, wherein the researcher
attends the professional development sessions that teachers attend. Researchers could also survey
teachers to quantitatively track their professional development (e.g., length of time, frequency of
occurrences) and ask them to rate their experiences immediately afterwards. Data could be
triangulated by including survey measures for school district leaders or the professional
development facilitators. It would also be useful to have more specific data from the professional
development presenter on the types of activities that teachers engage in during these sessions
(e.g., presentation, peer-to-peer collaboration, etc.).
Conclusion
Prior research on professional development give indications of types of activities that
encourage teacher learning, and teacher learning is important for teachers being asked to
implement new standards and/or curriculum materials. Teacher learning is a prerequisite for
student learning, because teachers need to understand the conceptual frameworks underlying new
standards and materials in order to effectively implement them. This is especially true for
standards that represent a significant shift from prior standards, and the CCSS do indeed
represent a departure from the former California standards. We would therefore expect teachers
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 162
to need opportunities to engage with the new standards, and the adopted materials aligned to the
standards, prior to implementing them with students. We cannot expect students to have a deep
conceptual understanding of math if their teachers do not have a clear understanding of the math
content they are expected to teach.
The policy implications related to teacher knowledge of the CCSS are far-reaching.
Recent data from RAND and WestEd also indicate that even though teachers think they have a
solid understanding of the standards, their pedagogical practices are not aligned with the new
standards, and they are unable to identify the appropriate standards for their grade. Taken
together, this information indicates that implementation of the CCSS might be uneven, with
teachers not fully understanding what the standards are truly asking them to teach, as they search
for resources online that might not reflect the changes in the standards.
Professional development is a well-studied area of educational research, but there is room
for more data on the specifics of the training that teachers receive. If we want teachers to feel
competent in implementing standards-based reforms, they need opportunities to learn about and
engage with the new material. These opportunities can be provided during professional
development, but any meaningful change will require districts to have information about the
types of professional development available and the ways in which teachers learn.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 163
References
Agodini, R., & Harris, B. (2010). An experimental evaluation of four elementary school math
curricula. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(3), 199-253.
Archer, L. (2005). Social class and higher education. In Higher education and social class (pp.
17-32). Routledge.
Ball, D. L. (1997). From the general to the particular: Knowing our own students as learners of
mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(9), 732.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to
teach: Knowing and using mathematics. Multiple perspectives on the teaching and
learning of mathematics, 4, 83-104.Ball, Lubienski, & Mewborn, 2001
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is: Or might be: The role of
curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational
Researcher, 25(9), 6-14.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes
it special. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Bell, C. A., Wilson, S. M., Higgins, T., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Measuring the effects of
professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of developing mathematical
ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 479-512.
Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). Teacher-Curriculum Encounter, The: Freeing Teachers from the
Tyranny of Texts. Suny Press.
Bernstein, Harriet T. "The new politics of textbook adoption." The Phi Delta Kappan 66, no. 7
(1985): 463-466.
Bhatt, R., & Koedel, C. (2012). Large-scale evaluations of curricular effectiveness: The case of
elementary mathematics in Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4),
391-412.
Bhatt, R., Koedel, C., & Lehmann, D. (2013). Is curriculum quality uniform? Evidence from
Florida. Economics of Education Review 34, 107-121.
Booher-Jennings, J. (2006). Rationing education in an era of accountability. Phi Delta
Kappan, 87(10), 756-761.
Boser, U., Chingos, M., & Straus, C. (2015). The hidden value of curriculum reform.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 164
Bowler, M. (1978). Textbook publishers try to please all, but first they woo the heart of Texas.
The Reading Teacher, 31(5), 514-518.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (p. 673–708). Macmillan Library Reference
Usa; Prentice Hall International.
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting
curriculum materials and classroom instruction, 17-36.
Bugler, D., Marple, S., Burr, E., Chen-Gaddini, M., & Finkelstein, N. (2017) How Teachers
Judge the Quality of Instructional Materials: Selecting Instructional Materials, Brief 1 –
Quality. WestEd.
Chávez, Óscar. "From the textbook to the enacted curriculum." In Psychology of Mathematics
Education, p. 565. 2006.
Chen-Gaddini, M., Burr, E., Marple, S., Bugler, D., & Finkelstein, N. (2017) Teachers’
Perceptions and Practices Related to the Adoption of Instructional Materials: Selecting
Instructional Materials, Brief 3 – Adoption. WestEd.
Chingos, M. M., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2012). Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher
Effectiveness, and the Common Core. Brookings Institution.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. Handbook of research
on curriculum, 363-401.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. Handbook of research on
teaching, 255-296.
Clune, W. H. (1993). Systemic educational policy: A conceptual framework. In S. H. Fuhrman
(Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 125–140). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an Empirically Grounded Theory of Action for
Improving the Quality of Mathematics Teaching at Scale. Mathematics Teacher
Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational evaluation and policy
analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 165
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional
environment and the classroom. Sociology of education, 77(3), 211-244.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability:
Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of
Education, 119(1), 137-182.
Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher
professional community in policy implementation. In M. Honig, (Ed.), New directions in
education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25-46). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change (pp. 27-84). East Lansing, MI: National
Center for Research on Teacher Education.
Cohen, D. K. (1989). Practice and policy: Notes on the history of instruction. American teachers:
Histories of a profession at work, 393-407.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
evaluation and policy analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A
commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy. Teaching for
understanding: Challenges for policy and practice, 240-275.
Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a
mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. The elementary school
journal, 103(3), 287-311.
Confrey, J. (2006). Comparing and contrasting the National Research Council report on
evaluating curricular effectiveness with the What Works Clearinghouse
approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 195-213.
Cuban, L. (1992). Managing Dilemmas While. Building Professional Communities. Educational
researcher, 21(1), 4-11.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elementary teachers do and what basal reader
manuals recommend?. The Reading Teacher, 37(8), 734-744.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 166
English, R. (1980). The politics of textbook adoption. The Phi Delta Kappan, 62(4), 275-278.
Ezarik, M. (2005). The textbook adoption mess—and what reformers are doing to fix it. District
Administration, 41(3), 50-66.
Farr, R., & Tulley, M. A. (1985). Do adoption committees perpetuate mediocre textbooks? The
Phi Delta Kappan, 66(7), 467-471.
Farr, R., Tulley, M. A., & Powell, D. (1987). The evaluation and selection of basal readers. The
Elementary School Journal, 87(3), 267-281.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (p. 147–164). Macmillan Publishing Co,
Inc.
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L.
Woessman, (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 383-421). Amsterdam,
Elsevier.
Finn, C. E., & Ravitch, D. (2004). The mad, mad world of textbook adoption. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
FitzGerald, F. (1979). America revised: What history textbooks have taught our children about
their country, and how and why those textbooks have changed in different decades. New
York: Vintage.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D, & Levin, D. (2012). Out of Print: Reimagining the K-12 Textbook
in a Digital Age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association
(SETDA).
Follett, R. (1985). The school textbook adoption process. Publishing Research Quarterly, 1(2),
19-23.
Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Teachers creating change: Examining
evolving beliefs and classroom practice. Mathematics teachers in transition, 255-282.
Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics
instruction in elementary schools?. American educational research journal, 26(3), 403-
421.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school
mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-
income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 167
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of a standards-
based approach to teaching mathematics and student outcomes. The Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 35(1), 8-25.
Gewertz, C. (2015, February 18). States shedding power to adopt class materials. Education
Week, 34(21), 1.
Grouws, D. A., & Smith, M. S. (2000). NAEP findings on the preparation and practices of
mathematics teachers. Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 107-139.
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S., Robbins, M., Thompson, L. E., &
Opfer, V. D. (2016). What Supports Do Teachers Need to Help Students Meet Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics?.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal
for research in mathematics education, 372-400.
Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing
in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761-796.
Kane, T. J. (2016). Never judge a book by its cover: Use student achievement instead. Education
Next.
Kaufman, J. H., Opfer, V. D., Bongard, M., Pane, J. D., & Thompson, L. E. (2018). What
Teachers Know and Do in the Common Core Era. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Kaufman, J. H., Thompson, L. E., & Opfer, V. D. (2016). Creating a coherent system to support
instruction aligned with state standards: Promising practices of the Louisiana
Department of Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Kaufman, J. H., & Tsai, T. (2018). School Supports for Teachers' Implementation of State
Standards. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Kersting, N. B., Sherin, B. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2014). Automated scoring of teachers’ open-
ended responses to video prompts: Bringing the classroom-video-analysis assessment to
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 950-974.
Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics
Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California. AERA Open, 3(1).
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 168
Kuhs, T. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1979). The potential influence of textbooks on teachers’
selection of content for elementary mathematics. In Annual Meeting of the American
Education Research Association, San Francisco.(ERIC Reproduction Document Service
No. ED175856).
Kurz, A. (2011). Access to what should be taught and will be tested: Students’ opportunity to
learn the intended curriculum. In Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all
students (pp. 99-129). New York, NY: Springer.
Lampert, M., Heaton, R., & Ball, D. (1994). Using technology to support a new pedagogy of
mathematics teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(3), 276-
289.
Lee, J. C. K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional
learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher
commitment to students. Teaching and teacher education, 27(5), 820-830.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications
for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3),
227-252.
Lloyd, G.M., Remillard, J. T., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2009). Teachers’ use of instructional
materials: An emerging field. In Remillard, J.T., Herbal-Eisenmann, B.A., & Lloyd,
G.M. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and
classroom instruction (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Principles of Effective Professional Development for Mathematics
and Science Education: A Synthesis of Standards. NISE brief, 1(1), n1.
Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge
within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 1-34.
Marple, S., Bugler, D., Chen-Gaddini, M., Burr, E., & Finkelstein, N. (2017).Why and how
teachers choose to supplement adopted materials: Selecting instructional materials.
WestEd.
Martinie, S. L., Kim, J. H., & Abernathy, D. (2016). “Better to be a pessimist”: A narrative
inquiry into mathematics teachers' experience of the transition to the Common Core. The
Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 658-665.
Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and
instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1332–1361.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 169
McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy
instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and
micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McNaught, M. D., Tarr, J. E., & Sears, R. (2010). Conceptualizing and Measuring Fidelity of
Implementation of Secondary Mathematics Textbooks: Results of a Three-Year
Study. Online Submission.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality
of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Opfer, V. D., Kaufman, J. H., & Thompson, L. E. (2016). Implementation of K–12 state
standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.
Opfer, V. D., Kaufman, J. H., Pane, J. D., & Thompson, L. E. (2018). Aligned Curricula and
Implementation of Common Core State Mathematics Standards. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.
Perry, R. R., Finkelstein, N. D., Seago, N., Heredia, A., Sobolew-Shubin, S., & Carroll, C.
(2015). Taking stock of Common Core math implementation: Supporting teachers to shift
instruction. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in
mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185-1211.
Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Is Common Core “working”? And where does Common Core research go
from here?. AERA Open, 3(1), 2332858417691749.
Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school
mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 170
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., & Smithson, J. (2009). Is There a de Facto National Intended
Curriculum? Evidence From State Content Standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31(3), 238-268.
Remillard, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: A fifth-grade teacher's
interpretation of policy. The Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 179-193.
Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for
examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade
teachers' use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-
350.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics
curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum
materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for research in mathematics
education, 352-388.
Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational
Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (2006). The development and publication of elementary mathematics
textbooks: Let the buyer beware!. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 377-383.
Reys, R., Reys, B., Tarr, J., & Chávez, Ó. (2006). Assessing the impact of standards-based
middle school mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning
environment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula
on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 368-398.
Santagata, R. (2011). From teacher noticing to a framework for analyzing and improving
classroom lessons. In Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 182-198). Routledge.
Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers' seminar to the
classroom. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 1(1), 55-87.
Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (2012). Inequality for all: The challenge of unequal
opportunity in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 171
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., &
Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum
and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of
U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards,
testing, and equity. Educational researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). School mathematics curricula: Recommendations and
issues. Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they, 3-27.
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in
teachers’ use of a reform‐based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Smith, M.S., & O'Day, J. (1990) Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5),
233-267. DOI: 10.1080/02680939008549074
Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From
research to practice. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 3(4), 268-275.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. Handbook of research
on curriculum, 40(4), 402-435.
Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-
grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249-275.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
Spillane, J. P. (2009). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy:
Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the
context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1997). Teacher learning in a social context: Integrating
collaborative and institutional processes with the study of teacher change. Mathematics
teachers in transition, 155-191.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 172
Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale
urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning.
In Mathematics teachers at work (pp. 57-75). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics
curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693.
Stein, M., Stuen, C., Carnine, D., & Long, R. (2001). Textbook evaluation and adoption.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(1), 5-23.
Swars, S. L., & Chestnutt, C. (2016). Transitioning to the Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics: A mixed methods study of Elementary teachers’ experiences and
perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 116(4), 212-224.
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based
instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational researcher, 41(5), 147-156.
Tarr, J. E., Chávez, Ó., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted
curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping
students' opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191-201.
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of
middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student
achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 247-280.
Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and
mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational studies in
mathematics, 15(2), 105-127.
Tulley, M. A. (1985). A descriptive study of the intents of state-level textbook adoption
processes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 289-308.
Tulley, M. A., & Farr, R. (1985). Textbook adoption: Insight, impact, and potential. Book
Research Quarterly, 1(2), 4-11.
Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). The academy's contribution to the impoverishment of America's
textbooks. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(3), 192-98.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Bringing facilitation into view. International journal of
STEM education, 4(1), 32.
Van Zoest, L. R., & Bohl, J. V. (2002). The role of reform curricular materials in an internship:
The case of Alice and Gregory. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(3), 265-
288.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 173
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Weber, M. (1947). Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. The theory of social and economic
organisation, 328-340.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of Mark Black. Educational evaluation
and policy analysis, 12(3), 293-310.
Zeringue, J. K., Spencer, D., Mark, J., Schwinden, K., & Newton, M. A. (2010). Influences on
mathematics textbook selection: What really matters. Paper presented at the NCTM
Research Pre-session, San Diego, CA.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 174
Appendix A: District Leader Interview Protocol
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. The purpose of this
interview is to allow us gain a comprehensive understanding of district policies and
practices pertaining to middle school mathematics instruction.
Your answers will be kept anonymous, but it is possible that your responses will be used in
future research publications or conference presentations.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask for your permission to record this interview.
Please take a moment to read this consent form. It explains that your answers will be kept
anonymous and your personal information will be kept confidential. Also, your
participation in this interview is voluntary, and you may stop at any time. You may also
choose to not answer specific questions.
This interview will last between 30 and 60 minutes. I will be asking you questions about the
implementation of the new Common Core State Standards in your classroom. Do you have
any questions for me before we begin?
First, I’m going to ask about the effectiveness of middle school mathematics instruction
in your district.
1. Can you describe the typical middle school mathematics instruction in your district?
a. How effective would you say middle school mathematics education in your
district is?
b. What instructional challenges does your district face in middle school
mathematics?
c. What are the barriers (if any) to improving middle school mathematics
instruction in the district?
Now, I would like to talk about the strategies (if any) that the district is pursuing to
improve middle school mathematics instructions.
2. Are there any strategies that the district has adopted to address the challenges you
mention previously? (Probes: to what extent do these strategies focus on curriculum?
leadership? professional development for principals? professional development for
teachers? professional community or teacher collaboration? instructional
personalization or differentiation?
a. When did these strategies begin?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 175
b. Who initiated them?
c. Is there anything else you would like to add about district strategies the district
is using to improve middle school mathematics instruction?
Now, I would like talk about the placement and tracking policies in your district.
3. How does the district place students into courses in eighth grade mathematics?
a. What are the course levels offered?
b. When did these placement strategies originate?
c. How effective do you think these placement strategies are?
d. What implications do these placement strategies have for the implementation of
instructional strategies previously discussed?
e. Is there anything else you would like to add about your district’s placement and
tracking policies?
Now, I would like to talk about the district’s curriculum adoption and development
process.
4. What is the process like for choosing middle school mathematics textbooks?
a. When was the last textbook adopted in middle school mathematics? When is the
next scheduled adoption?
b. Who is involved in the decision to adopt a textbook?
c. How many textbook options are usually involved in the decision?
d. What information do you use to select textbooks?
e. What information do you wish you had in making the decision?
f. To what extent do middle school mathematics teachers in this district use
textbooks to guide their instruction?
i. To what extent do they use non-textbook curriculum materials, such
as those freely available online?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 176
ii. To what extent do they use digital materials, such as apps and digital
curricula?
iii. Does the school district provide pacing guides to teachers? If so, how
detailed are they? Who develops them? To what extent are teachers
expected to follow them?
g. Is there anything else you would like to add about the district’s curriculum
adoption and development process?
Now, I would like to talk about the district’s responses to the Common Core standards
in middle school mathematics, especially with regard to curriculum and professional
learning opportunities.
5. What initiatives is the district undertaking to implement the Common Core State
Standards in middle school mathematics?
a. What type of professional development is provided to teachers?
i. How many hours of CCSS-related PD have teachers received?
ii. To what extent do district mathematics teachers participate in CCSS-
related PD collectively (as a group)?
iii. Is the PD offered by the district or by external providers?
iv. Describe the content of the PD middle school mathematics teachers
receive?
v. To what extent does it focus on the mathematics content in the CCSS?
vi. To what extent are teachers engaged in active learning during the PD?
vii. To what extent is the PD aligned with other CCSS-implementation
initiatives in the district around CCSS implementation?
b. Has Common Core changed any of your other district policies?
i. What curriculum changes (if any) are being made?
ii. Has CCSS changed your tracking policies? If so, how?
c. Which staff members are responsible for the various components of the
district’s Common Core transition?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 177
d. Is there anything else you would like to add about the district’s response to
Common Core standards?
6. Aside from the Common Core, what other policies are influencing middle
school mathematics instruction currently?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 178
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. The purpose of this
interview is to reflect on the implementation of the new Common Core State Standards in
your classroom.
Your answers will be kept anonymous and will never be shared with anyone in your school
or district, but it is possible that your anonymous responses will be used in future research
publications or conference presentations.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask for your permission to record this interview.
This interview will last between 45 and 60 minutes. There are three topics in the interview:
curriculum materials, the new Common Core State Standards, and students’ mastery toward
the standards. Do you have any questions for me before we begin?
1. What classes do you teach? Would you describe these as high, medium, low, or mixed-
level courses?
a. Choose a main focal class for the interviewee to talk about. The decision rule
for this should be as follows: If they teach a “medium” or “mixed-level”
course, choose that. If they teach only a high level course or only a low level
course, choose that. If they teach both high and low-level courses, choose the
low-level course. Say “For the rest of this interview, I want you to focus
primarily on (insert chosen course). However, if your responses to my
questions would be different for different courses, you should also mention
that.
2. How long have you been teaching?
3. What textbooks or other curriculum materials are supplied by the district?
a. Your district reports using________ as the primary textbook. Is this the primary
textbook that you use in your math instruction?
i. Do all teachers who teach the same courses as you use the same primary
textbooks?
ii. If they teach multiple courses: Do you use a different textbook in your
different courses?
b. How much were you involved in the process of selecting the textbook?
c. What do you think about the quality of the textbook selected by your district?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 179
i. How would you define a “high-quality” math textbook?
d. To what extent do you like the textbooks and other materials provided by your
district?
i. To what extent do you think they are effective for helping students learn
mathematics?
ii. What do you like and dislike about the materials?
e. To what extent do you think the textbooks and other materials are aligned with the
Common Core standards? What are the areas of misalignment, if any?
f. Do you have a class set of the textbook?
i. Is it a consumable or non-consumable book?
ii. Do you have a digital edition? (If yes, ask if they have the infrastructure
to support the digital edition, and how they use it in class).
iii. Do you have a teacher’s edition?
iv. To what extent do you use the teacher’s guide to plan your lessons?
v. Do you use any additional components of the publisher’s materials (e.g.,
workbooks, extra practice materials)?
g. How often are you using the textbook?
i. Describe the ways you use the book to plan and implement your lessons.
h. How much autonomy do you have in what you teach?
4. Can you describe any other supplemental materials that you use to help you
implement the math curriculum?
a. Which of these materials are provided by the district? For example, pacing
guides, assessment benchmarks, worksheets, student materials,
manipulatives, software, technology?
b. Do you personally choose any supplemental materials to use in your
classroom?
i. If so, do you purchase these on your own, or can you get funds from
the school?
ii. Can you name the supplementary materials you have used and where
you found them?
a. Did you receive any training on how to use the curriculum materials?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 180
i. Who provided the training?
ii. Was it mandatory?
iii. Approximately how many hours of training did you receive on the new
curriculum?
iv. Is the training ongoing?
v. Did you participate in it with your colleagues?
vi. If you received PD on the math curriculum, to what extent did you find it
helpful in implementing the curriculum? What is an example of how it
influenced your instruction?
b. To what extent have you worked with colleagues across grades in selecting
and implementing textbooks and these supplementary curriculum materials?
c. Do you have a pacing guide provided by your school or district?
i. To what extent do you follow the pacing guide?
ii. To what extent is the pacing guide appropriate for your class?
d. Do any of the answers you’ve given so far about curriculum resources differ
across your different courses? If so, how?
e. Is there anything else you would like to add about curriculum resources you
have used to implement mathematics?
Now we’re going to talk about your instructional approaches to teach the standards.
3. How do you see the new standards influencing the way you plan and deliver your
lessons?
a. Do you think that Common Core math standards call for major instructional changes
compared to California’s previous standards?
i. IF SO: What are the major differences between the new standards and
previous standards?
b. How do the new standards influence the way you think about teaching?
c. How do the new standards influence the content that you teach?
d. We’ve talked about professional development and curriculum materials. Are there
other resources you think you need to implement the new standards?
e. Is there anything else you would like to add about the instructional approaches you
use to implement CCSS mathematics?
DISRUPTIONS TO THE TEXTBOOK NARRATIVE 181
Now we’ll talk about your students’ progress toward mastering the standards.
5. Can you describe the assessments you are using to track student mastery of the
CCSS mathematics standards?
a. To what extent do you use state tests? District tests? Textbook tests? Teacher-created
tests?
b. How do you see the use of assessments changing under Common Core?
c. How are your students doing with Common Core math? This can include on state or
local tests, or on classroom tests or assignments.
d. Are there any subgroups of students doing better or worse than any others? (probe:
low/high performers, students with disabilities, English learners)
i. What strategies, if any, have you found to be particularly promising
for helping students in these struggling subgroups?
e. What are your students’ biggest challenges with succeeding in Common Core
mathematics?
f. Is there anything else you would like to add about student progress toward mastery
of Common Core math standards?
Is there anything else I should know about the implementation of the Common Core State
Standards?
Thank you once again for taking the time to answer these questions. Do you have any questions
for me?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Textbooks are a widely used educational intervention that can affect student achievement
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Choosing wisely: a three paper dissertation exploring how parents evaluate and choose schools
PDF
A study of alignment between the Common Core State Standards in math and an introductory college textbook
PDF
Teacher curriculum supplementation as phenomenon and process
PDF
Who learns where: understanding the equity implications of charter school reform in the District of Columbia
PDF
Loaded questions: the prevalence, causes, and consequences of teacher salary schedule frontloading
PDF
Tough conversations and missed opportunities: implementing district policies for racial equity
PDF
Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
PDF
Levels of interest: the effects of teachers' unions on Congress, statehouses, and schools
PDF
Property and labor formalization in the age of the sharing economy: Airbnb, housing affordability, and entrepreneurship in Havana
PDF
Education finance and the politics of California policymaking: a case study of the Local Control Funding Formula
PDF
The influence of numerical estimation skills and epistemic cognition in plausibility judgments and conceptual change
PDF
Examining the sociopolitical and racial beliefs of United States history teachers
PDF
Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance
PDF
“It is all about student equity”: improving teacher retention and recruitment in a large urban district
PDF
Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority
PDF
The logic of mining student data: corporate education reform, stakeholder activism, and the fate of inBloom
PDF
An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity
PDF
Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior
PDF
Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway
PDF
STEM teacher education: An evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Campbell, Shauna E.
(author)
Core Title
Disruptions to the traditional textbook narrative: lessons from district leaders and teachers in California
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Urban Education Policy
Publication Date
05/15/2020
Defense Date
05/15/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Common Core State Standards,curriculum,Education,implementation,K12,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,school districts,Teachers,teaching,textbooks
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Polikoff, Morgan (
committee chair
), Kaiser, Elsi (
committee member
), Marsh, Julie (
committee member
)
Creator Email
shauna.campbell@gmail.com,shaunaec@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-312142
Unique identifier
UC11664013
Identifier
etd-CampbellSh-8540.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-312142 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CampbellSh-8540.pdf
Dmrecord
312142
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Campbell, Shauna E.
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
Tags
Common Core State Standards
implementation
K12
professional development