In this report, CPRE researchers explore how Common Core knowledge and influence are distributed inside of schools and how these configurations may help teachers to engage with the Common Core and influence their understanding and implementation. To do so, we used a mixed-method approach to examine knowledge and influence in eight schools, including five elementary schools and three middle schools. Our central method was a survey of knowledge and influence of all faculty members in a sample of eight schools. These data are supplemented with interview data from a purposeful sample of teachers and administrators in the eight schools. Sponsored by the General Electric Foundation, which also provides support to New York City through its Developing FuturesTM in Education Program, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) at the University of Pennsylvania has examined Common Core implementation in New York City in a series of studies. In 2013 CPRE released the findings of two investigations, one which described how the district constructed the 2011-12 Citywide Instructional Expectations (CIEs) for teachers, which were a small number of assignments for school faculties to complete during the school year to facilitate their engagement with the new Common Core (Supovitz, 2013). The second report examined how a diverse sample of 16 schools understood and implemented these CIEs and how their choices influenced their levels of engagement (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan, 2013). A third report is a companion to the current report, focusing on teacher collaboration as a means of cultivating and transferring knowledge about the Common Core. Disciplines Curriculum and Instruction | Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Educational Methods | Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration | Elementary Education and Teaching | Secondary Education and Teaching | Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Comments View on the CPRE website. This working paper is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/12 CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION From the Inside In: An Examination of Common Core Knowledge and Communication in Schools Jonathan Supovitz Ryan Fink Bobbi Newman W O R K I N G PA P E R March 2014 GE Foundation Developing FuturesTM in Education evaluation series About Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) brings together education experts from renowned research institutions to contribute new knowledge to inform K-12 education policy and practice. Our work is peer-reviewed and open access. CPRE’s member institutions are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Northwestern University. Since 2010, CPRE has conducted the external evaluation of the Developing FuturesTM in Education program for the GE Foundation. In addition to this report, CPRE recently published an evaluation on the impact of the Developing FuturesTM in Education program on mathematics performance trends in four district. About GE Foundation and the Developing FuturesTM in Education Program For more than 50 years, GE Foundation has invested in education programs based on a fundamental premise: A quality education ushers in a lifetime of opportunity, which helps build a strong and diverse citizenry to work and live in an increasingly competitive world. The GE Foundation believes that a quality education can help prepare young Americans — especially those in underserved urban districts — for careers in a global economy. The GE Foundation is addressing this education imperative by supporting high-impact initiatives that improve access to, and the equity and quality of, public education. The Developing FuturesTM in Education program is one such endeavor, created to raise student achievement through improved mathematics and science curricula and management capacity in schools. The program has been expanded with a grant investment of over $200 million in seven targeted U.S. school districts. School districts use their grants to develop a rigorous, system-wide mathematics and science curriculum and provide comprehensive professional development for their teachers. Working with the GE Foundation, districts have made more efficient management of human resources using GE’s Six Sigma, developing educational leaders to coach others and model best practices, implementing GE’s process management tools, and developing IT systems and capacity to use data to better inform decision making. More recently, with GE Foundation leadership, partner districts have increasingly focused on implementation of the new Common Core State Standards.
[1]
I. Nonaka.
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
,
1994
.
[2]
Eric Lesser.
Knowledge and Social Capital
,
2009
.
[3]
Alan S. Marcus,et al.
How the Structure and Focus of Teachers' Collaborative Activities Facilitate and Constrain Teacher Learning.
,
2010
.
[4]
Alain Degenne.
Social capital: a theory of social structure and action
,
2004
.
[5]
R. Gulati,et al.
STRATEGIC NETWORKS
,
2000
.
[6]
D. Krackhardt.
The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations
,
2003
.
[7]
James P. Spillane,et al.
Managing and leading elementary schools: Attending to the formal and informal organization
,
2009
.
[8]
H. Tsoukas,et al.
What is Organizational Knowledge
,
2001
.
[9]
Keith Bradley,et al.
Intellectual Capital and the New Wealth of Nations
,
1997
.
[10]
A. Daly.
Social Network Theory and Educational Change.
,
2010
.
[11]
James T. Walz.
The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital and the Twenty‐First Century Organization
,
2005
.
[12]
Etienne Wenger,et al.
Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
,
1998
.
[13]
Robert F. Dedrick,et al.
The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction.
,
1991
.
[14]
B. Uzzi,et al.
Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness
,
1997
.
[15]
E. Barozet,et al.
Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action
,
2002
.
[16]
V. Lee,et al.
Collective Responsibility for Learning and Its Effects on Gains in Achievement for Early Secondary School Students
,
1996,
American Journal of Education.
[17]
J. K. Broida.
Competing for the Future: Breakthrough Strategies for Seizing Control of Your Industry and Creating the Markets of Tomorrow
,
1994
.
[18]
Andrew Parker,et al.
The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations
,
2004
.
[19]
Jonathan A. Supovitz,et al.
Slowing Entropy: Instructional Policy Design in New York City, 2011-12
,
2013
.
[20]
Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.
Social Network Analysis
,
2011,
International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.
[21]
Brian Rowan.
Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational Design of Schools
,
1990
.
[22]
J. Talbert,et al.
Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching
,
2001
.
[23]
R. Putnam.
The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life
,
1993
.
[24]
C. Coburn,et al.
District Policy and Teachers’ Social Networks
,
2008
.
[25]
Daniel J. Brass,et al.
Network Analysis in the Social Sciences
,
2009,
Science.
[26]
J. Coleman,et al.
Equality And Achievement In Education
,
1993
.
[27]
Viki M. Young.
Teachers’ Use of Data: Loose Coupling, Agenda Setting, and Team Norms
,
2006,
American Journal of Education.
[28]
Johan P. Olsen,et al.
Ambiguity and choice in organizations
,
1976
.
[29]
K. Frank.
Quasi-Ties
,
2009
.
[30]
Gueorgi Kossinets.
Effects of missing data in social networks
,
2006,
Soc. Networks.
[31]
A. Bryk,et al.
Analyzing Teacher Participation in Literacy Coaching Activities
,
2011,
The Elementary School Journal.
[32]
Michael Weiss,et al.
Identifying Organizational Influentials : Methods and Application using Social Network Data
,
2009
.
[33]
A. Portes.
Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology
,
1998
.
[34]
J. Pennings,et al.
Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology‐based ventures
,
2001
.
[35]
Anthony S. Bryk,et al.
The High School as Community: Contextual Influences and Consequences for Students and Teachers.
,
1988
.
[36]
Ray Reagans,et al.
Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range
,
2003
.