HOW TEACHERS PRIORITIZE REFORM:
THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
By
Honey Hengameh Ghods

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Educational Policy—Doctor of Philosophy
2014

ABSTRACT
HOW TEACHERS PRIORITIZE REFORM:
THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
By
Honey Hengameh Ghods
Administrators, teachers, parents, and students are familiar with policy and reform
changes in the United States’ educational system. Our nation is well-known for frequently
adopting and implementing new reforms, especially in the core subjects of English, history,
mathematics, and science (The National Academy of Education, 2009). Teachers are major
catalysts for reform implementation and change within schools, largely because they will
ultimately be responsible for implementing their ideas in the classroom (Smith & Southerland,
2007). Teachers implement and structure the curriculum in a fashion that could either benefit or
detract from the intended reform. With this in mind, the goal of this dissertation is to understand
how teachers prioritize reforms. I use the example of the Common Core State Standards in
mathematics to illustrate how teachers understand and interpret reform.
I have conducted a mixed-methods study to address the following research questions: (1)
How do teachers prioritize reform? and (2) How do teachers prioritize reform related to the
Common Core State Standards in mathematics? Phase I used a qualitative approach, and Phase II
used a quantitative approach. In Phase I, I addressed my first research question by conducting
interviews with every fourth grade teacher in one district in the Midwest. In Phase II, I addressed
my second research question by conducting 400 teacher surveys in three states: Illinois, Indiana,
and Michigan.

Copyright by
HONEY HENGAMEH GHODS
2014

This dissertation is dedicated to the loving memory of
my Babajoon (March 2010) and my Mamanbozorg (May 2013).
You will forever be in my heart.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply grateful to a variety of people and to Michigan State University College of
Education, which helped me make this dissertation possible.
Foremost, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my guidance committee
members, who patiently and thoughtfully supported me through my doctoral journey. They each
exemplified such wisdom and have generously donated their time and energy to see me succeed.
To my advisor, Dr. Christopher Dunbar Jr., who consistently reminded me to stay calm and
inspired me to take pride in my research, without his guidance this study would not have been
possible. Thank you to Dr. Amita Chudgar, for encouraging my first conference paper and
presentation submission as a first year Masters student. You truly opened my eyes to a brighter
future. Dr. William Schmidt challenged my thoughts not only through this dissertation, but also
through all educational affairs. I feel very fortunate to have you as my mentor. Dr. Peter Youngs
for believing in my determination and aiding me to reach my potential. It has been an honor
having you all at my side.
To two of my undergraduate professors, Dr. Alison Renteln and Dr. Micheal Channing,
thank you both for believing I have a place in the world of education.
Thank you, Dr. Michael Sedlak, for believing in my vision, and the Educational Policy
Department at Michigan State University, for their financial support through fellowships and
grants. To my peers at Michigan State University, Brian Boggs and Christie Poitra– this journey
would not have been the same without you by my side. A special thank you to my editorial team
and graphic design team, Dr. Douglas Campbell, Brenda Errichiello, Tony Moore, and Mirabella

v

Olszewski. Most of all, thank you, Chun-Lung Lee, who spent countless hours guiding me
through the quantitative portion of my doctoral studies.
And of course to my friends and family–thank you for keeping me sane and providing me with
unconditional love and support. Nothing can really express my feelings and gratitude towards my
parents for the countless hours you spent around the dinner table, over the phone, or in the office
boardroom listening to my thoughts, dreams, and, most of all, for reminding me never to take no
for an answer, but that when one door closes there is always an open window. Mom, you were
always there to listen and spread positive energy, especially when I grew frustrated and
discouraged. Thank you for playing the role of not only a loving mother, but also an
irreplaceable friend. Dad, you are the fountain of hope and inspiration in our family— the voice
of reason. The hardships and experiences you have endured have motivated us to succeed. Thank
you for pushing me to grow to my full potential and for encouraging a quick completion of this
dissertation. To my brothers, Vahid, Saeed, and Farid, I will always be grateful for your unique
role in supporting me emotionally through love and laughter. To my aunt, Zore, you’ve always
been there to love us unconditionally.
Thank you for being present and supportive through this journey.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xii
Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Research Questions and Methods ................................................................................... 3
What Are The Common Core State Standards? ............................................................. 4
Effects of the Common Core State Standards .................................................... 5
Summary......................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter II: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ....................................................... 8
Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 8
Values ................................................................................................................. 9
Beliefs ............................................................................................................... 11
Ability to relate to reform ideas........................................................................ 15
Achievable versus unachievable....................................................................... 18
Nature of policymakers and the impact on teachers ......................................... 19
Motivation ........................................................................................................ 21
Support and Resources ..................................................................................... 24
Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 25
Professional development ................................................................................. 26
Teachers’ participation in curriculum development ......................................... 28
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................ 30
Final Remarks ................................................................................................... 32
Chapter III: Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 33
Phase I .......................................................................................................................... 34
Interviews ......................................................................................................... 35
Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 37
Phase II ......................................................................................................................... 38
Part I: Principal Component Analysis .............................................................. 44
Part II: Hypothesized Relationship 1 ................................................................ 45
Part III: Hypothesized Relationship 2 .............................................................. 46
Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 47
Part I –Research Question One: How do teachers prioritize reform? .. 47
Part II –Specific CCSS questions & teacher demographics ................. 47
Part III –Research Question Two: How do teachers prioritize reform using
the CCSS as an example of a current reform? ...................................... 51
Connecting Part I and Part II ............................................................................ 51
Trustworthiness and Validity ........................................................................... 51
Chapter IV: Qualitative Results................................................................................................ 54

vii

Comparison Between the Results of the Study and the Existing Literature................. 55
Interview Findings ........................................................................................................ 58
Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 59
Sensemaking ..................................................................................................... 62
Support/professional development ................................................................... 65
Putting knowledge and understanding into practice ......................................... 67
Ashford ................................................................................................. 68
Brookfield ............................................................................................. 69
Carlton .................................................................................................. 70
Davis ..................................................................................................... 71
Conclusion ............................................................................................ 72
Values and Beliefs ............................................................................................ 72
Understanding Teacher Responses: Another View ...................................................... 73
Final Remarks .............................................................................................................. 76
Chapter V: Quantitative Results ............................................................................................... 78
Phase II ......................................................................................................................... 78
Part I: Seven Categorical Questions and Analysis ....................................................... 80
Overall Results ................................................................................................. 81
Cross Tabulation Analysis ................................................................................ 84
Principal Component Analysis ......................................................................... 86
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 86
Part II: How Teachers Prioritize Reform Based on the CCSS in Mathematics ........... 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 93
Part III: Relating the Demographic Changes to the CCSS ........................................... 94
State level comparison ...................................................................................... 94
Years of experience comparison .................................................................... 102
Novice teachers’ perspective .............................................................. 106
Experienced teachers’ perspective...................................................... 107
Grade level of instruction comparison ............................................... 113
Final Remarks ................................................................................................. 116
Chapter VI: Policy Discussion and Concluding Remarks ...................................................... 118
Phase I ........................................................................................................................ 120
Phase II ....................................................................................................................... 121
Quantitative Results........................................................................................ 122
Overall Summary........................................................................................................ 125
Policy Implications ......................................................................................... 126
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 127
Qualitative Methods Limitations .................................................................... 127
Quantitative Methods Limitations .................................................................. 128
Questions for Further Study ....................................................................................... 129
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 131
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................ 132
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 135

viii

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................ 141
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................. 144
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................. 149
APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................ 153
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 157

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: School, Teacher, and Experience Demographics ........................................... 59
Table 2: Categorical Rankings ..................................................................................... 81
Table 3 Correlation Matrix of all 7 Categories ............................................................ 85
Table 4: ANOVA Daily Practice .................................................................................. 91
Table 5: ANOVA Altering Practice ............................................................................. 92
Table 6: ANOVA Meeting Students’ Academic Ability ............................................. 92
Table 7: ANOVA Replacing the CCSS........................................................................ 93
Table 8: Variation Among States Frequency Table ..................................................... 96
Table 9: Higher NAEP Results State Comparison ....................................................... 98
Table 10: Summary of CCSS Key Questions – Planned Comparison ......................... 99
Table 11: General Linear Model/Hypothetical Model ............................................... 100
Table 12: Michigan Full Implementation of CCSS State Comparison ...................... 101
Table 13: Michigan Full CCSS Implementation State Comparison For Planned
Comparison ................................................................................................ 101
Table 14: Question Comparison Between Novice and Experienced Teachers .......... 104
Table 15: Novice Teacher Frequency Table............................................................... 105
Table 16: Experienced Teacher Frequency Table ...................................................... 108
Table 17: 7 Categorical Comparison Percentages ...................................................... 141
Table 18: Implementation of Standards in Dailty Practice ........................................ 142
Table 19: Alteration of Practice Methods Since CCSS .............................................. 142
Table 20: Students Academic Ability......................................................................... 143
Table 21: Replacing the CCSS ................................................................................... 143

x

Table 22: Comparisons of Teaching Experiences ...................................................... 148
Table 23: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 6.................... 149
Table 24: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 7.................... 150
Table 25: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 12.................. 151
Table 26: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 14.................. 152
Table 27: State Comparisons ...................................................................................... 153
Table 28:Comparisons of Grade Level....................................................................... 156

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Phase I and Phase II Descriptions ................................................................. 34
Figure 2: Hypothesized Relationship Model 1 ............................................................. 45
Figure 3: Hypothesized Relationship Model 2 ............................................................. 46
Figure 4: Literature Formula ........................................................................................ 57
Figure 5: Research Findings Formula .......................................................................... 57
Figure 6: Graphic display of average response data ..................................................... 83
Figure 7: Categorical Comparison................................................................................ 84
Figure 8: Implementation vs. Alteration of the CCSS in Teacher’s Daily Practice ..... 97
Figure 9: Breakdown of Participants Years of Experience Teaching ........................ 103
Figure 10: Novice Teacher Responses: 3 Key CCSS Questions ................................ 105
Figure 11: Experienced Teacher Responses: 3 Key CCSS Questions ....................... 109
Figure 12: Teachers Response to Grade Level of Instruction .................................... 113
Figure 13: Qualitative Responses Chart 1 .................................................................. 138
Figure 14: Qualitative Responses Chart 2 .................................................................. 139
Figure 15: Qualitative Responses Chart 3 .................................................................. 140
Figure 16: 7 Categorical Mean Comparisons ............................................................. 141
Figure 17: Years of Teacher Experience .................................................................... 144
Figure 18: Teacher State Locations ............................................................................ 144
Figure 19: Geographical District Teacher Responses ................................................ 145
Figure 20: Teachers’ Grade Level of Instruction ....................................................... 145
Figure 21: Overall Response to Question 6 ................................................................ 146
Figure 22: Overall Response to Question 7 ................................................................ 146

xii

Figure 23: Overall Response to Question 10 .............................................................. 147
Figure 24: Overall Response to Question 11 .............................................................. 147
Figure 25: State Comparison of Question 6 ............................................................... 154
Figure 26: State Comparison of Question 7 ............................................................... 154
Figure 27: State Comparison of Question 12 ............................................................. 155
Figure 28: State Comparison of Question 14 ............................................................. 155

xiii

Chapter I: Introduction
The educational landscape in the United States is dominated by new reform initiatives.
These initiatives promise the advancement and improvement of our educational system in order
to provide higher student achievement outcomes. Each reform begins with publicity, excitement,
and the promises of improvement in student achievement improvements. The expected outcomes
are smarter, faster, and more educated students. However, as time elapses, these reforms slowly
fade from the limelight with little to no positive impact on the education system or the students
themselves, becoming a distant memory and often a regret. The reform failure occurs for various
reasons, including disorganization of execution and implementation, political pressure, and
budgetary concerns, to name a few. In fact, some may argue that reforms create more
bureaucracy, more rules, more red tape, and more convoluted procedures, circumstances that
may hamper the success of the education system rather than bolster it.
This pattern of reform failure has become very familiar to education’s front line: teachers.
As implementers of these reforms, teachers have experienced constant change in the mandated
reforms imposed upon them. On the federal level, when a new president takes office, education
policies also tend to change because education is often among the leading issues in presidential
campaigns. On the state level, when a new governor takes office, he or she may also want to
make a strong footprint on education platforms. On the district level, when new school board
members or superintendents join the task force, they may also make adjustments and changes to
policies. This trend continues down towards administrators, curriculum coaches, etc. Once again,
this pattern of continual change forces teachers to adjust their practice and lessons to meet the
reforms’ demands. Unfortunately, these changes do not necessarily result in the positive outcome
that was intended. Further, because reforms have a tendency to change so frequently, many

1

teachers have become skeptical about any particular reform’s staying power. The reforms also
have a tendency to dictate in-classroom practice to teachers, and thus, loss of autonomy is also a
great concern. Being that teachers believe they know their students and their students’ abilities
better than any other stakeholder, they do not want to feel that they have no say in how and what
they teach their students.
As teachers are the implementers of any given reform, the role of the teacher is important
in determining the success of an educational reform and is essentially the foundation that drives a
reform’s success. In order to optimally implement a reform, teachers must understand all aspects
of the reform and respond positively to the change because they are ultimately delivering the
message—and the instruction—to the lower tiers of the education system: other teachers,
parents, and most importantly, their students.
In order to secure the support of teachers, it is imperative for all stakeholders involved in
the reform implementation process to understand the importance of a joint and collaborative
structure in order to create a cohesive message. It is additionally important for all stakeholders to
understand the reform’s intentions and what is being asked of all parties that are involved in the
reform. In addition, reformers must instill confidence in the reform process in order to assure
teachers that new reforms are not another fad in the laundry list of unsuccessful education
reforms. Without these precautions, each reform will continue to fall victim to the same
ineffectiveness as its predecessors.
In order to accomplish the goal of implementing a successful reform, it is important to
understand how a teacher processes reform information. Once this process is understood, it will
help other stakeholders determine how best to package the important details of a reform. The
theoretical framework used in this study is Coburn’s sensemaking theory (2001), and it has been

2

applied to help understand how teachers receive the reform information, whether the information
received is identical to the actual reform in question, and whether the information received is
correctly understood by teachers. While there is no calculated method by which teachers decide
to implement a reform, literature does identify and confirm six categories that contribute to
whether or not a reform becomes a priority to teachers. The six categories are: (a) how a teacher
values a reform, (b) whether it aligns with their beliefs, (c) whether they are able to relate to the
reform ideas, (d) whether they see the reform as achievable, (e) whether the motivating factors of
the reform outweigh the non-motivating factors, and (f) whether the teacher receives the support
necessary from the various stakeholders. It is important to note that one category does not
necessarily outweigh the other, as each teacher’s personal approach varies. Also, this is not an
exhaustive list of categories because some teachers may have other circumstances or beliefs that
impact their ability or desire to prioritize reforms in their classroom. However, one of the most
significant and overarching themes throughout this research is how teachers make sense of the
reform and how these processes influence how they prioritize reform. This dissertation aims to
understand better the ideas above by responding to the following research questions.
Research Questions and Methods
Research Question #1: How do teachers prioritize reform? To answer this question, a
qualitative case study approach was used. Interviews were conducted in all four elementary
schools within a single district in Michigan during the academic year of 2012 to 2013.
Research Question #2: How do teachers prioritize reform using the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in mathematics? These standards are an example of a current reform and were
used to understand further how teachers in the Midwest prioritize reforms. In order to gather
data, I employed a quantitative approach and surveyed 402 kindergarten through fifth grade

3

teachers in three Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. These surveys were all
administered within the academic year of 2012 to 2013.
Prior to exploring the results of this study, it is important to understand the reform
initiative it involves: the Common Core State Standards.
What Are The Common Core State Standards?
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by
the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards were developed in collaboration with
teachers, school administrators, and educational experts. Their goals were to provide a clear and
consistent framework for the subjects areas of both mathematics and language arts and to prepare
our children to enter college and the workforce.
The NGA Center and CCSSO received initial feedback on the draft standards from
national organizations, including but not limited to the following groups: teachers, postsecondary
educators (including community colleges), education and research specialists, civil rights groups,
English language learners, and students with disabilities. Following the initial round of feedback,
the draft standards were opened for public comment, receiving nearly 10,000 comments, with
some of these suggestions being incorporated into the final standards.
The standards are informed by the highest and most effective models from some of the 45
states across the country and wordwide (as of February 2014). The process of state standards
adoption is dependent on the laws of each state; some states are adopting the standards through
their state boards of education, while others are adopting them through their state legislatures.
Clear and consistent standards provide appropriate benchmarks for all students, regardless of
where they live, and define the knowledge and skills students should learn within their K-12

4

education. The standards are aligned with college and work expectations and are designed to
ensure high school graduates who matriculate from schools using the Common Core will
graduate equipped to succeed in entry-level jobs, credit-bearing academic college courses, and
workforce training programs. The standards include rigorous content and application of
knowledge through high-order skills, and they build upon strengths and lessons of current state
standards, are evidence-based, and are informed by other top-performing countries, with the
intention that all future graduates will be prepared to succeed in our global economy and society.
Effects of the Common Core State Standards
The CCSS will affect virtually every American in some way because they affect nearly
every aspect of public school curriculum, instruction, and assessments. Arguably, these stronger
standards would drive improvement in school educational performance, which will stimulate
future prosperity for both individuals and the nation. Teachers and students make up the two
most affected subgroups, but administrators, parents, specialists, politicians, those in higher
education, and community members will be affected as well. As these groups prepare for
implementation, it is imperative that all parties work together, openly sharing concerns and ideas
so as to benefit the students who are the focus of these endeavors.
Summary
In order to understand how teachers prioritize reform in general and then understand how
they specifically prioritize a new reform, such as the CCSS, we require two separate approaches.
The first approach is fully exhausting the literature and the existing themes within that literature
pertaining to the topic, and the second is conducting a thorough investigation with teachers
whose states are currently involved with the implementation of the CCSS.

5

The literature outlines six significant categories that are pertinent in understanding how
teachers prioritize reform. The following categories are: (a) how a teacher values a reform, (b)
whether it aligns with their beliefs, (c) whether they are able to relate to the reform ideas, (d)
whether they see the reform as achievable, (e) whether the motivating factors outweigh the nonmotivating factors, and (f) whether they receive the support necessary from the various
stakeholders. These categories follow the overarching framework of the sensemaking theory.
This dissertation aims to describe these categories in great detail while relating them to the
research question.
The second part of this study was a two-phase mixed methods analysis. Phase I was the
qualitative portion, which responded to the first research question: How do teachers prioritize
reform? A case study method was used with a series of interviews. These interviews were
conducted in three states: Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. All fourth grade teachers in one district
in Michigan were interviewed, four teachers in Indiana and Illinois was surveyed, and one
instructional coach in the same Michigan district was interviewed. I then conducted a cross-case
analysis comparing similarities and differences among the teachers.
Phase II was the quantitative portion of the study, which responded to the second
research question: How do teachers prioritize reform using the CCSS in mathematics? I surveyed
402 teachers in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan in order to answer this question. These teachers
were asked a series of questions all pertaining to the themes presented in the literature. The
survey questions were separated into three parts. Part I will analyzes how teachers prioritized
reform as a whole without the consideration of one specific reform. Part II will address specific
CCSS questions through three demographic variables—location, level of experience, and grade

6

level of instruction—to determine trends of implementation. Part III will integrate both Part I and
Part II’s data to understand how teachers prioritize reform related to the CCSS.
At the time of authorship of this paper, all 45 states have prepared and continue to
prepare for the full implementation of the CCSS in both English Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics. The main theme for my research is how teachers make sense of policies and how
that sensemaking influences whether or not they implement the reform. These areas of inquiry
will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter II.

7

Chapter II: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Teachers are often seen as the gatekeepers to our children’s minds. They spend
approximately six to seven hours a day, five days a week, thirty-eight weeks per year teaching
children. Teachers’ roles can be endless, but include instructing the mandated curriculum,
disciplining, listening, encouraging, protecting, nurturing, and staying current with professional
development programs. Prior to beginning the school day and after the school day ends, teachers
reflect on whether their lessons and practice accomplish the reform’s goals. With such a heavy
workload already, teachers may wonder whether new reforms are worthy of the preparation they
require to implement in the classroom. Reforms require teachers to prepare new material, and
this preparation may take days, weeks, or months to complete. Without a demonstration of the
reform’s benefit to students and to their instruction, teachers may question the reform, and it may
be difficult for them to determine whether the preparation costs could be linked to more ideal
educational outcomes for their students.
Literature Review
It is nearly impossible to predict exactly how a teacher will respond to a change in their
school environment and teaching practice. Whether they support and implement the change
mandated by the reform depends on several variables that cannot be easily calculated. In my
dissertation, I will discuss the list of six categories that the literature dictates teachers will
employ when determining whether or not to prioritize a reform. Once again, these categories are
(a) how a teacher values a reform, (b) whether the reform aligns with their beliefs, (c) whether
they are able to relate to the reform ideas, (d) whether they see the reform as achievable, (e)
whether the motivating factors outweigh the non-motivating factors, and (f) whether they receive
the support necessary to implement the reform from the various stakeholders.

8

Values
Individual human beings have different personal, cultural, and ethical values that control
their decision-making process. Teachers are no exception. Teachers may value one idea over
another based on their knowledge and previous experiences, and how a teacher values a given
reform is imperative to its success. Burkhardt and his co-authors insisted that the values and
attitudes of all groups concerned with the innovation will affect the likelihood of the innovation’s
success (Burkhardt et al., 1990).
Values, gained by experience or lack of experience, often frame teachers’ practices and
inform their commitment to a reform. A teacher’s personal experience and circumstances may
dictate their commitment and attitude towards a reform, as demonstrated by the following
statement: “Experienced teachers who have been teaching for some years will have developed
ways of doing things which they have found to work for them in their situation” (Sikes, 1992, p.
47). This is further demonstrated in the research. As a result, teachers are often “reluctant to
abandon tried and tested methods for new [methods] which they may be afraid will fail” (Sikes,
1992, p. 47). Therefore, it is difficult for reformers to persuade experienced teachers to adjust
their practice. Researchers have also noted that more experienced teachers are not only more
likely to resist change but that they are also less likely to believe change will be successful.
More experienced teachers also may think the method of instruction they have used thus far has
had beneficial effects on their current practice—they might value their experience more than the
methods the reform is recommending.
Alternatively, inexperienced teachers also tend to value new reform ideas poorly. Some
of these teachers often already feel overwhelmed by their daily tasks and their students. Roehrig
and his co-authors stated that “[r]esearch has shown that few beginning teachers implement

9

inquiry-based instruction, and that beginning teachers tend to revert to traditional practices when
they face the reality of the classroom” (Roehrig et al., 2007, p. 886). In this case, new teachers
fail to adopt the reform because they value their own classroom experiences as students over the
claims of the reform.
Another group of teachers that often rejects various reforms are teachers who are no
longer satisfied with their jobs, and so are not trustworthy stakeholders. This group of teachers
may include those who have already received tenure or who no longer want to be teachers. These
teachers reduce the importance they attach to work, and they put more time, effort, and energy
into their families, a particular interest, or an alternative, supplementary career (Sikes, 1992).
These individuals treat value reforms as their last priority, focusing on other tasks and
responsibilities instead.
Teachers who do not value their jobs and therefore minimize reform ideals have a lot in
common with the individuals who participate in short-term education programs such as Teach
for America (TFA). TFA is a two-year program that encourages recent university graduates to
teach in struggling urban districts. They are provided pre-service training. However, after the
two-year commitment has been met, there are many teachers who leave the program and
education in general, often feeling exhausted, and instead pursue other careers. As a result, there
is plenty of opportunity for teachers in these situations to prematurely disconnect themselves
from the school environment.
Teachers may also value how the reform fits with their current practices. In conversations
with their colleagues, teachers often reject messages from all levels—state, district, school, and
individual—because they do not “fit” their individual and shared approaches to education
(Coburn, 2001). Researchers Savasci and Berline (2012) conducted a study of science teachers

10

and found that all teachers indicated that student behavior and student ability were factors that
influenced their classroom practice. The process of making an adjustment to their current
practice caused a great deal of confusion and frustration for many students. This difficulty with
accommodating change especially affected students from diverse backgrounds and students with
disabilities. As a result, teachers who value these students and their experiences are less likely to
implement a new reform, knowing that their students may be unable to cope with the change.
As indicated by the previous examples, teachers’ values are crucial in determining
whether or not a teacher will adopt the new reform change. If a teacher is experienced, their
willingness to alter current practice may be rather limited because they may value their personal
experiences over the claims of the reform. On the other hand, if a teacher is inexperienced, they
may value simplifying their responsibilities over the promises of the reform, and the prospect of
adding another regulation to their already overwhelming agenda may be discouraging. Those
who prefer to teach the bare minimum are also less likely to adjust their plans as they may value
their out-of-school experiences more than reform implementation, as well as teachers who are
unable to fit the new approach into their current practice or classroom environment. However,
this is not an end result for all teachers. Each individual is able to change, but some teachers may
value their own methods over new methods for a variety of reasons, including those posited here.
Beliefs
Similar to values, a teacher’s beliefs are also significant in determining whether the
teacher prioritizes the implementation of a new reform. Values stem from the beliefs and the
assumptions one makes about the environment around them. According to Thompson (1984),
teachers’ beliefs “seemed to be manifestations of unconsciously held views of expressions of
verbal commitments to abstract ideas that may be thought of as part of a general ideology of

11

teaching” (p.112). Teachers’ beliefs dictate who they are and how they teach. Teachers develop
their beliefs through personal and professional experiences and oftentimes hold beliefs that
contradict those of the reformers, causing roadblocks in the implementation process.
Due to the variation of beliefs, teachers often find themselves either reevaluating their
views to meet the reform intentions or opposing the reforms. In either case, the future of a
reform’s success is greatly dependent on the “teachers’ ability or inability to modify their
fundamental or central beliefs about what it means to teach and to learn” (Smith & Southerland,
2007, p. 398). Teachers are known as the “root of the problem” in failed reforms due to their
history of “variously welcome[ing], improve[ing], deflect[ing] coop[ing], modify[ing], and
sabotage[ing]” reforms (Smith & Southerland, 2007, p. 399). Whether these actions are done
intentionally or unintentionally, a teacher’s beliefs in the classroom help ensure or prevent the
reform’s success.
Teachers often do not realize that their beliefs alter their practice. Even if they understand
the given reform and are willing to implement it, they may still subconsciously struggle with
their traditional beliefs. Battista (1994) stated that even if teachers understand and are willing to
implement the reform, the knowledge and competency of their traditional beliefs may have
prevented them from acquiring the new reform.
Novice teachers may desire to implement the reform, but frequently have barriers due to
their beliefs. The beliefs of novice teachers echo their values because, as first-year educators,
they may experience a confusing and overwhelming start. Simmons and his co-authors note that
the beliefs of novice teachers, which were initially aligned toward the student-centered
philosophies, move toward more teacher-centered philosophies during the course of their first
two years in the classroom (Simmons et al., 1999). Student-centered philosophies are focused

12

more towards a student’s individual needs, social reconstructionism, student preparation, etc.
Teacher-centered philosophies are essentialist and perennialist. They embrace the idea of
transferring information and knowledge to youth. This philosophical adjustment was attributed to
the various pressures placed on teachers; because their aim is to be as efficient in their teaching
as possible, this shift made that objective seem reachable. When first entering the classroom,
novice teachers’ beliefs are often centered on the idea of equal opportunity, and they desire to
place attention on each individual student. However, as things become challenging and demands
on novice teachers continue to rise, teachers’ beliefs may shift to become more aligned with the
traditional educational system. Whether the adjustment is beneficial is determined by the success
of each individual student. When new policies are leveraged upon these novice teachers, many
revert to their teacher-centered philosophies and use their beliefs to assess whether the reform
meets their intended instructional goals.
Oftentimes, teachers believe in the reform or parts of it but know their students will not
be capable of applying elements of the reform to their daily routine. With good intentions, they
adjust their beliefs and the reform material without realizing they are altering the reform’s
intentions. Kennedy (2006) stated that “teachers frequently mentioned institutional guidelines
when they accounted for their practice, [and] they often reinterpreted those guidelines to fit
better into the landscape of their own beliefs and values” (p. 230). Adjusting or only applying
some of the reform ideals to their instructional practice is not what the reformers intended.
Therefore, it is detrimental to the progress of the reform if such actions are taken.
Those opposed to the new reform often hold various beliefs that are converse to those
who want to implement the reform, and these beliefs provide support for the teacher’s decision to
negate the change. In order to justify their current practice, teachers may revert back to

13

traditional practices of lecturing on the subject matter instead of focusing on how students learn
and what motivates them (Kennedy, 2006). Unfortunately, when this shift occurs, teachers’
beliefs result in inappropriate curricula and block understanding and acceptance of the reform
movement, therefore “precluding the possibility of substantive curriculum change” (Battista,
1994, p. 467). These teachers often do not feel that altering their practice is necessary because
they believe they already greatly aid their students and should have the autonomy to control their
classroom practice.
Kennedy (2006) affirmed the idea that some teachers hold unproductive and
dysfunctional beliefs about how students learn. And although teachers may have good intentions
when it comes to altering their beliefs, some are unsuccessful even when they are open to
change. Although not ill-intended, many teachers attempt to alter their beliefs to abide by the
reform, but unintentionally are unable to comprehend the adjustments necessary to their beliefs.
The individuals who elect to reject the reforms due to their personal beliefs and their
experiences—or those who desire to change and are unable to—drastically harm the reform
efforts.
In order to gain the buy-in of teachers and accommodate their values and beliefs,
stakeholders must consider the perspectives and concerns of teachers of all levels and attitudes.
Stakeholders must understand the teachers’ subject matter before creating a uniform policy.
When teachers feel that their values and beliefs are respected and understood, they are more
likely to consider adjusting their current practice to meet the reform criteria. One of the greatest
problems within reform implementation is the lack of teacher voice. Reformers and other
stakeholders often fail to include the implementer in the discussion and fail to consider their

14

thoughts of what changes are needed in the classroom and what should be altered about their
daily practice.
Ability to relate to reform ideas
When implementers are able to relate to the various reform ideas, a sense of belonging
and comfort occurs. When this sentiment occurs, teachers often feel they have control over the
situation due to their familiarity with the idea. This encourages them to implement the reform
idea, and it encourages them to support their colleagues in doing the same. Although it is fair to
assume that when a teacher best relates to the reform idea they are more likely to implement it,
this does not guarantee they will do so correctly.
There are three categories of teacher when it comes to how they relate to reform. The first
group of teachers are those who are able to relate to the reform materials and who encourage
their colleagues to implement them correctly. The second group are those who believe they can
relate to the material but incorrectly interpret the reform or the reformers’ intentions. The final
group is composed of teachers who are unable to relate to the reform material and who become
disinterested and removed from the reformer’s goals and intentions. Each school is typically a
blend of all three types of teachers, which causes a great deal of concern for a reform’s success.
Within the first group, there are a number of teachers who are able to relate to the reform
ideas and feel confident and comfortable implementing them, and these teachers are generally
positively contributing to the successful adoption of the reform. They not only believe in the
ideas but also encourage their colleagues to do so as well. In an informal setting, they often
explain the reform intentions and interpret the material in a simpler form for their colleagues.
Teachers have been known to spend their lunch, their time after school, and their break periods
mentoring one another to gain a better understanding of the reform expectation. They sometimes

15

use everyday examples to aid their colleagues in relating to the material. In a more formal
setting, these teachers often participate in school-wide professional development events or invite
their colleagues to observe their class for constructive feedback.
In 2012, I conducted an observation in a classroom in mid-Michigan for the CCSS. I
observed as one teacher watched another teacher teach seventh grade mathematics. The teacher
observer diligently took notes and watched how the teacher presented the information and how
students related and responded to the information. At the end of the class, the teacher observer
asked a series of questions for clarity and was confident in her ability to implement a similar
lesson plan. This process was helpful and provided clarity for the struggling teacher observer.
While speaking with the teacher observer, she mentioned she’d had a difficult time visualizing
how to place the idea into practice but now grasped its intentions. She had seen how her
colleague executed the plan and was now able to do so herself.
The second group of teachers is more problematic when it comes to successful
implementation of reform ideals and practices. This group is composed of teachers who have
good intentions but misinterpret the reform, causing themselves and the colleagues they aid to
misrepresent the intended goals. It is far more common for this to occur than one might predict.
The reason for this misunderstanding is often that teachers do not fully comprehend what the
reform is asking of them and use similarities between what they know of the reforms and their
previous knowledge of education to connect the dots. This can be detrimental to the successful
implementation of a reform as it can cause great confusion and misinformation for all parties
involved.
A personal example of this situation was witnessed in 2011 when I volunteered at an
Afrocentric charter school. I observed teachers discussing the Michigan Educational Assessment

16

Program (MEAP) during their planning period. One teacher stated that the test allowed teachers
to pronounce and clarify words the students did not understand because that would better aid
their students in answering the question correctly. However, after careful review of the
administrators’ summary, the direct opposite was true. The directions specifically state that test
administers and proctors may NEVER pronounce words in test questions. As I assisted with
proctoring the exam, I observed many teachers aiding their students in pronouncing and
understanding certain terms. This is a direct result of misinterpretation and false information
unintentionally making its way into the school.
Lastly, there are often some teachers who clearly reject the reforms due to their inability
to relate to the reform materials, and they are the final group. This rejection may occur due to
their lack of understanding or lack of experience. Coburn (2001) stated, “In conversations with
their colleagues, teachers rejected messages from the [policy] environment because they believed
it doesn’t ‘fit’ [within their lesson plans]” (Coburn, 2001, p. 155). Once a teacher determines that
a particular reform does not fit within their daily routine, they are less likely to implement it or
discuss it with their peers.
The difficulties in relating to the classroom environment and its demands of the reform
are discussed in author Priscilla Eide’s text, Coping With Change: Educational Reform in
Literacy Practice (2001). Eide described her struggle with reform change and relates that she
questioned her sense of belonging in the classroom and among her colleagues. Eide described
her relationship with a fellow teacher Judy Merchant because they often engaged in dialogue
pertaining to lesson planning and teacher practice. Unfortunately, due to a new literacy reform
implementation, their relationship began to change: “Since the implementation of SFA, I realize
that although this dialogue is still a powerful professional resource, the parameters within which

17

these conversations take place are more restrictive now; there are limitations on where our
limitations and speculations can take us” (Eide, 2001, p. 19). Both teachers had an inability to
relate to the topic, and as a result, they had a difficult time aiding each other through the process.
This failure to relate discouraged both parties in implementing the reform.
The “one size fits all” approach does not work in the field of education. Each individual
teacher has a unique personality with different experiences and thoughts; the same is true for
each individual student. Asking all teachers to relate to one reform in the same manner is not
reasonable. Therefore, as researchers and policymakers, we must take into consideration our
audience and our approach. Yes, the ability to relate to a given reform creates a calmer, more
organized environment for teachers, which will lead to a positive environment that facilitates the
success of others in the greater teaching community through the transitional period. However,
stakeholders must be cognizant of the various adaptations and differences in understanding that
will take place. Reformers also must be cognizant of the fact that teachers’ objective ability to
relate to a reform is distinct from teachers’ belief that they have related to the reform material,
often this kind of confusion about reform ideals and implementation leads to an endangerment of
reform efforts. When an individual is unable to relate to the material, the reform is rarely
accepted. Therefore, it is the duty of the reformers and administrators to create a method to
implement the reform that teachers find relatable and that they can easily understand.
Achievable versus unachievable
When teachers are deciding to implement a reform, one question they ask themselves is
this: Is this idea is within reach for both my practice and my students? What defines an
achievable and unachievable task varies by each teacher’s ability and the abilities of the students
they instruct.

18

As previously mentioned, there is no “one size fits all” approach to teaching students.
Students come from all over the world with different learning abilities. These abilities differ
throughout the classroom, with not one student learning the same as the others. Due to such vast
learning styles, teachers may fear the reform will not meet their students’ academic abilities.
Alternatively, they may fear that the reform is not challenging enough. Furthermore, teachers
may reject new ideas out of fear of taking on a task they are unable to manage—if they do not
know that their students will be successful, they may not try to implement the reform at all.
There are many elements that may cause a reform to appear unachievable: overlook by
policymakers, different sets of priorities by teachers, and unattainable expectations. In addition,
presentation and content are two significant factors that are taken into consideration when
assessing whether a reform is achievable for teachers.
Nature of policymakers and the impact on teachers
Policymakers believe that their reform policies are both significant and effective and
should take priority over previous policies. Oftentimes, policymakers place unrealistic goals and
expectations upon teachers because they don’t understand their other tasks and responsibilities.
Additionally, policymakers often overlook the overarching problems that schools and teachers
face that need immediate attention. Kennedy described this idea by stating that reforms are
unrealistic because they impede practice in a way that suggests they do not address many of the
problems facing teachers and students in implementing reform, which in turn prevents teachers
and students from finding a way to resolve them (Kennedy, 2006). Policymakers are not always
keen on understanding how to resolve the challenges teachers face because they tend to focus
solely on what would satisfy their own agenda. For example, Kennedy described the possibility
of teaching rigorous and demanding content to all students with the possibility that all students

19

will become intellectually engaged with this content (Kennedy, 2006). However, she did not
think these assumptions can apply to all students, for example, “students whose parents have
instilled anti-intellectual attitudes in them, or they may not apply when classrooms contain an
exceptional array of students, or they may not apply when there are gang rivalries among
students that dominate all interactions and render serious intellectual discourse impossible”
(Kennedy, 2006, p. 18). The teachers who instruct these types of students are therefore less
inclined to participate in the change, and they do not feel it is necessary to alter their practice to
meet reformers’ needs due to the unrealistic expectations of the reform and obvious future failure
of their students were the reform to be implemented.
Unfortunately, policymakers and teachers differ in their views about which reforms are
achievable. This creates a large disconnect in policymakers’ expectations. Policymakers do not
understand “the nitty-gritty problem of how to organize and manage learning in large
groups…reformers tend not to think about the ways in which, in real schools, their ideals may
conflict one another” (Kennedy, 2006, p. 18). For example, the idea of universal rigor and
knowledge presented by the CCSS often varies by the school’s geographical location and
socioeconomic status. While observing classrooms in mid-Michigan, the definition of rigor
largely varied by district, school, classroom, and student. Rigor was adjusted by a student’s
capabilities and prior knowledge. As I observed the teacher instructing his students, it was clear
that rigor varied per student. The teacher would often ask one student a more difficult question,
knowing her capabilities, while simplifying the question for another student.
When teachers think a reform is completely inconceivable, they immediately reject it.
What teachers felt that what they perceived as unachievable were goals “so far out of the bounds
of what they saw as appropriate that they were not even worth considering” (Coburn, 2001, p.

20

154). There is no doubt that the last major education reform, No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
lacked potential to survive through the implementation process due to its rather complex
message and unattainable goals. NCLB presented an extremely overwhelming message for
teachers. Due to the length, expectations, and timeframe, educators, and even some policymakers
questioned the feasibility and fairness of the goals (Hess & Finn, 2004). Not only was the
message difficult to understand for teachers, but six years later, during the summer of 2013,
politicians sat down to deconstruct the policy and make changes at the NCLB markup. There an
attempt was made to simplify certain demands and remove unnecessary content.
If teachers are being demanded to implement a reform, it is imperative that those who are
issuing the demands comprehend the expectations and ensure that the reform is presented in a
simplified, achievable manner. If material is unachievable, or if expectations are too high,
teachers immediately resist the change. Additionally, content and presentation must be altered to
cater to a teacher’s instructional needs, and they must understand what their students can
achieve.
Motivation
Motivation is a psychological action that occurs when an individual is driven to reach a
goal. Based on one’s goal, motivation can occur through various methods. In the realm of
education, teachers are in dire need of motivation to implement a given reform because nonmotivating factors play a more attractive and convincing role (Burkhardt et al, 1990). Teachers’
personal levels of motivation and their personal reaction to motivation is a factor that impact the
successful implementation of the reform.
There are several motivating and non-motivating factors for teachers. For example, a
motivating factor of reform is positive reinforcement. Non-motivating factors are usually

21

perceived ideas, reforms, or goals that are difficult to attain and that receive very little incentive.
Burkhardt and his co-authors stated that “people need some motivation for embarking on
innovative activities; this is well worth spelling out to all participants in advance of the
introduction of innovation” (Burkhardt et al., 1990, p. 10).
There are several factors that have the potential to motivate teachers. Although the list of
motivating factors can be rather exhaustive, for this discussion I have selected the two factors
that I find to be the most significant and which are often discussed. The first motivating factor is
reforms that permit teacher to have the flexibility to implement the reform correctly but also do
not jeopardize the teacher’s own creativity in the classroom. The second factor: reforms that
create innovative and exciting ideas that attract a teacher’s interest. The first method for
motivating teachers is by providing room for flexibility in their practices. For instance, many
new reforms have limited teachers to a scripted curriculum. A scripted curriculum is used to
guide and encourage teachers to stay on task in primary and secondary classrooms. For example,
“teachers are often provided workbooks that contain daily objectives, lessons, and scripts by
which they are expected to abide” (Eisenbach, 2012, p. 154). Due to the robotic fashion of the
instruction, teachers become discouraged and unmotivated to teach. The lack of flexibility within
such a reform presents a negative message to teachers and implies that their method of
instruction is flawed. Further, “[i]t suggests that today’s teachers are not intelligent enough to
generate lessons and activities that promote student engagement or stimulate intellectual growth
and maturation” (Eisenbach, 2012, p. 154). Policymakers justify this type of curriculum by
stating that it improves standardized test scores while encouraging common classroom
objectives. However, “many teachers perceive such mandates as a slap in their face” (Eisenbach,
2012, p. 154). Affording teachers the flexibility of creating their own lesson plans and resources

22

motivates them to participate in their practice and implement the reform for their students in their
own personal ways. The second method of motivation is to encourage innovative and exciting
activities and ideas. When a teacher is approached with a new, innovative, and exciting idea,
they are more likely to feel like they are a part of the overall environment of change.
Unfortunately, non-motivating factors are more likely to sway teachers to ignore a
reform. Again, the list of non-motivating factors is rather lengthy, and I have therefore only
included the two more significant and relevant. The first non-motivating factor is a teacher’s loss
of positive self-image, and the second is a teacher’s feelings of failure and anxiety.
One of the strongest non-motivators for teachers is the idea of losing their positive selfimage. Most teachers take their time in the classroom very seriously and derive a lot of meaning
from their work in the classroom, and reforms can influence this image as demonstrated by the
following: “Typically, people want to believe that they have performed well in the past and are
hesitant to believe that their efforts have failed particularly regarding practices central to their
self-concept or self-schema” (Spillane, et al., 2002, p. 402). Teachers spend a great deal of time
focused on the best method to instruct their students. Lambdin and Preston (1995) stated that “a
teacher’s self-perception may come from his or her professional activity, [and] changing
teaching practice is a highly personal process. Teacher change often involves admitting that their
prior practice was problematic” (p. 131). Teachers may then react in a rather defensive manner,
which negatively impacts their ability to implement the reform.
The second non-motivator for teachers is the anxiety of failure. Teachers who care
greatly about their students’ overall understanding and achievement may become anxious and
panicked over the change. They feel that too much is at stake if they fail, as demonstrated here:
“Most of these emotions came up when teachers feared that they might lose students’ full

23

attention or lose control of the classroom, and when they articulated their strong need to avoid
these outcomes” (Kennedy, 2006, p. 42). Because of this fear of failure, many teachers would
prefer not to implement the reform and continue with the curriculum they have used in the past.
Especially in the current educational climate, where teacher evaluation is based on test results,
risk-taking in order to implement a new reform may be especially problematic as students’
success or failure may hinge on the teacher’s ability to implement a new reform with little
support in a short amount of time.
To best aid the implementation of a reform, reformers must focus on encouraging what
motivates teachers and eliminating non-motivational factors. More often than not, reformers
present ideas that work as non-motivators, and therefore they are less likely to receive support
from implementers. Additionally, reformers must work with teachers to support them through
this process, as it may increase their likelihood of following through with the idea—encouraging
them and pushing them forward through the process. It is imperative that reformers work hard to
motivate teachers by giving them the freedom to be flexible, to be creative, and to take risks.
Support and Resources
Throughout the last three sections, I have discussed the roles of stakeholders in reform
change and illuminated how teachers understand and respond to this change. This next section
will explore how best to support teachers, because support is not only critical in aiding teachers
to have a better understanding of reform but because the information provided also alters how
they respond to a new reform. The support of teachers can be accomplished through various
methods. Here I have included a small selection of three types of supporting mechanisms: (a)
providing teachers with the knowledge necessary to carry out the reform, (b) providing the tools
necessary through professional development, and (c) encouraging teachers to participate in

24

curriculum development. I have selected these three categories, as opposed to others, due to the
frequency that other researchers have discussed them and their significance.
Knowledge
Knowledge is a key ingredient in any successful reform. Knowledge dictates how a
teacher understands the material, and in turn how they implement the reform. Kennedy posits
that “[t]eachers need more knowledge and guidance in order to alter their practices: missing
knowledge having to do with content, student learning, pedagogy, or most common, the lack of
subject matter knowledge” may negatively impact a teacher’s practice. Whether a teacher is able
to teach consistently with the reform’s ideals in place is based on their knowledge of the subject
matter and reform material. Battista (1994) used mathematics as an example to explain this
concept when he stated, “Because its instructional goals are cognitive rather than behavioral and
because it seeks to mold students’ own personal mathematical ideas, teaching that is consistent
with the reform movement requires an extensive knowledge of how students learn mathematics”
(Battista, 1994, p. 467). Further, increased content knowledge also aides in increasing a teacher’s
comfort level in implementing the lesson and reform ideas (Stickles, 2011).
Reformers can best aid teachers with gaining knowledge through proper preparation of
reform material. Kennedy (2006) believes that “policymakers could enhance teaching a great
deal by seeking more supporting evidence about the value of knowledge vendors’ programs
before adopting them” (Kennedy, 2006, p. 228). This creation of knowledge can be achieved
through pre-service instruction or in-service instruction. Stickles (2011) used an in-service
example by citing specific workshops that “include activities designed to increase content
knowledge in addition to making connections to the Standards and the reform vision of
mathematics education” (Stickles, 2011, p. 45). In these workshops, teachers were provided step-

25

by-step reform instructions and were asked to create learning logs. Learning logs are journals
that teachers use to record what they will be teaching and how the students react to the material.
After logging what they taught and students learned, teachers stated, “I found out at the IMI
workshop I had been teaching the lesson wrong” (Stickles, 2011, p. 45). Stickles concluded,
“[A]s with content knowledge, increased pedagogical content knowledge may increase the
teachers’ comfort level in implementing the lessons and teaching their students” (Stickles, 2011,
p. 45). The purpose of these workshops is to provide teachers with a supporting resource that
better instructs their practice. This can aid in avoiding content knowledge confusion and
misinterpretation of reform ideals.
A teacher’s comprehension of the reform and ability to implement correctly a given
reform is a result of the teacher having proper knowledge. It is the responsibility of reformers
and administrators to provide teachers with pre-service and in-service reform training. Without
such support, teachers are less likely to aid and implement reform efforts.
Professional development
An additional resource for teachers to gain knowledge is through professional
development training. Professional development (PD) is one of the key resources for a teacher’s
success. Professional Development provides an opportunity to present teachers with additional
skills usually attained during one’s employment to strengthen one’s knowledge, as demonstrated
by the following: “High quality professional development is essential to increase educators’
knowledge, skills, attitude[,] and belief so that they may enable all students to learn at high
levels” (State of Vermont Department of Education). Although PD can be focused on a variety of
skills and educational topics, it is a resource that many states, districts, and schools use to better

26

aid their teachers through the reform implementation process. PD resources can be presented
through such methods as instructional webinars, websites, workshops, and mentorships.
Although there are various approaches to PD, one such strategy is demonstrated through
the Japanese practice of lesson study (Viadero, 2004). In this practice, teachers create a model
lesson and teach it while videotaping the lesson. The lesson is then observed by other teachers,
who analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the taped instruction (Viadero, 2004). This allows
teachers to see how a model lesson should look and gives them the opportunity to provide
positive feedback and constructive criticism.
Education Week discussed a three-part study of professional development by the Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education in partnership with the National Staff Development
Council. The three-part study in 2009 and 2010 utilized a mixed methods approach of using both
teacher surveys and data from three administrators of federal schools and staffing. The study
found that “United States teachers generally spent more time instructing students and less time in
professional learning opportunities with their peers than those in top-performing countries”
(Professional Development, Education Week, August 4th, 2004). Another opportunity for
professional development is through the mentor/mentee relationship. In 2008, the study indicates
that 78% “of beginning teachers reported having had a mentor, though not always in the
teacher’s content area” (Professional Development, Education Week, August 4th, 2004). This
finding indicates that there are many teachers who do not have mentors at all, and many teachers
who do have a mentor may not have one in their same subject area. Not having a mentor in the
same subject area is a great concern because the same subject mentors would be more beneficial
to beginning teachers due to their commonality in content and instruction. The study also found
that “[t]he intensity of other types of professional development decreased between 2004 and

27

2008. Training of at least nine to 16 hours on the use of computers for instruction, reading
instruction, and student discipline all declined notably” (Professional Development, Education
Week, June 29, 2011). This is problematic because without PD, the opportunities to support a
teacher in the implementation of reforms is limited, and this study indicates that there are less
opportunities now than ever to integrate PD into the working schedule of teachers in the US. In
order to aid in the PD of teachers, schools found they needed to change their traditional routines.
For instance, “In order to provide enough time for teachers to work together effectively, such
models frequently require schools to overhaul their schedules or arrange for a delayed-start time”
(Sawchuck, Nov. 2010b; Sawchuck, 2010). Unfortunately, because of the logistics, many
districts or schools do not encourage their teachers to participate in PD programs or they lack the
resources to provide their teachers with PD tools. However, some states are getting creative in
order to address the problem. During an interview with a director of instruction in a southern
state, information was revealed that the southern state did not have the financial means to support
professional development tools for their teachers. As a result, the state paired up with a
neighboring state in order to utilize the neighboring state’s resources in order to provide teachers
with PD opportunities.
Teachers’ participation in curriculum development
The beginning stages of a reform are crucial to the success of the reform. Encouraging all
stakeholders to participate and believe in the reform is often one of the most difficult tasks for
reformers. Teachers are the key implementers in reform movements’ and therefore their buy-in is
the most important. Research has found that teachers who participate in constructing the reform
are most inclined to implement the reform ideals correctly and readily.

28

Saban (1995) believes that teachers who participate in curriculum development recognize
the connection between the two important systems in educational structure, curriculum, and
teaching. One method by which this can be obtained is through feedback mechanisms provided
by teachers. Teachers are the implementers of reform and therefore better understand what role
the curriculum plays within their classroom. Teachers are better suited to construct a reform in a
manner that encourages other teachers to implement the reform. Additionally, most educators
agree that including teachers in the curriculum development process leads to at least four positive
outcomes: (a) curriculum excellence, (b) staff development, (c) professional growth of teachers,
and (d) school improvement (Saban, 1995).
First, teacher inclusion in curriculum development may lead to curriculum excellence,
which allows teachers to understand what works and what does not work in a real classroom.
They are able critically to analyze their students’ demographics and their past experiences to
determine what may aid their students. Young (1985) believes that a teacher’s practical
knowledge allows them to assess both the workability of curriculum materials developed
previously and whether the ideas being asserted will work in a classroom teacher situation
(Killion, 1993).
Second, staff development is beneficial to both teachers and the overall success of the
reform. Staff development is different from professional development in that teachers are aiding
in the reform development rather than being trained to implement the reform. Killion (1993)
believes that when teachers are involved in the reform development, they also engage in an
important form of staff development. The author cited the example of the Virginian Plan, which
was a statewide curriculum revision program involving teachers, students, and administrators to
aid students in public schools. According to Burlbaw (1991), this curriculum revision process

29

helped teachers to understand how to provide better learning experiences for their students, and
as a result, it aided teachers in their practice. Although its initial goal was to improve the
curriculum, it was also equally effective in developing teachers.
Third, teachers who participate in curriculum development programs also tend to have
professional growth as a result of their experiences. According to Young (1988), the opportunity
to participate in these types of programs aids teachers to meet their ever-changing demands of
teaching by being introduced to new instructional ideas, materials, and strategies (Killion, 1993).
Participating in curriculum development allows them to increase their self-understanding, and
content knowledge and encourages them to think and act beyond the classroom context (Killion,
1993). In addition, teachers are better able to develop a critical understanding of the mission and
educational goals of the school and to broaden their knowledge of the subject area as well as
assessment procedures of student progress (Saban, 1995).
Lastly, school improvement is often seen as a result of teachers’ participation in the
development of curriculum. Saban (1995) believes that the opportunity for teachers to participate
in curriculum committees helps them develop collaborative working relations with other
instructional professionals in the school. Community building should be the cornerstone of any
school improvement effort because it binds school members to shared ideas about school,
teaching, and student learning and provides a sense of identity and belonging (Sergiovanni,
1994). In order to redesign the school movement, a cooperative effort is necessary by all
stakeholders.
Theoretical Framework
To make sense of the issues surrounding this research, I draw on Coburn’s sensemaking
theory (2001) as my theoretical framework. Coburn stated that “some researchers have

30

suggested that rather than policy influencing teachers’ practice, it is more likely that teachers
shape policy” (p. 145). This viewpoint further substantiates the idea that teachers interpret, adapt,
and even transform policies as they are put into place (2001). Teachers, like people in general,
construct and reconstruct multiple policy messages through collective sensemaking, which
means that understanding is co-constructed through the teacher’s choice of which messages to
pursue and by negotiating the technical and practical details of implementation. It is the nature
and structure of formal networks and informal alliances among teachers that shape the process of
implementing the reform, and this personal interaction has implications for the ways that
messages from the policy environment influence classroom practice. Coburn also highlighted the
concept of cognitive dissonance that occurs in the sensemaking process, which occurs
specifically when expectations do not meet reality and cause discomfort among the actors. This
cognitive dissonance occurs because information is placed into preexisting cognitive frameworks
that are not the same frameworks as those employed by the policy creators, especially because
many policymakers are arguing from contradictory perspectives. As a result, this structure fails
to provide teachers with a sound understanding of the expectations placed upon them.
However, even a failed structure contributes to what Ingersoll (2003) referred to as
empowerment, which is a method to assess empowerment and perceptions of control among
teachers. If sensemaking produces a negative understanding among teachers, for example, then it
is possible that the administration has not managed to gain teacher commitment on a particular
policy. This could be gravely dangerous for the success of a reform.
The literature on the topic of how teachers prioritize reform stems first from
understanding and obtaining knowledge about the new policies and mandates placed upon them.

31

It is then followed by the six categories that aid teachers in processing the information, which is
discussed in the literature review section of this study.
Final Remarks
In order to support teachers in implementing a new reform, three mechanisms are
necessary: (a) providing teachers with the knowledge necessary to understand the reform, (b)
providing the tools necessary to implement the reform in the classroom through professional
development, and (c) encouraging teachers to participate in curriculum development to create
ownership of the resultant reforms. Although not an exhaustive list, these tools will greatly aid in
encouraging teachers to effectively implement a reform. When a teacher does not have the
knowledge necessary to implement a reform, he or she may do so incorrectly or may ignore the
reform ideals altogether. Professional development tools will aid teachers in receiving the
necessary information and mentorship they desperately need. If a teacher is involved in the
curriculum development processes, his or her engagement in the effort may drastically increase,
resulting in positive outcomes for students, teachers, and schools.

32

Chapter III: Research Methodology
This study applied a mixed methods approach, consisting of both qualitative and
quantitative methods, to its investigation. There are many advantages to using both a qualitative
and quantitative approach to research. Onwuegbuzie and Johnson argued that, “[o]ne of the
exciting results of [mixed methods] research is that in a single study practical questions can be
addressed, [from] different perspectives” (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006, p. 46). A mixed
methods approach allows for greater variety in securing one’s results. This is because the study is
not only seen through one research method, but also is further secured through another approach.
Phase I responded to the first research question: How do teachers prioritize education
reform? The first phase used a descriptive, qualitative case study approach. The research
includes a series of teacher interviews (see interview questions in Appendix A). I used openended questions that allowed for free-flowing conversations. This allowed the respondents to
express themselves without being limited to one or two words. This type of conversation allowed
for the development of trust, and in essence garnered a more thoughtful and detailed response.
Phase II responds to the second research question: How do teachers prioritize reform
related to the CCSS in mathematics? This phase used a quantitative survey study (see survey
questions in Appendix B). In addition, the teachers interviewed in Phase I were also included in
the survey. I used both open- and close-ended questions in the survey. I predominantly used a
close-ended questioning approach, as it proved beneficial to both my respondents and the nature
of the study. The respondents were less likely to participate if all questions were open-ended.
The limitations to what types (open-ended/close-ended) questions I could pose was given by a
small sample of teachers whom I had previously spoken with. However, at times, when
necessary, open-ended questions were posed to further elicit the respondents’ thoughts.

33

The diagram below depict both phases:

Figure 1: Phase I and Phase II Descriptions
Phase I
According to Hesse-Biber, “A qualitative approach to research aims to understand how
individuals make meaning of their social world” (2010, p. 455). This phase of my research
consisted of a series of teacher interviews. This study used purposeful selection sampling, which
is also often referred to as purpose sampling (Maxwell, 2012, p. 97), explained as, “Individuals
were selected deliberately to provide information that is particularly relevant to [the] questions
and goals” (2012, p. 97).
In order best to understand how teachers prioritize reform, a case study approach was
used. I considered the perspectives of the teachers, and then I conducted a cross-case analysis,
comparing similarities and differences among the teachers. I used a descriptive research design

34

that involved a one-time interaction with my subjects. This involved gathering data that
described events, and then having the data organized, tabulated, depicted, and described in the
data analysis (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).
The descriptive case study approach requires a theory to guide the collection of data (Yin,
2003); the theory is adopted from the literature pertaining to the topic. This literature played a
significant role in identifying six categories that guided my analysis of the data on how teachers
determined whether or not to prioritize a reform. These categories were: (a) how a teacher values
a reform, (b) whether the reform aligns with their beliefs, (c) whether they are able to relate to
the reform ideas, (d) whether they see the reform as an achievable goal, (e) whether the
motivating factors outweigh the non-motivating factors, and (f) whether they receive the support
necessary from the various stakeholders. Dr. Hugh Burkhardt et al. (1990) insisted that the
values and attitudes of all groups concerned with the innovation will affect the likelihood of the
innovation’s success. Therefore, I compared and contrast my results with the existing results of
the literature.
Interviews
Prior to conducting the main study, I conducted a pilot study with ten fourth grade
teachers from outside the Midwest who volunteered to participate in an interview about how they
prioritize reform. The participants were from North Carolina. A state that is comparable to that
of my original study. The districts selected provided equal implementation of the CCSS and
other mathematics policies in comparison to that of the primary participant group. The reactions
and responses I received from the pilot group allowed me to determine whether or not the
questions were clear, concise, and met the overall needs of my research. Fortunately, no major
adjustments were necessary.

35

My original proposal aimed to interview fourth grade teachers in three out of four public
elementary schools in one district in Michigan. The reason I originally targeted this group was
that I did not think I could obtain participation from all fourth grade teachers in this district.
However, I successfully interviewed all fourth grade teachers in all four public elementary
schools in that district. Increasing the number of participants and targeting the entire group of
fourth grade teachers in that district promoted a more complete vision of the participants’
activities and opinions. Further, it increased the accuracy of my findings. Additional interviews
were conducted with same grade level teachers in Illinois and Indiana. The reason for this
addition was once again to include a wider range of participants and increase the fidelity of the
data. A final interview was conducted during the coding portion of my research. During this
time, I perceived it to be necessary to interview an individual who not only had teaching
experience, but was also able to provide a summative stance on the issues developed through the
interviews, which will be discussed in Chapter Four. This individual held the position of the only
Instructional Coach in the district, whose task was to work to strengthen teachers’ instructional
practices whether that be through professional development, material resources, or additional
instructional support as needed. The Instructional Coach in this district served as a liaison
between the administrative staff and the teachers. They did not hold the burden of evaluating
teachers, and therefore garnered great trust among the various stakeholders. I selected this
individual due to the lens through which they viewed the classroom, school, district, and state
demands. With their less-biased stance, they were able to speak candidly about what really
occurred behind closed doors.
Teacher interviews were conducted in April and May of 2013. The Instructional Coach
interview was conducted in November of 2013. Prior to the teacher interviews, I emailed and

36

asked for their participation in the study. I offered them an incentive of a $50 Amazon gift card.
The e-mail merely stated that the interview was for dissertation research and pertained to
education policy change. No other information was released, in order to avoid having teachers
preparing their responses ahead of time; as a researcher I did not want the teachers to discuss the
topic amongst each other, swaying their opinions prior to the interview. The questions posed to
participants all remained the same in order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the research
results. All interviews were held in empty classrooms in their school before, during, and after
school hours. The Instructional Coach’s interview was also held in an empty classroom, selected
by the coach themselves. No other individuals were present in either set of interviews. Due to the
anonymity clause, teachers were more inclined freely to discuss sensitive topics. I took several
steps to guarantee my subjects’ confidentiality. All interviews were coded by color (school code)
and number (teacher name). I used pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants, district,
teachers, and schools. All interviews were tape recoded, and notes were taken during the
discussion. All tape recordings and notes were secured on a password-protected computer.
Interviews ranged from 30 to 75 minutes in length, based on the flow of conversation. Each
participant answered all questions.
Open-ended questions were used for the interview segment of this research. This
approach allowed me to gather concise data to inform my study. I collected data on teacher
demographics, personal history, mathematics instructional practice, and key questions pertaining
to implementing the mathematics of the CCSS.
Qualitative Data Analysis
After the interviews were transcribed, transcripts were openly coded to allow themes to
emerge from the data and become aggregated into common domains (Emerson et al.,1995; Miles

37

and Huberman, 1994; Spradley, 1979). This allowed me to understand certain trends,
similarities, and differences in my results. Concepts derived from the literature guided my initial
inquiry, but during the course of my analysis these themes began to categorize themselves into a
different trend. This trend will be further discussed in the section that includes research findings.
Phase II
According to researcher William Hopkins (2000), a quantitative research design aims to
“to determine the relationship between one thing (an independent variable or a covariate) and
another (a dependent or outcome variable) in a population.” This study used an exploratory data
analysis (including frequency and percentage analysis, descriptive statistics, and statistical
graphics) method to respond to the second research question: How do teachers prioritize reform
related to the CCSS in mathematics?
In order to answer this question, I created an instrument that surveyed the perceptions of
teachers on the CCSS and their implementation of the CCSS. To maximize accuracy and
improve efficiency for the study, 1,000 teachers were invited to participate in Indiana, Illinois,
and Michigan, anticipating a survey response rate about 20% (200 teachers). I received an
overall response rate of a little over 40% (402 teachers). This is considered a large enough
sample to detect statistical significance for my research question (assuming the significance level
of 0.05 in the study and the effect size of the CCSS to be moderate between demographic groups
in population models).
The reason I selected these particular Midwestern states was due to their ranking on the
National Center of Education Statistics (NAEP) 2011 scores. The state of Indiana indicated a
higher average scale score than the national mathematics results. The state of Illinois indicated a
similar average scale score than the national mathematics results, while the state of Michigan

38

indicated a lower average scale score than the national average. In this study, the survey
responses collected from these selected states could be viewed as a general opinion on the CCSS
implementation in the Midwest states having either a higher or a lower average NAEP math
score to that of the national average score (that is, the generalizability of the study samples
and results is not limited to a population with either lower or higher performance on the NAEP
math).
The survey instrument collected demographic data pertaining to a teacher’s professional
work history (such as teaching experience, grade level taught, and school district location).
Further, it specifically posed questions pertaining to mathematics policies (such as “Have you
heard of the Common Core State Standards? “Do you implement the standards in your daily
practice for mathematics?”) and reform change (such as “Have you altered your methods of
practice since the adoption of the CCSS?” “Are there adequate resources for you to fully
implement the CCSS?” “Do you receive support from others through the implementation
process?”) All the surveys were conducted over a three-month period, between April, 2013, and
July, 2013.
Prior to the distribution of the survey, a pilot study was conducted with a dozen teachers
outside of the pre-selected states. These questions were previously approved and validated by
members of my dissertation committee. This provided me with a guideline that illustrated how
teachers would interpret the questions and experience with filtering any misconceptions that
could arise. Based on the results of the pilot study, some changes were made to the original
questions in order to enhance the validity and reliability of the survey questions. The main
concerns were in regards to detail and ensuring each question was clear and concise. The survey

39

questions were validated through this pilot study so that the quality of the survey data could be
assured and the focus of the research question would not be too broad and weaken the study.
Research studies show that incentives and rewards can increase a respondent’s
motivation to respond and complete a survey, which more likely produced a larger response rates
and provided better quality of data. Using such a survey strategy to improve response outcomes,
the results of obtaining information from potential respondents were promising, and the online
survey response rate was considered exceptionally successful. Because of incentives and
rewards, teachers were eager to log on and participate in the survey (via The Qualtrics online
survey platform) during their spare time or any time of the day (according to the records and logs
of responded survey data) within 24 hours. If their survey responses were qualified as valid data
(that is, no missing data across all questions and no multiple responses per individual participant),
then they would receive an Amazon gift card that not only thanked them for their participation,
but also encouraged others in their social networks to participate. The online survey is one of the
most cost-effective tools for this type of research design, due to its convenience and flexibility
for data collection (e.g., survey skip-logic user), and its effectiveness for further data analyses
(e.g., importing survey data from Qualtrics to SPSS). Further, “[b]ecause internet usage
continues to grow exponentially, and remains especially popular…web-based surveys provide a
time-and cost-saving option for data collection” (Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant, p. 410).
The fourteen questions posed were a combination of close-ended (i.e., dichotomous
yes/no options) and open-ended (i.e., text input comments) questions. According to Pew
Research, “[C]lose-ended questions, are a type of survey items that the interviewee is asked to
respond from a list of answer choices” (2013). Unfortunately, close-ended responses can be
influenced by “how each option is described, the number of response options offered and the

40

order in which options are read” (Pew Research, 2013). Therefore, it is important to have openended questions as well. I appreciated the use of both question-type options for this study. It is
imperative that the survey questions include and provide a follow-up aspect of text answers,
which close-ended questions often do not provide.
After the survey responses were collected via the web-based facility on Qualtrics, the
data was cleansed through statistical software (Excel and SPSS).
In order to respond to the research question regarding how teachers prioritize reform,
using the CCSS an example, the survey questions were divided into three parts. Part I analyzed
how teachers prioritize reform as a whole without the consideration of one specific reform, Part
II used specific CCSS questions through three demographic variables of location, level of
experience, and grade level of instruction to determine trends of implementation. Part III used
both Part I and Part II’s data to answer the research question of whether there is a relationship
among how teachers prioritize reform as a whole in comparison with today’s education reform of
the CCSS.
The research and analytic questions of interest in Phase II:
Part I. Research Question One: How do teachers prioritize reform?
Teachers were asked, in what order do you prioritize the following when implementing reform?
(1 being most important 7 being least important)
(a) Do they value the reform?
(b) Do they believe in the reform?
(c) Do they see motivating factors in implementing the reform?
(d) Do they easily understand the reform?
(e) Do they see the reform as achievable?

41

(f) Do they relate to the reform intentions?
(g) Do they receive support for implementing the reform?
Part II. Specific CCSS Questions and Teacher Demographics
1. Analytical Questions For State Comparisons
(a) Does the number of respondents in each of the grades vary per state?
(b) Do the responses change based on district location?
(c) How does each state’s response pertaining to adequate resources vary?
(d) How does each state’s response pertaining to support vary?
(e) Does each state have a different response to whether they believe the CCSS would remain?
2. Analytical Questions For Comparing Novice Teachers and Experienced Teachers
Novice Teachers’ Perspectives:
(a) How do novice teachers (1-6 years) respond to whether they believe they have adequate
resources to implement the CCSS fully?
(b) Do novice teachers receive additional support? If so, by whom?
(c) Do novice teachers fear the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy?
Experienced Teachers’ Perspectives:
(d) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether they
implement the standards in their daily practice form?
(e) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether they have
altered their method of practice?
(f) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether they have
adequate resources to fully implement the CCSS?

42

(g) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether they receive
support?
(h) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether it meets
their student’s abilities?
(i) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16 years and 17+ years) respond to whether the CCSS
will be replaced?
3. Analytical Questions For Comparing Grade Level
(a) Do the key questions for the CCSS adjust by grade level K-2 and 3-5?
Q1. Have you heard of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Q2. Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
Q3. Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
Q4. Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS?
Q5. Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?
Q6. Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?
Q7. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?
Q8. Do K-2 grade levels have a different response to 3rd-5th grade as to whether they believe
the CCSS would remain?
Part III. Research Question Two: How do Teachers Prioritize Reform Using the CCSS as an
Example of a current reform?
Q1. Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
Q2. Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
Q3. Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?
Q4. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?

43

Part I: Principal Component Analysis
I conducted a full principal component analysis to understand what relationships the seven
categories had with one another and whether the hypothesized relationships holds with the actual
data. The analysis of the data (which will be further discussed in Chapter V) confirmed the
structure of producing three indices, with a possible fourth (motivation) correlation between the
following questions (In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a
reform?):
Index of Mental Support:
1. Do I value the reform?
2. Do I believe in the reform?
Index of Achievability
1. Is the reform easily understood?
2. Is the reform achievable?
3. Do I receive support to implement the reform?
Index of Relatability
1. Can I relate to the reform intentions?
Index of Motivation
1. Do you see motivating factors in implementing the reform?
Based on the theoretical structure (i.e., four indices in my model), the model was composed
of two main principal components (mental support and achievability) in addition to two
categories. These were used to represent the other two indices (reliability and motivation). The
indices of relatability and motivation contained a single category (a question about motivation
was used for the index of motivation and a question about reform intention was used to represent

44

the index of relatability). Thus, they did not have a component matrix or a percentage variance.
Principal components analysis are conducted to create two components and as such, the indices
of relatability and motivation were built using a simple component structure, which was a
component built by a single category, and which directly related to the hypothesized principal
component.
Part II: Hypothesized Relationship 1
I also conducted the exploratory data analysis (frequency and percentage) to study and
recognize patterns of observed survey responses across collapsed groups of teacher
characteristics, and I ran a confirmatory statistical analysis via General Linear Model (GLM,
which includes both Regression and ANOVA models) to determine if any meaningful and
important relationships in terms of quantitative and statistical perspectives existed among the
CCSS-related variables. The purpose of the multivariate (mostly in multivariate/bivariate
statistics and correlation analysis) exploratory data analysis “is to learn more about the
relationship between one or several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or
criterion outcome variable” (StatSoft Electronic Statistic Textbook, 2013). The reason I selected
a GLM over a t-test was due to a matter of complexity. A GLM provides a broader perspective
on the data. I used the statistical tool SPSS to execute model estimations and equate my results
according to the hypothetical models (see Figure 2).
Hypothesized Relationships Model 1
Teacher Characteristics:
- Teaching Experiences
- Grade Levels
- School Locations

CCSS Key
Questions

Independent predictors

Dependent factors predictors

Figure 2: Hypothesized Relationship Model 1

45

In Figure 2, the hypothesized models demonstrate a simple path structure of statistical modeling
for the study of Phase II. The theoretical path models illustrate that the observed CCSS-related
variables are used to examine whether the CCSS factors attributable to some impacts on the
CCSS implementation have any relationships with teacher demographics. It is important to
consider whether teachers’ demographics alter how they view the CCSS.
Part III: Hypothesized Relationship 2
In Figure 3, the models demonstrate a simple path structure of statistical modeling for
the study of Phase II. The theoretical path models illustrate that the observed CCSS-related
responses questions 6, 7, 12, and 14 were used to examine whether the CCSS factors attributable
to some impacts on the CCSS implementation had any relationships to the seven categories
presented in question 13 and in the literature and the qualitative portion of this study. The survey
items can be found in Appendix B.

Hypothesized Relationships Model 2
7 Categories (Q13)
! value
! beliefs
! motivation
! easily understood
! achievable
! relatable
! support
!

CCSS Key
Questions
(6,7,12, and
14)

Dependent factors
predictors

Independent predictors
Figure 3: Hypothesized Relationship Model 2

46

Quantitative Data Analysis
For all three parts of this quantitative portion of this study, descriptive statistics were
used to summarize sample characteristics from the questionnaire.
Part I—Research Question One: How do teachers prioritize reform?
In response to the overall research question regarding how teachers prioritize reform I
used descriptive statistics (mean score and standard deviation) to determine the score in each
category. First I computed for the survey questions related to the teachers’ perceptions regarding
the implementation of the CCSS. Teachers were asked specifically how they prioritize the seven
categories found in the literature. The survey items can be found in Appendix B. Each given term
was designed as a 7-point Likert-type rating scale for the priority levels of the CCSS
implementation related issues (where 1 was rated as being the most important, and 7 as being the
least important). An overall score was calculated to summarize all the information across the
seven survey items, where all seven items were reverse coded before averaging the item scores.
To compare the differences of the overall scores among demographic groups, GLM (specifically,
multiple regression models) were conducted where the dependent variable was the overall score
across the seven items and the independent variables were the teacher characteristics.
Part II—Specific CCSS questions and teacher demographics
In response to the research questions in Part II (Analytical Questions For State
Comparisons; Analytical Questions For Comparing Novice Teachers and Experienced Teachers;
Analytical Questions For Comparing Grade Level), I also first used descriptive statistics
(frequencies and percentages) and then employed the GLMs in order to describe teacher
demographics and to explore significant patterns of the sampled teachers.

47

The demographic variables which define teacher characteristics included the following
variables: (a) state (including IN, IL, and MI); (b) teaching experience (including 1 year, 2-6
years, 7-11 years, 12-16 years, 17+ years); (c) case study of one district in one state; and (d)
grade level (including K-5).
To measure the scale of the second research question for the study (i.e., how do teachers
prioritize reform related to the CCSS in mathematics), the CCSS-related variables in the survey
questions were used with the following variables: (1) Have you heard of the Common Core State
Standards? (2) Do you implement the standards in your daily practice for mathematics? (3) Have
you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS? (4) Are there adequate
resources for you to fully implement the CCSS? (5) Do you receive support from others through
the implementation process? (6) Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities? (7) Do
you fear the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?
Descriptive analyses based on sample frequencies and sample proportions were computed
on both the teacher characteristics variables and the CCSS-related variables in order to describe
the teacher demographics of the sample and to explore significant patterns of the sampled
teachers. In addition, the data were organized, displayed, and examined by using various
graphical techniques (such as pie chart, bar chart, and line chart).
Part II of the study also compared the differences in each state, independently and across
one another, to survey (math) teachers’ perceptions of the CCSS implementation in mathematics
(specifically, similarities and differences in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan). For the comparisons
by these three states, the GLMs (i.e., ANOVA models) were used to examine whether there were
any differences among the three states in the response scores for each of the key questions. For
further analyses concerning the specific research sub-questions, the study was based on statistical

48

analyses (including exploratory analyses and confirmatory models via inferential statistics in
order to generalize results to the population) for the CCSS-related survey questions along with
the teacher demographics. The purpose of these analyses was to examine whether there existed
any factors of teacher characteristics related to the teachers’ opinions on the CCSS
implementation, where teacher demographic information included (a) Novice Teachers (1-6
years) and Experienced Teachers (12 + years); (b) Geographic Locations (Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan); and (c) Grade Levels (Kindergarten-Grade 2 versus Grades 3-5).
In order to answer Part II, Question One (i.e., comparing each state’s results in their
perspectives of the CCSS implementation in order to compare all survey questions related to the
CCSS implementation), descriptive statistics were first used to summarize each state’s sample
mean percentage scores of teachers’ responses to each of the seven survey items related to the
second research objective, where the states variable had three levels—Indiana, Illinois and
Michigan. For the comparisons among the three states, the GLM (i.e., ANOVA models) were
used to examine whether there were any differences among the three states in the response scores
for each survey question.
In order to answer Part II, Question Two (i.e., Compare the differences between novice
and experienced teachers in their perspectives of the CCSS implementation. such as “Do they
have adequate resources to fully implement the CCSS?” “Do they receive additional support?”
“Do they fear the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy?”), a series of the GLMs given by a
categorical predictor of teaching experience was conducted, to understand group differences in
terms of the responses on key questions, and to determine whether perceptions of the CCSS
implementation were different between novice teachers (who had been teaching 1-6 years) and
experienced teachers (who had at least 12 years of teaching). Additional analyses, based on

49

descriptive statistics (mean proportion and its standard deviations) conditional on respondents’
teaching experiences (i.e., novice or experienced teachers), were also conducted for the survey
items related to the third research objective, where the items here were designed to measure
respondent’s opinions of the CCSS implementation related issues on a dichotomous scale.
In order to answer Part II, Question Three (i.e., Compare the differences in the teachers’
perspectives of the CCSS implementation by Grade Level), a similar method to that of the above
state level comparison was used. Descriptive statistics were first used to summarize the
subsample (conditional on Grades) mean percentage scores of teachers’ responses to each of the
seven survey items related to the fourth research objective, where the Grades variable had two
redefined and collapsed categorical levels—Grades K-2 versus Grades 3-5. For grade level
comparison (i.e, Grades K-2 vs. Grades 3-5), a series of the GLMs (i.e., ANOVA models) were
conducted across all the survey items to test the differences of the item positive response scores
(i.e., a percentage of a positive response to an item) between the two grouped grade levels.
Note that research question 8 (“Do K-2 grade levels have a different response to 3rd-5th
grade as to whether they believe the CCSS would remain?”) can be answered by the findings for
research question 7—specifically, grade-level comparisons for the survey item “Do you think the
CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?” That is, a GLM (where the outcome
is the item responses and the predictor is the collapsed variable of two grade levels) was built to
find if there were any differences in the item responses (which were reverse coded before testing)
between the two specified groups (K-Grade 2 versus Grades 3-5).

50

Part III—Research Question Two: How do teachers prioritize reform using the CCSS as
an example of a current reform?
In order to study the relationship of seven categories to the CCSS key questions, I ran a
confirmatory statistical analysis via GLM to examine if there existed any meaningful and
important relationships in terms of quantitative and statistical perspectives among the CCSSrelated variables.
Connecting Part I and Part II
From there, I grouped my qualitative and quantitative findings using a typology that best
illustrated the nuances (categorizing answers to CCSS questions). I created a typology to link the
various key informative themes that emerged from the data by teacher characteristics, using the
comprehensive questions posed in both the interviews and the surveys. I found trends or patterns
within the data.
Trustworthiness and Validity
It is important to establish trustworthiness and validity in meaningful research. “Research
needs to be defensible to the research and practice communities for whom research is produced
and used” (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006, p. 48). Trustworthiness is often used in qualitative
research as a parallel term to validity.
Trustworthiness supports the argument that the inquiry’s findings are “worth paying
attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). There are four categories of trustworthiness: (a)
credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) conformability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Credibility “is an evaluation of whether or not the research findings represent a credible
conceptual interpretation of the data drawn from the participants’ original data (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p. 296). I evaluated my research as credible for three reasons.

51

First, I invited individuals to participate in my interviews who were of the same grade
level, minimizing differences in their curriculum. Second, these individuals were in the same
district, again minimizing potential curriculum and district differences. Third, 100% of the
teachers were interviewed, versus a smaller pool of 50% or 25% of teachers. The larger group
created a more credible result.
Transferability “is the degree to which the findings of this inquiry can apply or transfer
beyond the bounds of the project” (Fenton & Mazulewicz, 2008). I have employed a coding
system based on the literature provided under this topic, which will further aid other researchers
to use this material. I have included my interview questions in Appendix A to further aid other
researchers to transfer and utilize the material.
Dependability “is an assessment of the quality of the integrated processes of data
collection, data analysis, and theory generation” (Fenton & Mazulewicz, 2008) while
“Conformability is a measure of how well the inquiry’s findings are supported by the collected
data” (Fenton & Mazulewicz, 2008). In order best to meet the criteria of the dependability and
conformability standards, a pilot study was conducted. The pilot study further illustrated the
flaws for both categories.
Validity in quantitative research “has been long accepted” as a formal research tool
(Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006, p. 49). It is defined as, “whether the means of measurement are
accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they are intended to measure”
(Golafshani, 2003, p. 600). The two main dimensions are internal and external validity.
Internal validity “is the extent to which the results of the study reflect reality rather than
extraneous variables” (Behi, 1996, p. 374). For example, false positives or false negatives can be
threats to internal validity (Behi, 1996, p. 374). In order to minimize this threat, I was

52

cognizant of other variables rather than just the independent variables that could have affected
the outcome of the results (Burns & Grove, 2001, p. 232).
External validity is “the ability to generalize the findings of the study to other members
of the population rather than the sample” (Burns & Grove, 1999, p. 234). This study has a high
generalization factor due to the student achievement results selected per state. Each state was
pre-selected based on student achievement results of 2011 based on NAEP. All three categories
of results have been selected state achievement results below the national average, above the
national average, and at the national average

53

Chapter IV: Qualitative Results
This chapter discusses the qualitative results of my study. This study used a purposeful
selection sampling approach for its case study component, which was a series of teacher
interviews. I used the existing literature on how teachers prioritize reform to guide my interview
questions (Appendix A), and the same literature was used to guide the interpretation of the
results of the study. The overall framework is that of Coburn’s (2001) sensemaking theory, and
the six categories found in the literature review: (a) how teachers value reform, (b) whether the
reform aligns with teachers’ beliefs, (c) whether teachers are able to relate to the reform ideas,
(d) whether teachers see the reform as an achievable goal, (e) whether the motivating factors
outweigh the non-motivating factors, and (f) whether teachers receive the support necessary from
all the various stakeholders.
The interview data was collected from all of the fourth grade teachers (four schools with
three teachers in each school for a total of 12 teachers) and an Instructional Coach (pseudonym:
Sherry Bloomfield) in the same district. Four additional interviews were conducted with fourth
grade teachers in Illinois and Indiana in order to provide a broader scope of the results and to
identify whether or not the Michigan results were unique to one district or could be applied to
other states, regions, districts, or schools. The majority of the interviews were conducted in April
and May of 2013; however, the Instructional Coach interview was conducted in November,
2013. The Instructional Coach was interviewed last because I was interested in the coach’s
general interpretation of teachers’ responses to the implementation of reform. Her responses
were based on the culture of the school and district. The teachers responses were not disclosed,
but merely played a role in the overall analysis.

54

This analysis consists of a comparison between what I learned from the study and a
review of the existing literature on how teachers make sense of education reform. I also discuss
the differences in response between novice teachers (1 – 6 years of teaching), moderate teachers
(7- 11 years of teaching), and experienced teachers (12 + years of teaching). The results indicate
a significant difference between the responses of novice and experienced teachers.
The focus of these questions is to answer this broader question: How do teachers prioritize
reform?
Comparison Between the Results of the Study and the Existing Literature
The overall interview questions that aligned with the literature pertained to the following
categories:
(a) Teacher demographics (background):
•

How long have they been teaching?

•

What were their current and past teaching positions?

•

How long have they been teaching in their current district/school?

(b) Recognizing reform changes (knowledge):
•

Have any mathematics reform changes occurred since they began teaching?

•

Were there reforms that impacted their teaching practice?

•

Did their teaching practice change as a result of the reform changes?

(c) Key questions that targeted information pertaining to the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) and its implementation (knowledge):
•

Were they aware of the CCSS?

•

Did their knowledge of the CCSS encourage them to implement the reform?

•

Did their knowledge of the CCSS alter their practice?

55

(d) Key questions pertaining to whether they believe the reform is relatable and achievable:
•

Does the reform take into account the differentiated learning abilities of students?

•

Do students have a difficult time adapting to the policy change?

(e) Key questions related to whether teachers value and are provided motivational incentives
to implement the reform:
•

Do the standards/policies enhance or improve their approach to learning?

(f) Key questions to support the tools they receive to implement the standards:
•

Do teacher colleagues at their school influence how they learn and respond to the
mandated standards/policies?

•

What additional support do they need?

There were seven interview items related to a teacher reaching the goal of
implementation of a new reform. Teachers asked themselves the following questions:
(a) Do I value the reform?
(b) Do I believe in the reform?
(c) Are there motivating factors for implementing the reform?
(d) Is the reform easily understood?
(e) Is the reform achievable and attainable for my students and practice?
(f) Can I relate to the reform’s intentions?
(g) Do I receive support to implement the reform?

56

Figure 4 illustrates how the literature portrays how teachers prioritize reform:

Figure 4: Literature Formula
The literature indicated that if teachers receive knowledge of the reform, make sense of the
reform’s intentions, and align with the six categories (in no particular order) to agree with the
reform’s ideals, teachers will place high value on implementing the reform.
However, the results of this study provided a more detailed formula to describe how
teachers prioritize reform in this district. This formula is presented as the “research findings.”

Figure 5: Research Formula

57

The research findings demonstrate that if teachers receive knowledge of the reform, make sense
of the reform’s intentions, are provided support pertaining to understanding and implanting of
the reform from the various stakeholders and resources, and see the reform as being achievable
and relatable to their students and practice, they will become motivated to implement the reform,
which in turn will alter how they originally valued and believed in the reform, providing a
stronger basis for implementation. These findings hold true not only for the one Michigan district
but also were the trend from the four other interviews conducted in Illinois and Indiana.
However, it important to note that not all individual teachers in the Midwest would necessarily
fit into either formula because there are individuals who do not meet the criteria of either
formula.
Interview Findings
Having presented the two different formulas of how teachers prioritize reform from a
comparison between the literature (knowledge + sensemaking + 6 categories in no particular
order) and the research findings (knowledge + sensemaking + support + achievable and relatable
+ motivated = values and beliefs). I will now provide the results of the research findings. The
participants have been described in Table 1. The questions and responses to each category can
also be found in Appendix C.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the teachers by school, experience level, and response
to the implementation of the CCSS.

58

Table 1: School, Teacher, and Experience Demographics
Knowledge
(All teacher responses can be found in Appendix C, Chart 1) Knowledge is the
overarching theme of this study. Without teachers having proper knowledge of the reform, they
are unable to make correct judgments and decisions towards implementation. Teachers’

59

responses in this district based on the questions pertaining to this category are presented in
Appendix C. For example, when asked, XX, Davis, Teacher 10E responded, “I’m not sure, I
don’t have enough information to give you my opinion as to whether I think the CCSS is a good
or bad thing…I’m going to give it more time.” The literature posits that “[t]eachers need more
knowledge and guidance in order to alter their practices: missing knowledge having to do with
content, student learning, pedagogy, or most common, the lack of subject matter knowledge”
(Kennedy, 2006). All teachers in this study had heard of and had begun the implementation of
the CCSS in mathematics.
With the intention of wanting to know whether these teachers recognized a change in
their mathematics policy, I asked whether reform changes in mathematics had occurred since
they began teaching, and if so, how this impacted their teaching practice (question 2 of the
overall interview questions). One response is as follows “Absolutely math reforms have changed.
They've become more demanding. These kids need to think more and process the information”
(Davis, Teacher 12E). Another teacher stated, “I have only been teaching for five years, but I do
see a change from our last mandate to this one” (Carlton, Teacher 9N). All teachers recognized
one change: the reform adjustment between their previous policy and that of the CCSS. This
means that they recognized the two policies to be different, and it implies that their method of
practice may still need to be adjusted. Some teachers did recognize the difference and this is
demonstrated by the following statement, “The common core is a mile deep and inch wide that’s
very different than the GLICS, that was a spiral curriculum” (Brookfield, Teacher 5E).
Recognizing that the policy has changed is the first step in teachers’ understanding of an
educational reform, and these examples indicate that these teachers are capable of this task.

60

Although teachers may have recognized a policy difference, they may not have thought to
change their practice to meet the policy’s demands. Some teachers may not have completely
grasped that a change was needed. In order to assess whether teachers altered their practice based
on the CCSS, they were asked to describe the difference between their past and current teaching
practice (question 5 of the overall interview questions). The results included a variety of
responses. Some teachers felt no change was necessary. For example, Davis, Teacher 11E stated,
“I’m implementing the CCSS, but why should I change my practice? It's the same thing.” They
felt their past practice could accommodate the reform ideals, while other teachers only minimally
changed their practice between, as demonstrated by this statement: “I’ve adjusted a couple of
things to meet the requirements” (Brookfield, Teacher 6E). No teacher completely altered his or
her practice. This is a problem for the effective implementation of the CCSS because the policy
does call for a change in practice. One can infer either that their prior mathematics policy aligned
well with the CCSS or that these teachers did not recognize that a change needed to be made in
order to comply with the reform. The following statement is in support of the latter premise:
“I’m a believer in the CCSS and I’m implementing it, but I haven’t altered the way I teach the
material, just took some of the pages out of the Everyday Math textbook that I didn’t think
aligned with the standards” (Brookfield, Teacher 5E).
Whether teachers understand a change needs to be made, but choose not to alter his/her
practice, or they do not recognize a change needs to be made to their practice and therefore
choose not to alter their practice, the implementation process is still in jeopardy.
All teachers were asked if their students had a hard time adapting to the policy change
(question 10 of the overall interview questions). One response is indicated of a common
sentiment: “These kids don’t notice a change. It’s not like we are using different books. Maybe

61

that’s a good thing” (Brookfield, Teacher 4E). No matter what their opinion on the reform was,
all teachers stated that their students rarely noticed a change in their practice.
The literature anticipates teachers not realizing a change needs to be made to their
practice, and thus indicates that in order to alleviate this type of response to the question of
whether a new policy mandates change in teacher practice, additional preparations through
professional development and other sources are necessary. The state of Vermont recognizes this
concern and stated, “High quality professional development is essential to increase educators’
knowledge, skills, attitude[,] and beliefs so that they may enable all students to learn at high
levels” (State of Vermont Department of Education). Without professional development,
teachers are left to the peril of a lost society, unable to decipher what is correct and how to
actually implement the changes.
Sensemaking
(All teacher responses can be found in Appendix C, Figure 15) Coburn’s sensemaking
theory highlights an integral element of how teachers prioritize reform. They have obtained
knowledge of the reform, and the next step is understanding of how teachers process this
information and ultimately how they break it down and make sense of it. Teachers’ responses in
this district based on the questions pertaining to this category are presented in appendix #.
Teachers were asked if their colleagues influenced how they learned about the reform and how
they responded to standards and mandated policies in order to determine where they received
their information and how they processed it (question 11 of the overall interview questions).
Brookfield, Teacher 5E stated, “Absolutely, especially the teachers I work with in the same grade
level. We exchange lesson plans and things we find on the Internet. It’s hard to do this all alone.”
The majority of guidance and support these teachers received was from their same grade level

62

colleagues and the Instructional Coach. “Our Instructional Coach gave us a guide of what pages
we should be using from our textbook. It was really helpful. We stopped wasting time on things
that were not in CCSS” (Brookfield, Teacher 6E). Colleagues at the same grade level provided
support through sharing materials, discussing lesson plans, and giving emotional support. The
Instructional Coach was said to provide leadership support through professional development
and resources.
Not one teacher mentioned receiving support from any administrative staff member or
policy leader through the reform implementation process, and in fact many actively resisted such
help, as demonstrated by Ashford, Teacher 2E, who said, “Oh I don’t want help from my
principal. Imagine him now evaluating us on some reform that doesn’t have any alignment to the
textbook or assessments.” Many worried that having a principal involved in this process would
create a competitive and stressful environment because the teachers felt they were not adequately
able to meet the reform’s demands. They felt if the principal was involved, they would be
evaluated on their implementation of the CCSS instead of being guided through the process.
However, a selection of teachers, mostly novice/moderate teachers, felt that the additional
support from their administrative staff could be useful, because they often felt they were not sure
if they were correctly implementing the reform. For instance, Carlton, Teacher 9N, stated,
“Although the other teachers in the grade level have been doing this for a while, it would be nice
to get some feedback or support from our principal. He’s not really hands on when it comes to
things like this, but I don’t want to be evaluated on it…I just want to know I can go to him if I
had questions about the material.” Based on these responses, it seems that teachers would like
the principals to play the role of a supportive actor, not one who evaluates them on their

63

implementation, but one who provides them with tools towards more successful reform
implementation.
The last question I posed came from the idea of providing teachers, the implementers of
the reform, a voice. Teachers were finally asked their opinion; to my surprise, Davis, Teacher
11E, stated, “No one asks us how we feel our students will cope with the change.” Some teachers
are obviously unhappy with the many reform changes and the way they are executed, and so it is
important to hear their opinion.
When given the hypothetical that if they were in charge of developing a new policy, how
would they assure teacher participation and implementation (question 15 of the overall interview
questions), the majority of teachers agreed that including them in the dialogue from the
beginning would encourage greater collaboration and a greater sense of understanding the
reform’s ideals and intentions. Out of all the interviews, I felt Ashford, Teacher 1E to be more
opposed to the implementation than all the others. Therefore, I felt her response to be very
relevant. She stated, “Well first I would ask the teachers to step in and help write the policy. It’s
important to hear what they have to say. They are the ones that this hurts the most.” A teacher
that followed her lead and was not as experienced, Ashford, Teacher 3M, stated, “Maybe it
should first be presented to teachers for feedback.” This response was echoed by other teachers,
as seen here. “The teachers and policymakers should create multiple drafts and go back and forth
with ideas” (Davis, Teacher 11E), and here: “It’s important to consider the people it affects the
most” (Davis, Teacher 10E).
When specifically speaking about the CCSS, many were concerned because their
administrative staff could not provide them with information pertaining to the reform. Some
stated that their principal only focused on such things as evaluation and assessments, and felt that

64

teachers were better acquainted with the reforms than their leader, as demonstrated by this
statement: “It would be nice to have some inner school dialogue. My principal doesn’t know
much about the CCSS and I think that hurts us” (Davis, Teacher 11E). The same concern about
lack of school offerings in PD was shared in this statement as well: “ You know we go to a lot of
outside of the school PD events. Besides the Instructional Coach we really aren’t offered too
much in-school guidance…Our principal’s job is really to focus on evaluations and assessments”
(Brookfield, Teacher 6E). Although they appreciated the autonomy of their classroom practice,
they would also have appreciated their principal being well versed in the policy message.
Understanding how knowledge and sensemaking play a role together, Davis, Teacher
12E, clearly spoke of an example of how the two are intertwined and each is significant.
“Another important factor we need to consider is making sure all of us receive the same message
about the policy. Maybe creating a universal book and webinars that are grade specific.
Sometimes I don’t know what information to follow” (Davis, Teacher 12E). Teachers felt it was
important to have a policy message that was correctly interpreted by all stakeholders, providing
especially teachers with ample information.
It is evident that with adequate knowledge of the reform, teachers are better able to make
sense of the new demands placed upon them. One teacher recalled, “Brookfield , Teacher 4E and
5E and I always attend information sessions all over the state. It’s really the only choice we have
to make sure we know what’s going on. I know our Instructional Coach does the same”
(Brookfield, Teacher 4E). with this information, they are able to make rational decisions about
how to implement this reform, although they had to invest their own time and energy to find the
information. In order to ensure all teachers have the opportunity to effectively implement reform,

65

this knowledge needs to be provided in an accessible manner through support from a variety of
stakeholders, and from additional external professional development.
Support/professional development
(All teacher responses can be found in Appendix C, Chart 3) Professional development
and internal and external support play an important role in preparing and guiding teachers
through the implementation processes. One example of the teachers’ perception of professional
development in this district is as follows: “PD was provided by our district a couple of times, but
none of it was helpful. It wasn’t about my grade, so I didn’t think it was relevant…let alone be
about the CCSS” (Davis, Teacher 11E). The teachers interviewed all felt they needed additional
PD—not only at the school level, but also at the district level. Although they had received district
level PD, they did not feel it was a productive use of their time because it did not pertain
specifically to the CCSS nor provide grade-specific examples, as indicated by the following
opinion. “I need some examples that talk about 4th grade math” (Davis, Teacher 10E). Providing
grade specific examples to these teachers means they could connect the CCSS standards directly
to their lessons, giving them a clearer understanding of the reform’s demands and how the
reform works in the classroom.
In order to make up for the lack of PD, all fourth grade teachers within this district sought
other resources to structure their lessons and to meet the reform requirements. They met
independently to discuss information they had found from other districts and online, receiving
support from one another through the implementation process. This collaborative process was
explained as so: “We work together. If one of us has a problem we just Google it… I know it’s
sometimes a gamble” (Brookfield, Teacher 4E). The literature pertaining to teachers who are
unfamiliar with reform standards shows that relying on teachers to advise one another is not the

66

most effective approach to implementing a reform. Although it is not ill intended, guidance from
one teacher to another may incorrectly transform or interpret the reform message. Therefore, it is
in the best interest of teachers, not only in this district but in all districts, to seek formal PD first
in order to be sure the message is clear and correct. However, as we have seen in this district, this
becomes problematic when PD is not applicable to a teacher’s classroom or it does not cover all
aspects of implementing a reform.
Once teachers are provided with the necessary information to understand correctly and to
implement the reform, they are able to address whether it is achievable for their students and
their practice, as demonstrated here: “I just don’t think our school knows enough about it to
make any decisions about how this hurts or helps our students…I’m just not sure it’s smart to
fully implement till they know it sticks” (Davis, Teacher 11E). Also, with this information,
teachers can assess whether they are able to relate to the reform ideas, and if so, they can
question whether it is enough to motivate them to alter their practice to implement the CCSS in
mathematics.
Putting knowledge and understanding into practice
Once teachers have adequate knowledge, are able to make sense of the reform, and are
provided support, they attempt to picture how it relates to their students, and determine whether
their students and practice positively benefit from the change. From there, they are either
motivated to implement the reform, or choose not to be a part of the implementation process.
Teachers’ responses in this district based on these questions pertaining to this category are
presented in Appendix C.
The literature on the topic of teachers’ ability to relate to reforms presented in Chapter II
highlights three types of teacher. First, there is the teacher who is able to relate to the reform

67

materials and encourages his/her colleagues to implement them correctly. Second, there is the
teacher who believes they can relate to the material, but falsely interprets it for what they believe
are the reform’s intentions. Last, there is the teacher who is unable to relate to the reform
material and becomes disinterested and removed from the reformer’s goals and intentions.
Relating to the reform material does not mean having previous experience with such material,
but it does mean feeling as if they are a part of what the mandates are asking them to do.
However, if teachers see the reform as achievable and are able to relate to its ideas, they will
become motivated to implement the reform.
The responses from teachers in this district were split, based on their individual school.
This seems to be attributable to each school’s environment; specifically how same grade level
teachers influence other teachers positively and negatively.
Ashford
Ashford’s staff consisted of moderately experienced to experienced teachers, to seasoned
veterans, ranging from seven to 30 years of experience. This large range of experienced teachers
created an interesting environment. When asked if the CCSS takes into account differentiated
learning abilities of students in mathematics (question 9 of overall interview questions), all
teachers stated that it does not. For example: “No the reform really is ‘one size fits all’ approach.
It doesn’t help my low-achieving kids. They get lost trying to catch up… my high-achieving kids
just get bored” (Ashford, Teacher 1E). This sentiment was shared here: “The CCSS is really
meant for the average student…and I don’t have many of those in my class, so it really doesn’t
help me (Ashford, Teacher 3M) After speaking to the second fourth grade teacher, I quickly
realized there was one teacher (Ashford, Teacher 1E) leading the group. This leader had the most
teaching experience and felt, based on her experience, that the CCSS had nothing positive to

68

offer to her practice of mathematics. Her perspective is conveyed through the following quote:
“I’ve been doing this for years and my kids are doing just fine. We don’t need to add anything to
stir things up. Its just added red tape, nothing more” (Ashford, Teacher 1E). Even the other
experienced teachers in the school agreed with the leader. They trusted and respected her
judgment, as indicated by the following response: “I just follow Teacher 1’s lead, she’s been
doing this for years” (Ashford, Teacher 2E). They also agreed that the new policies were unable
to be related to their students and practice, and they did not see them to be achievable. Ashford,
Teacher 3M, further confirmed, “Yeah, its not for us, I don’t think we are going to take part in
the CCSS” (Teacher 3). These teachers exhibited low motivation, due to the lack of information
they received from other stakeholders, and the false information provided by their grade level
leader.
Brookfield
Brookfield’s fourth grade faculty consisted of three experienced teachers, ranging from
14 to 37 years of teaching experience. Based on the literature and from our example in Ashford,
one would assume that experienced teachers are harder to persuade when it comes to the
implementation and adoption of a new reform because they are more likely to be set in their
ways and comfortable with their current practice; however, that was not the case for Brookfield,
as indicated by the following response: “It's a good change. We are headed in the right direction.
It makes more sense. It’s more work now, but a lot better for our students in the long run”
(Brookfield, Teacher 5E). Other teachers agreed, as demonstrated by this statement: “Of course it
meets my students abilities. They are just goals I have to meet. I adjust my practice a bit and
teach deeper content and not as much material and I’m good to go” (Brookfield, Teacher 4E). All
the teachers in Brookfield were excited to implement the CCSS, because they felt that if the

69

teachers are well-versed in mathematics and understands the CCSS, they can adjust the reform
demands to meet their students’ academic abilities. This perspective was shared in the following
statement: “Our Instructional Coach does a great job aligning our material. We help her put the
material together and it makes it an easier transition. This helps us understand things” (Carlton,
Teacher 3E). This specific group of teachers was more informed due to their enthusiastic
participation in the optional PD that the Instructional Coach and other outside sources offered.
Unfortunately, other teachers in the district did not participate in the PD.
When asked if the CCSS takes into account differentiated learning abilities of students in
mathematics (question 9 of the overall interview questions), all teachers in this school stated that
the reform provides flexibility, “as it is a set of standards objectives teachers are asked to meet
and does not mandate a scripted curriculum” (Brookfield, Teacher 6E). This is a clear example of
teachers being well informed of the reform’s objectives. This awareness can also be seen here:
“I’m not sure what other teachers are doing in other schools, but we really enjoy traveling and
seeing what’s out there for us to learn and come back with” (Teacher 3). The teachers at
Brookfield felt confident in their ability to relate to the reform ideals, and they were driven to do
so.
Carlton
Carlton’s staff consisted of a novice teacher (less than five years of experience) and two
experienced teachers ranging from 20 to 35 years of teaching experience. These teachers did not
work collaboratively with the information they received and the resources pertaining to the
CCSS. Both experienced teachers in this school voiced concern. One stated that her students
were only being used as “guinea pigs, for a reform that will fail.” When asked if the CCSS took
into account differentiated learning abilities of students in mathematics (question 9 of the overall

70

interview questions), she said, “This reform sure does not consider the skills of my lower kids…I
can’t use it…it just doesn’t relate to my kids” (Carlton, Teacher 7E) specifically speaking to her
perception of the skillset of these students. The novice teacher in this school also was not fully
implementing the CCSS in mathematics, stating, “I had a hard time following what the mandate
wants us to do…when my kids are having a difficult time with the material and I’m not provided
support its just hard to focus on putting the CCSS at the top of my list of priorities.” This could
perception be due to the lack of guidance, not only from the administrative staff, but from
veteran teachers in these schools. These teachers negatively viewed the reform and therefore
were not motivated to implement the reform in their classrooms.
Davis
The staff at this school consisted of only three experienced teachers, each with more than
25 years of teaching experience. The teachers at this school also did not work collaboratively,
because they felt confident with their teaching practices and did not feel it was necessary to work
together. When asked if the CCSS took into account the differentiated learning abilities of
students in mathematics (question 9 of the overall interview questions), two out of three teachers
responded that they wanted to wait to see how the reform unfolded, as this quote indicated: “It’s
too soon to tell, but it’s something that I’m slowly implementing…I guess we are just waiting for
everything to align…we need more material” (Davis, Teacher 11E). They felt they needed more
time to allow the reform to develop before attempting to form an opinion. The last teacher had a
different view, and stated, “Of course it meets my students’ academic abilities…it is up to you as
the teacher to make any reform relatable to your students and instruction.” The motivation of
teachers implementing a reform stems from their attitude towards the reform. Those who feel

71

hesitant often proceed with caution, and those who are flexible and comfortable with their
practice and the reform material are more likely to be motivated to make it work.
Conclusion
Out of the 12 teachers in this district, most were experienced teachers. Their perception
of the CCSS and its ability to take into account the differentiated learning abilities and needs of
their students were split between teachers who were flexible to change and were well-informed,
and those who preferred not to alter their practice and who prevented themselves from seeking
additional PD. The experienced teachers from Ashford did not possess the knowledge to
understand the reform ideals and to make a thoughtful decision. They followed one teacher’s
opinion, which held them back from making a calculated decision for themselves. Brookfield’s
teachers took a different approach. They embraced the change and sought the means necessary to
educate themselves. Carlton also negatively viewed the CCSS, due to their teachers’ lack of
flexibility and knowledge. Davis had mixed results. The teachers who were not knowledgeable
about the reform were taking cautious steps towards implementing it, and the teachers who were
open-minded and willing to understand its intentions were open to implementing the CCSS. The
novice teacher in Carlton felt overwhelmed and unsure of the reform’s intentions. Had she been
provided adequate PD, perhaps her views and motivation to implement the reform would have
been altered.
Values and Beliefs
Once teachers become motivated to implement the reform, we begin to see their values
and beliefs shift to meet the reform’s ideals, as demonstrated by the following quote: “I was a bit
hesitant at first…I just was afraid of another reform coming into my classroom… I guess what
persuaded me was understanding this was not a curriculum, but a set of standards I had to meet

72

and the material was actually the same. It really was a matter of how deep I was supposed to go
in my teaching instruction, and I was happy to do that” (Brookfield, Teacher 4E). Teachers who
shared this perspective understood the bigger picture and saw how it fit into their practice and
classroom. Motivation was significant in determining how driven teachers were to implement the
changes.
Teachers’ values and beliefs are consistently altered based on their environment.
Teachers’ responses in this district based on these questions pertaining to this category are
presented in appendix #. For example, the power of one individual to change many teachers’
opinions is demonstrated by this explanation: “When I first heard about the CCSS, I thought it
would be a step in the right direction, but after speaking to Ashford, Teacher 1E and Ashford,
Teacher 3M about it, I started to doubt myself… then when all this negative gossip started to
come out…well forget it” (Ashford, Teacher 2E). Some teachers may be surprised about what
they learn from their students or colleagues, and they may re-evaluate their values and beliefs
based on those events. The literature shows that values are gained by experience or lack of
experience. This often frames how a teacher commits to a new reform. It is evident from the
results that experienced teachers have a more difficult time altering their beliefs to meet new
changes within their school; as one stated, “I’ve been doing this for years and its worked”
(Ashford Teacher 2E). Teachers in this school all exhibited different values and beliefs, based on
the culture and demands of their school. Although experienced, some teachers embraced the new
reform, while other experienced teachers negated it. When teachers were provided adequate
knowledge, their opinions began to change. They were either more secure about their position or
they completely change their decision. It would be interesting to conduct a further study that

73

describes how teachers’ values and beliefs alter based on the knowledge and the vision of
success they see for their students.
Understanding Teacher Responses: Another View
As I was analyzing my qualitative results, I was rather distracted by my findings. Several
questions came to mind. For example: If we know that support is significant to the
implementation of any reform and alignment is necessary, why don’t we do anything about it?
Better yet, what is the role of each stakeholder in making sure teachers have the proper tools to
implement the CCSS? These questions and many more led me to seek the advisement of a
neutral liaison, who not only taught in this district for several years and knew the teachers
exceptionally well, but also could provide greater insight on the administrative side. I asked the
Instructional Coach in this district, Bloomfield, to explain how she thought the teachers
responded to the same 15 questions originally asked of them. Her response is as follows:
Due to the politics surrounding this issue, all teachers in this district have heard of the
CCSS…doing anything with it is a totally different answer. They just don’t have the
resources, expertise. They don’t know where to start and what to do. I can honestly say we
don’t have district support. We have outside resources that help, but when the superintendent
isn’t on board and is passive about the rollout, there really isn’t much we can ask our teachers
to do… They are not given a consistent message, they don’t know whether they will adopt it
or fund it. Here’s our leader wasn’t sure and therefore it wasn’t marketed. To be honest
teachers want nothing to do with it because the administrators are hush, hush and secretive
about it. (Bloomfield, November 2013)
When I asked Bloomfield to elaborate on the responses she believed teachers would give
pertaining to whether they implement the standards in their daily practice of mathematics

74

(Question # of the interview questions), she stated, “Those who are implementing honestly
believe in the reform. They aren’t doing it for job security… but what would motivate these
teachers to do so is if they felt they were going to lose their job” (Bloomfield, November 2013).
She believed that those opposed to the implementation of the reform would most likely
participate if they were evaluated on it and if the incentives were high.
Understanding why so many teachers did not feel it was necessary to alter their practice
when implementing the CCSS was a question of grave curiosity. Bloomfield explained,
“Alignment work that was done is more along the lines of taking the program that already exists
and removing things that weren’t common core. When they see the same textbook they just
assume it’s all the same material and don’t change anything.” (Bloomfield, November
2013).With resources being an issue, I asked what resources are needed to implement fully the
CCSS (Question 12 of the overall interview questions). Besides the ones listed on the
questionnaire, alignment of textbooks/workbooks, professional development, teacher meetings,
and alignment of standardize testing, Bloomfield added, “Review of supplemental materials,
providing something that shows how deep each grade level teacher should go” (Bloomfield,
November 2013).
Resources are provided by supportive stakeholders, which leads to the question of who
should be responsible for providing support, and in what capacity (Question 12 of the overall
interview questions). Bloomfield’s response assigned some responsibility to the teacher groups
themselves: “I wouldn’t say administrators in these schools provide support that’s why me and
the curriculum chair are here. I would most probably say other teachers within the same grade
level. Mostly K to 2, 5 and 6 within buildings. Not 4th grade, though, they don’t work well

75

together at all. I think there is one school, but that’s pretty much it” (Bloomfield, November
2013).
Support is not always positive either, as Bloomfield indicted in this statement said, “Anticommon core support is also seen a lot in these schools. Teachers send around e-mails bashing
the Core and saying how it does not help our students. Even the president of the union sends out
anti-common core weekly e-mails… the newer teachers have no idea what to do with it, and the
experienced teachers would just rather not be involved and ignore the Core all together”
(Bloomfield, November 2013).
The theory that the CCSS does not meet students’ academic abilities, Bloomfield
confirmed, is false, as evidenced by the following quote.
The excuse that a lot of teachers give me is that it’s not developmentally appropriate.
That’s not true. Teachers don’t know how to teach to the necessary depth that the Core
calls for. It's the fault of the training of teachers. They should be provided more PD from
someone who is really knowledgeable. Keep in mind these teachers need to want to help
themselves and be flexible to pick up the instruction. (Bloomfield, November 2013)
The results of this statement, as presented by Bloomfield, is that if teachers are flexible and
willing to change, they do not believe the demands are overly rigorous and out of reach for their
students.
My last question pertained to the hypothetical question that teachers were asked: if they
were in charge of developing a core standard, how would they ensure their teachers would
participate in the reform? Bloomfield responded, “Have teachers work on it and be a part of it.
Bring in teachers from our school district to do work on this. People would buy-in if they knew
one of their own was involved. They don’t have the excuse to say this was just written by an

76

outsider. This wasn’t in the classroom they don’t know what they are talking about etc. But you
know besides having their input I would really suggest providing them with information.
Information is key…” (Bloomfield, November 2013).
Final Remarks
The qualitative portion of this study encompassed interviewing all fourth grade teachers
in one district of a Michigan suburb of Detroit and their Instructional Coach. The analysis of the
results indicate that there is a formula that can be used in order to aid reformers in aligning a
particular reform with the values and beliefs of teachers who are prioritizing the reform and
ultimately implementing the material or not. This formula is guided by the literature on how
teachers prioritize reform. The findings suggest that if teachers are provided with knowledge of
the reform, are able to make sense of its ideals, and are provided adequate support, they are
better able to visualize its success in their classroom. With these tools in place, they proceed to
analyze whether applying this reform is something their students and their practice are able to
achieve and accommodate. This then becomes a motivating factor for teachers, who then decide
either to implement or not implement the reform. From this, their values and beliefs begin to
alter to accommodate this reform, or to reject it. Sherry Bloomfield, the Instructional Coach for
this district, provided great insight on how teachers in this district think about the CCSS and
what would further encourage and aid their implementation process.

77

Chapter V: Quantitative Results
Phase II
This chapter discusses the quantitative survey results of my study. The survey data was
gathered from 402 kindergarten through fifth grade teachers within three states: Indiana, Illinois,
and Michigan. The breakdown was as follows: 96 teachers in Indiana, 165 teachers in Illinois,
and 141 teachers in Michigan (see Appendix D). Surveying such a large sample was
advantageous, due to the array of comparable variables. These variables were represented
through demographic information (grade level of instruction, teaching experience, location, etc.).
Additionally, variables were presented through the seven categories discussed in both the
literature and the qualitative portion of the study.
The survey instrument was created based on the literature review (discussed in Chapter
II) and a pilot study (discussed in Chapter III). In order to make the surveys more reliable, a pilot
study was conducted. This gathered the opinions of the dissertation guidance committee
members and teachers outside the sampling pool. In addition, the qualitative phase of this study
allowed for a more fluid execution and understanding of the survey questions and results, as the
understanding developed here further guided the study. It is important to note that the qualitative
phase did not provide bias for the quantitative phase of my research. I did not adjust my
questions based on my interview findings, as I knew they only represented the views of teachers
in one district and in one state.
The three-part quantitative analysis used the survey questions alone (Appendix B) to
determine its results. Survey questions were divided into two groups: (a) teacher background and
demographics (Questions 1 to 4 of the overall survey), and (b) reform and CCSS-related
questions (Questions 5 to 12 and 14 of the overall survey). Teacher demographics were surveyed

78

in order to isolate variables pertaining to location, years of teaching, and grade level. For
example, one question that arose from this inquiry was: Do reform implementation efforts vary
based on teacher demographic categories? For instance, people often assume that the reform
message understood and prioritized by novice teachers differs from experienced teachers’
interpretation of the reform message. Another question that emerged was: Are the early grades
more or less likely to be affected by new reforms pertaining to a single subject? The data was
analyzed with these additional questions in mind. The reform and CCSS-related questions
focused on the seven categories of the literature. This not only allowed teachers to answer
questions related to similar themes, but provided a difference lens when evaluating their
responses.
The rest of this chapter discusses my findings as a result of this survey. In Part I, where
the survey respondents were asked to prioritize seven questions (“Do I value the reform?” “Do I
believe in the reform?” “Are there motivating factors to implementing the reform?” “Is the
reform easily understood?” “Is the reform achievable?” “Can I relate to the reform intentions?”
“Do I receive support to implement the reform?”) in order of most important (1) to least
important (7), I examine their responses and the implications of those responses. This section of
the survey was intended to provide an overview of how teachers prioritize reform unrelated to
any specific reform.
Part II details my findings after utilizing the overall survey response data to understand
how teachers perceive and implement the CCSS. These questions followed the theme of the
seven categories presented in Part I, but did not directly compare them.
Finally, in Part III, I isolated the demographics in three groups (a comparison by state,
experience level, and grade level of instruction). Part III-1 describes the variation in responses

79

between all three states —Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan—specifically focusing on any
significant similarities or differences in responses. Additionally, two state differences (higher
NAEP results and CCSS implementation efforts) were used to create a more detailed
comparison. Part III-2 describes the variation between novice teachers (one to six years of
teaching experience) and experienced teachers (seven plus years of teaching experience). Part
III-3 describes the variation among grade levels between two groups: (a) kindergarten through
second grade teachers and (b) third to fifth grade teachers.
This chapter concludes by comparing the seven categories to the CCSS-related questions.
The significance behind the comparison is to find whether the CCSS can truly be an example of
a reform that illustrates how teachers prioritize reform. The seven ranked categories are themes
that signify what teachers deem to be the most important and the least important when
considering reform implementation.
Part I: Seven Categorical Questions and Analysis
When any individual is introduced to a new concept or thought, in order to accept or
reject the idea, he or she begins by conceptualizing and compartmentalizing it, thus creating an
inner dialogue of positive and negative attributes. In order to understand the mindset and process
of teachers, I asked them to rank the seven categories provided by the literature on this topic by
most to least important. The goal of this question was to understand, independent of the CCSS or
any other reform, how teachers generally process new ideas. Teachers were asked the following
questions:
(h) Do I value the reform?
(i) Do I believe in the reform?
(j) Are there motivating factors for implementing the reform?

80

(k) Is the reform easily understood?
(l) Is the reform achievable?
(m) Can I relate to the reform’s intentions?
(n) Do I receive support to implement the reform?
Then, they were asked to rank each element against the others to determine which factor was
most important when deciding to implement a reform and which factor was least important.
Overall Results
The overall responses of these teachers are provided in Appendix D. In order to provide
clarity to this analysis, the scale of seven categories was condensed into three groups: negative
response (rankings one to three), neutral response (ranking four), and positive response (ranking
five to seven). Table 2 provides the number of respondents (N) by the percentage who responded
for the given category. In addition, the categories are split in the three groups, Negative, Neutral,
and Positive.
How do teachers
prioritize the following
when implementing the
reform?
Q1. Values
Q2. Beliefs
Q3. Motivation

Negative
Response

Neutral
Response

Positive
Response

N

N

N

%

%

%

Total
N

%

129 32.1% 38 9.5% 235 58.5% 402 100.0%
101 25.1% 50 12.4% 251 62.5% 402 100.0%
207 51.5% 58 14.4% 137 34.1% 402 100.0%

Q4. Easily understood for
153 38.1% 87 21.6% 162 40.3% 402 100.0%
knowledge/sense making
Q5. Achievable
Q6. Relatable
Q7. Support

143 35.6% 65 16.2% 194 48.3% 402 100.0%
271 67.4% 55 13.7% 76 18.9% 402 100.0%
202 50.2% 49 12.2% 151 37.6% 402 100.0%

Table 2: Categorical Rankings
Note. The rating scale “Positive/Neutral/Negative” is recoded based on the original 7-point
Likert-type scale (where the original item scale is from 1 “being the least important” to 7 “being
the most important”). Given the new recoded rating scale, “Positive Response” represents the

81

scores from 5 to 7 on the original 7-point Likert Scale, “Neutral Response” for a score of 4 on
the original scale, and “Negative Response” for the scores of 1 through 3 on the original scale.
Table 2 shows that teachers are more likely to implement a reform if they believe in the
reform (positive response rate 62.5%). This result is trailed by teachers valuing the reform
(positive response rate 58.5%), which indicates that teachers must be guided to believe in and
value the reform and be supported mentally prior to considering implementation. Mental support
in this study refers to the idea of psychologically thinking something will present a positive
result for one’s self and therefore buying into the concept, while also respecting every aspect of
the message and its intentions and understanding it, may have constraints. For example, some
teachers may find they are strong believers in the idea that all students can achieve; regardless of
the students’ academic, socioeconomic background, or experiences, they have the potential of
achieving. Teachers will use various tools and practices to support their students’ growth. As a
result of their experiences and understanding, they strongly believe and value their students’
capabilities. The same can be said for a new reform. If teachers strongly believe in and value its
intentions, they will strive to protect the implementation and existence of the reform.
On the other hand, teachers tend not to place great value on whether they can relate to the
reform’s intentions (positive response rate 18.9%). This is more of a stylistic approach, as
teachers can adjust their relatability standards based on their student demographics, classroom
setting, understanding of the reform material, and curriculum, among other factors. There are
several variables that dictate whether or not a teacher relates to the reform intentions, which
makes this category difficult to measure. But, regardless of the low positive response rate, this
factor should still be taken under consideration by stakeholders because we often hear teachers
say they cannot relate to what is being asked of them.

82

The raw data presented above revealed significant findings. However, it is also important to
consider average response data. The average response data are important because the resulting
figures combine both the most important category and the least important category that teachers
consider when deciding whether or not to implement a reform. Taking both sides into account
provides a broader overview. It further confirms that the data analysis results are consistent with
the raw data. In this study, the average response results indicated findings identical with the raw
data, which does not often occur. The figures below (6 and 7) describe the data.

Figure 6: Graphic display of average response data (1 indicates the least important factor in
implementation and 7 indicates the most important)

83

Figure 7: Categorical Comparison
The average response data also indicates a high ranking of 4.96 in the belief category and
a low ranking of 2.83 for the relatability category. The categories were ranked in the following
order, from most important to least important average response rate (average score):
1. Beliefs: 4.96
2. Values: 4.67
3. Achievable: 4.40
4. Easily understood (knowledge/sense making): 4.09
5. Support: 3.62
6. Motivation: 3.43
7. Relatable: 2.83
Although the average data score ranking matches the raw data, in order to understand the overall
information, I used the score of 4.0 and above as most important and 3.99 and below as least
important, due to the average range of findings. Therefore, this places beliefs, values,
achievability, and ease of understanding (knowledge/sense making) as most important, while

84

support, motivation, and relatable are labeled as least important. Supplementary illustrations are
provided in the Appendix D.
Cross Tabulation Analysis
Looking at these categories independent from one another is one method of analysis, but in
order to have a more deeply controlled comparison, it is important to conduct a correlation
coefficient analysis. Table 3 provides the correlation between each category.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix of all 7 Categories
This correlation matrix describes the relationship between each individual category. The table
indicates that when teachers were asked in what order they prioritize reform, their responses
either had a positive, negative, or no significance between one another. Selecting a sample of
these results, I find that the categories of values and support have a negative significance (0.55**), which means that when a teacher responds that they place values high in their list of

85

priorities, they will, statistically, not categorize a need for support to be high on their priority list.
Placing this result into practice, when teachers value the reform, they do not find support to be an
impeding factor when considering implementation. This may be the case because if they truly
value the reform approach and goals, if support is not offered, they seek alternative methods.
This situation was demonstrated through the qualitative findings of this study. Teachers who
supported the implementation of the CCSS sought additional support in and outside their district
to better their practice. They valued the CCSS, and therefore they did everything they could to
support one another through the process. In reverse, teachers in the same district of this study
stated that they did not receive support through the implementation process and also did not
value the CCSS. Thus, the findings in this correlation matrix do provide an interesting theory,
that if an individual values, believes, and is motivated to implement the reform, whether they
receive support is not an impeding factor.
Principal Component Analysis
In the same vein as conducting a correlation matrix in order to compare the similarities
and differences of the categories, I wanted to transform the number of possibilities correlated
into smaller numbers of uncorrelated variables, thus using a principal component analysis. The
principal component analysis aids in discovering and reducing the dimensionality of the data set.
Additionally it aids in my effort to identify new meanings of the underlying variables (DiPerna,
J.C. & Elliott, S.N., 1999). The principal component analysis in the second Phase of this study
found four indices out of the seven categories of how teachers prioritize reform: (a) Mental
Support: beliefs and values, (b) Achievability: easily understood, achievable, and support, (c)
Relatability, (d) Motivation. However, it is important to note that because relatability and

86

motivation are independent variables. Based on both tables, my hypothesis of grouping these
categories together held true.
Conclusion
Whether these results are considered as independent categories or grouped in four
indices, the data indicate that the correlated groups are: (a) beliefs and values and (b) ease of
understanding, achievability, and support; and the independent groups are: (a) relatibility and (b)
motivation. Thus, when teachers consider prioritizing a reform using a factor within one of the
categories, the relationship with the other variable is also strongly correlated. Using my
understandings from Part I, that all seven categories are interconnected to one another, either
positively or negatively, I sought to understand the results in the context of a current reform.
Part II: How Teachers Prioritize Reform Based on the Common Core State Standards in
Mathematics
Putting a new reform into practice is a difficult task. Teachers must have proper
knowledge to be able to distinguish between the similarities and differences of the reform’s
intentions and their previous practice. The CCSS does vary from other reforms, and therefore, if
implemented correctly, it should alter one’s practice. This segment of the study aimed to explain
the overall responses of teachers, targeting questions 5 to 12 and 14 of the overall survey
questions. After the results are discussed, it will discuss the correlation between these particular
CCSS-related questions in comparison to the seven categories. All charts and diagrams for this
portion of the study can be found in the Appendix E.
Specifically looking at the CCSS, of the 402 surveyed teachers, all teachers had heard of
the CCSS. The teachers were then asked if they had implemented the standards in their daily
instruction of mathematic, and the results here are more telling: although all teachers had heard

87

of the CCSS, 87.6% of the teachers stated that they do in fact implement the standards. One of
the biggest misconceptions of reform by teachers is that they do not alter your method of
practice. Many teachers all over the country believe that if they make slight adjustments to their
practice, those changes would satisfy the reform’s intentions. This misconception occurs due to
the lack of understanding of not only the reform’s intentions but also the subject matter. I
selected kindergarten to fifth grade teachers for deeper analysis in hopes of better understanding
how multi-subject elementary teachers cope with adjusting reform and their understanding of the
content. The CCSS requires more than slight modification, as it provides a deeper analysis of the
content standards. Thus, teachers must alter their method of practice in order to implement
correctly the standards. This study found that 41% teachers responded “yes” when asked if they
have altered their method of practice since the adoption of the core, and a larger group, 53% of
teachers, stated they have “somewhat” altered their practice. The results here suggest several
scenarios. First, it is possible that because two out of three of these states have not begun full
implementation of the CCSS, their teachers are only beginning to implement the standards, while
slowly altering their method practice. This would explain the lower percentage of “yes”
responses. Another reason could be that teachers do not recognize that a significant change needs
to be made to their practice in order to comply with the reform initiative. They may not identify
the differences between the CCSS and their previous practice. Because of the variety of reasons
that this may be the case, it is difficult to address all the plausible explanations for this response,
but these are two that may be more likely than the others.
One of the greatest criticisms of the CCSS is the lack of materials, textbooks, and
assessments that currently align. I found it beneficial to ask the teachers if this is even an issue
during the implementation process. I asked teachers if there are “adequate resources for you to

88

fully implement the CCSS” (question 8 of the overall questions). To my surprise, the response
was nearly split in half, with 45.8% of teachers stating that there were adequate resources and
only 54.2% there were not enough adequate resources. I was expecting fewer teachers to indicate
they felt that they had adequate materials because the CCSS has been hampered by the fact that
many textbooks do not align with the reform’s standards. Although publishing companies have
released “new” textbooks with a CCSS seal, they still do not align to the intended standards.
Schmidt (2014) recently conducted a study of two forthcoming reviews of classroom textbooks.
He found that publishing companies were merely “slapping shiny new stickers on the same book
they’ve been selling for years” (Herold & Molnar, Education Week, March 5th, 2014). As a
researcher who has conducted several field observations and interviews pertaining to the CCSS, I
concur with Schmidt’s assertion. After speaking with several teachers during previous interviews
unrelated to this dissertation but pertaining to the mathematics practice standards of the CCSS, I
found that they innocently believe that their textbooks have been altered to provide greater
alignment to the CCSS. For example, the CCSS provides eight mathematics practice standards to
aid in the instruction of teachers. One publishing company that sells their books in Michigan
cites the mathematics practices in every unit, but claims there are only seven standards. For a
teacher who is unfamiliar with these practices, this is problematic, because they believe they are
following a guide that is trustworthy and reliable.
To further investigate the importance of textbooks and materials that align, question 9 of
the overall survey questions asked what additional resources would be beneficial to the
implementation process. An overwhelming 68.9% of teachers stated having aligned textbooks
and workbooks would be helpful to their instruction. In terms of alignment, during the survey

89

period teachers were introduced to their state-selected standardized assessment consortium.
Indiana and Illinois selected PARCC, and Michigan selected Smarter Balance.
In addition to material support, personal support is also important during the
implementation process. One-on-one attention from an individual who can provide a teacher
with guidance and knowledge regarding the change is always helpful. Teachers were asked
whether they’d received support from others through the implementation processes. Fortunately,
83.6% of teachers stated they did in fact receive support from others. To clarify the source of
support, teachers further indicated the role of the supporter—73.1% of teachers indicated they
received support from other teachers within the same grade level.
While receiving support is one aspect that teachers consider when implementing a new
reform, they must also assess whether this reform even meets their students’ abilities. In this
case, the CCSS design has considered this factor; if implemented correctly, it works as a set of
standards, or more so a set of goals teachers should aim for their students to reach. Student
abilities should not be a factor, as the teacher can modify their instruction in order to suit their
students’ needs. However, based on the survey, teachers do not recognize this flexibility of the
reform, because 63.4% of teachers stated that the reform “somewhat” met their students’
academic abilities and 6.5% stated that it does not meet their abilities at all. This is troublesome,
because it means that these teachers may not understand the full scope of the reform’s intentions.
Perhaps this is due to the beginning phase of the reform, and as the understanding and
implication of the reform develops, this perception will change overtime.
Thus we come to the final and most controversial question of all: Is the CCSS another fad
and will it be replaced with something new and exciting in the near future? Not surprisingly, due
to the overturn of reform policy in our nation, 61.7% of teachers do in fact believe the CCSS will

90

be replaced by a new policy in the near future. Unfortunately, many elements contribute to this
very notion of reform change. However, the cycle of change ultimately returns responsibility
back to the implementer. If teachers are provided adequate knowledge of the reform, are able to
make sense of it, and lead up to a position where they truly believe and value the reform
initiative, they may actually be able to make a positive change and increase the longevity of the
reform.
Based on the findings of this section, I have selected four key questions (6, 7, 12, and 14)
pertaining to the CCSS to compare the relationship among the seven categories presented in
earlier sections of this dissertation. In order to test my theory, I ran a multivariate analysis
through a series of regressions, using the four questions as my independent variable and the
seven categories as my dependent variable. The results of the data can be found in the Appendix
D section of this paper.
I conducted four regressions to analyze if my independent variables (7 categories)
correlate with my dependent variables (CCSS questions). The first regression analysis was
conducted on question 6, “Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of
mathematics?” The results signify no significance.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Data
Sum of
Mean of
df
F-statistic
p-value
Source
Squares
Squares
Regression
0.48
6
0.08
0.72
0.63
Residual
44.07
396
0.11
Total
44.55
402
Note. DV: “Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics”;
IVs: Seven Categories.
Table 4: ANOVA Daily Practice
The resulting ANOVA table above shows that the hypothesized regression model is not
significant at the alpha level of 0.05 and that the seven categories did not relate to whether

91

teachers implement the reform in their daily practice of mathematics (F- statistic= 0.72; pvalue=0.63). This means that the seven explanatory variables of how teachers prioritize reform
do not seem to determine if teachers implement the standards in their daily practice, as the results
are insignificant at the given alpha level.
The second regression analysis was conducted on question 7, “Have you altered your
methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?” The results signify no significance.
Data
Source
Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
1.75
137.92
139.67

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Mean of
df
F-statistic
Squares
6
0.29
0.84
396
0.34
402

p-value
0.54

Note. DV: “Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS”;
IVs: Seven Categories.

Table 5: ANOVA Altering Practice
The resulting ANOVA table above shows that the hypothesized regression model is not
significant at the alpha level of 0.05 and that the seven categories did not relate to whether
teachers implement the reform in their daily practice of mathematics. (F-statistic= 0.84; pvalue =0.54). This means that the seven explanatory variables of how teachers prioritize
reform do not seem to determine if teachers altered their method of practice, as the results
are insignificant at the given alpha level.
The third regression analysis was conducted on question 12,” Does the CCSS meet your
students’ academic abilities?” The results signify no significance.

Data Source
Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
0.79
123.81
124.61

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Mean of
df
F-statistic
Squares
6
0.13
0.42
396
0.31
402

p-value
0.86

Note. DV: “Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities”; IVs: Seven Categories.

Table 6: ANOVA Meeting Students’ Academic Abilities

92

The resulting ANOVA table above shows that the hypothesized regression model is not
significant at the alpha level of 0.05 and that the seven categories did not relate to whether
teachers believe the CCSS meets students’ academic abilities. (F-statistic= 0.42; p-value=
0.86). This means that the seven explanatory variables of how teachers prioritize reform do
not seem to determine if teachers believe the CCSS meet student’s academic levels, as the
results are insignificant at the given alpha level.
The fourth and final regression analysis was conducted on question 14, “Do you think the CCSS
will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?” The results are not significant.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Data
Sum of
Mean of
df
F-statistic
p-value
Source
Squares
Squares
Regression
0.41
6
0.07
0.28
0.95
Residual
94.75
396
0.24
Total
95.15
402
Note. DV: “Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future”; IVs:
Seven Categories.
Table 7: ANOVA Replacing the CCSS
The resulting ANOVA table above shows that the hypothesized regression model is not
significant at the significance level of 0.05 and that the seven categories did not relate to
whether teachers think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future (Fstatistic= 0.28; p-value=0.95). This means that the seven explanatory variables of how
teachers prioritize reform do not seem to determine if teachers think the CCSS will be
replaced, as the results are insignificant at the given alpha level.
When comparing these questions to the seven categories, all four questions illustrated no
statistical significance, and all found the category of beliefs to present the highest mean. One
example of these results in practice is question 12 of the overall survey questions, “Does the
CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?” Selecting the category of “achievable”, we find

93

that if the CCSS does not meet the students’ academic abilities, the teacher does not see it as
achievable. Or in the reverse, if the reform is not achievable, it cannot possibly meet the
student’s academic abilities.
Conclusion
The results of the overall survey questions are not surprising in relation to the overall
trend of reform implementation, especially because the CCSS has not been fully implemented in
Illinois and Indiana. Although teachers stated that they are implementing the standards in their
daily practice of mathematics, the question of how much and how little change has occurred in
the classroom seems to be a concern. Teachers believe they need additional resources in order to
justifiably alter their practice and completely adopt the core; alignment of textbooks and
additional support from same grade level teachers are key. However, teachers have two main
concerns: that the CCSS does not align with their students’ academic abilities, and that, most of
all, this reform is merely a reform fad that will quickly vanish once a new and more exciting
policy comes into play.
In comparing these questions with that of the seven categories, no significant results were
found; however, an interesting finding revealed that each question highly coincided with the
beliefs of teachers, which means whether a teachers believes in the reform plays a significant
role in how they respond to and act towards the CCSS. Having beliefs as a primary category
mirrors the initial findings in Part I.
Part III: Relating the Demographic Changes to the CCSS
Part III of this study found a variety of responses that could very well be altered when
isolating certain demographic variables of teacher. Therefore, I used a series of regressions to
isolate the demographic variable. The variables selected for this section were state comparison

94

(Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana), years of experience (novice vs. experienced), and grade level
of instruction (K to 2 and 3 to 5). The results of the data can be found in the Appendix G section
of this paper.
State level comparison
Three Midwestern states were purposefully surveyed in this study. It is important to
understand the variations and similarities among those states. The state distributions were as
follows: Indiana, 96 teachers; Illinois, 165 teachers, and Michigan, 141 teachers. The participants
were from all three types of districts—urban, rural, and suburban—and there were comparable
demographics all throughout the three states. Part III does not only discuss each individual
state’s findings, but also conducts a planned comparison contrast between the state that scored
“above average” on the NAEP 2011 assessment, Indiana, with Illinois and Michigan. And, we
will also compare the state that began implementation of the CCSS during this academic year
and preceding the other two states, Michigan and Indiana and Illinois.
During the period in which the teachers were surveyed, all three states had adopted the
CCSS, but Michigan was the only state that had full implementation. It is important to consider
which states fully implemented the standards, because this may have influenced some of the
teachers’ responses. Indiana adopted the standards in August 2010, but will not be fully
implementing them until the 2014/2015 school year. Illinois adopted the standards in June 2010,
but has only recently, in the 2013/2014 school year, fully implemented the reform.
A General Linear Model analysis was conducted for all three analyses. The results can be
found in the Appendix G. The results found the following: that all teachers indicated they had
heard of the CCSS, as presented in question one and illustrated in figure in the Appendix G.
However, a frequency table is also provided below.

95

All Teachers

Indiana
Freq %

Illinois
Freq %

Michigan
Freq %

96 100.0%

165 100.0%

141 100.0%

Q5. Have you heard of the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)?

Yes
No

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

90

93.8%

134

81.2%

6

6.2%

31

18.8%

33

34.4%

76

50

52.1%

13

0

0.0%

Q6. Do you implement the standards in
your daily practice of mathematics?!***

Yes, it motivates me to do so
No, but it would further motivate me
to do so

128

90.8%

13

9.2%

46.1%

56

39.7%

82

49.7%

81

57.4%

13.5%

7

4.2%

4

2.8%

52

54.2%

65

39.4%

67

47.5%

44

45.8%

100

60.6%

74

52.5%

73

76.0%

147 89.1%

116

82.3%

23

24.0%

18 10.9%

25

17.7%

40

41.7%

48

29.1%

33

23.4%

52

54.2%

106

64.2%

97

68.8%

4

4.2%

11

6.7%

11

7.8%

62

64.6%

91

55.2%

95

67.4%

34

35.4%

74

44.8%

46

32.6%

Q7. Have you altered your methods of
practice since the adoption of the CCSS?!
**

Yes
Somewhat
Not at all
Q8. Are there adequate resources for
you to fully implement the CCSS?!*

Yes
No
Q10. Do you receive support from others
through the implementation process?!**

Yes
No
Q12. Does the CCSS meet your students'
abilities?!**

Yes
Somewhat
Not at all
Q14. Do you think the CCSS will be
replaced by a new policy in the near
future?!*

Yes
No
Total

96 100.0%

165 100.0%

141 100.0%

Note. *: marginally significant finding; **: significant finding; ***: strongly significant finding.

Table 8: Variation Among States Frequency Table
The most significant findings between the states were presented in question 6 (“Do you
implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?”) and 7 (“Have you altered your
method of practice since the adoption of the CCSS”) of the overall survey questions. One would
assume that based on the implementation period of the three states, Michigan would lead in the
96

implementation of the CCSS. When combining the implementation with whether the teachers in
that state have altered their practice, the following results were found:

Figure 8: Implementation vs. Alteration of the CCSS in Teacher’s Daily Practice
The findings indicate a significant difference between the response in question 6 in
Illinois (81.20%) and the response in Indiana (93.80%). Therefore, the hypothesis above is
invalid. Surprisingly, Indiana is leading the way for self-reported implementation efforts.
However, as previously discussed, it is not sufficient to assume that if teachers are saying they
are implementing the CCSS they are actually changing their teaching practice to meet the ideals
of the reform. This finding provides supportive results for this assertion. Although teachers from
Indiana state that they are implementing the reform, they actually have the lowest number of
teachers who state they are altering their practice. The reverse findings are true for the state of
Michigan. Michigan should be the largest self-reported implementer of the CCSS purely due to
when the state began its implementation process, and they actually have altered their practice
more so than any other state. It is possible that, teachers in Michigan are under-estimating their

97

implementation of the CCSS, but in fact they are actually altering their practice to meet the
requirements. On the other hand, they could be altering their practice to meet another change in
their classroom. It is difficult to make a definite conclusion. However, there is a significant
difference with teachers in Illinois implementing the CCSS and altering their practice as well.
This raises the question that perhaps they are somewhat altering their practice and therefore do
not accept this as a full implementation.
I have selected two differences among the states to conduct a planned comparison
contrast, otherwise known as a planned custom hypothesis. The planned comparison was
analyzed using a t-statistic test (Seltman, 2013).
The first comparison is based on the NAEP 2011 mathematics scores. Indiana illustrated
a higher-than-average school score, while Illinois was ranked average, and Michigan below
average. Due to this variation, I chose to compare Michigan to the other two states. The null
hypothesis for this analysis is that there is no difference in the CCSS key questions between
Indiana/Illinois and Michigan. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in the CCSS
key questions between Indiana/Illinois and Michigan.
Table of Contrast Coefficients for
the Comparisons of IN vs Others (MI & IL)
Planned
Q1
Contrast
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
1
-.5
-.5
Note: The rationale of designing this contrast is that “Indiana has the highest NAEP rest in
comparison to the other two states.” For that reason the coefficient for Indiana has been set at 1.
Table 9: Higher NAEP Results State Comparison
The following six questions (based on the overall survey questions) were selected for this
hypothesis:
6. Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
7. Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
98

8. Are there adequate resources for you to implement the CCSS fully?
10. Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?
12. Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?
14. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?

Q6
Q7
Q8
Q10
Q12
Q14

Summary of the CCSS Key Questions
For the Planned Comparisons between IN vs Others (MI & IL)
Value of Contrast Std. Error
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
.08
.032
2.453
222.009
.015
-.19
.069
-2.701
399
.007
.11
.059
1.831
158.059
.069
-.10
.048
-1.998
137.601
.048
.18
.066
2.811
154.759
.006
.03
.056
.589
160.267
.557

Table 10: Summary of CCSS Key Questions – Planned Comparison
According to the estimated value of contrast in the table for questions 6, 8, 12, and 14,
Indiana is higher. For example, question 6 of the overall survey questions asks teachers if they
implement the standards in their daily practice of mathematics. Indiana had a higher percentage
than the other two states, by 8% further resulting in a significant p-value of 0.02. This means that
teachers in Indiana do implement the standards in their daily practice of mathematics. To further
support this theory, I conducted a General Linear Model analysis.
The analysis found significant results to be present in question 6. The table 11 shows that
Michigan had an average score of “yes,” teachers do implement the standards in their daily
practice of mathematics. The mean response for Indiana was 3.0% above (p-value=0.49) the one
in Michigan, and the mean for Illinois was 9.6% below (p-value=001) Michigan. Therefore,
these results indicate that teachers in Illinois were less likely (by nearly 10%) to implement the
standards in their daily practice than teachers in Michigan. However, it is important to note that

99

both sets of teachers in Indiana and Michigan had the same responses statistically on the
implementation of their daily practice of mathematics.
Hypothetical Model for the state comparisons on the survey item “Do you implement the
standards in your daily practice of mathematics”:
[!"#$!!"#$%&#"#]
= [!"#$%&&!!"#$!!"!!"#ℎ!"#] + !"##$%$&'$(!!"#$!!"#ℎ!"#! + !""#"
Table for the Results of the General Linear Model
Model Parameter
Estimate
SE of Estimate
P-value
Overall Mean in Michigan
0.908
0.028
0.000
Response Differences in Indiana
0.030
0.043
0.493
Response Differences in Illinois
-0.096
0.037
0.011
Note: The test of the corrected model is statistically significant, where the model is tested with
F=5.521 and p-value=0.004.
Table 11: General Linear Model/Hypothetical Model
On the other hand, an alternative example can be found in the analysis of question 7.
Although teachers in Indiana illustrated they have implemented the standards in their daily
practice of mathematics, they scored lower in their ability to alter their methods of mathematics,
compared to Michigan and Illinois. The results found that Indiana scored 19% lower, with a pvalue of =0.01, compared to its neighboring states. It can be assumed from these results that
teachers in this state may believe they are implementing the CCSS, but because their response to
altering their practice method is so low, that may not necessarily be the case.
The 2011 NAEP results indicated that the state of Indiana had a higher student
achievement average, thus presenting a different characteristic. After comparing six CCSS
questions with Indiana as the dominant state, and Michigan and Illinois as the subdominant
states, I found a variation of responses, with positive responses for questions 6, 8, 12, and 14. A
future study can be conducted to determine whether this result relates to environment and
instructional practices in Indiana.

100

The second comparison is based directly on this particular reform and its implementation.
Michigan was the first state, between Indiana and Illinois, to begin implementation of the
standards. When this survey was administered, neither Indiana nor Illinois was mandated to
implement fully the core. The null hypothesis of this analysis is that there is no difference in the
CCSS key questions between Michigan and Indiana/Illinois (combined). The alternative
hypothesis of this analysis is that there is a difference in the CCSS key questions between
Michigan and Indiana/Illinois (combined).
Table of Contrast Coefficients for
the Comparisons of MI vs Others (IN & IL)
Planned
Q2
Contrast
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
1
-.5
-.5
Note: The rationale of designing this contrast is that “Michigan was the first state in comparison
to the other two states to fully implement the CCSS.” For that reason the coefficient for
Michigan has been set at 1.
Table 12: Michigan Full Implementation of CCSS State Comparison
Summary of the CCSS Key Questions
For the Planned Comparisons between MI vs Others (IN & IL)
Value of Contrast
Std. Error
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Q6
.03
.031
1.051
309.434
.294
Q7
.06
.062
.896
399
.371
Q8
.01
.053
.139
280.063
.889
Q10
.00
.041
-.073
270.407
.942
Q12
-.14
.058 -2.477
290.426
.014
Q14
.08
.050
1.487
291.523
.138
Table 13: Michigan Full CCSS Implementation State Comparison For Planned Comparison
The following six questions (based on the overall survey questions) were selected for this
hypothesis:
6. Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
7. Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
8. Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS?

101

10. Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?
12. Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?
14. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?
Based on this analysis, the only significant result is a negative response in question 12
(Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?). The result found a 14% variance
between Michigan and the other two states (p-value of =0.01). Due to the experience of teachers
in this state with the implementation of the CCSS, they may have attempted to reach out to a
variety of students who continue to struggle with the rigor and instruction of the new material.
Although the implementation may be well-intended, teachers may not yet realize the standards
associates with CCSS are meant for any academic level. Teachers in Illinois and Indiana may not
experience such difficulties because they have yet to dive fully into the change.
The goal of conducting such a study is the capability of being able to compare several
demographic groups with one another to understand trends that can be replicated in the future.
These Midwestern states have not provided a clear conclusion, but they have been able to
provide several assumptions that can be further developed in future studies.
Years of experience comparison
Many people believe that experienced teachers are reluctant to alter their practice to meet
new reform intentions because they believe their method of instruction has proved successful.
These same people also believe that novice teachers are reluctant to adapt to a new reform
because they are already overwhelmed with other demands. In order to address these
assumptions related to the CCSS, I separated my teachers by years of experience in relation to
their responses. In this particular paper, I describe novice teachers as individuals who have
taught for one to six years, and experienced teachers as individuals who have taught for twelve
plus years. (Intermediate teachers will not be discussed in this portion of the study, but are

102

individuals who have taught for seven to eleven years.) The total percent of novice teachers is
31.1%, and the total percent of experienced teachers in this study is 49.1%.

Figure 9: Breakdown of Participants Years of Experience Teaching
Although the survey questions used in this section are the same as the overall survey questions, I
have altered some of the specifics to fit the two groups—novice and experienced teachers. I have
only selected describing the results that indicate significant and noteworthy findings. Table 14
describes these questions. All other charts and graphs are found in the Appendix E.

103

Novice teachers’ perspectives:

(a) How do novice teachers (1-6 years)
respond to whether they believe they have
adequate resources to fully implement the
CCSS?
(b) Do novice teachers receive additional
support? If so, by whom?

(c) Do novice teachers fear the CCSS will be
replaced by a new policy?

Experienced teachers’ perspectives:
(d) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether they
implement the standards in their daily practice
for mathematics?
(e) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether they
have altered their method of practice?
(f) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether they
have adequate resources to fully implement the
CCSS?
(g) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether they
receive support?
(h) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether it
meets their student’s abilities?
(i) How do experienced teachers (12 to 16
years and 17+ years) respond to whether the
CCSS will be replaced?

Table 14: Question Comparison Between Novice and Experienced Teachers

104

Novice Teachers (1-6 years)

Frequency

Percent

60

49.6%

61

50.4%

102

84.3%

65

53.7%

94

77.7%

24

19.8%

38

31.4%

8

6.60%

19

15.7%

Yes
No

65

53.7%

56

46.3%

Total

121

100.0%

Q4. Are there adequate resources for you to fully
implement the CCSS?

Yes
No
Q5. Do you receive support from others through the
implementation process? ***

Yes
By administrator
By other teachers within the same grade level
By other teachers in different grade levels
By teaching coach
By other

No
Q7. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new
policy in the near future?!*

Note. *: marginally significant finding; **: significant finding; ***: strongly significant finding.

Table 15 Novice Teacher Frequency Table

Figure 10: Novice Teacher Reponses: 3 Key CCSS Questions

105

Novice teachers’ perspective
The first question (a) asked, “How do novice teachers respond to whether they believe
they have adequate resources to fully implement the CCSS?” (question 4 of the overall survey
questions). The findings demonstrate that there was a nearly even split between those who
responded “yes” and those who responded “no.” According to the results, 49.6% believed that
they had adequate resources to implement the CCSS, while 50.4% did not believe that they had
adequate resources to implement the CCSS. Therefore, the ANOVA analysis suggests that there
was no statically significant difference (p-value=0.92) between these two proportions, and the
number of novice teachers who felt there were adequate resources was essentially equal to those
who did not. An even distribution is rather rare, but it creates interest in the next question.
The next question, question (b), was “Do novice teachers receive support? If so, by
whom?” (question 5 of the overall survey questions). The findings here were that 84.3% of
novice teachers felt that they received additional support. The particular individuals who were
providing the support are as follows: the same grade level teachers, at 77.7%; their
administrators, at 53.7%; their teaching coach, at 31.4%; and lastly teachers in their school at
different grade levels, at 19.8%. Statistically speaking, novice teachers received support from a
variety of individuals (p-value<0.01). However, it is important to note, based on the Part II
findings, that support ranked as number 5 out of 7 in terms of importance for whether or not a
teacher prioritizes a reform. These findings are relatively surprising, because we often hear that
novice teachers feel they are not provided enough support. However, similar to the overall
findings, the same grade level teachers are valuable assets for teachers to have. The reason for
this is because teachers at the same grade level cannot only provide teachers additional material
to aid their practice, but that they are more familiar with the curriculum. Teachers in the same

106

school at the same grade level are even more important. The accessibility of these teachers can
lend a hand to either providing a positive welcoming environment or a negative environment.
For example, this was seen in the qualitative portion of the study, where Teacher 9N Carlton
struggled with the implementation of the CCSS because teachers within her school at the same
grade level did not collaborate to understand and attempt to implement the reform standards, thus
leaving the novice teacher overwhelmed and confused about not only the CCSS, but how it
played a role in her school.
The next question, question (c), was “Do novice teachers fear the CCSS will be replaced
by a new policy (question 7 of the overall survey questions) ?” The findings indicated that the
distribution of responses on this question was nearly split in half (p-value=0.42), with 53.7% of
novice teachers indicating that they expected that the policy would be changed and 46.3% of
novice teachers did not believe the reform would change. One can assume, based on these
findings, that novice teachers either do not have enough experience with change in policy or
have heard that policies do not remain in the system and have made a decision based on the
opinion of others.
Experienced teachers’ perspective
Experienced teachers are unpredictable. One cannot make any assumptions about
whether they are tired of reform change or whether they understand its necessity and are eager to
implement reforms. The qualitative findings of this dissertation presented experienced teachers
in two ways. First, there were experienced teachers who were tired of the constant adjustment to
their teaching practice. These teachers rejected reform messages, without considering the value
to their students. The second type of experienced teachers found in the qualitative findings were
those who were open to reform change on the basis of it providing their students benefits from

107

the new modality. The survey questions below address if this district is just unique in its
findings, or if this trend does exist among other teachers who participated in the study.
Experienced Teachers (12+ years)

Frequency

Percent

173

87.8%

24

12.2%

79

40.1%

113

57.4%

5

2.5%

Q6. Do you implement the standards in your daily
practice of mathematics? ***

Yes, it motivates me to do so
No, but it would further motivate me to do so
Q7. Have you altered your methods of practice since
the adoption of the CCSS? ***

Yes
Somewhat
Not at all
Q8. Are there adequate resources for you to fully
implement the CCSS?

Yes
No

88

44.7%

109

55.3%

170

86.3%

87

44.2%

140

71.1%

62

31.5%

64

32.5%

28

14.2%

27

13.7%

46

23.4%

137

69.5%

14

7.1%

Yes
No

132

67.0%

65

33.0%

Total

197

100.0%

Q5. Do you receive support from others through the
implementation process? ***

Yes
By administrator
By other teachers within the same grade level
By other teachers in different grade levels
By teaching coach
By other

No
Q6. Does the CCSS meet your students' abilities? ***

Yes
Somewhat
Not at all
Q7. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new
policy in the near future? ***

Note. *: marginally significant finding; **: significant finding; ***: strongly significant finding.

Table 16: Experienced Teacher Frequency Table

108

Figure 11: Experienced Teacher Reponses: 3 Key CCSS Questions
The first question that illuminated the experienced teachers’ sentiments was question (d):
“Do experienced teachers implement the standards in their daily practice of mathematics
(question 1 of the overall survey questions)?” The findings (based on the ANOVA analysis) were
strongly significant (p-value<0.01) and indicated that 87.8% of experienced teachers did
implement the CCSS in their daily practice of mathematics, but 12.2% did not. This shows that
experienced teachers were far more inclined to adapt the new standards and implement them in
their daily math practice, unlike the even split among novice teachers. However, although
experienced teachers were more flexible in adopting new standards, this finding did not indicate
whether or not they recognized that a change needs to be made to their actual practice.
The next question, question (e), “Have experienced teachers altered their method of
practice (question 3 of the overall survey questions)?”, addressed this concern. The findings
indicated that 40.1% of experienced teachers did alter their practice, and that 57.4% of
experienced teachers “somewhat” altered their practice. The combined score of teachers who did

109

alter their practice completely and those who did “somewhat” equaled 97.5% (40.1% + 57.4% =
97.5%). Only 2.5 % of the experienced teachers surveyed stated they had not altered their
practice. These results are also strongly significant (p-value<0.01). They indicate that even the
10.2% (i.e., 20 out of 197 participating teachers, by using cross-table analysis) of teachers who
reported that they did not implement the standards in their daily math practice may have actually
altered their practice. To question 6, “Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of
mathematics?” 12.2% teachers responded “no,” they did not implement the standards in their
daily practice of mathematics. To question 7, “Have you altered your methods of practice since
the adoption of the CCSS?” 2.5% teachers responded “no,” they had not altered their methods of
practice since the adoption of the CCSS.
The next area of inquiry is represented by question (f): “Do experienced teachers receive
adequate resources to implement fully the CCSS?” (question 4 of the overall survey questions).
The findings were not statistically significant (p-value=0.14) in that 44.7% of teachers felt they
had received adequate resources to implement the reform fully, and at the same time, 55.3% of
the experienced teachers surveyed responded that they felt that they did not. Ironically, novice
teachers had very similar results: 49.6% of novice teachers believed they had adequate resources
to implement the CCSS. The implications of these findings indicate great concern that such a
large percentage of teachers do not feel like they have adequate resources to implement the
reform fully.
Next, question (g) asked, “How do experienced teachers respond to whether they receive
support?” (question 5 of the overall survey questions). The findings were strongly significant (pvalue<0.01), because 86.3% of teachers felt they received support, and 13.7% believed they did
not. When asked who they received support from, the breakdown was as follows: 71.1% from

110

the same grade level teachers, 44.2 % from their administrators, 32.5% from their teaching
coach, 31.5% from teachers at different grade levels, and 14.2% from others, which will be
discussed later in this chapter. Compared to novice teachers, the results were once again rather
similar. Novice teachers reported overall that 84.3% felt that they received support. However, the
results of from whom they received the support varied. 77.7% of the support novice teachers
received was from teachers at the same grade level versus 71.1% of what experienced teachers
received from them. 53.7% of support was received from administrators, versus the 44.2% for
the experienced teachers. 31.4% of novice teachers reported the support coming from the
teaching coach, and there were remarkably nearly identical results for experienced teachers, at
32.5%. 6.6% of novice teachers stated they received support from others; while 14.2% of
experienced teachers stated they their support was received from others. The most significant
difference between from whom novice and experienced teachers received their support was from
the administrators.
The next question, question (h), was “How do experienced teachers respond to whether
the reform meets their student's abilities?” (question 6 of the overall survey questions). The
findings were strongly significant (p-value<0.01); 23.4% of teachers responded that the CCSS
did meet their students’ academic abilities, while 69.5% responded that the standards
“somewhat” met their students’ abilities, and 7.1% responded that the new standards did not at
all meet their abilities.
The final question, question (f), asked “How do experienced teachers respond to whether
the CCSS will be replaced?” (question 7 of the overall survey questions). The findings were once
again strongly significant (p-value<0.01); 67% of experienced teachers responded that they
believe the reform will be replaced in the near future. 33% did not believe the CCSS will be

111

replaced in the near future. Novice teachers were more optimistic, with 53.7% expecting the
policy to change. Experienced teachers have experienced several reform turnovers and were
likely concerned that once again policymakers and reformers will re-adjust the mandates for
something they deem to be better for the students. Novice teachers, on the other hand, had not
experienced such events, but were often warned by their surrounding environment.
Many novice teachers are overwhelmed by their new environment, the rules and
regulations that accompany teaching in today’s classrooms, and the teaching duties themselves.
As a result, novice teachers may be more likely to follow carefully the text or workbooks
provided as a sense of security. The fear of being evaluated, based on his/her students’ academic
abilities through standardized tests, is most likely the central concern. Unfortunately, the CCSS
has failed in its intention to align standardized tests and resource materials prior to or during the
first round of implementation for teachers. Therefore, some novice teachers would rather have a
stable curriculum through the resources already provided, and would rather teach the standards
based on the tested material, rather than a reform that has yet to have assessments and resources
that align.
Experienced teachers, on the other hand, have experienced several policy changes based
on their district and years of experience. They may have grown rather tired of adapting new
standards based on new recommendations and political changes. However, they are more
equipped, due to their past experiences, to cope with the new reforms. Experienced teachers are
well-versed in their curriculum, lesson plans, materials, etc., and they are therefore more
confident in their practice. Therefore, the conclusion that experienced teachers are less inclined
to participate in a new reform movement, may actually hold true with this sample of teachers.

112

Grade level of instruction comparison
402 Kindergarten to 5th grade teachers were selected for this study. The reason I selected
elementary teachers was due to the interest of studying multi-subject teachers versus single
subject teachers. It is my theory that multi-subject teachers favor one subject matter over the
other. This subject is usually not mathematics. After conducting several non-related interviews, I
found that most elementary teachers prefer to teach social sciences over mathematics and
physical sciences. Further, I am more familiar with the content standards pertaining to these
grade levels, and thus I could have greater understanding of my results.
I have separated the grades into two levels: (1) kindergarten to second grade, with 197
participants; and (2) third grade to fifth grade, with 205 participants. Fortunately, this created a
relatively even split of participants, which is further confirmed in Figure 12. All other charts are
provided in the Appendix E section of this dissertation.

Figure 12: Teachers Response to Grade Level of Instruction
The surveyed key questions of the reform implementation and participating teachers both
remained the same as the previous two sections. However, no statically significant differences

113

existed between the two groups. The following are the descriptive results (in terms of frequency
and percentages) for each of the CCSS key questions by the two grade-level groups.
For the second question, whether teachers implemented the standards in their daily
practice of mathematics (question 2 of the overall survey questions), the results indicated that
89.3% (n= 176) of K to 2nd grade teachers responded “yes” and 85.9% (n=176) of 3rd to 5th grade
teachers stated “yes”; Coincidently, the number of both responses of “yes” was equal, but the
response difference between the two grade level groups is not statistically significant (pvalue=0.29).
For the third question, whether teachers had altered their method of practice of
mathematics since the adoption of the CCSS (question 3 of the overall survey questions), the
results indicated that 44.7% of K to 2nd grade teachers (n=88) stated “yes,” while 50.8% (n=100)
stated “somewhat,” for a total of 95.5% of positive responses (including “yes” and “somewhat”;
n=188). In comparison, 37.6% of 3rd to 5th grade teachers (n=77) stated “yes,” while 55.1%
(n=113) stated “somewhat,” for a total of 92.7% of positive responses (including both “yes” and
“somewhat”; n=190). There was not a statistically significant difference (p-value=0.25) between
the two grade levels.
For the fourth question, whether teachers felt they are receiving adequate resources to
fully implement the CCSS (question 4 of the overall survey questions), 49.2% of K to 2nd grade
teachers (n=162) stated “yes,” they did believe they had adequate resources, while 42.4% of 3rd
to 5th grade teachers stated “yes.”
For the fifth question, whether teachers believed they receive support through
implementation (question 5 of the overall survey questions), 82.2% of K to 2nd grade teachers

114

(n=162) stated they did feel they receive support, while 84.9% of 3rd to 5th grade teachers
(n=174) also felt the same. The difference between both groups is insignificant (p-value=0.48).
For the sixth question, whether the CCSS met students’ academic abilities (question 6 of
the overall questions), the results were as follows: 34% (n=67) stated “yes,” and 58.9% (n=116)
stated “somewhat,” totaling 92.9% (n=183) of K to 2nd grade teachers who said the standards do
meet their students’ academic abilities. 3rd to 5th grade teachers also had relatively similar
findings. They responded “yes” 26.3% (n=54), and 67.8% “somewhat” (n=139), totaling 94.1%
of teachers (n=193) in 3rd to 5th grade who believed that the reform met their students’ academic
abilities. The difference between the groups again is not significant over the population of
interest (p-value=0.61).
For seventh question, whether teachers believed the CCSS will be replaced with a new
policy (question 7 of the overall survey questions), 57.9% of K to 2nd grade teachers (n=114)
thought the CCSS would be replaced in the near future. 65.4% of 3rd to 5th grade teachers
(n=134) also agreed. The discrepancy of the responses between the two groups is insignificant
(p-value=0.12).
A grade level comparison allows for the unveiling of a different perspective. The twolevel design of grade levels, K to 2nd grade and 3rd to 5th grade, had results that indicated minimal
differences in responses between the two groups. The most significant difference was in the last
question, as to whether teachers believed the CCSS would change in the near future. By a
difference of 7.5%, leading with 65.4%, 3rd to 5th grade teachers believed the policy will be
replaced in the near future, compared to 57.9% of K to 2nd grade teachers who believed it will
change. This may imply that grade level (regarding Kindergarten to 5th grade) is not a factor to

115

affect and predict the teacher’s perceptions of the CCSS implementation. The reason for this
difference is unknown in this study, but could pose as an interesting future study.
Final Remarks
The quantitative portion of this study was remarkably valuable. Using a large data set of
402 teachers allowed me the flexibility to analyze several different situations and answer several
research questions. I created my survey instrument based on themes in the literature review and
in the qualitative portion. The goal was to answer the research question: How do teachers
prioritize reform looking at the CCSS? In order even to begin to understand the intricacies of the
CCSS and the motive behind which teachers would or would not implement it, I had to
understand first the process by which teachers prioritize reform as a whole.
The first part of the Phase II study, sought to understand how teachers processed and
prioritized seven categories present in the literature and the qualitative portion of this study.
These seven categories are beliefs, values, relatability, support, motivation, achievability, and
ease of understanding. These categories were presented in the form of a question to teachers,
while asking them to categorize by least to most important. The results showed whether a teacher
believed in a reform dictated whether or not they implemented the reform.
After understanding how teachers prioritize the reform categories, the second part of the
study introduced the current reform of the CCSS. The goal was to see if the CCSS actually met
the trend presented in Part I, and it did. While using several key CCSS survey questions, teachers
still used whether or not they believed in the reform to illustrate how they felt about the reform.
The third part of Phase II of my study looked strictly at three demographic groups, to
discuss differences and similarities among responses. These groups were state comparisons,

116

years of experience teaching, and grade level. Besides a small significance among states, the
other demographic groups did not illustrate any significant results.

117

Chapter VI: Policy Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Our nation struggles with large achievement gaps between low-income students and
high-income students, between students with gifted abilities and students with disabilities, and
among students from a variety of cultures, ethnicities, genders, and many other characteristics.
Our students come from a variety of backgrounds, and thus many struggle to adapt to our current
traditional education system. Throughout our nation’s history, the stakeholders in our school
system have attempted to close this gap and fix our failing schools by implementing new reform
policies.
These reforms have been presented through a variety of approaches, and they have often
been marketed with great enthusiasm as the “one” reform that can solve the nation’s educational
dilemmas. Unfortunately, the education reformers’ attempts to reform our school system
positively have been unsuccessful. These failures have occurred for a variety reasons. One
reason is the lack of communication and understanding between the implementers of the reforms,
teachers, and the reformers themselves. This disconnect was demonstrated through the difficult
interpretation of our last federally mandated reform, NCLB, which was implemented under
President George W. Bush. This reform lacked clarity and provided little actionable guidance for
teachers. It failed to address the key question of how we can gain buy-in of the key players implementers.
In order to encourage teachers’ buy-in to a new reform policy, and to encourage
implementation in the classroom, all stakeholders must consider the way in which teachers think
and process information. In any form of marketing, the sales people must understand what the
client’s needs and wants are. The same is true of education reforms. Policymakers must
understand what teachers look for and consider when deciding whether or not to implement the

118

new reform. Therefore, it is important for stakeholders to discover how teachers prioritize
reform.
This dissertation has focused on addressing two research questions pertaining to how
teachers prioritize reform. It used a mixed methods study of both qualitative - teacher interviews
and quantitative - teacher surveys. In order to understand further how their views played out in
practice, the study used the current reform of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS),
specifically in mathematics.
The qualitative portion of the study involved interviews of all fourth grade teachers in all
four elementary schools within a single district in Michigan. All interviews were conducted
during the academic year of 2012 to 2013. Additional interviews were conducted with four
Indiana and Illinois fourth grade teachers, and a final interview was conducted with the same
Michigan district’s Instructional Coach, to help clarify the teacher responses.
The quantitative portion of the study surveyed 402 kindergarten to fifth grade teachers in
three Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. These surveys were all administered
during the academic year of 2012 to 2013. Although all states had fully adopted the CCSS during
this time, Michigan was the only state that had fully implemented the CCSS.
The literature on this topic helped mold the theme of my research, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. Two main ideas must be present in order to begin considering how teachers
prioritize reform. Teachers must have knowledge of the reform’s intentions; in other words, they
must know of its existence and accurately understand its message. Second, which is the
overarching framework of this study, they need to make sense of the reform ideals. They must
internalize the reform information, process it, and make sense of it on their own terms.

119

The literature also presented seven key categories (see Appendix C – Figure 5) that
teachers deem important when considering whether or not to implement a reform. These
categories are (a) how a teacher values a reform, (b) whether it aligns with their beliefs, (c)
whether they are able to relate to the reform ideas, (d) whether they see the reform as achievable,
(e) whether the motivating factors of the reform outweigh the non-motivating factors, and (f)
whether the teacher receives the support necessary from the various stakeholders. In the literature
review, one category did not outweigh the other; however, the qualitative and quantitative
studies did find two different ways in which teachers described the alignment of these six
categories in terms of their importance when making decisions about prioritizing reform in the
classroom.
Phase I
After conducting 16 teacher interviews, 12 specifically in one district in Michigan, the
following patterns (see Appendix D – Figure 9) were identified. Teachers who possess
knowledge to understand the reform ideas and to make sense of the intentions seek the assistance
and evaluate their environment prior to deciding whether or not to buy-in to the new reform.
Ashford and Carlton teachers, although mostly experienced, did not possess knowledge or
understand the reform ideals; therefore, the teachers in these schools were unable positively to
support one another through the implementation, and thus they failed to implement the CCSS.
However, if teachers do have the knowledge, understand the reform ideals, and
are supported through the change by various stakeholders including but not limited to same grade
level teachers, they begin to successfully conceptualize the change in their classroom. The
teachers at Davis, Teacher 10E and 11E, did possess all the qualities above, but they were
waiting to see how other teachers applied the reform to their classrooms, and whether their

120

students could relate to the reform material. However, within the same school, Teacher 12E
believed it to be achievable and relatable to her students. Therefore she was motivated to reevaluate her beliefs and values and alter her method of practice. The same was true of Brookfield
teachers, who also possessed all the qualities of Teacher 12E at Davis. Teachers in Indiana and
Illinois further confirmed this trend through their responses of either their positive or negative
responses to the CCSS. Based on the qualitative research findings, a formula was created. This
formula can be found in Appendix X.
The Instructional Coach further confirmed this trend, while providing a deeper
understanding of why all four schools in one district are vastly different from one another.
Further, her insight provided confirmation that this particular district lacked knowledge of and
support for the CCSS, and thus was unable to make sense of or correctly implement the
standards. The teachers who supported the reform change and had been implementing it in their
classroom had taken a more hands-on approach to professional development, seeking the
assistance of not only the district, but also outside academic influences, such as the surrounding
district’s professional development and private workshops sponsored by higher education
institutions and non-profit organizations.
Phase II
After conducting 402 surveys with kindergarten to fifth grade teachers in Illinois,
Indiana, and Michigan (during the academic year of 2012-2013), the findings varied from the
deeper study in Phase I. In order for policymakers and other stakeholders to understand what
adjustments to make to ensure the implementation of their reform, this portion of the study
sought to understand (I) how teachers prioritize reform as a whole (using the seven themed
categories cited in the literature and the qualitative portion of this study), without the

121

consideration of one specific reform; (II) how teachers prioritize the new reform of the CCSS in
their daily practice of mathematics; and (III) whether their responses to the overall question of
reform coincided with their specific views of the CCSS.
Quantitative Results
Part I (see Appendix D) of Phase II of the study found that when teachers were asked to
rank the seven categories (beliefs, values, achievability, relatability, motivation, support, and
ease of understanding), what the literature deems as being the process by which teachers decide
whether or not to implement a reform suggests that the most important influences are whether
they believe in the reform and whether they value the reform. The least important category
teachers consider when prioritizing reform is whether teachers can relate to the reform’s
intentions. In essence, can they relate to the material, have they perhaps seen it before, and does
it work with this group of students? This implies that when they truly believe in the reform and
its goals, they are less concerned with whether they can relate to the reform’s intentions, because
they can seek additional professional development to aid them in understanding and relating the
new reform goals to their practice.
Part II of Phase II of the study used the CCSS and the practice of mathematics as an
example of a current reform. The CCSS key questions (see Appendix B) also pertained to the
same themes. Four questions were selected:
(a) Question 6 (Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?),
(b) Question 7 (Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the
CCSS?),
(c) Question 12 (Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?), and

122

(d) Question 14 ( Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near
future?).
After conducting a General Linear Model Analysis, the study found that 87.8% of
teachers stated that they do implement the standards in their daily practice of mathematics. This
is exceptionally positive for a reform that has just begun its implementation process. If such a
large number of teachers believe that they are implementing the standards in their daily practice,
it is possible that many of them believe in the reform and its intention. Being that there are no
evaluation standards placed on these teachers to determine whether they implement reform, their
enthusiasm may be due to their honest belief that the reform is not just a fad, but will remain.
While many teachers stated that they’d implemented the standards in their daily practice
of mathematics, there is a difference between that statement and actually making the adjustment
from their old mathematics practice to the new one—another hurdle reformers must face.
Combining the responses of “yes” and “somewhat”, 94% of teachers stated they altered their
method of practice since the adoption of the CCSS, which is positive in the sense that teachers
actually recognize a change needs to be made in their classroom instruction and then are actively
making the adjustments. However, if those same teachers stated they did not alter their method
of practice, they are indicating that they do not notice a difference between their past instruction
and the current reform change. It may also be that the additional percentage of teachers who’d
indicated that they had changed their instruction compared to those who had indicated that they’d
implemented the standards could possibly be due to some teachers partially implementing the
standards but not fully integrating them in their practice.
Many teachers do not fully understand the intentions of the CCSS. Many critics of the
CCSS perceive these standards to be a curriculum when in fact they are only a set of standards

123

that teachers are asked to reach. These standards are merely goals, and therefore, they can be
taught in any fashion. Whether the student is struggling academically or gifted, it is up to the
teacher to adjust his or her teaching style based on the CCSS expectations. When teachers were
asked whether the CCSS met their students’ academic abilities, with a combined score of “yes”
and “somewhat”, 93.5% teachers believed the CCSS met their student’s abilities. This indicates
that many teachers understand that the CCSS is merely a set of goals that they need to reach
through a variety of teaching methods.
One of the greatest concerns about a new reform is its longevity. When teachers were
asked if they thought the CCSS would be replaced in the near future, 61.7% stated “yes”, leaving
38.3% to believe in the longevity of this reform. In comparison to the above three responses, this
is a rather low number of believers in the staying power of the CCSS. The idea of entirely
changing one’s practice to meet the intentions of a reform that will slowly fade is troublesome. If
teachers continue to believe that the CCSS will be replaced, they are less likely to fully
implement the standards. The doubt they harbor will alter their motivation and practice. It is
therefore important for reformers and stakeholders who support the CCSS to address this issue
and rectify it by financially securing its position in the political arena.
In order to understand how the CCSS played a role in how teachers prioritize reform as a
whole, Part I and Part II of the study were combined, thus creating a third section.
Part III Phase II of the study compared the seven themed categories along with the
selected CCSS specific questions (question 6, 7, 12, and 14) to determine any correlations among
the variables (see Appendix B). The results found that all four questions presented the same
findings. When teachers were asked if they implemented the standards in their daily practice of
mathematics, whether they have altered their method of practice since the adoption of the CCSS,

124

whether the CCSS meets their students’ academic abilities, and whether they believed the CCSS
will be replaced by a new reform in the near future (question 6, 7, 12, and 14 of the overall
survey questions), their beliefs played a leading role in their response. What was the least
significant element was whether they could relate to the reform intentions, meaning the results
mirrored those of Part I. Teachers must believe in the reform to even begin introducing it into
their classroom. They must believe that the reform has positive intentions for their students’
learning and achievement. However, whether they can relate to the reform is not something they
consider when implementing. Teachers have been known to adopt standards and practices that
they have no previous experience with as long as they feel they contribute to their students’
success. Policymakers thus have the task of encouraging teachers to truly believe in their
message and believe that the reform is capable of increasing their students’ academic
achievement—and, most importantly, teachers must be able to trust that the CCSS will stay as a
mandated statewide standard for several years to come.
Overall Summary
The Common School Movement was the first and most successful reform in our
country’s history. Following this movement, no other reform has illustrated such longevity and
security for our students, thus leaving many of our teachers pessimistic and hopeless about
reform change. In order to better understand how teachers process reform and how they prioritize
their thoughts, I conducted this study.
The goal of this study was to understand how teachers prioritized reform as a whole,
while using a current reform, the CCSS, and a single subject, mathematics, in one region, the
Midwest, to better understand the school culture and climate surrounding these changes. This
study found that teachers must first understand the reform and make sense of it if the reform is to

125

be implemented successfully. On one hand, the qualitative portion of the study indicates that if
those two categories are successfully achieved that the teachers must then be supported through
implementation and find the new ideals relatable and achievable in order to begin to believe in
and value the reform. On the other hand, in multiple ways, the quantitative portion of the study
indicated that beliefs play a significant role in the implementation process. When teachers
believe in a reform, they are better able to adjust all other categories to either accept or dismiss
the new change.
Policy Implications
One contribution from this study is its demonstration of how teachers in one district
(further confirmed by two teachers in Illinois and two teachers in Indiana) processed and
prioritized reform. Based on the research findings, the study found a specific formula that may
be used in other districts across the county (see Appendix C).
These findings provide a deeper understanding of the environment in one particular
district. Additionally, based on the results of the Illinois and Indiana teachers, the findings can
possibly be considered in a variety of districts. The research findings allow all stakeholders
involved in the reform process to understand how teachers prioritize reform. Note that this does
not only relate to the CCSS in mathematics, but also to reform universally, because the interview
results did not strictly specify that the CCSS was the only reform affected.
First and foremost, reformers must provide adequate knowledge and professional
development for teachers to grasp the very idea of the reform. Professional development must be
provided by knowledgeable individuals, who are well versed in the reform’s intentions, not by
individuals who are only implementing the standards in their classroom for the first time. While
it is important for teachers to understand the reform ideals, it is just as important for them to be a

126

part of the processes. This study found that those teachers who were part of creating the
professional development tools for their colleagues and joined the implementation discussion
were more inclined to adjust their practice and beliefs.
It is difficult to provide stakeholders with a concrete strategy to guarantee the success of
a new reform, but this formula has held true for this particular district and the other teachers
interviewed in the Midwest.
In relation to the quantitative portion of this study, teachers were found to have strong
beliefs and values. Policymakers must consider these beliefs and values when encouraging
implementation. Reformers have two choices: the first of which is to understand the teacher’s
beliefs, which can be difficult to overcome due to the natural variation of personalities and
individuals – making the second option, which is using teachers as aids to create new reforms,
and using their expertise and opinions to create and adjust to these new policies.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this study pertain to the
research design. One similarity exists between the two methods. Both methods used a convenient
sample of teachers, either in Michigan or in the surrounding states. The drawbacks to such a
sampling method is the risk of getting biased results. For that reason, I cannot make any definite
conclusions, but I can state that there was a trend in this particular pool of respondents. Both
methods are also limited not only due to their convenient sampling geographically, but also due
to the selected grade level. Interviewing and surveying other grade levels could have also
provided a different perspective. For example, selecting high school grade levels, where teachers
are better versed in their subject matter, or lower-grade levels, where teachers provide students

127

with the basic skills, could have provided different results. However, due to the cost and time of
this dissertation, I carefully selected my sample.
Qualitative Methods Limitations
The qualitative portion of this study is also limited because interviewee’s self-disclosure
may be intentionally or unintentionally holding back information. For example, teachers can
forget to mention a significant detail of their story, or they may assume the interviewer is already
privy to the information. They may also be uncomfortable sharing privileged information.
However, three of these teachers were very candid in their responses, because they were due to
retire that academic year and did not fear that their responses would create any negative
ramifications. However, other respondents may not feel encouraged to provide accurate, honest
answers, or they may not feel comfortable providing answers that present them in an unfavorable
manner. In order to overcome this barrier, I asked the questions in several different ways. There
was however, one instance where a teacher was not providing a clear answer and was veering
away from the question, and thus I documented that question as “unanswered.” All teachers and
the Instructional Coach were asked the same questions, to provide greater understanding of the
environment and the meaning behind other teachers’ responses. Clarifying questions were also
asked of the Instructional Coach.
My dissertation proposal discussed a potential risk of non-response error. Fortunately, I
was able to overcome this issue, because I aimed to interview 100% of fourth grade teachers in
this district, in hopes of obtaining 75%, and I successfully met the 100% target.
Quantitative Methods Limitations
The quantitative portion of this study is also limited in its research design. Similar to the
qualitative methods section, the potential risk of non-response error was also a concern.

128

Therefore, I selected a large pool of one thousand teachers with a 20% response rate acceptance,
as proposed in my dissertation proposal. However, I successfully received over a 40% response
rate, and these surveys were viable.
An additional limitation to my study was the types of questions posed. Close-ended
questions often are limiting. In order to remedy this issue, I included open-ended questions to
enhance clarity and provide a broader understanding of the answers.
In terms of the statistical limitations, there were several uncontrolled factors, such as
environmental and policy changes, that were difficult, if not exceptionally difficult, to consider
in this type of study. During the survey period, several states had policy changes to the CCSS
that affected their funding and implementation. After considering these changes, I compared the
pre-survey results with the post-survey results, and I found no significant difference.
Questions for Further Study
This study was conducted during the beginning phase of the implementation of the
CCSS. It would be interesting to conduct a replica study, because looking at teachers’ responses
two to three years after implementation of the CCSS would evaluate the formula described in the
qualitative portion of this study. It would further assess whether teachers’ responses to the CCSS
key questions alter over time. This question could either support or contradict my study.
Also, looking at a different region of the United States would also be an interesting
question. Additional questions could be asked, such as more content-specific questions about the
similarities and differences between the classroom instruction under CCSS and teachers’
previous practice methods to assess if their changes are actually reflecting the reform intentions
or if their changes are missing the mark.

129

Further, this study also collected questions pertaining to support by various sources and
stakeholders. A further study could be conducted looking at the data from this study pertaining to
determine how teachers perceive support from the CCSS, or how particular support factors can
play a significant role in the implementation process.
While writing this dissertation, I used a part of my data to write a journal article on how
teachers perceive principals in school reform. The data was taken from both the qualitative and
quantitative portion of my study, focusing its attention on the questions pertaining to reform
support.

130

APPENDICES

131

APPENDIX A
Interview Consent Forms
Dear Mathematics Teacher:
You are being asked to participate in a research study on the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics by answering questions regarding reform policies and the
implementation process. This participation is voluntary. You have the right to decline. You may
change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or
stop participating at any time. If you choose to participate in the 45 to 50 minute interview, you
will receive $30 to Amazon. If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact
Honey Ghods ghodshon@msu.edu (949) 295-3442.
Please indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics by signing below.
_______________________________________

_______________________

Signature

Date

Please complete the information below so that your payment can be issued
First name ________________________________________________
Last name ________________________________________________
Home address including city, state and zip code
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
(Please no P.O. Box)
Sincerely,
Honey Ghods
Interview Questions

132

Name of Teacher
Code for Teacher
Date
Grade
1. Could you describe your teaching background, your current teaching position, and how
long you’ve been teaching at your current school?
2. Have any mathematics reform changes occurred since you began teaching?
(Probe: If there have been changes, how have they impacted your teaching practice?)
3. Do you feel confortable changing/revising your math practice when policies in your
district/state change?
4. Do you feel confident changing/revising your math practice when policies in your
district/state change?
5. How would you describe the different between your past and current teaching practices?
Key Common Core Questions
6. Are you familiar with the CCSS?
(Probe: If so, do you utilize the CCSS in your daily practice of mathematics? If so, how?
What would facilitate an easier transition to implement the CCSS?)
7. (Whether you’re familiar or not with the CCSS) What’s your process of implementing
district/state policies into your practice?
8. Do you think the mandated standards/policies you are asked to implement enhance or
improve your approach to teaching?
9. Do the policies take into account differentiated learning abilities of students in
mathematics?
10. Do your students have a hard time adapting to policy change?
(Probe: why or why not?)
11. Have your teacher colleagues at your current school influenced how you have learned
about and responded to mandated standards/policies?
(Probe: If so, how have these colleagues influenced you?)
Key Professional Development and Support Questions
12. Does your district facilitate your capacity to implement policy reform? What could they
do better?

133

Please select all that apply
!
!
!
!
!
!

Teacher meetings
Professional development
Review of textbooks/workbooks
Review of supplemental materials
Discussion of the impact of standardized testing
Other____________

13. Why did you choose the above assistance programs?
Please write your answer in the space provided below.

14. If you were in charge of developing a core standard, such as the CCSS how would you
ensure your teachers participate in the reform?

134

APPENDIX B
Survey Consent Form
Dear Mathematics Teacher:
You are being asked to participate in a research study on the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics by answering questions regarding reform policies and the
implementation process. This participation is voluntary. You have the right to decline. You
may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific
questions or stop participating at any time. If you choose to participate in the 14 question
online survey, you will receive $10 to Amazon. If you have any questions regarding this study,
please contact Honey Ghods ghodshon@msu.edu (949) 295-3442.
Please indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics by signing below.

Signature

Date

Please complete the information below so that your payment can be
issued First name
Last name
Home address including city, state and zip code

(Please no P.O. Box)
Sincerely,
Honey Ghods
135

Dissertation Survey Questions
Background demographic questions:
1. How many years have you been a teacher?
o 1 year
o 2 to 6 years
o 7 to 11 years
o 12 to 16 years
o 17 to 21 years
o 22+years
2. Please indicate the state where you currently teach
o Indiana
o Illinois
o Michigan
3. Is your district located in an urban, suburban, or rural area?
o Urban
o Suburban
o Rural
o Other
4. What grade do you currently teach?
o Kindergarten
o 1st
o 2nd
o 3rd
o 4th
o 5th
Main reform questions:
5. Have you heard of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
o Yes
o No
6. Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
o Yes, it motivates me to do so by _____
o No, but it would further motivate me to so by ____
7. Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
8. Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS? Such as: professional
development, aligned text material, etc.
o Yes
o No
9. What additional resources would be most beneficial to your implementation of the
CCSS?
o Aligned textbooks/workbooks
o Professional Development
o Teacher meetings
o Review of supplemental material
o Alignment of standardize testing
o Other ________

136

10. Do you receive support from others though the implementation process?
o Yes
o No
11. if so, by whom?
o Administrator
o Other teachers within the same grade level
o Other teachers in different grade levels
o Teaching coach
o Other ________
12. Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?
o Yes, it meets all my students’ needs
o Somewhat
o Not at all
13. In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform?
(1 being the most important and 7 being the least important)
o Do I value the reform?
o Do I believe in the reform?
o Are there motivating factors to implementing the reform?
o Is the reform easily understood?
o Is the reform achievable?
o Can I relate to the reform intentions?
o Do I receive support to implement the reform?
14. Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?
o Yes
o No

137

APPENDIX C
Knowledge

Figure 13: Qualitative Responses Chart 1

138

Sensemaking Questions

Figure 14: Qualitative Responses Chart 2

139

Support/Professional Development

Figure 15: Qualitative Responses Chart 3

140

APPENDIX D

Table 17: 7 Categorical Comparison Percentages

Figure 16: 7 Categorical Mean Comparisons

141

ANOVAa
Model
Regression
Residual
Total

1

Sum of
Squares
.480
44.066
44.546

df
6
396
402

Mean Square
.080
.111

F
.719

Sig.
.634b

a. Dependent Variable: Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?
b. Predictors: (Constant), In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform?
(1 being the most important...-Do I receive support to implement the reform?, In what order do you
prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Can I relate to
the reform intentions?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Is the reform achievable?, In what order do you prioritize the following
when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Is the reform easily understood?, In what
order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Are
there motivating factors to implementing the reform?, In what order do you prioritize the following
when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Do I believe in the reform?

Table 18: Implementation of Standards in Daily Practice
ANOVAa

1

Model
Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
1.749
137.918
139.667

df
6
396
402

Mean Square
.292
.3448

F
.837

Sig.
.542b

a. Dependent Variable: Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?
b. Predictors: (Constant), In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform?
(1 being the most important...-Do I receive support to implement the reform?, In what order do you
prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Can I relate to
the reform intentions?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Is the reform achievable?, In what order do you prioritize the following
when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Is the reform easily understood?, In
what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most
important...-Are there motivating factors to implementing the reform?, In what order do you
prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Do I believe in
the reform?

Table 19: Alteration of Practice Methods Since CCSS

142

ANOVAa

1

Model
Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
.794
123.811
124.605

df
6
396
402

Mean Square
.132
.313

F
.423

Sig.
.863b

a. Dependent Variable: Does the CCSS meet your students’ academic abilities?
b. Predictors: (Constant), In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Do I receive support to implement the reform?, In what order do you prioritize
the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Can I relate to the reform
intentions?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most
important...-Is the reform achievable?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a
reform? (1 being the most important...-Is the reform easily understood?, In what order do you prioritize
the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Are there motivating factors to
implementing the reform?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Do I believe in the reform?

Table 20: Students Academic Ability
ANOVAa
Model
1 Regression
Residual
Total

Sum of
Squares
.405
94.746
95.151

df
6
396
402

Mean Square
.068
.239

F

Sig.
.282

.945b

a. Dependent Variable: Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?
b. Predictors: (Constant), In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Do I receive support to implement the reform?, In what order do you prioritize
the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Can I relate to the reform
intentions?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most
important...-Is the reform achievable?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a
reform? (1 being the most important...-Is the reform easily understood?, In what order do you prioritize
the following when implementing a reform? (1 being the most important...-Are there motivating factors to
implementing the reform?, In what order do you prioritize the following when implementing a reform? (1
being the most important...-Do I believe in the reform?

Table 21: Replacing the CCSS

143

APPENDIX E

Figure 17: Years of Teacher Experience Chart

Figure 18: Teacher State Locations

144

Figure 19: Geographical District Teacher Responses

Figure 20: Teachers’ Grade Level of Instruction

145

Figure 21: Overall Response to Question 6

Figure 22: Overall Response to Question 7

146

Figure 23: Overall Response to Question 10

Figure 24: Overall Response to Question 11

147

ANOVA
Sum of Squares

Q5

Q6

.000

1

.000

Within Groups

.000

316

.000

Total

.000

317

Between Groups

.026

1

.026

Within Groups

35.688

316

.113

Total

35.714

317

.457

1

.457

Within Groups

105.492

316

.334

Total

105.950

317

.181

1

.181

Within Groups

78.938

316

.250

Total

79.119

317

.030

1

.030

Within Groups

39.316

316

.124

Total

39.346

317

2.119

1

2.119

Within Groups

95.579

316

.302

Total

97.698

317

1.323

1

1.323

Within Groups

73.636

316

.233

Total

74.959

317

Between Groups
Q8

Between Groups
Q10

Between Groups
Q12

Between Groups
Q14

Mean Square

Between Groups

Between Groups
Q7

df

F

Sig.
.

.

.231

.631

1.370

.243

.725

.395

.240

.624

7.007

.009

5.678

.018

Note.
Q5

Have you heard of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

Q6

Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?

Q7

Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?

Q8

Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS? Such as: professional development,...

Q10

Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?

Q12

Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?

Q14

Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?

Table 22: Comparisons of Teaching Experiences

148

APPENDIX F

Table 23: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 6

149

Table 24: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 7

150

Table 25: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 12

151

Table 26: Comparison Table of 7 Categories in Relation to Question 14

152

APPENDIX G

ANOVA
Sum of Squares

Q5

.000

2

.000

Within Groups

.000

399

.000

Total

.000

401

1.179

2

.589

Within Groups

42.602

399

.107

Total

43.781

401

2.743

2

1.372

Within Groups

136.801

399

.343

Total

139.545

401

1.391

2

.695

Within Groups

98.390

399

.247

Total

99.781

401

1.071

2

.535

Within Groups

54.093

399

.136

Total

55.164

401

2.779

2

1.390

Within Groups

121.770

399

.305

Total

124.550

401

1.242

2

.621

Within Groups

93.763

399

.235

Total

95.005

401

Between Groups
Q7

Between Groups
Q8

Between Groups
Q10

Between Groups
Q12

Between Groups
Q14

Mean Square

Between Groups

Between Groups
Q6

df

F

Sig.
.

.

5.521

.004

4.001

.019

2.820

.061

3.949

.020

4.553

.011

2.642

.072

Note.
Q5

Have you heard of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

Q6

Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?

Q7

Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?

Q8

Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS? Such as: professional development,...

Q10

Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?

Q12

Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?

Q14

Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?

Table 27: State Comparisons

153

Figure 25: State Comparison of Question 6

Figure 26: State Comparison of Question 7

154

Figure 27: State Comparison of Question 12

Figure 28: State Comparison of Question 14

155

ANOVA
Sum of Squares

Q5

Q6

.000

1

.000

Within Groups

.000

400

.000

Total

.000

401

Between Groups

.122

1

.122

Within Groups

43.659

400

.109

Total

43.781

401

.976

1

.976

Within Groups

138.569

400

.346

Total

139.545

401

.464

1

.464

Within Groups

99.317

400

.248

Total

99.781

401

.070

1

.070

Within Groups

55.094

400

.138

Total

55.164

401

.414

1

.414

Within Groups

124.136

400

.310

Total

124.550

401

.565

1

.565

Within Groups

94.440

400

.236

Total

95.005

401

Between Groups
Q8

Between Groups
Q10

Between Groups
Q12

Between Groups
Q14

Mean Square

Between Groups

Between Groups
Q7

df

F

Sig.
.

.

1.119

.291

2.818

.094

1.871

.172

.510

.476

1.332

.249

2.392

.123

Note.
Q5

Have you heard of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

Q6

Do you implement the standards in your daily practice of mathematics?

Q7

Have you altered your methods of practice since the adoption of the CCSS?

Q8

Are there adequate resources for you to fully implement the CCSS? Such as: professional development,...

Q10

Do you receive support from others through the implementation process?

Q12

Does the CCSS meet your students' academic abilities?

Q14

Do you think the CCSS will be replaced by a new policy in the near future?

Table 28: Comparisons of Grade Level

156

REFERENCES

157

REFERENCES
Battista, M. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462-470.
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.
In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to
marketing management research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 141-156
Behi, R. (1996). Causality and control: Threats to internal validity. British Journal of Nursing,
5(6), 374- 377.
Brink, H., Van Der Walt, C., & Van Rensburg, G., (2006). Fundamentals of research
methodology for health-care professionals. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd.
Buber, R., Gadner, J., & Richard L.(Eds), Applying qualitative methods to marketing
management research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 141-156.
Burkhardt, H., Fraser, R., & Ridgway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change.
In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school mathematics education
around the world, (Vol. 2) (pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Burlbaw, L. M. (1991). More than 10,000 teachers: Hollis L. Caswell and the Virginia
Curriculum Revision Program. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 6(3), 233-254.
Burns, N., & Grove, S.K. (2001). The Practice of Nursing Research. (4th Ed.). MO
by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
Cogan, L, Schmidt, W., Houang, R. (2013). Implementation of the Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics: What we know about teachers of mathematics in 41 States.
The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.
Common Core Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s students for college and career.
http://www.corestandards.org/
Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailor design method (2nd Ed.). NY:
Wiley.
DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). Development and validation of the academic competence

158

evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,17, 207-225.
Eide, Priscilla A. (2001). Coping with change: Educational reform in literacy practice.
Primary Voices K-6, 9(3), 15-20.
Eisenbach, B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. The Clearing House:
A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 153-156.
Fenton, B., & Mazulewicz, J. (2008). Trustworthiness. Retrieved from
http://www.omnivise.com/research/trustworthiness.htm
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Hess, F. M., & Finn, C. E. (2004). Leaving no child behind?: Options for kids in failing schools.
New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative
Inquiry, 16, 455-468.
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Qualitative research design. Retrieved from
http://www.sportsci.org.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who controls teachers work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, M. (2006). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Killion, J. P. (1993). Staff development and curriculum development: Two sides of the same
coin. Journal of Staff Development, 14(1), 38-41.
Lambdin, D. V., & Preston, R. V. (1995). Caricatures in innovation: Teacher adaptation to an
investigation-oriented middle school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Teacher
Education, 46(2), 130.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Maykut, P. S., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and
practical guide. PA: The Falmer Press.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
Sourcebook. London: SAGE.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2011). Institute of Education Sciences.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

159

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: Providing Governors Ideas That
Work. http://www.nga.org/cms/center.
Onweuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in
the Schools, 12(1), 48-63.
Pew Research Center (2013). http://www.pewresearch.org/
Roehrig, G., Kruse, R., & Kern, A. (2007). Teaching and school characteristics and
their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
Savasci, F., & Berlin, D. F. (2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related
to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 23(1), 65-86.
Sawchuk, S. (2010, March 10). NYC school built around unorthodox use of time.
Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/10/24brooklyn_ep.h29.html
Sawchuk, S. (2010b, Nov. 10). Full cost of professional development hidden. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/10/11pd_research.h30.html
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and
nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4),
409-432.
Schmidt, W. C. (1997). World wide web survey research: Benefits, potential problems,
and solutions. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29(2),
274-279.
Schmidt, W. (2013). Achieve presentation: Common Core State Standards Math: The
relationship between high standards, systemic implementation and student achievement.
Achieve presentation retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/common-core-mathstandards-implementationcan-lead-improved-student-achievement.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or community? Changing the metaphor changes the
theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.
Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan & A.
Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 36-55). London,
England: Falmer.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., . . . Labuda, K.
(1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science

160

Teaching, 36(8), 930-954.
Smith, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for
reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 387-402.
Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?:
Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44(3), 396-423.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72(3), 387-431.
StatSoft, Inc. (2013). Electronic statistics textbook. Tulsa, OK. Retrieved from
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/about-textbook/?button=3
Stickles, P. R. (2011). Using instructional logs to study teachers’ adaptation to curricular
reform. School Science and Mathematics, 111(2), 39-46.
Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and
mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15,
105-127.
Viadero, D. (2004, February 11). Complete coverage in ‘lesson study’ sessions, teachers
polish their craft. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/02/11/22lesson.h23.html.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: SAGE.

161