The advocacy coalition that formed in support of the CCSS was comprised of many different subsystem actors and organizations. In keeping with the ACF, an assumption underlying this research was that the beliefs of subsystem participants serve as a “causal driver for political behavior” (Weible, Sabatier, & McQueen, 2009, p. 122). This first section of Chapter IV outlines the findings on the beliefs and preferences of the advocacy coalition members who were interviewed.
The ACF uses a three-tiered model for categorizing the beliefs of coalition actors: deep core beliefs, policy core beliefs, and secondary beliefs. Situated on the highest tier of the model, deep core beliefs are broad, generalizable, and resistant to change. Examples of deep core beliefs include the packages of ideas associated with the various types of political ideology, including liberal- and conservative-type beliefs regarding social rights vs.
individual rights (Weible & Sabatier, 2007). On the middle tier of the model are policy core beliefs. Policy core beliefs are subsystem specific and, therefore, much narrower in scope than deep core beliefs. “The subsystem specificity of policy core beliefs makes them ideal for forming coalitions and coordinating activities among members” (Weible, Sabatier, &
McQueen, 2009, pp. 122-123). Secondary beliefs are on the lowest tier of the model. These beliefs are narrower in scope than policy core beliefs, more empirically based, more likely to shift over time, and typically concern the instrumental means for achieving desired policy outcomes in specific locales (Weible & Sabatier, 2007).
One of the research questions that guided this project was, given the apparent diversity of actors (e.g., union officials, experts from conservative think tanks, and business leaders), what were the policy core beliefs that bound the CCSS coalition together?
122
entrepreneurs differ? A series of questions based on Weible and Sabatier’s (2007)
recommendations for operationalizing policy core beliefs was asked during the course of the interviews to elicit responses that revealed information about the actors’ viewpoints. These questions included the following:
§ From your perspective, why were the Common Core standards important? § What problems did the Common Core address or help to resolve?
§ What are the causes of these problems?
§ In addition to standards, what are your preferences for solving these problems? To supplement the participants’ responses to these questions, findings on policy core beliefs were also based on information contained within the narratives told during later stages of the interview.
Although the original plan had been to also explore the deep core beliefs of
participants, it was later determined that the narrow CCSS focus of the interviews, as well as the time constraints associated with elite interviewing, would not generate sufficient data on the political entrepreneurs’ personal philosophies or worldviews.23 The data gathered also revealed very few insights into instrumental decisions and preferences pertaining to subcomponents (substantively or territorially) of the subsystem. Thus, findings on the participants’ beliefs systems were limited to their policy core beliefs.
23 In order to operationalize deep core beliefs, Ripberger et al. (2014) recommend using a
form of grid-group analysis, based on Douglas’s (1970) Cultural Theory (CT), in which participants are surveyed on a range of questions designed to capture the respondents’ orientations toward the four worldviews specified by CT: individualism, egalitarianism, hierarchy, and fatalism. This type of analysis was beyond the scope of the research outlined here.
123
Findings on Policy Core Beliefs
Findings on the policy core beliefs of political entrepreneurs are presented in the following order: business entrepreneurs, civil rights entrepreneurs, educational conservatives, organizations representing educators or educational leaders, and organizations representing state elected officials. Matrices are also presented for each of these groups, showing the number of participants that spoke about the topics identified in the data and the perceived relationships between these policy core beliefs.
Policy Core Beliefs: Business Entrepreneurs
Each of the business entrepreneurs interviewed worked for a different organization advocating for the needs of the business community. As outlined in Chapter II, business entrepreneurs have been major players in the excellence and standards movements since the 1980s.
Business Entrepreneurs on the Importance of the Common Core
Based on Weible and Sabatier’s (2007) assertion that “Policy participants often have short 10- to 20-second statements that summarize their beliefs regarding a particular policy issue” (p. 128), each political entrepreneur was asked why they believed that the Common Core standards were important. Consistent with Rhodes’ (2012) description of the priorities of business entrepreneurs, the topics discussed by the interview participants from the business community principally corresponded with workforce preparation.
Preparing students for postsecondary education and workforce. The responses of the three business entrepreneurs revealed that the need to prepare students for the workforce provided a primary justification for their CCSS advocacy work. BE1, for example, offered the following account:
The reason [my organization] got involved in this is because if you look at the current Bureau of Labor Statistics data, we have 6,000,000 open
124
jobs today. In addition to the 6,000,000 jobs, the resumes that [employers] are getting and the interviews they are conducting, and even some of the
individuals who ultimately are offered a position, don’t have the skills that are required on the job. So there is this mismatch in the articulation of what is important as defined by the educational system—K-12 and higher
education—and what employers need.
The responses of the three business entrepreneurs also emphasized the role of K-12 standards in preparing students for postsecondary education, which, again, was described as being important for addressing workforce needs.
Academic standards are important because they articulate the common knowledge and skills that students should master in order to be successful in postsecondary education, whether that is an industry certification in welding, or a two-year credential, or a four-year credential. But even beyond obtaining a postsecondary credential, standards are critical to students being able to demonstrate what they know and what they can do—the application of those standards in the workplace, which is where we all end up. (BE1)
As discussed in Chapter II, from its inception the coalition that advocated for the initiative emphasized the objective of increasing the career and college readiness of students. This basis for the CCSS reflected the same fundamental rationale undergirding antecedent efforts to develop national standards led by political entrepreneurs with links to the business community, including the Clinton administration’s Goals 2000. Essentially, raising academic standards was viewed as an important strategy for meeting workforce needs and, thus,
increasing economic outputs at the state and national levels. This understanding, which closely resembles Labaree’s (1997) description of social efficiency goals, was manifest in the interview responses of all three business entrepreneurs.
Preparing students for a rapidly changing economy. Within their discussions of the importance of addressing workforce needs, the three business entrepreneurs each espoused the belief that updating the pre-CCSS state standards had been necessary because of the shifting nature and demands of the economy.
125
The performance of the education system is more important now than it was in 1985 when [Lamar] Alexander led the governors, [and] it’s more important than it was in the early nineties under the Clinton administration. We are in a rapidly changing, knowledge-based economy where the quality of our schools matters a whole lot for everybody—at least it should matter for everybody. (BE3)
The informants’ descriptions of the necessity of new educational standards as a means of meeting the demands of an economy founded on knowledge or “21st century skills” also communicated a broader concern relating to specific policy outcomes. Essentially, the business entrepreneurs indicated that public investments in education should result in enhanced productivity and economic growth. This input-output framing was employed by BE2 when she stated, “Why do you spend the amount of years and the amount of public investment in education? It’s not just to develop a well-rounded citizen; it’s also to develop the next economy.”
Global competitiveness. Another belief shared by the three business entrepreneurs regarding the importance of the standards initiative related to the topic of global
competitiveness. This focus, which was closely interconnected with both workforce
preparation and economic development, depicted the CCSS as providing a vehicle for raising student achievement in order to match or better the performance of students from other countries. As stated by BE2, “If we were going to raise expectations and have aligned assessments, that was directly related to our ability to compete on a global scale.” According to the business entrepreneurs interviewed, the importance of global competitiveness made state educational standards a matter of national interest. Moreover, they asserted that the necessity of a national response provided a principal justification for the establishment of the CCSS. This belief was best captured in the following remarks made by BE3:
126
When we were in the run up to the Common Core, [there was] lots of interest in economic competitiveness, internationally, and a sense that the academic performance of U.S. students was lagging behind countries with whom we compete. And one way to boost U.S. performance, or at least one foundation for that, would be to actually internationally benchmark state standards: make sure that the expectations in your state are as rigorous and as demanding as in Japan or Singapore, or name your favorite country. Nobody thought that each state needed to do that by itself 50 times over. Right? You have the basis for a collective effort.
The topic of global competitiveness and the associated idea that students in the United States are falling behind students from other nations echoed the framing logic
employed in forerunner federal legislation and reports, including the NDEA of 1958, ANAR in 1983, and the Clinton administration’s Goals 2000. In short, the development of
internationally benchmarked academic standards was viewed as offering a policy lever for maintaining the economic supremacy of the United States and thus bolstering national security.
Equitable opportunities. Another example of the business entrepreneurs’ policy core beliefs concerned ensuring equitable opportunities for all students. A noteworthy insight provided by BE1 was that the business community prefers using the term “opportunity” instead of “equity.” When asked why this was, BE1 explained,
I don’t distinguish between the two. The way I use them, I think we are conceptually talking about the same thing. For some reason, for reasons I cannot explain, the corporate community does not, or has rarely, used the word “equity.” I think we just prefer to capture it as “opportunity,” in order to portray that everyone deserves an equal chance at the opportunities that this country has to offer.
The idea that the education system should offer all students the same opportunities to achieve success evoked a framing based on free market ideals. Expressly, all students should be equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to compete in a free enterprise economy. This student-centric notion of equitable opportunities was, therefore, interconnected with the broader economy-centric topic of workforce preparation.
127
Somewhat contradicting BE1’s suggestion that business entrepreneurs prefer not to use the term “equity,” BE2 described the common standards as being part of a broader effort to build a more equitable education system. She did go on to emphasize, however, that her conception of equity related to meeting the needs of every student and not just historically underserved groups:
I do think that there was a real focus on trying to understand equity, and the equity issues as it sort of stands in this country, and the challenges that go into making sure that there is a high-quality education for every student, period. Not every White student or every Black student, every student, period. BE3 also spoke about the standards initiative helping to ensure that children across the country are held to higher and more equitable expectations. In his words, the CCSS helped “make sure that [all students] are academically prepared for postsecondary success and to make some choices and have some options.”
During her interview, BE2 described how the organization she worked for had a long history of partnering with civil rights organizations when advocating for education policies. This finding tallied with Rhodes’ (2012) description of the alliance between business entrepreneurs and civil rights entrepreneurs that has existed at the heart of the standards- based reform movement for decades.
The anchor for systemic reform. An additional explanation given by the business entrepreneurs when discussing the importance of the CCSS was that the standards provide the foundation for systemic reform efforts. Encapsulating this central tenet of the standards- based reform paradigm, BE3 stated,
There’s been a belief in the education world, probably since the late eighties or early nineties, that the way to get better results is to have a systemic approach that’s anchored in challenging standards to which
curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, etcetera, are all tightly aligned—so that there is a level of coherence that, frankly, is often prevalent in high-performing countries and which has eluded the U.S. for a long time. Standards are the anchor for that.
128
The same basic sentiment regarding the centrality of standards was also evident in BE2’s suggestion that common state standards are important because they define
expectations, create greater consistency between schools, and help focus students, parents, educators, and other school system stakeholders on specific behaviors and outcomes: “There has to be clarity on what that benchmark is and what students should be aiming for, and how each person can help that student get where they need to go.” The belief that standards provide the anchor or foundation for systemic reform was evident across the interviews with political entrepreneurs from every group. It was clear, therefore, that members of the
coalition were conversant with the underlying logic behind the standards-based reform agenda.
A common yardstick (comparability). Related to the topic of defining expectations and creating greater consistency was the belief that common standards allow for more accurate comparisons to be made between schools, districts, and states. An example of this line of thought was provided by BE3 when he described how the states that adopted the CCSS could now all be “measured by the same, or at least comparable, yardstick.”
Standardization was basically viewed as being essential for building a better understanding of how well schools and systems were performing in relation to each other.
Business Entrepreneurs’ Perceptions of Subsystem-Wide Problems
Having been prompted to reflect upon why they felt the initiative was important, the next question asked participants to describe the specific problem, or problems, that the standards help to address or resolve. Though there was often some overlap with their responses on the importance of the initiative, the question presented in terms of antecedent problems allowed for more detailed descriptions of the condition of educational standards prior to the CCSS.
129
Students not prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce. As already alluded to, an overarching problem identified by the business entrepreneurs related to what they perceived as being a mismatch between academic standards and the job market. In the words of BE1, “Employers got involved because they wanted to increase the likelihood that the pool of qualified candidates coming through the educational system would reflect what they need in the workforce they are trying to hire.” This belief that students are not
graduating from high school with the knowledge and skills that they need to successfully enter the workforce provided the overarching frame for the other problems discussed by this group of political entrepreneurs.
Antiquated standards. The policy core belief that students were not adequately prepared for postsecondary success was interconnected with the perspective that state educational standards prior to the CCSS had been, for the most part, antiquated and, therefore, inadequate for readying workers for the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.
I think from [my organization’s] perspective, it sort of elevated the conversation about the skills that are necessary to compete in today’s
economy, which aren’t necessarily the same as the skills that were necessary to compete when our agrarian society created the system that we all know and love today. (BE2)
Uneven and inequitable expectations for students. All three business entrepreneurs identified what they viewed as being uneven and inequitable expectations for students, within and between schools, districts, and states, as being a cause for concern. This belief, again, linked back to the idea that many students were not leaving school with the knowledge and skills that they needed for postsecondary success.
Negative impact on students moving between states. Elaborating on the problem of inequitable expectations, BE1 described how students moving between states were
130
negatively impacted by the absence of common standards and, as a result, often lacked the necessary skills for postsecondary education and the workforce:
We have children who are moving across borders. And there are parents in Mississippi, where the standards have very low expectations, yet their children were performing quite well. When they moved up to
Connecticut, where the standards were much higher, and the stakes were much higher on the assessments, those “A” students in Mississippi, once they moved up to Connecticut, were actually middle-of-the-pack students. So there is a discrepancy between states, but that also leads to the problem that a number of students in some of these states like Mississippi were getting to college completely unprepared and ending up in remedial courses.
The specific example that BE1 provided when discussing the problem of students moving between states was military families. As will be shown, political entrepreneurs from other groups also discussed the adverse effects of uneven state standards on students moving around the country. Interestingly, the “type” of student mentioned as being negatively impacted varied between the groups: immigrant students were identified by a civil rights entrepreneur, students whose parents move for work were brought up by an educational conservative, and a member of an organization representing state elected officials spoke of the more general issue of student mobility.
Lower expectations for career and technical education. Also connected to the topic of inequitable expectations was BE1’s assertion that standards for students enrolled in
vocational training programs have traditionally been lower than for students on track for four-year colleges.
The career technical education schools have two big problems. One is