Overview of C-SAIL’s Years 1 and 2 Implementation Study Findings - April 2018

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

April 2018 report summarizing findings from C-SAIL’s Years 1 and 2 implementation study, with data collected from June 2015 to December 2017. It presents cross-state interview themes grounded in a policy attributes framework, comparing specificity, authority, consistency, power, and stability across California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas. Results highlight differences in perceived standards power, district approaches to building specificity and alignment, and state-level examples drawn from Year 2 interviews.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Overview and Data Collection

Data collection period and study scope

Theoretical Framework

Policy attributes: specificity, authority, consistency, power, stability

Themes from State and District Interviews

Theme 1: Local control and variation in specificity and power

Theme 2: District mechanisms for specificity and consistency

State-Specific Examples

California, Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts, Texas

APRIL 2018 Overview of C-SAIL’s Years 1 and 2 Implementation Study Findings Data Collection Period: June 2015 to December 2017 | | California | Kentucky | Massachusetts | Ohio | Texas | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | State
Interviews | Year 1: N = 4
Year 2: N = 3 | Year 1: N = 5
Year 2: N = 9 | Year 1: N = 5
Year 2: N = 5 | Year 1: N = 6
Year 2: N = 9 | Year 1: N = 6
Year 2: N = 4 | | District Interviews | Year 1: N = 0
Year 2: N = 9 | Year 1: N = 12
Year 2: N = 11 | Year 1: N = 0
Year 2: N = 5 | Year 1: N = 12
Year 2: N = 8 | Year 1: N = 7
Year 2: N = 9 | | Surveys | Surveys were administered in Year 2, and results are forthcoming | Year 1:
89 district administrators
170 principals
740 teachers | Surveys were administered in Year 2, and results are forthcoming | Year 1:
42 district administrators
111 principals
417 teachers | Year 1:
42 district administrators
149 principals
603 teachers | OUR THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Our analysis of college-and career-ready standards implementation is grounded in the policy attributes framework, which states that the more specific, consistent, authoritative, powerful, and stable a policy is, the better implementation will be (Porter, 1994) . Specificity refers to how extensive, detailed, or prescriptive a policy is (i.e., specific curriculum) . Authority reflectshow policies gain legitimacy, buy-in and status through persuasion. Consistency captures the extent to which policies are aligned and how policies relate to and support each other. Power reflects how policies are reinforced and enacted through systems of rewards and sanctions (i.e., accountability) . Stability refers to the extent to which policies change or remain constant overtime. THEMES FROM STATE AND DISTRICT INTERVIEWS The following themes are organized by general, cross-state findings that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data with regards to the policy attributes. We expand upon these themes by providing state-and district-specific examples of illuminating practices. We prioritize examples derived from Year 2 interview data. 1 THEME \#1: IN THE SPIRIT OF DEFERRING TO LOCAL CONTROL, CALIFORNIA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, AND TEXAS ARE EXERCISING LESS SPECIFICITY AND POWER IN THEIR STANDARDS POLICIES COMPARED TO PREVIOUS STANDARDS-BASED REFORM EFFORTS. However, Texas demonstrates significantly higher teacher specificity (3.14) than Ohio (2.38), and this may be due to Texas’ unique circumstances: in addition to having a wide breadth of ELA and math content standards, they also have a separate set of standards for college-and career-readiness. Our Year 1 survey data across the three states average teacher “power” scores between 2.50 and 2.68, which are moderate. On questions related to state rewards and sanctions, districts reported significantly lower power between 1.96 and 2.34, whereas principals fell between 1.96 and 2.35. Teachers perceive significantly higher power than districts and principalsin Texas and Ohio. 1. Kentucky: While the state provides a Model Curriculum Framework, districts and schools have the decision-making authority to determine their specific curricula. State administrators note an even greater shift toward local control in Year 2, as their newly elected state legislature passed a bill affording districts more autonomy over major components of standards-based reform, including their teacher evaluation systems, rolling back the state’s centralized power to push out a statewide framework. 2. Ohio: While ODE has revised their model curriculum based on recent revisions to the ELA and math standards to guide districts and schools, they do not prescribe what districts actually utilize. In terms of reducing perceptions of power, ODE staff and their state support teams go into districts to help a wide range of stakeholders understand their data produced by the state accountability system, as well as local data, and how the

FAQs

What theoretical framework guides the analysis of standards implementation in the report?

The analysis is grounded in the policy attributes framework, assessing how specificity, authority, consistency, power, and stability influence implementation quality.

How does the report compare Texas and Ohio regarding teacher specificity?

Texas shows significantly higher teacher specificity (3.14) than Ohio (2.38), which the report links to Texas having additional college- and career-readiness standards beyond broad ELA and math standards.

What does Theme #2 focus on across districts?

Theme #2 emphasizes that districts develop their own mechanisms to build specificity and consistency of standards and aligned resources, including curriculum and professional development.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret