Skip Navigation
archived information

Ask a REL Response

Implementing new ELA standards — September 2019

Question

What does the research say about the challenges teachers may have and supports they receive when implementing new ELA standards?

Response

Following an established REL West research protocol, we conducted a search for research reports and resources on the challenges teachers face when implementing new ELA standards, as well as the supports they need. The sources included ERIC, Google Scholar, and PsychInfo. (For details, please see the methods section at the end of this memo.)

We have not evaluated the quality of references and the resources provided in this response. We offer them only for your reference. Also, we searched for references through the most commonly used sources of research, but the list is not comprehensive and other relevant references and resources may exist. References are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of relevance. Access to the full articles is free unless indicated otherwise.

Research References

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning. (2019a). Implementation of California learning standards in English language arts and math: Insights, innovations, and challenges in six districts. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Full text available from https://www.c-sail.org/sites/default/files/Cal%20Brief_May%202019.pdf

Excerpt: “The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL), funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, examines how college- and career-readiness (CCR) standards are implemented, if they improve student learning, and what instructional tools measure and support their implementation. This brief presents findings from C-SAIL’s Implementation Study, which uses interview data to explore how district administrators, principals, and teachers are understanding, experiencing, and implementing California’s learning standards in English language arts (ELA) and math. We examine how and what kinds of supports are provided to teachers of all students, including students with disabilities (SWDs) and English learners (ELs) who take the general state assessment. C-SAIL researchers interviewed 10 state officials and 13 district officials in six California districts. We selected the six case study districts by identifying two urban, two suburban, and two rural districts with relatively high percentages of SWDs and ELs. We also examined other district characteristics—percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, student achievement or growth rates, and geographic location within the state—to ensure that our districts represented a range of contextual factors. Below we share insights from the six case study districts, emphasizing California’s innovative practices and notable challenges.”

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning. (2019b). Implementation of Massachusetts curriculum framework in English language arts and math: Insights, innovations, and challenges in six districts. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Full text available from https://www.c-sail.org/sites/default/files/Mass%20Brief_May%202019.pdf

Excerpt: “Since our research began in 2015, C-SAIL researchers have interviewed 10 state officials, and 12 district officials in six Massachusetts districts. We also conducted 12 interviews and focus groups with teachers, principals, and instructional coaches in one of these districts. We selected the six case study districts by identifying two urban, two suburban, and two rural districts with relatively high percentages of SWDs and ELs. We also examined other district characteristics—percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, student achievement or growth rates, and geographic location within the state—to ensure that our districts represented a range of contextual factors. Below we highlight key insights from the six case study districts, emphasizing Massachusetts innovative practices and notable challenges.”

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning. (2018a). Implementation of Kentucky’s learning standards in English language arts and math: Insights, innovations, and challenges in six districts. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Full text available from https://www.c-sail.org/sites/default/files/Kentucky%20Brief.pdf

Excerpt: “Since our research began in 2015, C-SAIL researchers have conducted a state- representative survey of 390 teachers and 163 principals. In addition, we have interviewed 12 state officials, and 20 district officials in six Kentucky districts. We selected the six Kentucky case study districts by identifying two urban, two suburban, and two rural districts with relatively high percentages of SWDs and ELs. We also examined other district characteristics—percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, student achievement or growth rates, and geographic location within the state—to ensure that our districts represented a range of contextual factors. Below we highlight our key survey findings on teacher perceptions on curriculum, professional development, assessments, SWDs, ELs, and outreach/communication. We share detailed insights from district officials in the six case study districts, emphasizing Kentucky’s innovative practices and notable challenges.”

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning. (2018b). Implementation of Ohio’s learning standards in English language arts and math: Insights, innovations, and challenges in six districts. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Full text available from https://www.c-sail.org/sites/default/files/Ohio%20Brief.pdf

Excerpt: “Since our research began in 2015, C-SAIL researchers have conducted a state- representative survey of 42 district officials, 110 principals, and 408 teachers in Ohio. In addition, we have interviewed 12 state officials, and 20 district officials in six Ohio districts. In our future work, we plan to interview teachers in the Fall of 2018. We selected the six Ohio case study districts by identifying two urban, two suburban, and two rural districts with relatively high percentages of SWDs and ELs. We also examined other district characteristics—percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, student achievement or growth rates, and geographic location within the state—to ensure that our districts represented a range of contextual factors. Below we highlight our key survey findings on teacher perceptions on curriculum, professional development, assessments, technology, SWDs, and ELs. We share detailed insights from the six case study districts, emphasizing Ohio’s innovative practices and notable challenges.”

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning. (2018c). Implementation of Texas’s learning standards in English language arts and math: Insights, innovations, and challenges in six districts. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Full text available from https://www.c-sail.org/sites/default/files/Texas%20Brief.pdf

Excerpt: “Since our research began in 2015, C-SAIL researchers have conducted a state- representative survey of 42 district officials, 154 principals, and 591 teachers in Texas. In addition, we have interviewed 12 state officials and 20 district officials in six Texas districts. We will interview teachers in the Fall of 2018. We selected the six case study districts by identifying two urban, two suburban, and two rural districts with relatively high percentages of SWDs and ELs. We also examined other district characteristics— percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, student achievement or growth rates, and geographic location within the state—to ensure that our districts represented a range of contextual factors. Below we highlight our key survey findings on teacher perceptions on curriculum, professional development, assessments, SWDs, ELs, and outreach/communication. We share detailed insights from district officials in the six case study districts, emphasizing Texas’s innovative practices and notable challenges.”

Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. Abstract available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1101655 and full text available from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X16651080

From the abstract: “Both the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and recent efforts to hold schools and teachers accountable have been hotly debated among practitioners, policymakers, and the public at large. Much of the debate centers on the merits and demerits of these initiatives and the general approach they represent to reforming teaching and learning. In this article, we focus on a different issue, that is, the opportunity to advance research on policy implementation afforded by the intertwined nature of CCSS and accountability efforts. Arguing that it is essential for stakeholders, regardless of their stance on either reform, to understand whether and how both influence classroom teaching and learning, we outline elements of a research agenda to generate knowledge important to the design of future instructional policies. For this to happen, we argue that an implementation research agenda needs to build on (rather than reinvent) lessons learned from the past quarter century of implementation scholarship on instructional policy. To that end, we review theoretical and empirical insights from implementation research on standards-based reform and outline specific avenues for potential theory testing research on educational policy implementation.”

Dougherty Stahl, K. A. (2015). Using professional learning communities to bolster comprehension instruction. Reading Teacher, 68(5), 327–333. Full text available from https://www.horizonsd.ca/Services/Literacy/Documents/Using%20PLCs%20to%20Bloster%20Comprehension%20Instruction.pdf

From the abstract: “High-level comprehension instruction is the focus of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts. However, it has been a challenge for states to provide the professional development (PD) needed to support teachers’ implementation of the CCSS. Professional learning communities (PLC) are a means of providing school-embedded PD to meet these needs. This article provides suggestions for using The Reading Teacher’s Research into Practice columns as a springboard for implementing a PLC model of PD. First, the structure of PLC sessions is reviewed. This is followed by a description of the key ideas, suggested readings, and PLC tasks for enhancing comprehension instruction within each of three elementary grade level bands.”

Desimone, L. M., Nichols, T., & Porter, A. (2019). Successes and challenges of the “new” college- and career-ready standards: Seven implementation trends. Educational Researcher,48(3), 167–178. Abstract available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1212759 and full text available from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X19837239

From the abstract: “This study identifies seven major trends in how states and districts are implementing college- and career-ready standards for general education students and for two special populations often the target of education policy—English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities (SWDs). We draw on state-representative teacher, principal, and district surveys in three states—Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas—and case studies in nine districts. We ground our study in the policy attributes framework, which suggests implementation is stronger the more specific, authoritative, powerful, consistent, and stable a policy is. We find states are being less prescriptive in their policies surrounding the standards and are including fewer or less forceful rewards and sanctions (power). Local districts are providing more detailed, standards-aligned professional development (specificity) and supporting materials to guide teachers’ standards implementation (consistency). Districts are using ‘softer’ power mechanisms instead of the ‘strong’ rewards and sanctions of earlier waves of reform. This results in higher buy-in (authority) but creates challenges for districts in providing the necessary supports for teachers. In ELL policy, two national organizations are providing much of the specificity and consistency for standards implementation, and they do this through mechanisms of authority rather than through power mechanisms. For SWDs, implementation support is focused on compliance, and the enduring tension between standardization and individuality persists. Creative district approaches and moderate to high levels of authority hold promise for this wave of college- and career-ready standards.”

Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2018). Teacher implementation of college- and career-readiness standards: Links among policy, instruction, challenges, and resources. AERA Open, 4(4). Full text available from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210488.pdf

From the abstract: “Using state-representative teacher surveys in three states—Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky—we examine teachers’ implementation of college- and career-readiness (CCR) standards. What do teachers report about the specificity, authority, consistency, power, and stability of their standards environment? How does their policy environment predict standards-emphasized instruction? Do these relationships differ for those who teach different subjects (math and English Language Arts [ELA]), different grades (elementary or high school), different populations (English Language Learners [ELLs], students with disabilities [SWDs]), and in different areas (rural, urban, or suburban)? We found elementary math teachers taught significantly more standards-emphasized content than elementary ELA teachers, whereas secondary ELA teachers taught significantly more standards-emphasized content than secondary math teachers. Teachers of SWDs and rural teachers taught significantly less of the emphasized content. In all three states, we found greater buy-in (authority) predicted increased emphasized content coverage among ELA teachers but not among math teachers.”

Kaufman, J. H., Thompson, L. E., & Opfer, V. D. (2016). Creating a coherent system to support instruction aligned with state standards: Promising practices of the Louisiana Department of Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Abstract available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570950 and full text available from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1600/RR1613/RAND_RR1613.pdf

From the abstract: “The impetus for this report is new evidence that state department of education work to align instruction with standards may make a difference for teachers’ practices and understanding about their state standards. Using data from the RAND American Teacher Panel, the authors found that Louisiana teachers were more likely than other teachers to consult resources that address their state standards, and they reported teaching—and thinking about teaching—in ways that differ from U.S. norms and that are more aligned with Common Core State Standards. In this report, the authors examine Louisiana Department of Education strategies that could be contributing to these results, including a coherent academic strategy focused on alignment and quality across systems supporting standards, transparent and regular communication about academics across layers of the education system, and support for local decision making and ownership of change by districts and teachers. This report is intended to provide guidance to states about sensible state systems that give educators coherent messages and concrete tools to help students meet high academic standards.”

Opfer, V. D., Kaufman, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Implementation of K–12 state standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy: Findings from the American teacher panel. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Full text available from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1529-1/RAND_RR1529-1.pdf

From the abstract: “New K–12 standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy adopted recently in most states are more rigorous and far-reaching than most previous state standards. Some evidence suggests that teachers are not prepared to help students meet those standards. However, we have very little concrete information about how state standards are connected to what teachers think and do in their classrooms. The purpose of this report is to shed further light on teachers’ implementation of state standards, including the instructional materials teachers are using to address state standards and how they are using them, their perceptions about the content and approaches most aligned with their standards, and the extent to which they are asking their students to engage in practices aligned with their standards. Data are drawn from nationally representative surveys of U.S. teachers administered in the summer and fall of 2015. The findings particularly focus on teachers in states that have adopted ‘Standards Adapted from the Common Core’ (or ‘SACC’ states). Results are intended to help states and school districts reflect upon areas where teachers may benefit from additional guidance about how to address their state standards in ways that best support student learning. The findings also point to subgroups of teachers who may be more likely to require additional resources or professional development to help them effectively implement these new changes.”

Shanahan, T. (2013). Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will transform English language arts instruction. American Educator, 37(3), 4–11. Full text available from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1021044.pdf

From the abstract: “With the Common Core State Standards, instruction in English language arts will dramatically change. Unlike prior state standards, these new standards place a greater emphasis on reading challenging texts. To that end, teachers will need to support students in paying closer attention to such texts. Instead of focusing on pre-reading activities that often have little to do with the text and may inadvertently deprive students of the opportunity to enjoy reading, teachers—thanks to these new standards—will be able to move ideas in both fiction and nonfiction texts back where they belong: at the center of the reading curriculum.”

Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). CCSS-ELA: Suggestions and cautions for implementing the reading standards. Reading Teacher, 67(3), 181–185. Full text available from https://education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/profiles/faculty/valencia-wixson%20RT%20November%202013a.pdf

From the abstract: “The purpose of this article is to provide guidance on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts (CCSS-ELA). Toward this end, suggestions and cautions are provided that focus on understanding the vision, understanding the anchor and grade-level standards, and understanding the implications for instruction. In general, this article stresses the importance of attending to the various ‘parts’ of the standards within the context of the larger vision as a means of avoiding missteps in implementation.”

Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2015). Moving beyond compliance: Promoting research-based professional discretion in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(3), 243–263. Full text available from https://www.mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v27/issue3/v27n3-Woodard-POLICY-BRIEF.pdf

From the abstract: “State- and local-level mandates are currently being implemented to ensure strict compliance to the new national Common Core State Standards for English language arts (CCSS for ELA) and related assessments. These standards provide many potential opportunities to improve literacy education nationally and locally. However, the CCSS for ELA will likely face several implementation problems. Their content does not always comport with what research reveals about grade-level progressions, text complexity, close reading, writing, and new media literacies. Such issues can result in gaps between research-based instructional practices and what teachers actually do in the classroom. Moreover, there are serious concerns about linking CCSS for ELA assessments with high-stakes testing because this may result in teaching that reflects narrow understandings of reading and writing. The CCSS for ELA also might limit the scope for educators to exercise professional judgment, which is critical for strong implementation in the classroom. To better inform policies related to the CCSS for ELA, particularly in Illinois, we conducted a comprehensive review of research, policies, and practices, and created recommendations for enhancing literacy education across K–12 schooling in light of the CCSS. This brief delineates recommendations for state and local policy makers to promote the use of research-based professional discretion by teachers and administrators to improve instruction in the implementation of the CCSS for ELA, and outlines the development of an Illinois Literacy Research Agenda. The findings indicate needed policy actions in five areas: curriculum and instruction, teacher education and professional development, program/school leadership, assessment, and research.”

Additional Organizations to Consult

The Aspen Institute – https://www.aspeninstitute.org

From the website: “The Aspen Institute has earned a reputation for gathering diverse, nonpartisan thought leaders, creatives, scholars and members of the public to address some of the world’s most complex problems. But the goal of these convenings is to have an impact beyond the conference room. They are designed to provoke, further and improve actions taken in the real world.”

REL West note: The Aspen Institute has one resource that is relevant to this request:

Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A primer on “close reading of text.” Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Full text available from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541433.pdf

The Center on Education Policy (CEP) – https://www.cep-dc.org

From the website: “The Center on Education Policy (CEP) is a national, independent source for research and information about public education. The Center helps Americans better understand the role of public education in a democracy and the need to improve the academic quality of public schools. We do not represent any special interests. Instead, we try to help citizens make sense of the conflicting opinions and perceptions about public education and create the conditions that will lead to better public schools. In working to promote public education, the Center acts as a unique communicator with educators and the general public on the most serious issues in education; as a catalyst to improve the academic quality of public education through working with states, school districts, and others; and as a convener of people with differing points of view about public education to foster a reasoned debate on the schools.”

REL West note: The CEP has one resource that is relevant to this request:

Rentner, D. S., & Kober, N. (2014). Common Core State Standards in 2014: Curriculum and professional development at the district level. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Full text available from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555414.pdf

Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) – https://cepr.harvard.edu

From the website: “The Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) is uniquely focused on seeing that research findings are put to practical use. We consult with education leaders and our broad network of partners to ensure we’re studying the most pressing issues. We offer trainings for teachers, coaches, and the next generation of data leaders. And we present our findings as briefs, toolkits, and step-by-step guides. We believe that if we want to dramatically improve educational outcomes for all children, evidence must play a critical role.”

REL West note: CEPR has one resource that is relevant to this request:

Kane, T. J., Owens, A. M., Marinell, W. H., Thal, D. R. C., & Staiger, D. O. (2016). Teaching higher: Educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation. Cambridge, MA: Center for Education Policy Research, at Harvard University. Full text available from https://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/teaching-higher-report.pdf

Method

Keywords and Search Strings

The following keywords and search strings were used:

[(challenge OR support) AND (English OR “English language arts”) AND (standards) AND (implementation) AND (teacher OR educator)]

Databases and Resources

We searched Google Scholar and ERIC for relevant resources. ERIC is a free online library of over 1.6 million citations of education research sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences.

Reference Search and Selection Criteria

When searching and selecting resources to include, we consider the criteria listed below.

  • Date of the Publication: References and resources published within the last 15 years, from 2004 to present, were included in the search and review.
  • Search Priorities of Reference Sources: Search priority is given to study reports, briefs, and other documents that are published and/or reviewed by IES and other federal or federally funded organizations and academic databases. Priority is also given to sources that provide free access to the full article.
  • Methodology: Priority is given to the most rigorous study designs, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, and we may also include descriptive data analyses, survey results, mixed-methods studies, literature reviews, or meta-analyses. Other considerations include the target population and sample, including their relevance to the question, generalizability, and general quality. Priority is given to publications that are peer-reviewed journal articles or reports reviewed by IES and other federal or federally funded organizations. If there are many research reports available, we select those with the strongest methodology, or the most recent of similar reports. When there are fewer resources available, we may include a broader range of information. References are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of relevance.

This memorandum is one in a series of quick-turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educational stakeholders in the West Region (Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory West at WestEd. This memorandum was prepared by REL West under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-IES-17-C-0012, administered by WestEd. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.