States' Implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the Australian Curriculum: A Comparison of the Change Process in Two Countries
Author: Watt, Michael
Date: 2015-00-30
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Comparative Analysis,State Standards,Academic Standards,Curriculum Development,Educational Change,Educational Innovation,Content Analysis,Surveys,Program Implementation,State Departments of Education,Faculty Development,Educational Strategies,Trainers,Training,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Educational History,Models,Measures (Individuals),Alignment (Education),Literature Reviews,Instructional Materials,Teacher Attitudes,Educational Finance,Elementary Secondary Education

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare key elements of the actions that states in the USA and Australia took to implement the Common Core State Standards or Phase One of the Australian Curriculum, and what processes and products they used to facilitate implementation of these innovations. A rubric adapted from a diagnostic tool, developed by Achieve and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute, was used to analyse the strength of the strategies employed by states to implement the Common Core State Standards or Phase One of the Australian Curriculum. The analysis of state-level implementation of these innovations focused on the preliminary phase, &quot;organize to implement&quot;, and the first two implementation actions: &quot;align instructional materials&quot;; and &quot;train educators&quot;. The results showed that the strength of states' capacities to implement the Common Core State Standards or the Australian Curriculum varied widely across the preliminary phase and the two implementation actions. The capacity of states in the USA and Australia were equal and strong for &quot;aspiration&quot; and &quot;internal leadership team&quot;. Although states in both countries varied widely from weak to strong for &quot;guiding coalition&quot;, the capacities of states in the USA and Australia were equal. On the other hand, the capacities of states in Australia were weaker than states in the USA for &quot;timeline&quot;, &quot;gap analysis&quot;, &quot;budget&quot; and &quot;communications&quot;. A pattern of north-eastern and mid-western states using local-level procedures and south-eastern, southern and western states using state-level procedures to adopt instructional materials persists in the USA. A pattern of all states and territories using local-level procedures to adopt instructional materials prevails in Australia. The capacity of 19 states in the USA that use state-level procedures to provide delivery plans for selecting, procuring and distributing adopted materials to classrooms is stronger than states in the USA or Australia that use local-level procedures. The delivery plans that states use to train teachers are complex. Professional development is provided directly to teachers by state education agencies, regional structures, districts or vendors, or indirectly by electronic means, professional associations, intermediary organisations or train-the-trainer models. In the USA, state education agencies depend on the widespread use of train-the-trainer models to train large numbers of teachers. Some of the 18 states, which received Race to the Top grants and invested them extensively in training strategies, were more successful than other states in balancing and coordinating training activities, providing delivery chains consisting of strong relationships between participants, and setting metrics and targets for success. In contrast, state education agencies in Australia do not use train-the-trainer models extensively to provide training on the Australian Curriculum, but it is more difficult to understand the nature of the training provided to teachers, because this information is not easily accessible to the public.