Recognizing the political in implementation research

McDonnell, L.M., & Weatherford, M.S. (2016). Recognizing the political in implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45 (4), 233-242.


Implementing the Common Core State Standards has turned out to be a more difficult process than developing and enacting them was. In a recent Washington Post article (by Valerie Strauss, dated June 2, 2016), the chief executive officer of the Gates Foundation, Sue Desmond-Hellmann, is quoted as saying the foundation “underestimated” the resources and support that would be needed to implement the standards.

McDonnell and Weatherford’s article provides insights as to why what is now happening with the Common Core State Standards is not surprising; they explain how the politics of policy enactment differ in fundamental ways from the politics of policy implementation. These insights might well be considered in the future by those seeking to enact policy, because without considering the complex processes involved in implementing policy at the district and school level, the effects of any policy enacted at the national and state level may be muted or even negated. Clearly, the whole process, from development to enactment to implementation, has to be considered when large-scale changes in educational policy are attempted. The Gates Foundation CEO states that there were “missed opportunities” to collaborate with stakeholders at all levels of the process. The article here could help prevent future “missed opportunities”.

McDonnell and Weatherford clearly discuss three factors involved in the processes of policy enactment and implementation: Time frame, Decision venues, and Interest-based coalitions. In a helpful table on page 235, they compare the politics of enactment with the politics of implementation. Whereas policy enactment happens in relatively short, episodic time frames, the politics of implementation proceeds continuously over longer time periods. Whereas enactment occurs in only a few “venues” (e.g., a state board of education), implementation must occur across many venues (e.g., school districts, school buildings, and ultimately, in classrooms), and each venue has its own unique context. Whereas during enactment national interest groups (like the NEA) are given input into the policy changes, during the implementation process, state and local groups begin to get involved as the people they represent (e.g., teachers, administrators, parents, children) directly experience the impact of those policy changes. As McDonnell and Weatherford explain, at the stage when local stakeholders begin to be heard from, the costs of implementation are being felt, but the benefits may not yet be apparent.

This article helped clarify some of the things that have been perplexing me about the way the Common Core State Standards were enacted, the ways they are now being implemented, and the ways they are being interpreted and, in some cases, resisted. My own home state is one which has recently reconsidered its adoption of the standards (my state was one of the first to adopt), and new state standards have just been approved. Though I thought the Common Core State Standards were better than what they replaced, and I like many aspects of them, I was always bothered by the way they were developed and enacted. The fact that the implementation process has been rocky has shown that my concern was not unfounded. At the root of my concern is that the school children in my state (and potentially across many states) will now be affected materially by the “missed opportunities” the Gates Foundation CEO refers to.

In my state, students, teachers, administrators, (and also teacher educators like me) will now have to adjust to a new set of standards and new assessments to go with them, just as we were beginning to make sense of the Common Core State Standards, which have only been in effect for a short time. Even if the most recent standards prove to be an improvement, change always brings problems, and those problems are bound to impact the lives and work of all of us involved in education in my state. If learning more about how policy change processes work could help make the change process work better than it has with the Common Core State Standards, the time spent in that learning would be well spent. McDonnell and Weatherford’s article should be required reading for anyone proposing future changes in educational policy.