Microsoft Word - v22n4-fnl.doc


Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/   Manuscript received: 1/6/2013 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 6/14/2013 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 7/28/2013 

 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 
 

Volume 22 Number 4  January 27th, 2014 ISSN 1068-2341 
 

 

It’s Not Education by Zip Code Anymore – But What is It? 
Conceptions of Equity under the Common Core 

Mindy L. Kornhaber  
Kelly Griffith 
Alison Tyler 

Penn State University 
USA 

 
Citation: Kornhaber, M.L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore 
– but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 
(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014  

 
Abstract: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a standards-based reform in which 45 
U.S. states and the District of Columbia have agreed to participate. The reform seeks to anchor 
primary and secondary education across these states in one set of demanding, internationally 
benchmarked standards. Thereby, all students will be prepared for further learning and work in a 
competitive global economy regardless of the sociodemographic variation associated with their “zip 
code,” that is, the location of their neighborhood or school. This article examines the role and 
meaning of equity within the Common Core at a level beyond “zip code.” It does so using data from 
interviews with Common Core policy entrepreneurs and qualitative analysis of interview data. 
Findings are considered against a conceptual framework of equal, equalizing, and expansive views of 
equity. The findings indicate that policy entrepreneurs hold primarily an equal view of equity, in 
accord with meritocratic and functional purposes of schooling, more so than equalizing or expansive 
views. The latter views emphasize compensatory purposes that focus on narrowing achievement 
gaps. From this analysis, we identify the paradox of equity in education policy: The successful launch 

epaa aape



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 2  

of a policy that relies on existing paradigms of standards-based reform and an equal conception of 
equity helps tether educational outcomes to student background.   
Keywords: equity; educational opportunities; education reform; education policy; 
standards 
 
No es más el tipo de educación según el código postal - pero ¿qué es? Las concepciones de 
la equidad en el marco de los estándares C o m m o n  C o r e   
Resumen: La Iniciativa de estándares Common Core  es una reforma basada en estándares en la que 
45 estados de Estados Unidos y el Distrito de Columbia han aceptado participar. La reforma busca 
anclar la educación primaria y secundaria a través de estos estados en un solo conjunto de normas 
exigentes , como punto de referencia a nivel internacional  De este modo, todos los estudiantes 
estarán preparados para el aprendizaje y el trabajo en una economía global competitiva, 
independientemente de la variación sociodemográfica asociada con el "código postal", es decir , la 
ubicación de su vecindario o la escuela. En este artículo se analiza el papel y el significado de la 
equidad dentro del Common Core  a un nivel más allá de "código postal". Lo hace a partir de datos de 
las entrevistas con personas que implementaron estas políticas y análisis cualitativo de datos de la 
entrevista. Los resultados se interpretan usando un marco conceptual de puntos de vista igualitarios, 
de equidad, usando una noción expansiva de la equidad. Los resultados indican que los que 
implementaron las políticas tienen sobre todo una visión igualitaria de la equidad, de acuerdo con 
propósitos meritocráticos y funcionales de la educación, más que de equidad u opiniones expansivas. 
Los últimos puntos de vista enfatizan los propósitos compensatorios que se centran en reducir la 
brecha de rendimiento. A partir de este análisis , identificamos la paradoja de la equidad en la política 
de educación: El éxito del de una política que se basa en los paradigmas existentes de la reforma 
basada en estándares y una concepción igualitaria de la equidad de los resultados educativos depende 
de los conocimientos previos de los estudiantes. 
Palabras clave: equidad; oportunidades educativas; reforma de la educación; política de la 
educación; las normas 
 
Não é mais o tipo de educação segundo o  "código postal" -, mas o que é? Concepções de 
equidade conforme os padrões do C o m m o n  C o r e  
Resumo: A iniciativa do núcleo Common Core é uma reforma baseada em padrões , em 45 estados 
americanos e no Distrito de Columbia concordaram em participar. A reforma visa ancorar a 
educação primária e secundária por esses estados em um único conjunto de padrões elevados, de 
referência internacional. Assim, todos os alunos serão preparados para aprender e trabalhar em uma 
economia global competitiva, independentemente da variação sociodemográficos associados ao 
"código postal", ou seja , a localização do seu bairro ou na escola. Este artigo discute o papel da 
importância do Common Core dentro do núcleo comum para um nível além do "código postal" é 
analisada. Ele faz isso usando dados de entrevistas com pessoas que implementaram essas políticas e 
análise qualitativa dos dados das entrevistas . Os resultados são interpretados por intermédio de 
pontos de vista de enquadramento conceptual igualitária do patrimônio líquido, utilizando uma 
noção ampla de patrimônio líquido. Os resultados indicam que essas políticas são implementadas 
principalmente uma visão igualitária do patrimônio líquido, de acordo com as finalidades 
meritocráticos e funcionais de educação, em vez de vista de equidade ou expansivo. Visualizações 
recentes enfatizam fins compensatórias que visam reduzir as disparidades de resultados . A partir 
dessa análise , identificamos o paradoxo da equidade na política de educação : O sucesso de uma 
política baseada em paradigmas existentes de reforma baseada em padrões e concepção igualitária da 
equidade dos resultados educacionais depende conhecimento prévio dos alunos. 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  3 
 
Palavras-chave: capital; oportunidade educacional; reforma da educação; políticas 
educacionais; normas 

Introduction 

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core) is a state-based effort to 
anchor U.S. public education in a shared set of high academic standards. The Common Core 
initiative took shape between 2006 and 2010, as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) came up for 
reauthorization and problems with its academic and performance standards became increasingly 
clear (e.g., National Research Council, 2008; Quay, 2010; Rothman, 2011). During this period, 
researchers surfaced the variability in states’ standards (National Research Council, 2008; Porter, 
Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009). Leaders from education policy groups began promoting the need for a 
common set of rigorous standards both to advance equity and to help prepare students for an 
economy that was blind to state and international borders. In 2009, 48 states’ education policy 
leaders agreed to work together under the auspices of the Council of Chief State School Officers 
and the National Governors Association to develop common standards and support common 
assessments of them (Rothman, 2011). The resulting Common Core English Language Arts and 
Math Standards were released in June, 2010. They are described as “fewer, clearer, and higher,” than 
most state standards under NCLB (Common Core State Standards Initiative, About the Standards, 
n.d.; Gates Foundation, 2010; Rothman, 2011). The Common Core State Standards have now been 
adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.  

The leaders of the Common Core hold several aims. By grounding education in the reform’s 
rigorous, internationally benchmarked standards, students and the nation will be prepared to 
compete in the global economy. The standards will also enable students to graduate high school 
ready to pursue college or career education without need of remedial coursework. In addition, the 
Common Core standards will provide teachers and parents a clear understanding of what students 
are expected to learn, no matter where students live or what school they attend. Materials from the 
Common Core State Standards Initiative, the National Governors Association, and the Council of 
Chief State School Officers state the reform “[e]nsures consistent expectations regardless of a 
student’s zip code” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief 
State School Officers, n.d; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012.; National Governors 
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).  

On one hand, the Common Core represents a potential sea change in the highly fragmented, 
decentralized system of U.S. education. On the other, the Common Core continues a line of 
systemic reform detailed in the early 1990s by Marshall Smith and Jennifer O’Day (O’Day & Smith, 
1993; Smith & O’Day, 1991; Rothman, 2011). These reforms seek to improve teaching, learning, and 
equity by making the education system more coherent (O’Day & Smith, 1993). Central to such 
systemic reform, now commonly called standards-based reform, is a theory of action that begins 
with the articulation of standards for what students should know and be able to do. The standards 
provide a foundation upon which to align curriculum materials, instruction, assessment, and 
professional development. Alongside articulated standards and alignment, O’Day and Smith (1993) 
said schools needed resources, flexibility, and responsibility to enable students to meet higher 
standards. They noted that schools serving high-needs populations may require different 
instructional, curriculum, or personnel resources to educate their students and prepare them to 
perform well on the assessments. These, in turn, may depend on “different dollar resources” (p. 
266). 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 4  

Given this lineage, and its aim to provide all students with the same high standards and 
graduate them without need for remediation, the Common Core’s goals encompass equity. Yet, 
compared to No Child Left Behind, the role and meaning of equity within this reform are less 
sharply defined. NCLB, on its face and through its accountability system, emphasized the 
relationship between achievement and socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, or disability. 
Unlike NCLB, the Common Core is not bound to an accountability system that requires districts 
and schools to attend to such sociodemographic variation. Materials produced by the Common 
Core, as well statements by participants in this study, speak instead about ensuring consistent 
expectations regardless of zip code and graduating all students college and career ready (National 
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, n.d., 
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012; National Governors Association Center for Best 
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Expectations, while important (Ferguson, 
2003; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1992), do not entail material resources that O’Day and Smith (1993) 
indicated may be needed. Moreover, graduating all students “college and career ready” spans 
outcomes from cashier trainee to Ivy League matriculant. Such disparate postsecondary destinations 
are associated with student background.  

This article draws on interview data to explicate the role and meaning of equity within the 
Common Core according to its policy entrepreneurs – those who helped shape the reform as a 
response to NCLB, place it on policymakers’ agendas, and promote its adoption in states (see 
Kingdon, 1995). It begins by building a conceptual framework that draws on the literature. This is 
followed by analyses of the role and meaning of equity within the Common Core. Understanding 
equity at a level deeper than “zip code” and “college and career ready” is important. First, while 
those who shape and promote new policies do not determine policy outcomes, they do influence 
actions undertaken in the name of the policy (see McLaughlin, 1987). Second, if the Common 
Core’s equity results are ultimately to be evaluated, it is useful to have a clearer understanding of 
what its equity claims comprise.  

Conceptualizing Educational Equity 

The first question that arises in such a study as that requested by the Civil Rights Act 
in Section 402 is to determine precisely what the request means, and how it can be 
best fulfilled. In this case, the difficulty was especially great because the very concept 
of ‘equality of educational opportunity’ is one that is presently undergoing change, 
and various members of government and of society have different conceptions of 
what such equality consists of.  – James S. Coleman, 1972, p. 147  
 

[T]he enduring popularity of equal educational opportunity probably derives from 
the fact that we can all define it in different ways without realizing how profound our 
differences really are. – Christopher Jencks, 1988, p. 518 
Over the last several decades, many efforts have been made to clarify “equality of 

educational opportunity,” “equal educational opportunity,” “educational opportunity,” “educational 
equity,” and related terms (see e.g., Coleman, 1968, 1972; Hallinan, 1988; Jencks, 1988; Koski & 
Reich, 1997; McDonnell, 1995; Murphy, 1988; Rebell & Wolff, 2008; Rebell, 2012). In this article, 
we use “educational equity” for concerns about disparities in educational resources and achievement 
that are linked to demographic variables, particularly those emphasized under NCLB: 
socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, or disability. Through a review of the literature, we 
have clustered conceptions of educational equity in three ways.  



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  5 
 

Under the equal conception of educational equity, policies and programs are designed to 
provide equal educational resources for all students. Given equal resources, differences in 
achievement across different student populations represent influences beyond the purview of the 
education system. Under the equalizing conception, policies and programs are meant to afford 
compensatory educational resources to address different populations of learners. The equalizing 
conception seeks to foster more equal school outcomes. The expansive conception of educational 
equity also seeks to create more equal school outcomes. However, it emphasizes the need for 
comprehensive resources both within and beyond schools to attain such outcomes. We explore 
these three conceptions below and summarize them thereafter in Table 1. 

The Equal Conception 

The central concern of the equal conception is providing all learners with equal educational 
resources (see, e.g., Coleman, 1968; Hallinan, 1988; Jencks, 1988). Because such equal treatment 
appeals to Americans’ Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, Jencks (1988) called 
this conception “democratic equality” (p. 520). Given equal resources, differences in students’ 
achievement are said to reflect unequal ability, motivation, effort, parental inputs, family income, and 
other influences. Variations in such influences are viewed as inevitable and largely outside the scope 
of the education system.  

Coleman (1968) noted that “equality of educational opportunity” might initially be seen as 
exposure to a common curriculum for different children within the same community. This notion 
has a long history, beginning with communities’ common schools (Coleman, 1968), manifesting 
itself in standards promulgated by most states in the 1980s, and required of all states by federal 
mandate under the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the 
“Improving America’s School Act of 1994” [P.L. 103-382; 108 Stat. 3518]), and its successor, 
NCLB. 

The equal conception remains salient among both policymakers and researchers. For 
instance, Schmidt and Maier (2009) hold that curriculum of equal “focus, rigor and coherence” is 
fundamental to educational equity (p. 541) and serves as the “most central” and clearest notion of 
“opportunity to learn” (p. 542). Findings that curriculum varied markedly across states despite 
NCLB (Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009) have influenced policy discussions about the Common 
Core (National Research Council, 2008). The equal conception of equity is evident in the adoption 
of the Common Core’s “fewer, higher, clearer standards” across 45 states and the District of 
Columbia. The reform’s shared standards offer a common basis for generating curriculum (v. 
common curriculum itself) to a community that is nearly national in scope.  

Although common curriculum remains central to the equal conception, it has long been seen 
as insufficient (Coleman, 1968; Murphy, 1988). U.S. courts have found it wanting since the mid-20th 
Century (Coleman, 1968). For example, in a higher education case, the Supreme Court held that an 
African American student’s rights were violated when he had access to the same lectures but was 
relegated to spaces that impeded his interactions with fellow students (McLaurin v. Oklahoma State 
Regents, 339 U.S. 637 [1950]). Similarly, equal material resources were not sufficient for educational 
equity according to the Supreme Court in Brown: “Segregation … deprives children of the minority 
group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" 
factors may be equal” (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 [1954]). These decisions reveal that 
the equal conception extends beyond curriculum or other material support. Their influence may be 
seen in resources called for in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA requires that 
students with disabilities are educated in the “least restrictive environment.” “To the maximum 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 6  

extent appropriate, children with disabilities… are educated with children who are not disabled…” 
(U.S. Department of Education, Building the Legacy: Idea 2004, Statute TITLE I/B/612/a/5, n.d.).   

Under the equal conception, high teacher expectations constitute another intangible resource 
(Coleman, 1968). Advocates of standards-based reforms have argued that such systems will generate 
equally high expectations for all students. Thus, in 2004, George W. Bush famously decried “the soft 
bigotry of low expectations” and said this would be countered by No Child Left Behind (The White 
House, President George W. Bush, President’s Remarks in Minneapolis, Minnesota, n.d.). 

How might education proceed under an equal conception of educational equity? To model 
this, Jencks (1988) offered the fictional “Ms. Higgins” and her decisions about distributing time and 
attention among her third graders. Under the equal, or “democratic equality” conception, Ms. 
Higgins gives her students the same time and attention regardless of differences in their experience 
or behavior. School finance scholars have described the equal conception as “one scholar, one 
dollar” or driven by a distributional principle of “horizontal equity” (Koski & Reich, 2006, p. 553). 
Using the “playing field” metaphor, the equal conception provides everyone access to the same 
equipment, same rules, same stadium, and equally qualified coaches. As in any competition requiring 
knowledge and skill, winners and losers might be predicted in advance based on many factors in and 
beyond the game (e.g., injuries, prior training, physical attributes), but at least the game itself isn’t 
rigged. Moreover, the prizes for winning are seen as meritocratically allotted. Thus, under the equal 
conception, schooling serves a utilitarian or functional role in ultimately distributing students into a 
range of social benefits and social roles (Jencks, 1988; Lucas & Beresford, 2010; Metz, 1990). 

The equal conception of educational equity, and the values and policies linked to it, may be 
the most well-established. Yet, material and intangible resources continue to be unequally 
distributed:  Only two jurisdictions, Washington, D.C. and Hawaii, have equal per pupil 
expenditures (New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, School Finance 
Inequity Among Districts, n.d.). Teacher quality, a key influence on student achievement, varies 
systematically with student demographics across schools (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2011; Darling-
Hammond, 2007, 2010; Jackson, 2009; Sunderman & Kim, 2005). Peer groups also vary markedly 
across and within schools and across school districts (Gamoran, 2009; Oakes, 1985; Orfield & Lee, 
2007; Smrekar & Goldring, 2010). Infrastructure and equipment differ across schools serving high- 
and low-poverty student populations (Crampton & Thompson, 2008; Kozol, 1992). Consequently, 
an equal conception of equity, the most straightforward of the conceptions, remains elusive in 
reality. 

The Equalizing Conception 

The equalizing conception of educational equity undergirds school-based efforts to create 
more equal education outcomes. Ideally, under this conception students from disparate backgrounds 
would have equal chances of school success (Jencks, 1988), and thereby achievement gaps would 
close. To generate more equal outcomes, it is not enough that classrooms and schools have equal 
resources and are open to all students, as Brown and McLaurin set forth. Instead, policies and 
practices within the education system need to distribute resources in a compensatory way.  

Per Jencks (1988), compensatory approaches to educational equity rest on “the moral 
premise of humane justice … that educational resources should go disproportionately to the 
disadvantaged” (p. 527). This complicates Ms. Higgins’ decision making, since she must now allocate 
her time and attention in ways that counteract the array of student differences (Jencks, 1988). In 
school finance, compensatory approaches have been described as “vertical equity.” This “target[s] 
resources based on student need such that each student has an equal opportunity for an equal 
outcome” (Koski & Reich, 2006, p. 553). Using the playing field metaphor, the game now entails 
modifying or distributing equipment, rules, and coaches to offset uneven physical attributes, 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  7 
 
experiences, and prior training – whether due to ability, motivation, effort, health, or other causes – 
so that everyone has an equal likelihood to hit home runs.  

An equalizing conception is evident in court decisions and legislation. In Lau v. Nichols (414 
U.S. 563[1974]), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that those lacking English language skills 
needed compensatory, not equal, resources. It was inadequate for the San Francisco Unified School 
District to provide “the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum, for students who do not 
understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.” The Court required 
the school district to adhere to Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964:  “No person in the United 
States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 
Federal financial assistance.” Under a consent decree, the San Francisco Unified School District has 
continued to provide students with instruction in their native language as well as promoting English 
language development (San Francisco Unified Public Schools Basis for English Learner Programs, 
n.d.).  

IDEA legislation incorporates an equalizing conception, as well as an equal conception 
noted above. Students with disabilities must be given accommodations to enable them to participate 
meaningfully in regular classrooms. Clearly, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act is the 
largest piece of legislation that encompasses an equalizing conception. Under NCLB, Title I was 
called “Improving The Academic Achievement of The Disadvantaged” [sic] (NCLB, P.L. 107-110, 
sec. 101). It sought to reduce achievement gaps not only through increased accountability but also 
by “meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty 
schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian 
children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance” 
(Ed.gov. U.S. Department of Education Elementary & Secondary Education. Title I, n.d.). 

While the equalizing conception comports with the value of humane justice and also with 
federal policies, there are clearly obstacles to its realization. For example, in the early 1990s, a 
number of researchers and policymakers called for the adoption of both academic standards and 
“school delivery standards” (National Center on Educational Standards and Testing, 1992; Porter, 
1993). Such standards, later termed opportunity-to-learn standards, would delineate the resources, 
practices, and conditions needed to enable students to learn content standards. Opportunity-to-learn 
standards could then be used to target resources within and across schools to improve teaching and 
learning before the consequences of accountability systems could be applied (Dougherty, 1996; 
Heise, 1994; McDonnell, 1995; McPartland & Schneider, 1996; Murphy, 1998; Porter, 1993, 1995). 
However, opportunity-to-learn standards were defeated by their politically unpalatable implications:  
redistribution of resources, funding lawsuits, and higher taxes (McDonnell, 1995). 

Indeed, cost estimates to close achievement gaps are steep. For example, analyses by Betts 
and Roemer (2005) indicate that eliminating the wage gap between black and white men would 
require education spending for black students that is 9 to18 times greater than for white students. 
They concluded, “Implementing such reforms … is a remote possibility in a society that has not yet 
fully implemented the more moderate 'equal resource' policy” (Roemer & Betts, 2005, p. 36-7). 
Alongside economic obstacles, the differential treatment of individuals – even humane, 
compensatory efforts to boost disadvantaged students’ achievement – conflicts with the principle of 
equality under the law. As a result, political and legal battles over reforms associated with the 
equalizing conception, including bilingual education, redistribution of school funding, or school 
integration, have been ongoing for decades (e.g., Gándara & Rumberger, 2009; Garcia, 2002; 
Hakuta, 2011; Koski & Reich, 2006; Orfield & Lee, 2005, 2007; Parents Involved, 551 U.S. 701 
[2007]; Yee, 2012).  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 8  

The Expansive Conception  

The expansive conception of educational equity shares the equalizing conception’s goal of 
narrowing disparities in learning and enabling more equal chances of school success. It also 
recognizes that this aim requires compensatory education resources. However, the expansive view 
builds on what social science has long revealed: disparate student achievement is strongly associated 
with influences outside schools’ purview. Therefore, the expansive conception provides for 
compensatory resources within and beyond the education system to close achievement gaps. It is 
both compensatory and comprehensive.  

Had Jencks (1988) included the expansive conception, Ms. Higgins’ neediest students would 
receive extra time and attention from her and from health, social service, and other providers 
beyond the classroom. In the realm of economics, the expansive conception might be termed 
human capital investment equity, which focuses on ensuring comprehensive services for young 
children from disadvantaged circumstances. These offer strong returns for educational attainment 
and life chances relative to later investments (Heckman, 2008, 2010). Under the playing field 
metaphor, an expansive conception’s game allows equipment, rules, and coaches to vary, and for 
players to be positioned anywhere on or off the field if doing so enables them to hit home runs at a 
roughly equivalent rate.  

While equal conceptions draw upon democratic equality and the Constitution, and equalizing 
approaches rest on humane justice (Jencks, 1988) and laws impelled by the civil rights movement, 
the expansive conception was initially seen as beyond reasonable values and laws. Writing in 1967, 
Coleman claimed conceptions that sought equality of results across students from varying home 
language or experience were “extreme” (1967, p. 15; 1968, p. 17). Yet, policies promoting such ends 
were developed during the same historical era. In his Howard University commencement address, 
President Lyndon Johnson (1965) said: 

[E]qual opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all 
races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of 
birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the 
neighborhood you live in – by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness 
of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the 
little infant, the child, and finally the man.… We are trying to attack these evils 
through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical 
care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society 
programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty.  
The Head Start program initiated under Johnson embodies an expansive conception of 

equity. The program addresses the health, nutrition, social, and emotional needs of disadvantaged 
preschoolers to position them better for school learning. With its reauthorization in 2007, Head 
Start placed an increasing emphasis on literacy and cognitive development (Administration for 
Children and Families, History of Head Start, n.d.). Yet, recent research shows that 3- and 4-year-
olds’ achievement gains from Head Start fade by the end of first grade (Head Start Impact Study, 
2010). Similar findings pertain to the Perry Preschool Program (Schweinhardt, Montie, Xiang, 
Barnett, Belfield, & Nores, 2005). Heckman (2008) and Currie and Thomas (2005) argue that early 
enriched interventions must be followed up in order to show continuing academic effects. Typically 
when Head Start ends, children then contend with disadvantaged environments both in and outside 
of school.  

At the same time, achievement gains may not be the best indicator to evaluate whether an 
expansive approach to educational equity is valuable. Expansive approaches undertaken in early 
childhood have produced lasting benefits in other crucial areas: stable employment and families, 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  9 
 
better health, higher earnings, and fewer encounters with the justice system (Heckman, 2008, 2010; 
Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff, 2006; Schweinhart, et al., 2005; National Research  
Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000). Thus, even if such interventions don’t boost test scores 
(see Jensen, 1969), they have measurably improved life chances.  

Proponents of expansive policies and programs assert that these produce important benefits 
while also ultimately being more cost effective than equalizing efforts (Heckman, 2008; Heckman 
2010; Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff, 2006; Rothstein, Wilder, & Allgood, 2011). For 
example, Rothstein et al. (2011) estimate comprehensive services, beginning with prenatal care and 
ending at age 18, for high poverty youth would cost $13,900/year per child in New York State. 
However, some of these expenses are already being provided by other social services and special 
needs budgets at the state and federal level. Moreover, comprehensive services will reduce later 
expenditures for special education and enhance economic productivity, creating more tax payers 
(Heckman, 2008, 2010; Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff, 2006; National Research 
Council 2000; Rothstein, Wilder, & Allgood, 2011 ).Thus, an expansive view of educational equity 
amounts to a pragmatic embrace between the principles of humane justice and return on investment 
(ROI). 

Yet, policies attuned to comprehensive conceptions of educational equity have not been 
broadly adopted. It may be that the shifts in economics and demographics have been too rapid and 
recent to see such policies as pragmatic rather than radical. Relatedly, equal and equalizing 
conceptions of educational equity have been supported through varied court decisions and 
legislative actions. In contrast, the legal bases to shoulder an expansive conception of educational 
equity are only now taking shape. Rebell and Wolff (2012) assert one potential basis is implicit in 
NCLB’s promise to provide all students with a “fair and substantial” educational opportunity, 
mirroring similar language in various states’ law. Another basis is that many high-poverty children 
are not served by Head Start or other comprehensive services. This “creates ‘two tiers’ of citizens, a 
pattern that strongly offends the concept of equal protection” (Rebell & Wolff, 2012, p. 48).  

As the foregoing details, there are varied conceptions of educational equity. These 
differ with regard to resources, expected results, philosophical and legal bases, spheres of 
action, and funding. (See Table 1.) They also have different implications for policy and 
practice.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 10  

Table 1 
Conceptions of Equity 

 
 

The Common Core’s aims of “college and career readiness” and consistent expectations 
for students across zip code encompass equity – but what sort?  Through the research that 
follows, we explicate the role and meaning of equity according to the reform’s policy 
entrepreneurs. 

Methods 

Data Collection  

 Data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with 11 policy entrepreneurs 
conducted in late summer and early fall of 2011, at the start of the Common Core’s implementation 
process. This sample was gleaned from 16 initial emails to individuals who helped shape the 
Common Core as a response to NCLB, place it on policymakers’ agendas, and advance its adoption. 
Eight interviews were with policy entrepreneurs associated with eight national organizations. Of 
these, five served as their organization’s head or vice president. Three others held positions central 
to their organization’s Common Core policy effort. Another interview entailed a policy entrepreneur 
who acted as consultant to those seeking to launch common standards. We also conducted a joint 
interview with two senior staff, self-described as policy entrepreneurs, from the department of 
education in a reform-oriented state. These individuals promoted the reform’s adoption with state 
policymakers and were advancing its implementation in school districts. This interview offered a 
best case scenario: It allowed us to compare national-level policy entrepreneurs’ perspectives on 
equity and the Common Core with state-level leaders who strongly support the Common Core and 
its implementation (see Flyvbjerg, 2006).  

Conception of 
Equity g 

 
Features i 

EQUAL EQUALIZING EXPANSIVE 

Resources 
More equal educational 

resources 
Compensatory 

educational resources 

Compensatory 
resources in and 

beyond the educational 
system 

Results 
Variable, predictable 

gaps linked to student 
background 

More equal chances of 
school success, 
narrowed gaps 

More equal chances of 
school success, 
narrowed gaps 

Sphere of 
Action 

Public education Public education 

Public education, 
social and health 

services, prenatal – 
grade 12 

Philosophical/ 
Legal Basis 

Democratic equality/ 
Constitutional equal 

protections 

Humane justice/  
Civil rights laws 

Humane justice + 
ROI/ 

Still in formation 

Funding Horizontal equity Vertical equity 
Human capital 

investment equity 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  11 
 

Our interview protocol included ten questions that asked participants to describe how the 
Common Core might serve diverse students and schools and what educational equity meant to 
them. The protocol was semi-structured, enabling us to address our research questions while 
providing flexibility to follow avenues opened by the interview participants. Interviews ranged from 
55 to 70 minutes and typically lasted 60 minutes. They were conducted by phone, audio recorded, 
and transcribed verbatim. To protect participants’ confidentiality, as required under our institutional 
review board approval, all audio recordings and transcriptions were saved using interviewee 
pseudonyms on a password-protected computer. Pseudonyms were used in all subsequent analyses 
and writing.  

Data Analysis 

We employed an inductive, basic interpretive approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006) in our data 
analysis. This is appropriate for qualitative inquiries that seek to surface others’ sensemaking. 
Sensemaking has been described as a process to resolve issues and move forward that draws in a 
non-deliberative way from existing institutional and cultural frameworks. It is “instrumental, subtle, 
swift, social, and easily taken for granted” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). Within 
education research, sensemaking has been employed typically in studies of policy implementation to 
examine how a policy is interpreted in light of social and cultural contexts and therefore how it is 
enacted (See, e.g., Coburn, 2001; Spillane, 2004). In this case, sensemaking was applied to illuminate 
how Common Core policy entrepreneurs interpret the role and meaning of equity within the reform 
they are championing. Because sensemaking is a “way station” for coordinated action (Taylor & Van 
Every, 2000, p. 275 cited in Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005), our study will help both to elucidate 
the policy entrepreneurs’ conceptions of equity and clarify how plans to advance equity may unfold 
within the reform. 

Data analysis was continuous with data collection. Immediately following each interview, 
brief memos were written to capture salient points and new questions generated by the participants’ 
responses. In the process of transcribing, bracketed observer comments were added to the transcript 
texts and additional memos were drafted.  

To develop the coding scheme, each of the three researchers independently read and 
generated open codes for three of the interview transcripts. We then discussed our initial open 
codes, refined their meanings and labels, eliminated redundancies and clustered the remaining codes. 
Following this, we individually piloted the resulting code scheme on a fourth transcript and 
thereafter together further refined the codes. This series of steps reduced 164 initial open codes to 
12 major coding categories. We then independently recoded all ten transcripts. During the coding 
process, we drafted and discussed memos that synthesized meanings and raised issues within and 
across coded data.  

After independently coding all the transcripts, we reviewed and discussed together all data 
under each code. This process surfaced additional understandings and questions that were recorded 
in memos. It also resolved any coding disparities and ultimately yielded full agreement about the 
coding of each piece of data across the three researchers. This, together with the reiteration/ 
saturation of responses across participants, strengthens the trustworthiness of our findings. 

Findings: The Role and Meaning of Educational Equity in the Common 
Core  

Common Core policy entrepreneurs said educational equity played an important role in the 
formation and goals of the reform. They often linked equity to economic arguments for the reform. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 12  

Policy entrepreneurs applied primarily an equal conception of equity to the Common Core. We 
elaborate on these findings below. 

Equity has a Central Role 

All participants voiced a clear desire for the Common Core to improve education especially 
for students from educationally challenging circumstances. The policy entrepreneurs argued that 
students from lower-performing states, poverty, urban or rural environments, minority backgrounds, 
lower tracks, transient situations, and those who were English language learners should not confront 
educational disadvantage in school. According to Lee Harmon, concern for equity generated broad 
backing for the Common Core. Equity was central to:  

bringing in La Raza and all the groups that are associated with La Raza, and getting 
their support for the standards, and the NAACP, getting students with disabilities’ 
groups on board, military coalitions, child coalitions. I think it was equity more than 
purely economic arguments – which is what everybody pushes – which I think are 
oversold. But in terms of actually bringing people to the table, the equity is what 
brought them to the table. 

Equity is Conjoined with Economic Messages 

Even as equity was important, it was rarely a stand-alone message. As Lee Harmon indicated 
above, economic arguments were promoted to gain support for the Common Core. Unlike Harmon, 
many participants saw integral links between the economic and equity justifications for the reform. 
For example, Chris Young said: 

Up until about 20 years ago, I think there were two things that drove educational 
reform and drove the standards movement as well. On the one hand, it was 
traditional civil rights equity: the moral imperative. On the other, was the economic 
imperative that affect[s] another group of people [e.g., employers]. Today, they’re 
joined.… [For] the first time in our history, all of our children – or almost all – have 
to do well if our economy is going to truly thrive.  
Other policy entrepreneurs indicated that educational equity was vital to economic well-

being at the individual, national, and/or international level. Jan Davidson illustrated this in holding 
that a key purpose of the standards was to give all young people a foundation for managing global 
competition: “[T]hese are standards that all kids need to meet in order to be prepared to have a 
future in an increasingly competitive environment and a world where being born in the U.S. may not 
give you the advantages it used to.” 

Equity in the Common Core was also linked to “economies of scale.” It was expected that 
the Common Standards would increase the education system’s efficiency, and, in turn, make 
educational resources more widely available. Terry Thomas’ organization supported the Common 
Core standards due to: 

concerns around low student performance, both on state tests, the NAEP, and on 
international assessments; the implications of that for economic development and 
economic success; and some concerns around comparability and the opportunity to 
create economies of scale. You have a situation where you have each state is going it 
alone, and sinking in resources, both staff time and financial, on processes that could 
potentially be done collaboratively.  
Similarly, other participants held that the Common Core standards would spur economies of 

scale by enabling collaborations across states and districts. Such collaborations could produce 
aligned curriculum and professional development materials. In turn, because individual districts and 
states did not have to develop these resources, such resources might be more affordable and more 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  13 
 
accessible across disparate schools. A policy entrepreneur from State A highlighted that economies 
of scale would advance equity through more equal resource distribution:  

If you look at everything else that comes with those standards that are not available 
in the State of A, that’s where the power of the standards come from. It’s building 
up economies of scale. Now we can have a more level playing field across the nation.  
Some participants also indicated that economies of scale were especially important 

given the economic recession. Cost-savings were necessary, and the Common Core was seen 
as a way of potentially lowering costs, particularly of professional development and 
curriculum materials, while still enhancing equity. 

Yet, participants recognized that equity would still be challenged by uneven resources. Even 
as the Common Core was expected to foster better education resources and distribute them in more 
cost-effective ways, access to these resources would remain unequal across states and districts. Lee 
Harmon stated that economies of scale for the “development of materials and training, I think that’s 
going to be a huge cost savings. As far as other money for implementation, I think states are in 
trouble.” Harmon noted one state in the Northeast lacked a state-level math curriculum specialist to 
support implementation. Other policy entrepreneurs pointed to states in the West and Midwest 
where resources for implementation were problematic. 

School districts would also be differentially capable of accessing the better resources 
expected to arise from the Common Core. For example, local districts in State A make their own 
choices about textbooks and professional development. State A puts out guidance about the former 
and lacked capacity to monitor the latter. In addition, a State A policy entrepreneur said 
communities and their student populations differed. Therefore, they might not view the same 
materials as equally appropriate: “[W]hat’s good in [the state’s biggest urban district] may not be 
good in [Town X], which is a rural community of 100 kids.”  

District budgets and expertise also vary, and this influences their ability to act on “what’s 
good,” even when the knowledge is available. For example, Mel Nolan described how several 
districts within one state had received foundation support to develop curriculum materials for the 
Common Core that will eventually be made public. In the meantime, the funded districts were 
labeled “the Magnificent Seven” by a leader in one of the unfunded districts that cannot participate 
in the curriculum development process or get early access to the materials.  

In sum, policy entrepreneurs said that equity was vital to the formation and aims of the 
Common Core. Equity shared the stage with economic justifications for the reform. Participants 
believed the Common Core would provide better and more equal workforce preparation for 
students, and it would improve U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Via economies of 
scale, the reform would enable better resources to be efficiently developed and distributed across 
diverse schools. At the same time, policy entrepreneurs noted states and districts had unequal 
capacity to implement the Common Core and secure resources spurred by it.  

The Meaning of Equity within the Common Core 

 Given that equity has an important role in the Common Core, what forms of equity do 
policy entrepreneurs have in mind? Our analysis shows that all the participants expressed an equal 
conception: Diverse students and schools needed more equal educational resources. The majority of 
policy entrepreneurs concurrently held an equalizing conception of educational equity. That is, for 
all students to have a more equal outcome (“college and career readiness”), some schools and some 
groups of students needed compensatory resources. One participant referred explicitly to an 
expansive conception of equity. That is, for young people to attain more equal school outcomes, 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 14  

resources beyond the education system were needed. The expansive conception was not linked to 
educational equity within the Common Core.  

Equal Conceptions in the Common Core: Prevalent 

Policy entrepreneurs’ conception of equity emphasized equal educational resources. In 
addition to equal, high standards – a central tenet of the reform – they highlighted equality in other 
intangible resources, including equal opportunity, expectations, and truth about what is needed for 
college and career readiness. They also held that the Common Core would foster equality in material 
resources, especially curriculum and teachers. 

Equal opportunity. Four participants described educational equity as “opportunity to learn.” 
Mel Nolan said most policy entrepreneurs would hold this view and described it as, “Basically you’re 
giving students an equal opportunity to be exposed, you know, to the content they need to develop 
knowledge and skills.” For Noel Dornan, equity in the context of the Common Core was 
“opportunity to learn” in the sense of being exposed to important knowledge, skills, and 
expectations regardless of school setting. Terry Thomas said that educational equity meant all 
students get the “opportunity to have equal access to a high-quality educational experience. What 
students do with that is their decision.” These views are akin to Coleman’s equality of educational 
opportunity as the same curriculum within a community or the fundamental notion of equity held by 
Schmidt and Maier (2009). Thomas’ elaboration on equity aligns with Jencks’ democratic equality:  
Differences in individual motivation, effort, or other influences will make for unequal outcomes, 
even when students are provided with equal opportunity. 
 Same expectations. Policy entrepreneurs consistently held that high, common standards would 
enable all students to be held to the same high expectations. Such expectations are important for 
student achievement (Ferguson, 2003; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1992). In several instances 
“standards” and “expectations” were used interchangeably. For example, Jan Davidson said: “… the 
great merit and benefit of these standards rests in their high expectations for all kids, and that was 
one of the main arguments that we used.” Similarly, Noel Dornan linked equity to equal, high 
expectations. The Common Core provided the: 
 Same high, rigorous, challenging expectations for all kids. Since one of the things 

that has historically depressed the performance of low income and minority students 
was low expectations we had for them, having the same expectations for everybody 
is really an equity issue. 

 The centrality of providing the same expectations is captured by Terry Thomas. In response 
to the means by which Common Core might foster more equitable education, Thomas said, “All 
students will be held to the same high expectations. That is the most obvious one.”  
 Same truths. McDonnell & Weatherly (2012) stated that the policy entrepreneurs’ push for the 
Common Core lacked exhortatory moral tropes. Yet, several participants in our study said the 
Common Core made for a more truthful, and therefore fairer, education system. They held that 
some students were lied to about what they needed to learn in order to succeed. For example, Chris 
Young emphasized, “We’ve got to make sure when these students leave, they’ve got the education 
they need and that we’re not lying to them and lying to ourselves.” Lee Harmon argued that students 
are set up to fail “when you lie to kids in poor and minority schools about what’s necessary to 
succeed in college and the workplace, and we dumb down what’s expected of them.” Harmon added 
that truth didn’t address “the huge resource issue. That’s, I think, a bigger part of equity for me. But 
it’s something.” 

Curriculum materials. In the realm of material resources, participants said that the Common 
Core would replace haphazard and scattered approaches to curriculum development. In turn, better 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  15 
 
curriculum materials and content would become more equally available across schools serving 
disparate students. Leslie Isherwood stated:  

So this time it seems that most state leaders get, for example, that you can’t leave 
curriculum to individual school districts, or teachers for that matter, to make up; that 
as long as we continue to do that, some people will make up good stuff, some will 
make up bad stuff. And that when you’re talking about a typical school district in this 
country that has like a half a person in the curriculum office, and that person also 
drives the school bus, the likelihood that this person can generate really high quality 
curriculum for teachers is nuts. 
Another national-level policy entrepreneur said that digital dissemination will make high-

quality curriculum spurred by the Common Core more equally available. Such technology will make 
it possible for teachers and students in high-poverty schools to gain access to the “best content 
anywhere in the world.”  

Curriculum materials under the Common Core will also foster equality by embedding the 
same, high standards. Jan Davidson said that an underappreciated aspect of the Common Core 
standards is how “text dependent they are – which is another equity issue.” Davidson stated that, 
“by grounding the Common Core in instruction on those standards in the texts itself … you 
neutralize the effect of family background variables in ways that have not been done before. It 
doesn’t mean that it eliminates it. Conceptually it creates a more level playing field.”  

At the time of the interviews, participants knew that publishers had begun labelling their 
products as “aligned with the Common Core.” More recently, the Common Core has sought to 
support educators in evaluating whether curriculum materials are appropriate, but it does not certify 
that commercial products are aligned to the standards (CCSSO, 2012).  

Improved instruction across schools. Most participants held that the Common Core would enhance 
teaching quality across schools through better preservice education and professional development. 
The Common Core was expected to improve teacher preparation, because preservice education 
programs could now prepare future teachers to address rigorous academic standards that applied 
across the nation. Teacher education programs no longer had to operate without knowledge of what 
standards their graduates would be expected to draw on across different states.  

State A policy entrepreneurs said their state’s preservice programs would be aligned to the 
Common Core standards. Not only would this prepare teachers to work with the higher standards 
wherever they began their careers; it would also benefit students who were more mobile, including 
high-poverty students and military families.  

Participants held that the Common Core would boost professional development by enabling 
educators to exchange ideas across districts and states. Kelly Swanson highlighted a collaboration 
among 34 teams of educators from various states. Terry Thomas and Lee Harmon surfaced the 
possibility of national approaches to professional development. The latter held that while a national 
approach would be difficult, “obviously it needed to be done, because there’s another huge cost 
savings right there.” 

The centrality of instructional quality to the reform was underscored by a State A participant. 
The Common Core “helps teachers to focus more on what they need to teach and what students 
need to learn. But if you don’t have any effective instruction, it doesn’t matter what the expectations 
[i.e., standards] are.” While State A participants expected the Common Core to improve instruction, 
variability across districts would likely remain. As already noted, professional development was in 
the hands of districts in State A. This was said to be responsive and empowering to local districts. At 
the same time, at the state level, “We simply just don’t have the capacity or even probably the desire 
to evaluate the quality of professional development.”  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 16  

In sum, regarding the equal view, policy entrepreneurs expected the Common Core would 
foster equality in both intangible and material resources. The former included opportunity to learn 
(in a sense akin to Coleman’s common curriculum within a community), standards, expectations, 
and equal access to the truth about what is needed for academic success. Material resources included 
improvements in curriculum materials and instruction. 

The policy entrepreneurs recognized challenges to the equal provision of resources, 
especially material resources. The development of preservice training aligned to the Common Core 
standards was hampered by the fractured nature of higher education and a lack of research on which 
to build strong teacher preparation programs. In addition, some noted the longstanding problem of 
the unequal distribution of strong teachers. Chris Young was uncertain whether the Common Core 
would influence that distribution. “I think it’s a wash between the old system and whatever this will 
be.” The cost and flurry of products being stamped as aligned to the Common Core also raised 
problems. Mel Nolan wondered whether schools and districts would be able to secure appropriate 
resources: “[A]re you buying the right stuff, if you can afford to buy it?” Policy entrepreneurs noted 
that states with and without federal Race to the Top Grants were differently positioned to develop 
and implement Common Core curriculum materials.  

Thus, even as they stated the Common Core standards would foster equal resources, the 
policy entrepreneurs were realistic in seeing challenges and limits to that vision. Jan Davidson said, 
“[W]e thought that the Common Core would be one step in resolving all of that [unequal 
expectations]. We’re very clear that now that they’re in place that there are other equity issues to be 
raised.”  

Equalizing Conceptions: Ambivalence 

While the policy entrepreneurs universally held that equity entailed providing more equal 
resources, the majority also said that equity involved fostering more similar outcomes across learners 
from disparate backgrounds through the targeting of resources. This equalizing conception is 
illustrated by Leslie Isherwood:  

[W]hat equity is to us is both equity of opportunity … to be taught well, be well 
taught, the exact same sort of high level stuff. And equity of results. So any gap I see 
– in whether it’s between poor kids and middle class kids or kids of color and white 
kids – tells me that something is going wrong in the system. And so we have 
opportunity problems that we have to fix until we get results that we don’t see 
differences by zip code or race.  
In line with Jencks’ humane justice, an equalizing conception directs compensatory resources 

to students, schools, or districts with greater needs. For all students to have access to the best 
education, Kelly Swanson said, “We have to understand that additional supports may be needed for 
kids, for some kids.” Swanson noted it might be difficult to target resources in a compensatory way. 
“So everybody’s just got to grow up and get beyond, ‘What’s good for me?’… It’s usually, ‘What’s 
there for me? What’s in it for me?’ And deep down inside, they don’t think about these kids. That’s 
alive and well in this country. You know it is.” 

Several policy entrepreneurs struggled to embrace an equalizing view within the Common 
Core. For instance, Lynn Quincy recognized the need to target resources to students, schools, and 
districts that were struggling. Yet, Quincy’s remarks show ambivalence about providing such 
compensatory resources without also providing compensatory resources for affluent or gifted 
students.  

[T]he purpose of standards is to set a floor, you know, certainly not a ceiling. It’s to 
say: here’s a minimum standard to which all students should be held accountable. 
And obviously, just as we expect the students with disabilities receive additional 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  17 
 

funding for various resources that are needed and accommodations that are needed, 
so is the case with districts and schools. I mean, that said, obviously affluent – we 
care equally about students at the top, and we certainly would not advocate for 
something that would lose sight of the gifted and talented, for lack of a better term. 

 Similarly, Noel Dornan initially rejected the view that equity entailed providing all students 
with opportunity to learn, because that term’s varied meanings generated a long and problematic 
political history. Instead, Dornan stated at first that equity meant: 

breaking, or at least minimizing, the relationship between family background factors, 
poverty, income, parental education, and the like. You’d like to see as close to zero as 
possible between those background factors and achievement. I guess I’d argue that 
this is still a pretty good goal to be aiming for. 
However, when Dornan considered equity specifically within the context of the Common 

Core reform, the emphasis was no longer on minimizing the relationship between student 
background and achievement. Instead, Dornan focused on providing equal inputs across disparate 
schools, in line with the equal view:  

[T]he role standards play in equity – this may depart from my answer before about 
how I think about equity. In this case it is an opportunity to learn issue. What the 
Common Core standards did, ah, a couple points here. First and foremost at one 
level, to use all- too-easy rhetoric, it means that the expectations that a kid confronts 
no longer depends upon zip code, right?  
The ambivalence over compensatory resources central to an equalizing conception of equity 

may be built into the Common Core reform itself. Mel Nolan said that at the start of the Common 
Core, the excitement over generating high national standards was coupled with an acknowledgement 
that standards were necessary, “but they ain’t sufficient.” Yet, “One of the things that some of the 
policy entrepreneurs were very concerned about was, if you went to common standards, would that 
be a basis for having some kind of school finance lawsuit?” If states were to become more 
vulnerable to such lawsuits, they would be more reluctant to participate in the reform. Nolan said, 
“everybody breathed a sigh of relief” after a prominent legal scholar reported that the courts would 
not use common standards in school finance suits. Nolan knew past efforts at voluntary national 
standards had been felled by fears of adequacy lawsuits. Thus, national policy entrepreneurs 
launched the Common Core both with concerns about disparities across schools and districts and 
with the assurance that the reform would not provide a legal basis for generating material resources 
to address those disparities.  

Ambivalence in targeting resources to needier schools or districts also played out in Chris 
Young’s comments. The Common Core enables parents:   

to determine whether or not their child is getting the education they’re supposed to 
receive. It’s the first time – and while there’s still no federal right of action, litigation, 
under this [Common Core reform] – it’s the first time that, for most students at least, 
there is a common determination at least in these two critical subject areas.  
Yet, later Young claimed what the Common Core “says to teachers, wherever they’re 

teaching, or educators particularly in low-performing schools, is: ‘This is what we expect of all of our 
students.’ And you have a right to demand, both the students and the teachers, the support that’s 
necessary to get them there.” 

To summarize, participants stated that high standards do not ensure high performance 
across students. In line with the equalizing view, most recognized that compensatory resource would 
be needed for some students, schools, and districts. Yet, the potential for the Common Core to 
serve as a legal lever for obtaining additional resources represented an existential threat to the 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 18  

reform. In line with this threat, rather than advancing an equalizing conception of equity for the 
reform, participants tended to re-emphasize that the Common Core would create equal standards, 
expectations, and opportunities and more equal access to better teachers and curriculum materials.  

Expansive Conception of Equity: Limited 

The expansive conception of equity, like the equalizing conception, is aimed at fostering 
more equal educational outcomes through targeting resources. However, because the majority of 
variance in school outcomes is linked to influences beyond school, an expansive conception entails 
providing a range of comprehensive interventions. Among these may be early childhood education, 
health care, after-school and summer enrichment programs, and anti-poverty measures, in addition 
to compensatory resources within the school (Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff, 2006; 
Heckman, 2008, 2010; Ladd, 2012; National Research Council, 2000; Rothstein, Wilder, & Algood, 
2011; Rebell, 2012.) . 

One participant touched briefly on this view. In response to what equity meant, Kelly 
Swanson said, “Oh man, I mean in the larger universe it’s – I mean we’re right into the social 
realm.” Swanson then returned to focus on education, and advanced an equalizing view: “[A]ll kids 
regardless of SES, geography, anything else, really have access to the absolute best education,” 
including educational resources targeted to advance the learning of varied groups of students. 

Perhaps Dornan’s initial response encompassed the expansive view. Early in the interview, 
Dornan said educational equity entailed, “breaking or at least minimizing the relationship between 
family background factors … and achievement.” As someone long steeped in education policy, 
Dornan would know that school interventions would not suffice to break that relationship. 
However, while the expansive view was likely understood by this policy entrepreneur, it was not 
stated and not pertinent to the Common Core. Within the reform, equity was “opportunity to 
learn,” and that meant “first and foremost … that the expectations that a kid confronts no longer 
depends upon zip code, right?”  

In sum, with one exception, the policy entrepreneurs did not voice an expansive conception 
of educational equity. When such a view surfaced briefly, it was not applied to the Common Core, a 
reform that targets the education system. 

Discussion 

 Participants saw equity as important to the formation and goals of the Common Core. They 
expressed three conceptions of equity: equal, equalizing, and expansive. However, the greatest 
emphasis was placed on equal views, which all participants saw as operating within the Common 
Core. Policy entrepreneurs underscored the need to provide students with the same high standards. 
Their comments reveal that the Common Core would generate equality in intangible resources: 
standards, opportunity to learn, expectations, and truths. The reform would also foster more equal 
access to better material resources, particularly curriculum and teachers, although the distribution of 
high-quality teachers would remain problematic. 

A majority of participants also expressed an equalizing conception. Policy entrepreneurs did 
not believe the standards were sufficient or “a silver bullet.” They held that additional resources 
should be targeted to disadvantaged schools, districts, and students. At the same time, there was 
ambivalence about linking the Common Core to an equalizing conception. Fundamental to the 
Common Core’s formation was reassurance that the reform would not provide a basis for successful 
adequacy lawsuits and thereby threaten the reform itself.  

One policy entrepreneur briefly expressed an expansive conception, in which comprehensive 
resources are harnessed to close achievement gaps. We believe that by asking participants about 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  19 
 
their view of equity, they were free to express an expansive view. However, because the research 
focused on the Common Core, it is possible that most of the policy entrepreneurs stayed within the 
frame of school reform more generally and so did not broach more comprehensive approaches.  

That policy entrepreneurs emphasized the equal conception is consistent with the broadly 
held value of democratic equality (Jencks, 1988). When people are offered the same rights and 
privileges, disparities in outcomes are not viewed as social problems but problems of individual 
motivation, preparation, effort, or ability. These differences are the basis for meritocratic selection.  

An equal view is consistent with standards-based reforms, such as the Common Core. 
Standards-based reforms rest on a number of assumptions. Equal standards are assumed to be 
necessary for equal opportunity to learn – in the sense of equal exposure to demanding curriculum. 
Second, they assume equal standards will promote equal expectations. Third, such reforms assume 
that equal standards will promote equal opportunities to encounter equally demanding curriculum. 
More specifically, within the Common Core, it is assumed that economies of scale will make 
curriculum materials that embed high standards more equally accessible across disparate schools. 
The Common Core also assumes that more equal preservice education will enable teachers to teach 
to the standards across varied school settings. Similarly, it assumes professional development will 
ready existing teachers to teach to the standards across disparate schools. Through this long chain of 
assumptions, the Common Core will enable all students across diverse settings to enter college or 
career without need for remedial education. Doubt has been cast on each of these assumptions, 
sometimes by participants themselves in these interviews, sometimes by those who scrutinize this 
and other standards-based reforms (e.g., Booher-Jennings, 2005; Loveless, 2012; Nichols & Berliner, 
2007; McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, & Vasquez Heilig, 2008; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Ravitch, 
2011).  

Our point here is not to take apart the assumptions underlying the Common Core or 
standards-based reforms. It is instead to emphasize that the Common Core is consistent with an 
equal conception of equity. Given this conception and the performance of standards-based reforms 
in the U.S., it is reasonable to expect that disparate outcomes will continue to track students’ 
background under the Common Core. What is out of ‘alignment’ in the Common Core is its reliance 
on an equal conception alongside its aim to generate an equalizing effect, even in the muted form 
that all students, regardless of zip code, will graduate college and career ready. 

That the policy entrepreneurs understand that “standards aren’t a silver bullet” and 
simultaneously refrain from compensatory or comprehensive approaches has led us to the paradox 
of equity in education policy: To launch a reform that seeks educational equity, proponents must 
make their case within the existing two-pronged paradigm of equal conceptions and standards-based 
reform. Therefore, the successful launch of such a policy guarantees that educational outcomes will 
remain tethered to student background. Policies that rest on other conceptions have proven largely 
unsalable since standards-based reforms began taking hold in the 1980s (Darling-Hammond, 2010; 
McDonnell, 1995; Rothman, 2011).  

It is possible to argue that the Common Core promotes more equal inputs and is therefore 
better than NCLB, which allowed for both disparate inputs and disparate outputs. At the same time, 
hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent directly or indirectly on the Common Core, 
via foundation support and federal funding for the Race to the Top initiative and the Common Core 
assessment consortia (Ed.gov U.S. Department of Education, Race to the Top–Game-Changing 
Reforms, n.d.; Phillips & Wong, 2010). 

Many billions more may go to support this reform over the course of the next few years. 
(Accountability Works, 2012; Murphy & Regenstein, 2012; Phillips & Wong, 2010). These dollars 
will most clearly benefit developers and providers of new materials, trainings, assessments, 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 20  

technology platforms for assessment, and some groups of policy specialists (see Kingdon, 1995). On 
the basis of past standards-based reforms, we can anticipate sporadic bright spots for some 
disadvantaged youngsters, even as the educational experiences and achievement of the vast majority 
of them remain far behind. 

Given the steep costs and distribution of benefits of this, and other, standards-based 
reforms, we believe a more productive course would be to devise and support policies based on 
equalizing or expansive views. We see arguments for these developing in both law and social science 
(Berliner, 2012; Gardner, 1999; Heckman, 2010; Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron, & Shonkoff, 2006; 
National Research Council, 2000; Rebell, 2012; Rothstein, Wilder, & Allgood, 2011; Schweinhardt, 
et al., 2005). Policies aligned to an equalizing conception would draw on clear findings that excellent 
teachers and school leaders are an important resource for improving learning outcomes. Such 
policies would strongly incentivize those with the best minds and teacher training to make a long-
term commitment to work where there is the greatest student need. Policies aligned to an expansive 
conception would build on increasing understandings of early childhood development and on when 
and how achievement gaps widen during the school years (e.g., summer downturns, weak 
instruction, and curriculum). These policies would direct few resources to testing technologies and 
publishers. Far greater resources would be used to enable the best educators to work in schools with 
challenged populations. Substantial resources would be directed to providing such populations with 
needed health care, strong early childhood centers, parent outreach and involvement efforts, and 
summer- and after-school enrichment programs. Replacing an equal conception with an expansive 
one would help reverse the pattern now in place: some exceptional schools to belie consistently 
inequitable outcomes v. many strong programs to foster children’s development and thereby yield 
more equitable chances of success.  

Conclusion 

Views of equity inform educational policy and therefore inform the actions and resources 
that shape children’s possibilities. To understand whether a reform aimed at equity is succeeding on 
its own terms or, beyond that, meeting larger social aims, it’s necessary to understand what is within 
its conceptual purview. The Common Core rests on an equal conception. Its purview is thus to 
distribute equal resources across schools. It is therefore reasonable to evaluate the Common Core 
against this goal. If it were achieved, the Common Core would reinforce arguments for meritocratic 
distribution of opportunities in a way that is not now possible. However, attaining this goal is 
unlikely to reduce the disparities in student outcomes associated with sociodemographic variables or 
to enable all students to graduate high school ready for college and career. Given its equal 
conception, the Common Core cannot close achievement gaps, any more than the same icing will 
transform different cakes. Policies and resources aligned to an expansive view of equity are needed 
to foster more equal chances of school and life success for children from disparate circumstances.  

References 

Accountability Works (2012). National cost of aligning states and localities to the Common  
 Core Standards: A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper.  
 Retrieved from http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf 
Administration for Children and Families, undated website. History of Head Start.  
 http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/history-of-head-start 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  21 
 
Berliner, D. (2012). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s  

youth. Teachers College Record, 116(1), ID Number: 16889. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from 
https://tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16889 

Betts, J. R., & Roemer, J.E. (2005). Equalizing opportunity for racial and socioeconomic groups 
in the United States through educational finance reform. Retrieved October 30, 2012 from 
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0gq4z4m9 

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to  
theories and methods (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. 

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability  
system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in 

their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 
23(2), 145–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145 

Coleman, J.S. (1967). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. ERIC  
 database (ED 015 157). 
Coleman, J.S. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity.  Harvard Educational  
 Review, 38(1), 7-22. 
Coleman, J.S. (1972). The evaluation of Equality of Educational Opportunity. In F. Mosteller &  
 D.P. Moynihan, On equality of educational opportunity (pp. 146-167). New York:  
 Vintage. 
Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and  
 pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 
 399-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00040 
Crampton, F.E., & Thompson, D.C. (2008). Building minds, minding buildings. Washington,  
  DC: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from 
           http://www.aft.org/pdfs/psrp/bmmbfunding1208.pdf 
Council of Chief State School Officers (2012). Common Core State Standards: Implementation  
 tools and resources. Retrieved from 
 http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2012/common_core_resources.pdf on June 13, 2013 
Dillon, S. (2009, April 28). ‘No Child’ law is not closing a racial gap. The New York Times. Retrieved 

August 22, 2012 from 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/education/29scores.html?_r=0 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America's commitment to equity 
will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308253 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will 
determine our future. NY: Teachers College Press. 

Dougherty, K.J. (1996). Opportunity-to-learn standards: A sociological critique. Sociology of Education, 
69, 40-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3108455 

Ed.gov U.S. Department of Education, Race to the Top–Game-Changing Reforms, n.d.  
Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov/open/plan/race-top-game-
changing-reforms 

Ed.gov. U.S. Department of Education Elementary & Secondary Education. Title I Improving  
The Academic Achievement of The Disadvantaged, n.d. Retrieved December 13, 2012 from 
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 22  

Ferguson, R.F. (2003). Teacher’s perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score  
 gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460-507. doi: 10.1177/0042085903254970 
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry  
 12(2), 219-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-year  

retrospective (WCER Working Paper No. 2006-9). Madison: University of Wisconsin– 
Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from 
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php  

Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does  
language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111, 750-782. Retrieved 
December 15, 2012 from: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?contentid=15343 

Garcia, E. E. (2002). Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. International Journal of  
 the Sociology of Language, (155-156), 1–92, ISSN (Online) 1613-3668, ISSN  
 doi: 10.1515/ijsl.2002.028  
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K-12  
 education that every child deserves. New York: Simon & Schuster. 
Gates Foundation (2010). Fewer, clearer, higher: Moving forward with consistent, rigorous  
 standards for all students. Retrieved December 26, 2012, from  
 http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/fewer-clearer-higher- 
 standards.pdf 
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights:  
 Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163-174. doi:  
 10.3102/0013189X11404943   
Hallinan (1988). Equality of educational opportunity. Annual Review of Sociology (14), 249-268  
 doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001341 
Heckman, J.J. (2008). Role of income and family influence on child outcomes. Annals of the  
 New York Academy of Science, 1136, 307-323.  
Heckman, J.J. (2010). Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Budget 

Reform. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from 
http://eyeonearlyeducation.org/2010/11/16/nobel-laureate-to- 
debt-panel-invest-in-early-education/ 

Head Start U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and  
Families (January 2010). Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Washington, DC.  
Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/ 
reports/impact_study/hs_impact_study_final.pdf Downloaded 9/24/12 

Heise, M. (1994-1995). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The federalization and legalization of 
education policy. Fordham Law Review. 63, 345-381.  

Improving America’s School Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382; 108 Stat. 3518 (1994). 
Jackson, C.K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality: Evidence from  
 the end of school desegregation. The Journal of Labor Economics, 27(2), 213-256. 
Jencks, C. (1988). Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal? Ethics,  
 98(3), 518-533. 
Jensen A R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard  
 Education Review, (39)1, 1-123.  
Johnson, L.B. (1965). Commencement address. Retrieved September 20, 2012 from  
 http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp  
Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  23 
 
Knudsen, E.I., Heckman, J.J., Cameron J.L., & Shonkoff, J.P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological 

and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the  
National Academy of Sciences, 103(27), 10155-10162. Retrieved September 12, 2012 from 
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/27/10155.full.pdf+html  

Koski, W.S., & Reich, R. (2006). When “adequate” isn’t: The retreat from equity in educational law 
and policy and why it matters. Emory Law Journal, 56(1), 547-617. 

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown. 
Ladd, H.F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence, Journal of Policy Analysis  
 and Management, 31(2), 203–227, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21615 
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 
Loveless, T. (2012). How well are American students learning? With sections on predicting the  

effect of the Common Core State Standards, achievement gaps on the two NAEP tests,  
and misinterpreting international test scores. The Brown Center Report on American Education, 
3(1). Retrieved September 23, 2012 from  
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/newsletters/0216_brown_education_loveless.pdf 

Lucas, S.R., & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and classifying: Theory, evidence, and equity in  
education. Review of Research in Education, 34, 25-84. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09353578 

McDonnell, L.M.(1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1164509 

McDonnell, L.M., & Weatherly, M. S. (2012). Evidence use and stages of the 
Common Core State Standards movement. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual 
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 16, 2012. Vancouver,  
Canada. Cited with permission of the authors.  

McLaughlin, M.W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.  
 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178. 
 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1163728 
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). 
McNeil, L.M., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable losses: High- 
 stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, North  
 America, 16. Retrieved September 23, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/28.  
McNeil, L.M., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in  
 Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising  
 standards or raising barriers (pp. 127-150). New York: The Century Foundation Press.  
McPartland, J.M., & Schneider, B. (1996).Opportunity to learn and student diversity: Prospects and 

pitfalls of a common core curriculum. Sociology of Education, 69, 68-81. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3108456 

Metz, M.H. (1990). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In D.E. Mitchell & 
M.E. Goertz (Eds.), Education politics for a new century (pp. 75-91). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. 

Murphy, J. (1988). Equity as student opportunity to learn. Theory into practice, 27(2), 145-151. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848809543343 

Murphy, P., & Regenstein, E. (2012). Putting a price tag on the Common Core: How much will  
 smart implementation cost? Retrieved August 1, 2012 from 
 http://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120530-Putting-A-Price-Tag-on-the- 
 Common-Core/20120530-Putting-a-Price-Tag-on-the-Common-Core-FINAL.pdf 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 24  

National Center on Educational Standards and Testing (1992). Raising standards for American education. 
A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American 
people (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).  

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School  
 Officers (n.d.). About the Standards.  Retrieved from  
 http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards on June 13, 2013. 
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers 

(2010).  Powerpoint  – March 2010. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/resources 
on May 18, 2013. 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods:  
 The science of early childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of  
 Early Childhood Development. Jack P. Shonkoff & Deborah A. Phillips (Eds.), Board on  
 Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and  
 Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 
National Research Council (2008). Common standards for K-12 education? Considering the  
 evidence: Summary of a workshop series. Alexandra Beatty. Rapporteur. Committee on  
 State Standards in Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.  
 Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 
New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, School Finance Inequity Among  
 Districts, n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://febp.newamerica.net/k12 
Nichols, S. N., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: The effects of high-stakes testing on  
 America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. Law. No. 107-110, § 115. Stat. 1425 (2002). 
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters. The Civil Rights Project Harvard  
 University. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12- 
 education/integration-and-diversity/why-segregation-matters-poverty-and-educational- 
 inequality/orfield-why-segregation-matters-2005.pdf 
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for  
 new integration strategies. A report of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos  
 Civiles, UCLA. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12- 
 education/integration-and-diversity/historic-reversals-accelerating-resegregation-and-the- 
 need-for-new-integration-strategies-1/orfield-historic-reversals-accelerating.pdf 
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). 
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction, and  
 assessments. Phi Delta Kappan (91)5, 37-42. 
Porter, A. (1993). School delivery standards. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 24-30. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176948 
Porter, A. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-learn standards, Educational Researcher, 

24(1), 21-27. 
Porter, A., Polikoff , M., & J. Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended  
 curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy  
 Analysis, 31(3), 238-268. doi: 10.3102/0162373709336465  
Quay, L. (2010). Higher standards for all: Implications of the Common Core for equity in  
 education. Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity &  
 Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School. Retrieved from  
 http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Education_Roundable_Standards_Brief_4_10.pdf 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  25 
 
Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and  
 choice are undermining education. New York: BasicBooks. 
Rebell, M. (2012). The right to comprehensive educational opportunity. Harvard Civil Rights  
 Law Review, 47, 47-117. 
Rebell, M., & Wolf, J. (2008). Moving every child ahead: From NCLB hype to meaningful  
 educational opportunity. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and  
 pupils' intellectual development. New York: Irvington. 
Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: The Common Core standards and the next chapter  
 in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
Rothstein, R., Wilder, T., & Allgood, W. (2011). Providing comprehensive educational opportunity  
 to low-income students: How much does it cost? Teachers College, Columbia University:  
 Campaign for Educational Equity. Retrieved December 8, 2012 from 
 http://www.tc.edu/i/a/document/18662_2rothstein.pdf 
San Francisco Unified Public Schools Basis for English Learner Programs, n.d. Retrieved from  
 http://www.sfusd.edu/en/programs/english-language-learners/basis-for-english-learner- 
 programs. 
Schmidt, W.H., & Maier, A. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D.N.  
 Plank, Handbook of education policy research (pp. 541-559). New York: Routledge. 
Schweinhart, L.H., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., Nores, M., et al. (2005).  
 Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 40. High/Scope  
 Press. Ypsilanti, MI. 
Smrekar, C.E., & Goldring, E. B. (2009). From the courtroom to the classroom: The shifting  
 landscape of school desegregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.  
Spillane, J.P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press. 
Sunderman, G.L., & Kim, J. (2005). Teacher quality: Equalizing educational opportunities and  
 outcomes. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.  
U.S. Department of Education, Building the Legacy: Idea 2004, Statute TITLE I/B/612/a/5, n.d.  
 Retrieved December 15, 2012 from  
 http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CB%2C612%2Ca%2C5 
 %2C   
The White House President George W. Bush, President’s Remarks in Minneapolis, Minnesota,  
 n.d. Retrieved December 8, 2012 from http://georgewbush- 
 whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041030-8.html 
Yee, V. (2012, December 10). Poor schools struggling to meet state standards, years after critical 

ruling. The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/nyregion/years-after-ruling-poor-schools-in-new-
york-still-struggle.html?_r=0 

Weick, K.E, Sutcliffe, K.M, & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. 
Organization Science,16(4), 409-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 26  

 

About the Authors 

Mindy L. Kornhaber 
Penn State University 
mlk20@psu.edu 
Mindy L. Kornhaber is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education Policy Studies at 
Penn State University.  Her research is guided by two questions: How do institutions and the 
policies surrounding them enhance or impede human development, and how can human 
development be advanced on a more equitable basis? 
 
Kelly Griffith 
Penn State University 
kmg19@psu.edu 
Kelly Griffith is a doctoral candidate in the Education Theory and Policy Program at Penn State 
University.  Her research centers on issues of educational equity in the K-16 pipeline and the 
policies that seek to address access to college preparatory experiences within and across high 
schools. 
 
Alison Tyler 
Penn State University 
act167@psu.edu 
Alison C. Tyler is a doctoral candidate in the Education Theory and Policy Program at Penn 
State University.  Her research focuses on issues of educational equity, including segregation, as 
well as the symbolic import of policy. 

Acknowledgements 

We wish to thank Howard Gardner, Jeanne M. Powers, Robert Rothman, and two 
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this article.  
 

 

education policy analysis archives 
Volume 22  Number 4 January 27th, 2014 ISSN 1068-2341 

 
 

 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is 
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More 
details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  27 
 
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School 
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de 
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO 
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), 
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to 
Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu  
 
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter 
feed @epaa_aape. 

 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 28  

education policy analysis archives 
editorial board  

Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Rick Mintrop, (University of California, 

Berkeley) Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) 
 
Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Gary Anderson New York University  Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison  Samuel R. Lucas  University of California, Berkeley  
Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington  
David C. Berliner  Arizona State University  William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder 
Robert Bickel  Marshall University  Tristan McCowan  Institute of Education, London  
Henry Braun Boston College  Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley  
Eric Camburn  University of Wisconsin, Madison  Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder 
Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss  University of Melbourne  
Casey Cobb  University of Connecticut  Sharon Nichols  University of Texas, San Antonio  
Arnold Danzig  Arizona State University  Noga O'Connor University of Iowa  
Antonia Darder  University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
João Paraskveva  University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth  
Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University  Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University 
John Diamond Harvard University  John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles 
Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates  A. G. Rud Purdue University 
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida  Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University 
Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State 

University  
Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley  

Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University  
Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota  Dorothy Shipps  Baruch College/CUNY  
Gene V Glass  Arizona State University  Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University  
Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz  Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut  
Harvey Goldstein Bristol University  Cally Waite  Social Science Research Council  
Jacob P. K. Gross  Indiana University  John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado 

Springs  
Eric M. Haas  WestEd  Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder 
Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern 

California 
Ed Wiley  University of Colorado, Boulder 

Aimee Howley  Ohio University  Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University  
Craig Howley  Ohio University  John Willinsky  Stanford University  
Steve Klees  University of Maryland  Kyo Yamashiro  University of California, Los Angeles 
Jaekyung Lee  SUNY Buffalo  * Members of the New Scholars Board 

 
 

 



It’s N ot E ducation by Z ip C ode A nym ore  29 
 

archivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
consejo editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante  (Universidad de Cantabria) 

 
Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de 

Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Fanni Muñoz  Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú 

Claudio Almonacid  Universidad Metropolitana de 
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile 

Imanol Ordorika   Instituto de Investigaciones 
Economicas – UNAM, México 

Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, 
Venezuela 

Xavier Besalú  Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España   
Jose Joaquin Brunner  Universidad Diego Portales, 

Chile 
Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, 

Argentina 
Damián Canales Sánchez  Instituto Nacional para la 

Evaluación de la Educación, México 
Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia   

María Caridad García  Universidad Católica del Norte, 
Chile 

Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España      

Raimundo Cuesta Fernández  IES Fray Luis de León, 
España 

Daniel Schugurensky Arizona State University 

Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica 
Nacional, Colombia 

Inés Dussel  FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de 
Colombia   

Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de 
Madrid, España 

Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de 
Tamaulipas, México 

Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, 
México 

Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre 
la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM  México   

Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez 
Autónoma de Tabasco, México 

José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, 
España 

Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, 
España 

Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Edna Luna Serrano  Universidad Autónoma de Baja 
California, México 

Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España 

Alma Maldonado  Departamento de Investigaciones 
Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios 
Avanzados, México 

Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, 
España   

Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de 
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, 
Holanda   

José Felipe Martínez Fernández  University of 
California Los Angeles, USA 

Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación 
Estratégica, Bolivia   

 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 4 30  

arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
conselho editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin  

(Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) 
 
Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de 

Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta 

Grossa, Brasil 
Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal 

de Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia 

Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil 
Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, 

Portugal 
Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana 

do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil 
Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, 

Brasil 
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de 

Santa Catarina, Brasil 
António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal 

Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de 
Janeiro, Brasil 

Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, 
U.S.A 

Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de 
Pernambuco, Brasil 

Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade 
Federal de São Carlos, Brasil 

Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, 
Brasil 

Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio 
Grande do Sul, Brasil 

Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal 

José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da 
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal 

Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil 

Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade 
Estadual de Campinas, Brasil 

Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 
Brasil