The Common Core Standards, Data-Based Systems of Reform and the Correlates of Effective Schools Research

       The American Diploma Project (ADP) developed a series of rigorous standards that identified the skills and knowledge expected of any student receiving a high school diploma.  By 2009, thirty states had aligned their learning standards with those previously explicated by the American Diploma Project (ADP), which formed the basis for educational reform that eventually became the Common Core Standards Initiative.  The rationale for both the ADP and subsequent  Common Core State Standards is American students will be better positioned to compete successfully in the global economy when fully prepared for the future.

If this rationale is logical and sensible, then what causes the educational inertia to perpetuate failure?  High expectations are a good thing.  Ensuring every state promotes high expectations through its learning standards is thereby a good thing because the United States must compete in a global economy.  So, could the problem with acceptance of the Common Core Standards be communication that makes professional development ineffective, which results in poor implementation? 

In a Los Angeles Times editorial (April 22, 2013) the dilemma facing implementation of the Common Core State Standards was well explicated:

Experts are divided over the value of the new curriculum standards, which might or might not lead students to the deeper reading, reasoning and writing skills that were intended.  But on this much they agree: The curriculum will fail if it isn’t carefully implemented with meaningful tests that are aligned with what the students are supposed to learn.  Legislators and education leaders should be putting more emphasis on helping teachers get ready for common core and giving them a significant voice in how it is implemented.  And if the state can’t get the right elements in place to do that by 2014, it would be better off delaying the new curriculum a couple of years and doing it right, rather than allowing common core to become yet another educational flash in the pan that never lives up to its promise.

High expectations explicated as learning standards are part of the variables called leading indicators for success.  Subsequently, test results produce a trailing indicator, which either document student success or failure.  Effective implementation is what comes between the high expectations and the test results. 

The increased expectations for monitoring student progress and adjusting instruction based on real time data would be nearly impossible without a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  Efficient promotion of the mission of learning for all requires districts to either create a vertically aligned, curriculum-based system or modify a purchased system to make it appropriate for the district’s needs.  An effective system would be able to monitor and adjust established “nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 23).

A case study that serves as a model for replication is the Kennewick School District, which provides an actual example of the value of a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  Research by Fielding, Kerr, and Rosier (2007) documented how the achievement gap between economically poor and disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged counterparts could be closed by a four-step Targeted Accelerated Growth (TAG) loop process.  The TAG loop process includes the following steps:
(1) discovering through the administration of diagnostic assessment the

sub-skill deficiency,
(2) providing increased direct instructional time,
(3) focused teaching to the deficient sub-skill, and
(4) retesting to assure that learning has actually occurred (Fielding et al, 2007, p. 19).  .

The TAG loop process is a process not a linear model.  As such, it can be utilized as a progress monitoring model  As with any change process, the interpretation of reliable data is crucial for success based on application of correct micro-adjustments.  It would seem diagnostic testing and professional development for the teaching staff optimizes effectiveness in efficiently using data to implement proportional micro-adjustments in instructional time.  Therefore, with an efficient and effective student information and instructional management system, how to utilize data to effectively and efficiently diagnose and implement needed change becomes possible.    

Before implementing the principle of progress monitor and adjust at a school-wide level, leaders must identify the problem and then lead continuous improvement systems and processes.  To lead continuous improvement systems and processes, the effective educational leader evaluates the Five Ts of Continuous Improvement: Theories, Teams, Tools, Time, and Technology.  The effective educational leader then ensures appropriate performance criteria are established.

A case study that serves as a school-wide model for progress monitoring is the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC) system, which frequently monitors student performance and ensures alignment between the “intended curriculum”…,“implemented curriculum”…, and the “attained curriculum” (DeLorenzo et al, 2008, p. 64).  Based on research and best practices, implementation of the correlates for Effective Schools is therefore prudent when seeking school-wide improvement.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62). 

A school or district’s continuous improvement goals for a given academic year must succinctly indicate implementation steps for each improvement goal.  The current framework utilized for continuous school improvement encourages no more than three goal statements per year.  Given the complexity of the school system, too many goals adversely impact the level of human energy devoted to the initiative.  Displaying a limited number of continuous improvement goals allows followers and stakeholders to monitor growth through well-explicated action plan.  Therefore, anything more than three continuous improvement goals will be visually overwhelming and thereby perceived as unmanageable.  
     The result of frequent monitoring, progress analysis, and adjustment means data guides instructional decisions.  However, effective use of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here” Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without interdependent implementation of all the correlates of Effective Schools Research, any progress is adversely impacted.

To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (March 7, 2014) The Common Core Standards, Data-Based Systems of Reform and
      the Correlates of Effective Schools Research .  [Web log post] Retrieved from     
      http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

               APQC

Delorenzo, R. A., Battino, W., Schreiber, R. M., Carrio, B. G. (2008). Delivering on the promise:

               The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. ISBN-13: 9781934009420

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth

             for those who are behind. New York: Foundation Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

               correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District Leadership That Works. Bloomington, In: Solution

               Tree Press

Use Discussion Board Forums to Promote Active Student Learning

Since many colleagues are currently developing or revising their syllabi for the spring semester, it seems apropos to suggest an active student learning strategy.  Discussion board forums can be an effective alternative to relying upon “pop quizzes” to ensure students are reading course texts or materials.  Thoughtful strategies to reduce the trend toward “aliteracy” will help improve active student learning.  While many instructors find micro-blogging or social media within the classroom either too extreme or provides unintended consequences from allowing internet access during class time, the use of discussion boards is an alternative that can actually promote reading of course material by requiring thoughtful, critical, written responses to divergent questions related to the topical reading material.  The tracking, monitoring, and grading features incorporated into the Blackboard or Moodle student learning platforms allow the instructor to work smarter rather than harder to promote student success and active engagement.  

Effective discussion board forums provide the opportunity to promote higher order thinking skills (HOTS) by requiring effective written discussion.  Instructors setting up effective topics can empower students to take ownership of their learning.  It is important to establish high expectations to avoid “textese” and optimize learning:

• Require word processing before copying, pasting, and posting any response.
• Encourage students to include a related question for a peer or the instructor to subsequently discuss, which thereby builds engagement into the thread.

 Presenting clear discussion board policies with established expectations for both students and the instructor(s) promote success.  Establishing the expectations at the beginning of the semester and following through is key to students’ respecting expectations.  The following models can provide helpful starting points;

Model 1:Students must post their initial response to the initial classroom discussion question by Day X.  A second classroom discussion question must be posted by Day Y of each week.  This model requires the active discussion to be between each student and the instructor.  It does not promote active on-line engagement between students.

Model 2: Students must post their initial response to the classroom discussion question by Day X of each week.  Each student must then respond to at least two classmates’ initial response by Day Y of each week.  This promotes active on-line engagement between students and allows the instructor to monitor participations and selectively respond.

Participation Expectations: Participating in any classroom discussion forum is essential to the learning experience.  By participating in the (weekly) discussions students and instructors share experiences, investigate complicated subject matter, share expertise, and examine the content from new perspectives.  An instructor should credit participation based on the following:

• Initial posts of 75-100 words should follow a prescribed style/format (APA, 2010) and exhibit word processing before posting.  The initial post should integrate course theories with a practical application of the subject.  For example, the student should offer a personal observation or experience, or reference real-world examples, current events, or cite research conducted on the topic.
• Follow-up responses to classmates’ initial posts should be 40-60 words and:
• Promote interaction in classroom discussion by demonstrating deeper or broader thoughts about the topic
• Mitigates rephrasing what the textbook or another student already stated.   
• Encourage further discussion and ongoing dialogue with other students in the class.
• Present communications that are professional and supportive, using a respectful tone.
• Exhibit proofreading and contain minimal errors in writing mechanics.

To summarize, discussion board questions should be topical, thereby promoting analysis of the reading.  Clear expectations should require synthesis of thought in order to effectively respond.  While a convergent question may draw the student in, a divergent question is needed to promote HOTS and increase the fidelity and thoroughness of the discussion/debate.

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (January 7, 2014) Use discussion board forums to promote active student learning
            [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

The Myth of Multi-Tasking Adversely Impacts the Pursuit of Professional Competency

In today’s culture, a student may have an essay on the computer screen, the smartphone with social media blinking within eyesight, either the television or music blasting, and friends nearby.  All these things are vying for the student’s attention.  Incorrectly believing this scenario exhibits proficiency in multi-tasking, students ignore the psychological and cognitive drain resulting from the barrage upon their senses.  While white noise can be comforting, the choice of background static can place an overload upon cognition (Reason, 2010).   

Everyone possesses the mental capacity to carry on an academic task while subtly monitoring the environment for other relevant input.  This is known as the cocktail effect (Bronkhorst, 2000; Cherry, 1953).  The danger of the myth of multi-tasking is when the academic task receives too little respect, which then increases the likelihood of noticing other influences (Brungart & Simpson, 2007).  Since every student possesses only a limited number of focal points that can be attended at a given time (Barra, Bray, Sahni, Golding, & Gresty, 2006) mental overload increases whenever the immediate environment includes competing stimuli. 

Humans are social beings.  Therefore, family, friends, and faith are three potent, consuming focal points (Reason, 2010).  Whenever these focal points enter an environment requiring academic learning, recall, or synthesizing of knowledge, then family, friends, and faith focal points would completely win out or result in rapid mental overload.  Acknowledging principles of motivation, effective students mitigate the myth of multi-tasking by recognizing continually monitored focal points in their work lives depends on established and supported values. 

The effective student optimizes the learning environment by reducing family, friends, and faith focal points when accessing structured learning opportunities that may, by contrast, be less interesting, relevant, or motivating.  Strategies in this endeavor mitigate learning overload.  Learning overload, exacerbated by giving into the myth of multi-tasking prevents students from realizing progress and achieving stated goals (Reason, 2010).  Citing Kennedy (2006) and Franklin (2005), Reason (2010) further notes, “We can’t alter the brain to hold more information, but we can change our approach to learning in ways that reduce overwhelm and prepare us to deal with institutional challenges more effectively” (p. 99). 

In any learning situation, the student’s reticular activating system (RAS) impacts his or her attention and motivation.  Therefore, the RAS affects how efficiently students achieve academic success.  The effective student recognizes the need to “clearly identify the learning focal points that matter” (Reason, 2010, p. 100) as a way to mitigate stimuli that overwhelms one’s perception and attention to curriculum focal points. 

There are characteristics exhibited by successful compared to unsuccessful students.  Successful students exhibit a combination of successful attitudes and behaviors as well as intellectual capacity.  As cited by Cameron, Ludewig (1992) identified ten key characteristics:

1)     Successful students get involved in their studies, accept responsibility for their own education, and are active participants in it!
2)     Successful students have legitimate goals and are motivated by what the goals represent in terms of career aspirations and life's desires.  When you are not setting effective goals then everything can and will distract you! 
3)     Successful students ask questions to provide the quickest route between ignorance and knowledge. 
4)     Successful student learns that a student and teacher make a team.  Be a team player!
5)     Successful students minimize classroom distractions that interfere with learning. Students want the best seat available for their entertainment dollars, but willingly seek the worst seat for their educational dollars. Students who sit in the back cannot possibly be an effective teammate.
6)     Successful students take understandable and organized notes.  Then they review these effective notes often.
7)     Successful students know their personal behavior affect their feelings and emotions, which in turn can affect learning.  If you act in a certain way that normally produces particular feelings, you will begin to experience those feelings.  Act like you're bored, and you'll become bored.  Act like you're disinterested, and you'll become disinterested.  So the next time you have trouble concentrating in the classroom, "act" like an interested person: lean forward, place your feet flat on the floor, maintain eye contact with the instructor, nod occasionally, take notes, and ask questions.  Not only will you benefit directly from your actions, your classmates and teacher may also get more excited and enthusiastic.
8)     Successful students get to know something well enough that they can put it into words-either verbally or in writing.  Transferring ideas into words provides the most direct path for moving knowledge from short-term to long-term memory.  You really don't "know" material until you can put it into words or action.
9)     Successful students know that divided periods of study are more effective than cram sessions, and they practice this reality.  Distributed study is better than massed, late-night, last-ditch efforts known as cramming.
10) Successful students are good time managers.  They avoid procrastination. They have learned that time control is life control and have consciously chosen to be in control of their life.  An elemental truth: you will either control time or be controlled by it!

If, as Vygotsky (1979) suggested, the most important thing a culture passes on to its members are psychological tools, then mitigating potential damage caused by the myth of multi-tasking would indeed be a great tool to teach!  In the FAT City Workshop, Lavoie (1989) advocates for mitigation of frustration, anxiety, and tension (FAT) within learning environments.  By learning to mitigate the myth of multitasking, prospective and in-service teachers can then more effectively model for students how to eliminate FAT in academics and thereby optimize a learning environment approaching nirvana (LEAN).

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 7, 2013) The myth of multi-tasking adversely impacts the pursuit
            of professional competency.  [Web log post]  Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:
Cameron, N. E. (n.d.). Successful students. University of Manitoba.  Retrieved from: 

               http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/economics/cameron/success.html

Lavoie, R. (1989) How difficult can this be? F.A.T. City--A learning disabilities workshop DVD

               Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhzh9kt8z7c

Ludewig, L.M., (1992) Ten Commandments for Effective Study Skills. The Teaching Professor.

               December

Nass, C (May 10, 2013) The myth of multitasking.  NPR interview. Retrieved from:

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182861382/the-myth-of-multitasking

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.

               Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Taylor, J. (March 30, 2011) Technology: Myth of multitasking.  Retrieved from
              http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201103/technology-myth-multitasking

Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,

               interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions

(pp. 207–228) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

 

How the Common Core Standards can be a Part of the Solution to Educational Reform

The publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (1983) renewed interest in education reform efforts.  The result was most states adopting some form of content-based learning standards by the end of the 20^th century.  During this period, business leaders, such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Craig Barrett of Intel and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. of IBM, began suggesting the key educational issue should be identifying the sort of student needed to emerge from a high school education.  As a result, in 1996 state governors and business leaders created Achieve, Inc.  As a bipartisan, non-profit organization its mission was to help states raise academic standards, improve assessments and strengthen accountability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work and citizenship.  Initially, five states developed the American Diploma Project (ADP).  By developing a series of rigorous standards identifying the skills and knowledge expected of any student receiving a high school diploma, these five states and Achieve, Inc., formed a basis for educational reform that eventually became the Common Core Standards Initiative.  By 2009, thirty states had aligned their learning standards with those previously explicated by the American Diploma Project (ADP).  The rationale for the ADP, and subsequently the Common Core State Standards, is communities will be better positioned to compete successfully in the global economy when American students are fully prepared for the future.

As with every federally backed initiative since the ESEA (1965) and PL 94-142 (1975), it is difficult to argue with a well-scripted rationale.  Pragmatically, not too many politicians wanted to raise their hand in objection to NCLB, (2001).  After all, who wanted to go on record as being the person willing to leave a child behind?

If the rationale of most federal initiatives is logical and sensible, then what causes the educational inertia perpetuating failure?  Some may argue politics are to blame.  Others feel justified in their complaints with the bureaucracy interfering with change.  However, what if the political and bureaucratic shortcut requesting “alignment” was actually the source of the problem?  Politically, it is too often diplomatically prudent to help decision-makers feel better by suggesting, “you already created a great structure, all you really need to do is some rearrangement.”  From a budgetary perspective, it is cost efficient to tell an assessment publisher to adapt its pool of test items created for the previous learning standards and align items with the Common Core State Standards.  Promoting “alignment” with what is proven to be ineffective rather than honestly seeking effective, sustained change, may be the epitome of Einstein’s quote, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Tying adoption of the Common Core State Standards to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition was political genius.  By the middle of 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds were being exhausted.  Therefore, thirty-nine states facing massive educational budget shortfalls by 2011, did in less than 100 days what was unattainable for the previous 100 years.  Yes, throughout the United States, states adopted common standards for English and mathematics guiding learning each year from Kindergarten through High School.  In most cases, enlightenment was not the impetus.  Indeed, the need for a piece of the 3.4 billion dollars being offered to state education departments winning the September 2010 Race to the Top competition accomplished what logic, reason, or the best interests of all children could not do previously.  Currently, forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards.

Bureaucratically, the educational assessment machine that is Pearson will make breaking the current inertia of failing to monitor and adjust based on student data very difficult.  Alignment is synonymous with profits.  Any assessment company will charge much less for alignment rather than a complete overhaul.  Yet, it still charges for a “new assessment” although most items are from the previous test item bank. 

High expectations explicated as learning standards are a good thing.  Ensuring every state promotes high expectations within its learning standards is a good thing too as the United States must compete in a global economy.  So, could the problem once again be poor implementation? 

In a recent Los Angeles Times editorial (April 22, 2013) the dilemma facing implementation of the Common Core State Standards was well explicated:

Experts are divided over the value of the new curriculum standards, which might or might not lead students to the deeper reading, reasoning and writing skills that were intended.  But on this much they agree: The curriculum will fail if it isn’t carefully implemented with meaningful tests that are aligned with what the students are supposed to learn.  Legislators and education leaders should be putting more emphasis on helping teachers get ready for common core and giving them a significant voice in how it is implemented.  And if the state can’t get the right elements in place to do that by 2014, it would be better off delaying the new curriculum a couple of years and doing it right, rather than allowing common core to become yet another educational flash in the pan that never lives up to its promise.

High expectations explicated as learning standards are part of the variables called leading indicators for success.  Subsequently, test results produce a trailing indicator-exhibiting either student success or failure.  Effective implementation is what comes between the high expectations and the test results. 

A mission of promoting learning for all requires a district to either create a vertically aligned, curriculum-based system or modify a purchased system to make it appropriate for the district’s needs.  An effective system would be able to monitor and adjust established “nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 23).

The increased expectations for monitoring and adjusting in real time would be nearly impossible without a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  The Kennewick School District case study provides an actual example of the value of a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  Research by Fielding, Kerr, and Rosier (2007) documented how the achievement gap between economically poor and disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged counterparts could be closed by a four-step Targeted Accelerated Growth (TAG) loop process.  The TAG loop process includes the following steps:

(1)   discovering through the administration of diagnostic assessment the 
      sub-skill deficiency,

(2) providing increased direct instructional time,

(3) focused teaching to the deficient sub-skill, and

(4) retesting to assure that learning has actually occurred (Fielding et al, 2007, 
      p. 19). 

The TAG loop process is a process not a linear model.  With any process, change resulting from the interpretation of reliable data is crucial for success based on application of correct micro-adjustments.  It would seem diagnostic testing and professional development for the teaching staff optimizes effectiveness in efficiently using data to implement proportional micro-adjustments in instructional time.  Therefore, with an efficient and effective student information and instructional management system, how to utilize data to effectively and efficiently diagnose and implement needed change becomes possible.    

Before implementing the principle of monitor and adjust effectively, leaders must identify the problem and then lead continuous improvement systems and processes.  To lead continuous improvement systems and processes, the effective educational leader evaluates the Five Ts of Continuous Improvement: Theories, Teams, Tools, Time, and Technology.  The effective educational leader then ensures appropriate performance criteria are established.

A school or district’s continuous improvement goals for a given academic year must succinctly indicate implementation steps for each improvement goal.  The current framework utilized for continuous school improvement encourages no more than three goal statements per year.  Given the complexity of the school system, too many goals adversely impact the level of human energy devoted to the initiative.  Displaying a limited number of continuous improvement goals allows followers and stakeholders to monitor growth through well-explicated action plan.  Therefore, anything more than three continuous improvement goals will be visually overwhelming and thereby perceived as unmanageable.  

The Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC) system frequently monitors student performance and ensures alignment between the “intended curriculum”…,“implemented curriculum”…, and the “attained curriculum” (DeLorenzo et al, 2008, p. 64).  Based on research and best practices, implementation of the correlates for Effective Schools is therefore prudent when seeking school improvement.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62). 

The result of frequent monitoring and analysis means data guides instructional decisions.  However, effective use of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here” Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without interdependent implementation of all the correlates of Effective Schools Research, any progress is adversely impacted.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 6, 2013) How the common core standards can be a part of the solution to

educational reform.  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

                APQC

Delorenzo, R. A., Battino, W., Schreiber, R. M., Carrio, B. G. (2008). Delivering on the promise:

                The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. ISBN-13: 9781934009420

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth

             for those who are behind. New York: Foundation Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District Leadership That Works. Bloomington, In: Solution

                Tree Press