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.

 

 

Metaphors Provide a Metacognitive Tool for Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills

Previously, prospective and in-service teachers were encouraged to eliminate frustration, anxiety, and tension (FAT) in the classrooms in favor of optimizing a learning environment approaching nirvana (LEAN).  Perception, memory, and learning, are entwined in the quest to optimize learning at the highest (deepest) levels.  By rethinking or replacing older, less functional traditions or metaphors and using stories to create new mental images, a learning organization is able to move toward positive change.  This is due to images created through metaphorical language influencing thought processes.  For instance, Jung (1964) wrote extensively on the instinctive nature of symbolic thought, suggesting symbols transcend cultures. 

 

Likewise, storytelling provides an integral tool as an organizational change strategy because stories have the potential to create experiences whereby a strategy is comprehended more personally (Adamson, Pine, Tom & Kroupa, 2006).  Therefore, “storytelling builds stronger teams and a stronger sense of community” (p. 36).  How does your educational institution utilize organizational metaphors for optimizing deep learning? 

A common complaint regarding NCLB (2002) has been the steady slide into teaching the breadth rather than depth of the curriculum.  This is metaphorically chastised as "teaching to the test."  Marzano and Waters (2009) called for a narrowed curriculum whereby in each grade less breadth of the curriculum is addressed but more thoroughly covered.  Addressing this, it is hoped the Common Core Standards will be successful in providing more opportunities for critical, higher-order thinking skills (Bloom, 1956). 

Schools now “celebrate” the pending annual AYP tests through test preps and letters to parents, reminding them to ensure their children have a good breakfast and receive plenty of sleep.  Would this be the main traditions celebrating critical thinking skills at an acclaimed, highly effective school?  What events, tradition, schemes, or metaphors promote critical thinking in your school and classroom? 

Many institutes of higher education find adult learning benefits from a scheme or model for promoting critical thinking as based on the Perry Scheme (Perry, 1968).  The model is comprised of nine stages within four levels of cognitive ability: dualism, multiplicity, relativism and commitment to relativism.

·       Dualists think in terms of black and white or right and wrong.  They perceive the need for an objective truth.  They avoid group discussions because they find them to be a waste of time.

·       Multiplists, by contrast, believe that truth is completely subjective.  Everyone’s opinion or experience is legitimate.

·       Relativists believe that truth is contextual, therefore what is right or wrong is relative to a particular context or frame of reference.  Since students at this level are able to evaluate the merits of a particular position based on available data, and circumstances can change at any given moment, their thinking is very fluid.

·       Commitment to relativism is the final stage, whereby individuals are very self-aware and view knowledge as progressive and evolving.  New information is constantly being compiled, evaluated, and synthesized and therefore new knowledge replaces previous thoughts and beliefs.  Philosophically, this level relates to scientific inquiry.

Acronyms and mnemonics were previously highlighted as two psychological tools utilizing social interactions within an educational environment for effectively reducing neurological overload and increasing learning of desired goals.  Metaphors provide another effective metacognitive tool.  As a figure of speech providing an implied comparison, the effective educator can utilize metaphors to increase utilization of vocabulary, promote higher order thinking, and reinforce a desired commitment to relativism. 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 6, 2013) Metaphors provide a metacognitive tool for promoting

           higher order thinking skills [Web log post]

           Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Adamson, G., Pine, J., Tom, V. S., & Kroupa, J. (2006). How storytelling can drive strategic

                 change. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 36-41

Jung, C. G. (1964) Man and his symbols London, England: Aldus Books in association with
               W.H. Allen
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
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution
                Tree Press
Rapaport, W.J. (2011) William Perry's scheme of intellectual and ethical development.
                Retrieved from http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

 

 

 

Metacognitive Tools are Essential for Reducing Learning Overload

An effective educator creates a defined learning culture by optimizing structured learning through the utilization of strategies exhibiting high levels of success.  The first pursuit in this endeavor is to mitigate learning overload.  Learning overload prevents educators from helping students realize progress and achieve 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 environment, the student’s reticular activating system (RAS) impacts his or her attention and motivation.  Therefore, the RAS impacts how efficiently students address the curriculum focal points.  The effective educator recognizes this and seeks to “clearly identify the learning focal points that matter” (Reason, 2010, p. 100) as a way to mitigate stressors that overwhelms one’s perception and attention to curriculum focal points. 

Vygotsky (1979) believed that the most important thing a culture passes on to its members are psychological tools.  These are cognitive devices and procedures with which we communicate and explore the world around us.  They both aid and change our mental functioning.  Speech, writing, gestures, diagrams, numbers, chemical formulas, musical notation, rules, and memory techniques are some common psychological tools.  Eventually these social interactions become internalized as cognitive processes that are automatically invoked.  Quoting Vygotsky, researchers Tudge and Scrimsher (2003) advocate that “through others we become ourselves” (p. 218).

Effective learning environments utilize these psychological tools, thereby reducing learning overload by optimizing metacognition (Bohlin et al., 2008)  In the FAT City Workshop, Lavoie (1989) encourages avoiding creation of instructional environments that exacerbate frustration, anxiety, and tension (FAT).  Prospective and in-service teachers are encouraged to eliminate FAT in the classrooms, thereby optimizing a learning environment approaching nirvana (LEAN).  Acronyms and mnemonics are two psychological tools utilizing social interactions within an educational environment to effectively reduce neurological overload and increase learning of desired goals.

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (July 5, 2013) Metacognitive tools are essential for reducing learning overload  
                 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

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

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others. 
            Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
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
          

Will Teacher Accountability Initiatives Improve Student Learning?

 Educational practices are now very different compared to a generation ago.  During the last decade of the twentieth century the standards-based movement and education reform efforts utilized the diverse research that followed the publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (1983) to advance educational reform.  Undoubtedly, accountability now provides the single greatest variable to planning for effective and sustained educational reform efforts.  Depending on its acceptance of the concept of multiple levels of accountability, a struggling school’s staff might willingly utilize data to adjust or remain mired in the inertia of ineffective systemic and personal practices. 
      Ideally, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on results of accountability measures allow data to guide instructional decisions.  However, effective monitoring and analysis 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 a clear and focused mission of learning being guided by strong instructional leadership, the interdependent implementation of all seven of the correlates of Effective Schools Research, progress is adversely impacted.

  As suggested, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on disaggregated accountability data should provide the impetus for discussing improvement of instruction as grounded in the seven correlates of Effective Schools:

·         Safe and Orderly Environment

·         Clear and Focused Mission

·         Climate of High Expectations for Success

·         Opportunity to Learn & Student Time on Task

·         Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

·         Positive Home-School Relations

·         Strong Instructional Leadership

Based on empirical evidence grounded in research and documented best practices, when seeking school improvement it is prudent to implement the correlates for Effective Schools.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62).  Given the interdependency of the seven correlates, an effective, strong school leader approaches the correlates with the view of implementing them all at once. 

Accountability requirements within legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and IDEA (2004) created the impetus for sustained change efforts of schools.  However, poor communication during the implementation of more stringent accountability requirements often resulted in the fear of failure becoming the single most powerful force of change working within an educational community.  Too often, this fear of failure paralyzed leadership around the trailing indicators for change (assessments) rather than mobilizing them to trust implementation of interdependent leading indicators (correlates of Effective Schools Research).  This situation exacerbates the tail wagging the dog. 

Rather than promoting success of new initiatives through the question, “are we doing the right thing?” fear of failure resulted in ineffective “Learn or Else” approaches that resulted in further implementation of fragmented policies based on the persistent question, “are we doing it right?”  A positive aspect of NCLB and IDEA accountability requirements was the emergence of professional learning communities (PLC), which addressed the need to develop a systemic culture of continuous improvement promoting learning (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).  Marzano and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56). 

Ineffective school leaders disrupt productive PLC processes by failing to invite teacher leaders to become agents of change.  Instead, these ineffective school leaders dwell in the problems by instilling culture fearful of failure.  Schools that spend a lot of time talking about teaching to the test are examples of systems locked into the inertia of problem-driven cultures. 

Staff perception is a very important variable in the success of any initiative.  Depending upon a leader’s selected approach to implementation of accountability measures, the perceived consequences implied within the approach has the power to create either a positive or a negative reaction.  Therefore, the effective leader needs to provide a clear vision that strikes a positive emotional chord with staff (Reason, 2010). 

Lezotte and Snyder (2011) reinforce the most significant feature common to world-class schools “was their continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67).  A consistent exhibition of vision toward a clear mission, commitment to learning for all, and shared responsibility for success certainly appears to be minimal requirements to promote an effective school culture.  Development of an inclusive, inviting culture requires an emotionally intelligent leader willing to embrace collaboration rather than reliance upon fear or intimidation as the impetus to change.  An obvious result of an inclusive, inviting, approach is improved organizational culture resulting from greater consistency and reduced staff turnover (Austin & Harkins, 2008).  

During the twelve years of NCLB implementation, diverse stakeholders have critiqued the role of teachers in educational reform.  Regardless of philosophical debates, it has become clear that to some substantial level, teachers are accountable for student results.  With increased accountability comes various schemes intended to optimize results. 

Boulding (1989) identified three kinds of motivating power: stick power, carrot power, and hug power, which are further described whereby stick power is the power derived from threats, carrot power is the power derived from provision of incentives, and hug power is the result of two or more individuals joining together based on a shared vision and values.  Apparently, the joy of good teaching, the opportunity to shape young minds, or helping to change destinies is not enough incentive to promote great teaching. 

The Brazosport case study (Davenport & Anderson, 2002) exemplified “hug power” as an effective form of motivation.  Brazosport achieved "learning for all" and accomplished reform.  A good set of processes joined with the right motivation to create sustained success.  

As cited by Marzano and Waters (2009), a Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown study (2003) regarding the implementation of comprehensive school reform (CSR) models, found “the effect size for comprehensive interventions rose over time and suggest that it might take longer than a decade for the effects of a CSR model to stabilize.  CSR models are focused on individual schools” (p. 114).  Marzano and Waters rationalized a similar timeline could be anticipated for district-wide initiatives, including nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction.  Perhaps it is time to evaluate whether teachers believe educating children is a sufficiently cherished aspiration and defined as a non-negotiable goal. 

Effective Schools Research proves the mission of learning for all is possible regardless of misguided initiatives and unintended consequences.  Educational leaders and the community must commit to the mission.  However, as accountability increasingly focuses upon teachers in relation to student results, other motivators will be promoted rather than seeking to do the right thing, for the right reason, and doing it in the right way.   

In a February 11, 2011 article, Bybee paraphrased Diane Ravitch's claim that, "President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have formed an alliance with billionaire 'school reformers' whose agenda is to downgrade U.S. public education and blame its shortcomings on 'bad teachers'" (para 1).  While Ravitch’s description of the pursuit of teacher accountability as an effort to downgrade the US public education system is unsubstantiated, it is true that corporate reformers led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edith Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family foundation, advocate that merit pay is a vital incentive or reward for better-performing teachers.  However, a Vanderbilt University study (2010) clearly demonstrated merit pay failed to produce higher standardized testing results. 

Nevertheless, pay for performance is becoming a popular concept for the teaching profession.  In Florida, all new teachers are annual contract teachers and forty percent of their salary will be based on student gains in learning.  Whether this carrot approach proves effective will be unknown until analysis of initial accountability data after 2014. 

Improving the quality of teachers has become a pressing issue in educational reform efforts.  The focus to improve the quality of teachers is obvious when considering Race to the Top (RTT) initiatives for supporting funded states that successfully identified and implemented plans for “recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most” (USDE, 2010).  

As noted by Crowe (2011), teacher education elements of the RTT funding application were favorable to states adopting accountability measures establishing or expanding teacher preparation programs successfully producing effective teachers.  RTT required the funded states to:

·         “Link student achievement and student growth data to the teachers of these students

·         Tie this information to the in-state programs that prepare teachers

·         Publicly report the data on program effectiveness for each preparation program in the state

·         Expand teacher education programs and teacher credentialing options that are successful at producing graduates who are effective teachers” (para. 6).

Obtaining change in the overall quality of teacher education in the United States is behind RTT efforts to combine a carrot-and-stick approach.  Incentives will continue to be offered to programs that embark on serious reform efforts while stronger accountability measures will push the programs toward the desired direction.  However, is an extrinsically or intrinsically motivated teacher the better educator?  If the former, what values will be instilled as part of that teacher’s presentation of the affective domain of learning? 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 5, 2013) Will teacher accountability initiatives improve student learning?  [Web log post]

                Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bybee, R. (Feb 11, 2011) Race to the bottom: Ravitch says ‘school reformers’ scapecoat

                teachers, ignore poverty.  Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6939/obama_sides_with_corporate_attack_on_teachers_instead_of_new_war_on_po/

Crowe, E. (March 1, 2011) Race to the top and teacher preparation: Analyzing state strategies for ensuring real 

                 accountability and fostering program innovation. Center for American  Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/03/01/9329/race-to-the-top-and-teacher-preparation/

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

                APQC

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

                work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree 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

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

                Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

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