If
the rationale of most federal educational initiatives is logical and sensible, then
what causes the educational inertia to perpetuate failure? Some may argue politics are to blame. Others feel justified in their complaints
with the bureaucracy interfering with change.
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? Yet, few educators would suggest
NCLB was well-implemented.
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 with embracing Common
Core Standards once again be poor implementation providing chum for politicians?
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-exhibiting either student success or failure. Effective implementation, and ideally good
instruction, 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 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.
Common Core Standards are not the problem. Knowing where instruction should be heading
creates, rather than limits, the autonomy of the innovative, imaginative,
passionate educator. Stakeholders should look upon Common Core Standards the
same way ancient navigators
valued the north star. So, let us
calibrate our instruments based on a set starting point and then succeed to
exceed. For, if better is possible, then
good is not enough. Universally-accepted
standards, by any name, merely helps us know good so we can seek better!
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2016) What people don’t
know about common core standards limits
reform.[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
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
