What People Don’t Know About Common Core Standards Limits Reform

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/

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

Nurture and the Impact of Incarcerated Parents Upon Student Success

            The Parent Nurture Science Program of Columbia University seeks to identify research-based strategies for effective parent nurturing.  Researchers at the Parenting and Family Research Center at the University of South Carolina suggest the nurturing of children to be the single most important task of society.  In contrast to the ideals expressed by these excellent research programs, Murphey and Cooper (2015) identified the harsh reality for more than five million U.S. children (7%) that had a parent who lived with them go to jail or prison.  The reported proportion is higher among black, poor, and rural children. 

            The link between a lack of positive parental impact during early childhood, reading failure in the early elementary grades, and subsequent failure in society is profound.  Sixty-six percent (2/3) of students who cannot proficiently read by the end of fourth grade will become involved in jail or on welfare.  This contributes to the pipeline called the school failure to prison cycle.

            When a parent is imprisoned, that person’s child becomes the next potential victim.  While assumptions suggest children with incarcerated parents are many times more likely than other children to be incarcerated as adults, Mumola (2000) found there is no reliable research evidence to support such an assertion.  By contrast, LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, and Castro (2005) found evidence that maintaining contact with one’s incarcerated parent lowers the likelihood of recidivism among incarcerated parents, improves the child’s emotional response to the incarceration, and supports parent-child attachment. 

            Research on the impact of parental incarceration on children's well-being and development sought to examine what happens to children as the result of parental incarceration (Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2001).  The researchers found incarceration was not a single or discrete event but rather a dynamic process that unfolds over time.  The impact of this dynamic process produces both short-term and long-term effects upon children of incarcerated parents.          

            Intervening in the lives of children with an incarcerated parent to preserve and strengthen positive family connections can yield constructive societal benefits (Christian, 2009).  These benefits included reduced recidivism by the parent, promotion of healthy child development, and decreased intergenerational involvement in the criminal justice system.  However, the child’s adjustment and reaction to parental incarceration is dependent upon the child’s age, gender, psychosocial functioning, and previous attachment to the incarcerated parent (Graham & Harris, 2013).  In contrast to political rhetoric, future research, interventions, and policy decisions must consider established theoretical perspectives, including developmental and ecological contexts as well as cross-level analyses of relationships.

            While many programs and therapeutic models for children with incarcerated parents offer promise for meeting some aspect of the children’s needs, neither the short-term nor the long-term impact upon children’s well-being have been empirically validated (Graham & Harris, 2013; Hairston, 2007).  It is known that the children of incarcerated mothers are four times more likely to remain in foster care than all other children.  Children of incarcerated mothers are more likely to age out of the foster care system.  Children with incarcerated mothers are less likely to reunify with their parents, get adopted, enter into subsidized guardianship, or go into independent living (Moses, 2006). 

            More research is needed to determine the efficacy of therapeutic intervention models and the correlation between parent incarceration and adverse childhood experiences exhibited in Figure 2 below: 

            In the interim, the best way to derail the school failure to prison cycle is to improve literacy rates for at-risk populations.  This is a logical conclusion given all domains of a child’s development, including his or her literacy skills, are interrelated and interdependent (Strickland & Riley-Ayers (2006) and early literacy success has been strongly correlated with school and societal success.  While a school cannot heal an innocent child’s broken heart, the people within the school can be culturally responsive, capable of emotional nurturance, and highly qualified to deliver the curricula.  The presence of those inviting and empowering conditions can thereby address the at-risk child’s need for reliable Response to (Reading) Intervention that provides effective differentiation and formative assessment processes that can optimize success.

References:

Christian, S. (2009, March). Children of incarcerated parents. In National Conference of State Legislatures

Graham, J.A., & Harris, Y.R. (2013). Children of color and parental incarceration: Implications for 
              research,theory, and practice. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(2), 66-81.

Hairston, C. F. (2007); Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict mothers: Implications for

               preventive intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 67– 84.

La Vigne, N.G., Naser, R.L. Brooks, L.E. & Castro, J.L. (2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and

               in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary

               Criminal Justice, 21(4).

Moses, M.C. (2006). Does parental incarceration increase a child’s risk for foster care placement? NIJ

               Journal No. 255.  Retrieved from: http://www.nij.gov/journals/255/pages/parental_incarceration.aspx

Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

               Justice..

Murphrey, D. & Cooper, P.M (2015). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children?  Retrieved

               from: http://childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-42ParentsBehindBars.pdf

Parke, R.D., & Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (2001) Effects of parental incarceration on young children

               ASPE, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.  Retrieved from:

               https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/effects-parental-incarceration-young-children

Strickland, D. & Riley-Ayers, S (2006) Early literacy: Policy and practice in the preschool years. National

               Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). Camden, NJ: Rutgers University

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2016) Nurture and the impact of incarcerated parents upon student

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