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 20th 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?
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
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
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
