Approaches to Using Flash Cards for Skill Development

Instructional interventions need to address targeted skills and:

 

• Be explicitly taught,
• Address appropriate level of instruction and challenge,
• Offer high opportunities to respond successfully,
• Provide immediate feedback.

 

Flash cards are a common strategy for helping students.  However, too often flash card strategies are used incorrectly or haphazardly.  Ideally, professional development in these approaches can become part of every district's home-school professional development protocol.  There are actually three research-based approaches for using flash cards:

 

• Traditional Training;
• Interspersal Training (Drill Sandwich);
• Incremental Rehearsal.

 Traditional Training: 100% unknown facts/words

Procedure:

• Set of cards shown to student one at a time with instructor giving correct answer and student repeating fact/word and answer
• Set of cards shown again with student responding
  Correct response: acknowledge with positive feedback
  Incorrect response: overcorrection and immediate feedback

• Set repetition based on time and student achievement (8 trials typical

Interspersal Training: Typically 30% unknown to 70% known facts/words

Procedure:

• Unknown facts/words read and answered by instructor with student repetition
• Intersperse the unknowns with the knowns in an order such as
  K1-U1-U2-U3-K2-U1-U2-U3-K3 -U1-U2-U3-K4-U1-U2-U3-K5 -U1-U2-U3-K6-U1-U2-U3-K7-U1-U2-U3-

• Set repetition based on time and student achievement (8 trials typical)
  Correct response: acknowledge with positive feedback
  Incorrect response: overcorrection and immediate feedback

Incremental Rehearsal: 10% unknown to 90% known

Procedure:

• Unknown fact/word read and answered by instructor with student repetition
• Rehearse the unknown with the known in specific order
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st Known​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K – 4^th K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K – 4^th K – 5^th K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K - 4^th K – 5^th K -6^th K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K - 4^th K – 5^th K -6^th K– 7^th K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K – 2^nd K – 3^rd K - 4^th K – 5^th K -6^th K – 7^th K – 8^th K​
• 1^st Unknown – 1^st K– 2^nd K– 3^rd K- 4^th K– 5^th K-6^th K– 7^th K– 8^th K– 9^th K​
• Move 1^st Unknown to 1^st Known position – Remove 9^th Known – add 2^nd Unknown​
                          

Repeat set with each targeted fact/word moving 1^st unknown to the 1^st known position and removing the 9^th known

Correct response: acknowledge with positive feedback

Incorrect response: provide immediate correction

Basic, foundational skills must be acquired before attainment of more complex concepts and higher order thinking skills.  Students who do not have automaticity with basic skills struggle to stay “on grade level” and maintain interest.  Failure to attain these basic skills negatively effects overall academic competency.  For Math, basic skills include operation and numeration facts.  For reading, basic skills include phonemic awareness and sight words.  One approach for increasing basic skills is the effective use of flash cards as an intervention to increase student’s automaticity.  For example, when done well, flash card interventions can be effective with:

• Improving sight word fluency
• Mastering basic math facts
• Helping English language learners' vocabulary development

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (April 30, 2017) Approaches to Using Flash Cards for Skill Development.  [Web log post]

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

 

References:

Burns, M. (2005).  Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication

                facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. 

                Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237-249.

Burns, M. (2009).  Interspersal technique and behavioral momentum for reading word lists. 

                School Psychology Review, 38, 428-434. 

MacQuarrie, L., Tucker, J., Burns, M. & Hartman, B. (2002).  Comparison of retention rates

                using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flash card methods. 

                School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.

Nist, L. & Joseph, L. (2008).  Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods

                on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. 

                School Psychology Review, 37, 294-308.

Knowledge of Questioning Strategies Promotes a Classroom That Embraces Higher Order Thinking

An engaged classroom promotes vibrant discussions and active interactions.  This setting promotes higher order thinking skills (HOTS).  The foundation for this environment is the teacher’s ability to plan and implement effective questions that lead not only to answers but to more questions. Questions can be classified by:

                                                        I.            Convergent and divergent,

                                                     II.            Effects of questions upon people,

                                                  III.            Bloom’s taxonomy,

                                                  IV.            Types of questions (Lehnert (1978), and

                                                    V.            According to the purpose of the question.

I.                 I. Convergent and divergent questions:

In theory the perfect convergent (closed-ended) question would have only one answer and the perfect divergent (open-ended) questions would have infinite answers.  However, most question will fall on a continuum between having more than one answer and a finite limit.  In most situations the better question is probably the one that will provide the most answers. For example: if I start a lesson on trees by making an overhead statement to involve the students in a visualization activity I could make the following statements: Close your eyes and imagine a silver maple tree or close your eyes and imagine a tree.  The first statement would probably have few students with mental images of a silver maple tree, but the second would probably have all students with mental images of a tree.  If I were to have them describe their tree, the information would suggest the range of understanding of trees the students have.  Open-ended or divergent questions can be used to encourage greater involvement and provide a more accurate assessment than closed-ended or convergent questions.

Convergent questions (closed) have direct answers (What is 2 + 2?). They are generally used to focus on something. For example:

• What is your name?
• What is in that container? 
• What are you doing? 
• What is three groups of four? 
• What kind of animal has six legs?
• What is the last book you read?

Divergent questions (open-ended) have indirect answers (How can we use this battery?).  They are generally used to try and encourage a number of answers and lead to critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving. For example:

• What does the name Miranda make you think about? 
• What could you put in the container? 
• What else could you be doing? 
• What different representations can be made for three groups of four? 
• If we go outside and find an animal with six legs, what will it look like? 
• How were the last two books you read different?

II.               II.  Effects a question has on the person answering the question.

Cognitive opportunity to gain information or understanding

Affective or emotional cost or benefits related to the question and attempts to answer it.

Focusing attention or expanding attention or distracting the students' attention.

Stimulating more questions or answers: A convergent question is less stimulating than a divergent question because divergent questions have many answers.

Difficulty related to the complexity of the question’s syntax, sophistication of information needed to answer the question, the difficulty of the process needed to answer it, students’ interest, and ability.

Motivation related to the need of the question to be answered by the individual. Is it their question?  Are they curious?  What is the duration of curiosity?  Curiosity increases when the individual believes they can find a solution, should know a solution, need to know a solution, and want to know a solution.

Ability of the student to process the question:  Variables which affect this are the student’s ability, interest, developmental level, background, resources available, time, and community mores.  If a question can’t be answered should it be asked?

III.              I I I. Bloom’s taxonomy:

Can be used to classify the type of question as to the level of cognition that is required to arrive at an answer (see handout) and the affective response the person may have as a result of it.  Bloom’s taxonomy can be used to guide an inductive and deductive investigation.  If students start with questions from the knowledge level, answer those questions, then ask questions from the comprehension level, answer those, and continue up the hierarchy to evaluation that would be an inductive inquiry.  Conversely if they start with an evaluation question, answer it, then ask a synthesis question, answer it, and proceed down the hierarchy it would be a deductive inquiry.  This does not mean that the hierarchy needs to be moved along in a linear fashion.  It could be used to evaluate a series of questions to see if other questions could be formulated to provide a more detailed analysis of a topic.

Knowledge questions.

• Where are the major fishing grounds?
• What is the quantity of fish caught?
• Where are the major whales?
• What do the major whales eat?

Comprehension questions.

• What are some reasons why fish are plentiful in these regions?
• What relationship is there to fish and whales?

Application questions.

• If you went fishing where would you fish?
• If you were a whale where would you fish?

Analysis questions.

• What are the characteristics of a good fishing place?
• What are the environmental factors for whale survival?
• What trends are there in fish populations?
• What trends are there in whale populations?

Synthesis questions.

• What needs to be done to maintain the fish population?
• What needs to be done to maintain the whale population?

Evaluation questions. Simple evaluation questions which can be answered with a yes or no need to have follow-up questions which ask the student to give reasons for their decision or consequences of the decision.  As students begin to write reasons and list consequences new questions at different levels will arise and need to be answered.  For example many students would think that all whaling should be stopped.  However, they may ask the question, "Who is whaling?" (comprehension).  The answer of Japan, Eskimo cultures, and Norwegian cities will lead to higher level questions and probably to an evaluation of should any or all of these continue?

• Should something be done to maintain the fish population?
• Should something be done to maintain the whale population?

IV. Types of questions have been classified by Lehnert (1978) according to the first word of the question.

A. Questions beginning with what, when, where, why, who, and which.  Most of the time these questions are divergent (open-ended).

     1. “What questions” ask for a determination of cause, judgment, and properties.  What caused something to happen (antecedent)?  What did something cause to happen (consequence)?  What enabled something to happen?  What opinion does a person have for an action (judge)?  What are the properties of an object or concept?

     2. “Why questions” ask for goals, expectations, and requests.  Why did you do that?  Why don’t you do this?

     3. “Where questions” ask for location or process.  Where is it?  Where would you begin to solve it?

     4. “Which questions” ask for identification of a person, place, event, or object.

     5. “When questions” ask for time of an event or process.  When was he born?  When do you capitalize nouns?

     6. “Who questions” ask to identify a person or group of people.  Who was the first person on the moon?  Who should be elected for class president.

B. Questions beginning with how and have.

     1. “How questions” ask for a procedure and quantity.  How would you solve this problem?  How much do you have?

     2. “Have questions” ask for yes and no responses.

C. “I questions” begin with 'is'.  They ask for verification, permission, and clarification.  Is this the answer?  Is it all right for me to go?  Is this the way to solve the problem?

V. According to the purpose of the question.

Categories such as:

•        Factual questions: Used to get information.  Usually started with what, where, when, why, who, and how.
•         Explanatory questions: Used to get reasons, explanations, broaden discussion, get additional information.  Such as: What other aspects are related to this issue?  Should you consider...?
•         Justifying / Probing questions: Used to challenge old ideas, develop new ideas, and to get reasoning, and proof.  Such as: Why do you think so?  How do you know?
•         Leading questions: to introduce new ideas, and advance ideas. Such as: Should we consider this?
•      Hypothetical questions: Used to infer what if, and if this, then what?
•      Decisional questions: Used to make decisions between alternatives, to get agreement, and to move the discussion along or close it.

An effective classroom that exhibits cooperative learning, high expectations, and utilization of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) does not occur by happenstance.  Effective classrooms plan for success.  A foundation of planning for academic success is having awareness of question approaches and willingness to implement diverse questioning strategies. Ideally, this article increased awareness, elevated knowledge, and promoted willingness to plan for increased academic success!   

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (March 31, 2017) Knowledge of questioning strategies promotes a classroom that embraces 
                higher order thinking.  [Web log post]  Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Reference:

Sweetland R, (n.d.) Ways to classify questions. Retrieved from

                http://www.huntel.net/rsweetland/pedagogy/teach/question/classify.html Revised by Anderson (2012) 

Invitational Theory and Practice: In the pursuit of fairness in educational equity

The theoretical foundations for Invitational Education (Purkey, 1992) include “the democratic ethos” (Dewey, 1916), the perceptual tradition (Combs, Richards, & Richards, 1988), and self-concept theory (Rogers, 1969).  These foundations rest upon core principles.  As an effective educational theory, Invitational Education (IE) utilizes assumptions requiring people, places, policies, programs, processes to interdependently transcend from the present organizational culture to the desired ideal.  Thus, IE theory rests upon:

• The 5 basic assumptions: optimism, trust, respect, care, intentionality;
• The 5 P’s: people, places, policies, programs, processes;
• The ladder: intentionally disinviting, unintentionally disinviting, unintentionally inviting, intentionally inviting, and;
•  The 4 corner press: being personally inviting with oneself, being personally inviting with others, being professionally inviting with oneself, being professionally inviting with others (Welch & Smith, 2014).

Undeniably, a humanist approach to education guides Invitational Education (IE).  Richards and Combs (1993) advocated for the implementation of positive aspects of humanist approaches in education.  These aspects embraced the human being’s uniqueness, the importance of self-concept, development of methodologies that encouraged group work, increased the involvement of students in decision-making, and sought to create more pleasant and inviting schools (pp. 266–67). 

However, the dawn of the new millennium brought new critics to the humanistic approach in education. Educational psychologists: Duchesne and McMaugh (2016), blame humanist approaches to education for promoting a structure that led to weaker academic outcomes, unprepared teachers implementing ineffective approaches, and ineffective measures of success.  Such criticism was not new to IE.  As recalled by Welch & Smith (2014), in 1986, McLaren complained that Purkey and Novak (1984) failed “to situate their pedagogical concerns within a broader problematic, one that understands how classrooms can be truly humanized only when there exists greater social justice and economic equality in the larger society” (p. 91).

While Purkey and Novak (1996) believed education to be “fundamentally an imagination of hope” (p. 1), as an effective humanistic approach to education, IE must consider “engagement with the broader social and political context” (Welch & Smith, 2014, p. 9).  In this endeavor, IE continues to evolve beyond simple re-branding.  Now widely cited in research as Invitational Theory and Practice (Shaw, Siegel, & Schoenlein, 2013), IE’s humanistic approach still embraces its theoretical foundation while seeking to extend moral responsibility and political commitment to ensure the democratic ethos, the perceptual tradition, and self-concept theory is utilized to provide fairness in equity to promote the learning for all mission.

As cited by Butler (2005), Duetsch (1975) provided three distinctive definitions of fairness based on equality, equity, and need. 

•  Equality, by definition, is treating everyone the same.  For example, after a certain age, everyone gets to vote. 
•   Equity suggests consequences: both rewards and punishment, are proportionate to product. For  example, all children are taught to write but the gifted poet is celebrated. 
•   Need was defined by Duetsch based on provision or availability of accommodations and supports.  For example, “accommodations and supports will not be provided to everyone (equality) or to only the best (equity), but to those that need them to be successful” (Butler, 2005, para 2).

         Of course, practitioners of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP) will continue to embrace the theoretical foundation of IE (Purkey & Novak, 2008).  However, ITP practitioners must also fully understand the issues of fairness in equity.  Thereafter, ITP practitioners could more effectively consider the social and political context  in which ITP should be integrated with principles of cognitive, social, and behavioral learning theories.  

 To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 28, 2017) Invitational theory and practice: In pursuit of fairness in

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

References:

Butler, C. J. (2005) Equal and fair are not the same: Classroom issues of fairness. Retrieved

from: http://www.ttac.odu.edu/newsletter/PDF/OLD/Nov_Dec_2004_Jan_2005/Page2.pdf

Combs, A., Richards, A., & Richards, F. (1988). Perceptual psychology: A humanistic approach

to the study of persons. New York: Harper & Row.

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used

as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Duchesne, S., McMaugh, A. (2016). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (5th ed.).

Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

McLaren, P. (1986). Interrogating the conceptual roots of invitational education: A review of Purkey

and Novak's inviting school success. Interchange, 17, 90-95.

Purkey, W. (1992). An invitation to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

Practice, 1(1), 5-15.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1984). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching,

learning, and democratic practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Richards, A., & Combs, A. (1993). Education and the humanist challenge. In F. J. Wertz (Ed.),

The humanist movement: Recovering the person in psychology (pp. 256–73). Lake Worth,

FL: Gardner Press.

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Shaw, D., Siegel, B., & Schoenlein, A. (2013). The basic tenets of invitational theory and

practice: An invitational glossary. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 19, 30-42

Welch, G. & Smith, K. (2014) From theory to praxis: Applying invitational education beyond

schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 20, 5-10

  

Invitational Education Theory, Collaborative Change, and the Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice

            The development of systemic support when seeking to promote a school culture that drives sustained school improvement requires collaboration (Marzano & Waters, 2009).  Since “the public school establishment is one of the most stubbornly intransigent forces on the planet” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 2), a positive cultural change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear Learning for All mission.  The principal, teachers, and parents are all school leaders needing to be available to shape a school’s non-negotiable culture (Peterson & Deal, 1998). 

Effective collaborative change begins with recognition that although loosely coupled by design, schools can also be tightly coupled by adherence to non-negotiable goals and a culture that promotes student learning.  It is therefore essential to promote a “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 8) by communicating a clear vision to both internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change is slow or nonexistent (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  However, school leaders must effectively communicate to stakeholders the difference between a steady, sustained approach compared to resistance or unwillingness to change.

The effectiveness of school leadership acts remains contingent upon teacher acceptance (Matthews & Brown, 1976).  Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions influence positive or negative responses to initiatives (Rokeach, 1968).  Teachers’ perception of respect and trust exhibited by the principal correlates with both teachers’ and students’ morale, commitment, and achievement (Ellis, 1988; Riner, 2003).  However, when a school leader effectively communicates a vision for success, models positive expectations, and utilizes inviting leadership practices, teachers’ behaviors can be influenced (Asbill, 1994; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000). 

Invitational Education theory provides a needed collaborative and holistic framework for school transformation.  Rather than suggesting a quick-fix, the framework encourages a metamorphosis, requiring years of vigilance before affirming sustained change (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).  Vigilance is required because “transforming the way schools operate means transforming people” (Asbill, 1994, p. 42).  School reform requires systemic change, a metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps).  Such analysis discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).

Invitational Education provides “a theory of practice that radiates into every relationship in the school setting” (Asbill, 1994, p. 43).  Actions and interactions can be perceived as either inviting or disinviting (Purkey & Novak, 2008).  Therefore, actions or interaction perceived as positive become “invitations that bid others to see themselves as capable, valuable, and responsible and to behave accordingly” (Asbill, 1994, p.43). 

Burns and Martin (2010) posit the Invitational Education theory creates a leadership model providing the collaborative structure needed to guide educational leaders through diverse and complex situations.  This leadership model is comprehensive in design (Burns & Martin, 2010; Egley, 2003).  It is also inclusive of many of the elements of transformational and servant leadership, considered essential for promoting success in educational organizations. 

Utilization of Invitational Education theory and practice can create and maintain safe and successful schools by addressing the total culture of the educational environment (Stanley, et al., 2004).  Leaders willing to explore key concepts of Invitational Education theory and practice increase opportunities for developing a school culture that drives sustained school improvement.  These key collaborative concepts include: Transformation of communication skills, ongoing assessment of the 5 Ps (people places policies, practices, and processes), and empowering group dynamics. 

The Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice (JITP) promotes the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice.  As an online peer reviewed scholarly publication, the JITP presents articles to advance the theory.  As JITP editor, Dr. Chris James Anderson of Southwest Minnesota State University’s School of Education invites others to embrace the holistic and interdependent conditions that promote learning for all!  The JITP seeks to advance the tenets of Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices to optimize educational equity in quality.  While education is the endeavor that strengthens a mind, frees a spirit, and enriches a society, the JITP will not be limited to educational stakeholders.  Rather, the JITP  welcomes all opportunities to promote the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP).  Authors must follow the specific guidelines when submitting manuscripts for JITP publication consideration.  Guidelines for Authors or Book Reviews can be accessed from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/publications/journal/  

Submit manuscripts as email attachments to JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2017) Invitational education theory, collaborative change, and the

                Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice. [Web log post] Retrieved from

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

 

References:

Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting

                Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 16-27. Retrieved

                from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

                educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.

                Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-24.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational

                Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.

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

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action (first ed.).

                Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, In: Solution

Tree Press

Purkey, W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

                Practice, 1(1), 5-14.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching

                and learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to

                professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

                http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

          Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf

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