Tonna Nelson is a teacher and doctoral candidate pursuing a doctoral degree in education from the University of St. Mary’s.

There has always been a pursuit for power in the American educational structure by teachers, administrators, parents, students, community members and businesses.  In this age of Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all stakeholders in education are hard pressed have any power to make real changes to the education our nation’s students receive.  Foucault [nbcite author="Foucault, M" year="1980" title="Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977" publisher_place="New York, NY" publisher="Pantheon" type="book" ] promotes the use of inquiry, dialogue and debate to clarify ideas or thoughts deemed as truth.  Goleman [nbcite author="Goleman, D" year="2006" title="Working with emotional intelligence" publisher_place="New York, NY" publisher="Bantam Dell" type="book" ] believes that educators must incorporate emotional intelligences into school programs and that students must be taught to think critically.  Apple [nbcite author="Apple, M. W." year="1995" title="Education and power" publisher_place="New York, NY" publisher="Routledge" type="book" ] makes repeated statements about the lack of schools’ impact on real social change; schools are reproductive social agents that perpetuate hierarchical social structures through a hidden curriculum.  Bohm [nbcite author="Bohm, D" year="1996" title="On dialog" publisher_place="New York" publisher="Routledge" type="book" ] believes that the use of dialogue (as he defines it) can bring about bona fide change.  It is the argument of many that the philosophies of Foucault, Goleman, Apple and Bohm are lofty even if implemented under ideal circumstances and next to impossible given the restraints of NCLB. The No Child Left Behind Act looks quintessential in its written form.  In real-world application, it is a far cry from the reform act it was intended to be.

No Standardized Test Left Behind

The goals of NCLB (to improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, improve basic programs of local educational agencies and prevention and intervention programs for children who are neglected, delinquent or at risk) are being left behind by educators who are forced to measure their success and the successes of their students based on standardized test scores.  States are mandated to meet adequate yearly progress as measured by student performance on standardized tests.   Many believe that these standardized tests are changing the environment of schools in a negative way.  Teachers are finding less time for instruction and enrichment because of the demands for test taking strategy instruction and time to take the tests as well.  Instead of exploration and inquiry based learning, students and teachers spend the bulk of their time preparing for a test that provides no usable data.  In Minnesota students take the MCAII test in April and results are issued during the summer months.  By the next school year the data is obsolete for all practical purposes; it cannot be used to guide instruction for individual students.

David Berliner [nbcite author="Amrein, A. & Berliner, D." title="High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning." year="2002" publisher="Education Policy Analysis Archives 10" url="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18" type="website" ] and others have written extensively about the negative effects of such “high stakes” testing on curriculum, teaching methods, teachers, administrators and student achievement.   Through research and case study, the aforementioned authors have discovered that a disproportionate number of minority students are negatively affected by state mandated tests.   They have also found a correlation between increased pressure students feel because of standardized tests and an increased drop-out rate.  Students are giving up because they don’t see how they can achieve at the level they are being asked.  Audrey Amrein and David Berliner [nbcite author="Amrein, A. & Berliner, D." title="High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning." year="2002" publisher="Education Policy Analysis Archives 10" url="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18" type="website" ] state their findings very concisely in their article “High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty and Student Learning” when they write:

“Evidence from this study of 18 states with high-stakes tests is that in all but one analysis, student learning is indeterminate, remains at the same level it was before the policy was implemented, or actually goes down when high-stakes testing policies are instituted.  Because clear evidence for increased student learning is not found, and because there are numerous reports of unintended consequences associated with high-stakes testing policies (increased drop-out rates, teachers’ and schools’ cheating on exams, teachers’ defection from the profession . . .), it is concluded that there is need for debate and transformation of current high stakes testing policies.” (p. 2)

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies here:  “The more important that any quantitative social indicator becomes in social decision making, the more likely it will be to distort and corrupt the social process it is intended to monitor.”  [nbcite author="Amrein, A. & Berliner, D." title="High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning." year="2002" publisher="Education Policy Analysis Archives 10" url="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18" type="website" ] Because so much rides on one standardized test score, the temptation to enter into corrupted acts is tremendous for teachers, administrators and students alike.   When school funding, teacher performance ratings and determinations about whether or not to pass or retain students rests on one test score, cheating enters into the minds of many; unfortunately some do cheat. The response of the state is to clamp down even harder, spending huge amounts of time and money on test security.   Even if cheating on test day were to be taken out of the realm of consideration, the importance of scoring well on the standardized test dominates the mindset of K-12 education.  Curriculum, instruction, school environment, and overall morale are negatively impacted.

The repercussions of NCLB extend beyond the schools into communities.  Amrein and Berliner  found that families are making decisions about where to live based on average test scores of schools in certain communities.  “This occurs because real estate agents use school test scores to rate neighborhood quality and this affects property values.  Test scores have been shown to affect housing prices, resulting in a difference of about $9,000 between homes in grade “A” or grade “B” neighborhoods.”  [nbcite author="Amrein, A. & Berliner, D." title="High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning." year="2002" publisher="Education Policy Analysis Archives 10" url="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18" type="website" ] Unfortunately those families of limited financial means do not have the luxury of moving to a grade “A” neighborhood; they are forced to remain in neighborhoods with schools that have been reported as below standard according to the NCLB stipulations for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  While Apple did not base his theory of social reproduction on NCLB because the legislation was not yet written, he did have the foresight to realize that schools play a significant role in keeping citizens at stagnant socio-economic levels.  One would be hard pressed to deny that NCLB exacerbates this process of reproduction.

Lawrence V. Castiglione [nbcite author="Castiglione, L.V" year="1994" title="Psychology, control and policy formation: Empowerment and control—can power be given?  Can control be learned?" title_periodical="Arts Education Policy Review" volume="95" issue="6" pages="17-22" type="periodical" ] asserts that a variety of societal elements “shape the content of curricula and textbooks . . . as well as what is taught and how it is taught at all levels of education.  These beliefs and values form the web of common culture.  Culture is an ever-present and potent factor that has great control of education.” (p. 20)

Michel Foucault was also concerned with outside influences on educational systems.  He was particularly troubled by government’s involvement with structuring the actions or conduct of individuals and groups of people.   He made note of the ways in which schools participate in the growth of disciplinary power.

The fact that schools and teachers should be held accountable is beyond reproach.  To whom we should be held accountable is not.  Most of the accountability measures put into place by NCLB are making schools accountable to the state and federal government when we should be held accountable to students, parents and communities.  [nbcite author="Goodwin, B" year="2003" title="Digging deeper: where does the public stand on standards-based education?" title_periodical="Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning" pages="1-8" type="journal" ] Of course parents want their children to be successful at school.  There is so much more to a child than just language arts and math abilities, however.  Parents are concerned that schools are being held accountable for too narrow a measure of success.  Cawleti [nbcite author="Cawleti" year="2006" title="The Side Effects of NCLB" title_periodical="Educational Leadership" volume="64" issue="3" pages="64-68" type="journal" ] cites a Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll that asked “How much, if at all are you concerned that relying on English and math only to judge a school’s performance will mean less emphasis on art, music, history and other subjects?”  Results indicate that seventy eight percent of respondents indicated a “great deal or fair amount” of concern.  Just as teachers, administrators, school districts and even states are powerless to change the ways in which student success is measured, so are parents powerless to insist that educators measure their children’s success based on more than just language arts and math.

Curricular “Choices”

The truth of the matter is, though, that NCLB is not going away.  Educators, administrators, students, parents, community members and businesses must find a way to have a positive impact within the status quo.  One area in which some control can be taken is the curriculum presented to students.  Michel Apple  contends that teachers have curricular choice in theory, but they are usually restricted to ready-made materials produced by a handful of big name companies.  These companies in turn are limited by state adoption policies and must meet different standards for each state, sometimes each school district.  (p. 145).   Apple states,

“At the level of content, especially in elementary schools, perceived ideological differences over race, sex, and class in the communities in which publishers want to sell their products will provide substantial limits on what is considered ‘legitimate’ (or safe) knowledge.” (p. 145)

Once a district does adopt curriculum, money constraints oftentimes prevent it from replacing inadequate and/or obsolete materials.  If a new material is chosen, it can often not be replaced because of the expense later on. This theory is supported by Lawrence V. Castiglione in his article “Psychology, Control, and Policy Formation:  Empowerment and Control—Can Power Be Given? Can Control Be Learned?”  when he states:

“For example, it is beguilingly easy to attribute curricular change to a potent idea advocated by dynamic and skillful proponents rather than to the more mundane, situational explanation that fiscal constraints compelled a board of education to adopt a less-costly curriculum, just as those constraints determined all decisions that cost money.”

Curricular limitations go beyond fiscal impediments.  Apple maintains that business and societal influences have produced a “hidden curriculum” in schools.  Because societies need “docile workers,” schools must structure their environments and curricula to produce them (p. 62).  Apple cites Bowles and Gintis’s (1976) “Schooling in Capitalist America” and states:

“Here the hidden curriculum is differentiated by economic class and one’s expected economic trajectory. . .working-class students are taught punctuality, neatness, respect for authority and other elements of habit formation.  The students of more advanced classes are taught intellectual open-mindedness, problem- solving, flexibility and so on, skills and dispositions that will enable them to function as managers and professionals.”

Apple asserts that the existence of a hidden curriculum calls for specific actions of teaching labor history, particularly examples of laborers who have overcome the obstacles of a hidden curriculum and production of a feasible curriculum and teaching strategies that remove societal bias.

Both Apple and Goleman believe schools are missing the mark with curricular content.  Apple contends that schools should be teaching students to be critical thinkers (p. 13) and Goleman believes curriculum should include emotional literacy (p. 313).  Goleman states: “. . .this demands rethinking the notion of the ‘basics’ in education:  Emotional intelligence is now as crucial to our children’s future as the standard academic fare.”  (p. 313)  At the time his book, Working With Emotional Intelligence, was published, a collaborative connected with the University of Illinois reported that “more than 150 different emotional literacy programs are being used by thousands of American schools.” (p. 313)  Companies then and now are promoting schools’ implementation of an emotional competency rich curriculum; if schools don’t foster the development of emotional competencies, businesses will be forced to compensate for this deficiency through remedial measures such as workshops, sending employees to off-site classes and the like.  This is costly at a time when businesses are looking at where every dime goes.

Once again NCLB poses a monumental barrier for schools; there is little time to teach students reading, writing, math and science let alone another component.

The Center on Education Policy (CEP) conducted an analysis of changes in instructional time since NCLB was enacted (Goodwin 2003).  The CEP’s  report, “Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects,”  states that forty-four percent of districts nationwide have added time for English Language Arts (ELA) and math while cutting time for social studies, science, art, music, physical education, recess, and lunch.   On average, districts increased instructional time for ELA and math by forty-three percent while cutting instructional time on other subjects by thirty-two percent. (Goodwin 2003)

Gordon Cawelti cites a more recent CEP study in his 2006 article “The Side Effects of NCLB.”  This study found that seventy-one percent of school districts nationwide saw a reduction in instructional time in at least one other subject while increasing time for reading and math.  A more troubling finding of the 2006 report is that academically at-risk students in some districts receive double class periods of reading, math or both and sometimes miss other subjects altogether.  Many times these are the students who excel in the subject areas that have been removed from their school day.  All students benefit from a balanced curriculum that provides opportunities to develop multiple intelligences; many are deprived of this for the sake of working to pass a standardized test.

The cyclical nature of all the effects of NCLB continue: schools are charged with meeting adequate yearly progress as measured through a single standardized test, teachers attempt to squeeze in as much core content instruction into each day and teach test taking strategies, students and teachers alike feel the pressure to pass the mandated test and frequently attempt to ameliorate their stress through even more intensive sessions of reading, writing, math and science classes.  There is little to no opportunity for critical thinking or emotional competency instruction when schools are forced to arrange each day as such; therefore, teaching to pass a standardized test to meet NCLB mandates does not produce critical thinkers with emotional capacities.  We are doing a tremendous disservice to our nation’s students.

Much Ado About Nothing?

Ado implies a confused bustle of activity, a considerable emotional upset, and a great deal of talking.  Communication within schools is ever-present, but is it effective?  Are students reaping any benefit from their teachers being required to attend Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings, Student Assistance Team meetings, Leadership Team meetings, and district mandated workshop sessions?  In his article “Coherent Instructional Improvement and PLC’s Is It Possible to Do Both?”  David Jacobson proposes what he calls a “Common Priorities Framework” for Professional Learning Community sessions.   This framework charges teachers to:

• Analyze state assessments, national and state standards and the expectations of the next level of education.
• Identify priority learning goals or essential standards within each content area and align them across curricula and grades.
• Develop common assessments of essential standards so student learning patterns can be analyzed.
• Collaboratively design lessons.
• Formatively assess student progress.
• Brainstorm instructional adjustments to meet student needs.
• Compare results of state assessments and other test data to their own students’ results.
• Assess school and team goals and revise standards

Much like other components of the NCLB act, a framework such as this looks ideal on paper, but in reality it is unachievable.  In theory, PLC’s should be very effective toward designing instruction, analyzing student performance and adjusting methods to meet students’ needs.  Teachers should be collaborating, observing each other, analyzing student work and monitoring student progress through meaningful discussions during their PLC meeting sessions as Jacobson outlines.  The reality is that it is impossible to do all the things within the framework in one weekly hour-long meeting.  What typically takes place during PLC meetings is teachers use this time to decide what concepts will be taught in the upcoming week or two, pull together materials and if there is any time remaining, discuss a problem situation or two.

There are organizations such as Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) that are working to provide sessions of discussions on standards.  These sessions are “designed to engage communities across the nation in deliberation on standards-based reforms.” (Goodwin 2003)  It will take more than just McREL implementing discussion sessions; it is necessary for other such institutions and groups in each state to do the same.  Only then can adequate time be devoted to the dialogue necessary to truly make significant changes in curriculum and instruction in America’s schools.

Bohm suggests a different form of communication through dialogue.  He makes a clear distinction between discussion and dialogue.   Bohm defines discussions as breaking things up.

“It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different one—analyzing and breaking up.  That obviously has its value, but it is limited and it will not get us very far beyond our various points of view.” (p. 7)

A dialogue, however, is a process during which participants suspend assumptions, do not engage in the communication to solve problems per se, and allow the free flow of thoughts and ideas to enlighten participants into a new way of viewing situations.    Entering into such dialogue sessions is completely foreign in America’s K-12 school environment.   School board meetings, PLC sessions, faculty meetings, parent teacher conferences, PTA meetings and even classroom instruction fit into Bohm’s definition of discussions.  Most often educators are left with a feeling of having put out the biggest fires and containing the smaller ones.

This is no surprise when considering Bohm’s statement:

Because of widespread dissatisfaction with the state of affairs . . ., there has been a growing feeling of concern to solve what is now commonly called “the problem of communication.”  But if one observes efforts to solve this problem, he will notice that different groups who are trying to do this are not actually able to listen to each other.  As a result the very attempt to improve communication leads frequently to yet ore confusion, and the consequent sense of frustration inclines people even further toward aggression and violence, rather than toward mutual understanding and trust. ( p. 2)

Perhaps following Bohm’s model for some of the meetings educators take part in would be a step to making true headway toward providing students with a better education.

Light at the End of the Tunnel

Obviously there is much that must be changed within America’s K-12 school system.  Educators are charged with the task of preparing our students for post-secondary education, the workplace or both.  Professors and employers want to work with people who possess strong emotional competencies, think critically and can be flexible enough to handle less than ideal circumstances that invariably present themselves.  It is also clear that the NCLB Act of 2001 is not the panacea some believed it would be.  At the time of this writing, NCLB is being revised.  This is a long process, however, and there is no guarantee that the revised form will be any better.  In her latest book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, Diane Ravitch (former Assistant Secretary of Education) recants her research and beliefs of using standardized test scores to measure student success.  She also relinquishes her support of NCLB. [nbcite author="Dillon, S" year="2010" title="Scholar’s school reform u-turn shakes up debate" title_periodical="New York Times" url="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/education/03ravitch.html?scp=2&sq=diane%20ravitch&st=cse" volume="64" issue="3" type="newspaper" ].  While some may question why Ravitch did such an about-face, others find hope in it.  With such a crucial member of the original team who wrote NCLB working to either its repeal or at least significant revision, there is finally some light at the end of the very long and dark tunnel of PL

[nbcite print_headline="Bibliography" print="apa" ]

Homepage image credit

No related posts.

Heacox, D. (2002). What is Differentiation?  In Differentiation Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and Teach All Learners, Grades 3-12. (pgs. 5-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heacox begins this chapter with a definition of what differentiation is, commenting on the idea that it is, among other things, rigorous, relevant, flexible and varied, and complex.  She then brings these ideas to life by detailing examples of four different approaches to teaching—two elementary and two secondary teachers.  This was helpful early in the chapter to illustrate her meaning.  One of the interesting things that she touched on immediately was the fact that differentiation is based on pre-assessment, followed by a high level of organization.

Heacox then launches into the ways that our students are different, listing and describing nine key ideas:

• Cognitive Abilities—comparing traditional ideas of intelligence with Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.
• Learning Styles—It was good to see that Heacox differentiates between multiple intelligences and learning styles, which she defines as a host of theories related to sensory learning and environmental and emotional factors.
• Socioeconomic and Family Factors—Obviously, families and financial realities are varied for our students.
• Readiness—Some Students are more or less ready for the content and skills we are teaching on.
• Learning Pace—The amount of time it takes students to master a new skill or concept
• Gender Influences—Interesting that she cites Michael Gurian in this section as a “brain researcher.”  I’ve read him and he’s not.  He’s a psychiatrist and family counselor who has reported on gender issues.  Anyway girls and boys learn differently.
• Cultural/Ethnic Influences—These influence attitudes and ideas about learning.
• How Students Value Learning—A brief discussion about motivation, commitment, enthusiasm and family attitudes toward learning.
• Confidence in Learning—This idea reminded me about some of my research related ARCS model of motivation.  Particularly the “C” component—confidence.

After discussing ways students are different, she discusses what we can differentiate for them.  She lists three things: the content, the process, and the product.  The content is basically what we are teaching—the topics, concepts or themes.  The process is how we go about teaching it—how complex or simple our approach, or the variety of ways that we attempt to engage students.  And finally the product is the end result of the learning.  “Products reflect what students have understood and been able to apply,” she says.

Finally, Heacox rounds out her presentation here with a discussion about the role of the teacher in differentiation, reminding us that we are facilitators and collaborators in the learning process of the student.

Heacox then concludes this chapter with a lengthy discussion she entitles: “Questions and Answers About Differentiation.”  But really it is a very well written and tactful section that deals with objections that teachers in the trenches will have with her  previous content.  This section is meant to deal with the people saying to themselves, “Yeah, this all sounds really nice and all, but I operate in the real world.”  Each answer to each question or objection begins with Heacox using a bit of detail to explain the reality the objection is based in.  She doesn’t deny the realities or the challenges and she doesn’t sugar coat or belittle them.  She acknowledges them and deals with them head on.

In all, this was a helpful chapter in providing a base of understanding about the reasons, the benefits, and some practical approaches to differentiation.

Related posts:

1. Gender Differentiation: Should we really be treating boys and girls differently?
2. Brain based differentiation
3. 3 Techniques for Brain Based Differentiation

Merrilee Henk is a teacher and life long learner. She has a background in psychology and emotional and behavioral disabilities. Merrilee currently teaches elementary special education and is working on her doctorate in education. She has written numerous articles on parenting, discipline, behavior modification, and other child related topics. Merrilee gives presentations for the Wisconsin Public Library Summer Reading Program for Children and recently began writing for eHow. Follow these links to view non-teaching related articles by this author: How to Attack the “After Christmas Naughty” and How to Change Your Life. . .Pick Your Vice.

Public education has been evolving with society since its conception, and reform efforts continue to drive that evolution. Reform efforts that do not address reform from a systemic perspective have overwhelmed public education institutions (Gabriele, 2000). Ravitch (2004) described the existing failure of many reform efforts as, “… forgotten innovations [that] continue to live in schools where they were introduced with great fanfare . . . schools are like archeological sites; digging would reveal layer after layer of fossilized school reforms and obsolete programs” (as cited in Jones, 2007, p. 189).

Different theories approach systemic educational change from varying philosophies, strategies, models, and methods (Gabriele, 2000), searching for the theory that will create conditions necessary for systemic change. Gabriele declared these conditions to include an “ideal-based, holistic, continuing, participatory, user-friendly, easy to adjust/improve, and emancipatory” for effective change to occur. Three theories of change utilized by school districts are institutional theory, free market theory, and round table theory.

Institutional Change Theory

John Meyer and colleagues developed the institutional change theory in the 1970’s (Huerta & Zuckerman, 2009). Institutional change theory is a framework based on the relationship between schools and their cultural environments. Society’s cultural norms shape organizational structure by encouraging schools to conform to the accepted rules and rituals of an institution. Scott (2003) described institutional theory as “[emphasizing] the influence that an organization’s cultural environment has on organizational structure and behavior, and it seeks to understand the ways in which cultural rules from the environment shape or constrain organizational action” (as cited in Huerta and Zuckerman, p. 415).

Established institutions, operating with rules and rituals that have come to represent legitimate schooling, become role models for other institutions seeking legitimacy. But not all institutions want to maintain the status quo and are constrained by societal and institutional norms. Huerta and Zuckerman (2009) cited the example of charter schools seeking to break away from the “long-standing institutionalized patterns of teaching and learning…” (p. 416). The institutionalization of the public school system has provided direction and limitations concurrently.

Free market theory

The free market theory proposes that educational change occurs as schools compete for excellence (Marion, 2002). The assumption that all schools begin with an equal opportunity to achieve excellence is attractive to proponents of school choice because it justifies the removal of their children from a failing school to one of greater success. According to the free market theory, the blame for failure lies with the school district.

Adnett and Davies (2000) and Lubienski (2006) proclaimed that federal regulations make it impossible for educational institutions to be genuine free markets, resulting in the failure of the free market theory in educational change (as cited in Eyal, 2008). Eyal deduced that a free market system, if possible to create in the public school system, would fail to produce significant change because the characteristics of the free market system would not create an environment conducive to change.

Roundtable Theory

The roundtable theory (RT) is a shared leadership theory for school change. Gabriele (2002) explained RT as distributing leadership and learning equally across participants. Involving stakeholders in the decision-making process through shared leadership can lead to higher levels of commitment. Gabriele described the ideal RT practice as being run according to a Leader’s Guide developed by consensus and periodically reviewed. The RT sessions would include a reading and review of literature on a topic during a 60 minute session, a time for participants to respond individually and uninterrupted by other members, and all participants would have an equal voice.

A change theory positively focused on strengths, rather than problems would be an ideal choice for school change. Gabriele described the RT model as based on achieving an ideal state, including all stakeholders, and being conducted within the regular school day. RT is an on-going process allowing schools to progress toward excellence. Gabriele noted that RT is a research-based model proven to lead organizations toward the “self-transformation of participants and goal attainment.
Discussion

Change will affect staff regardless of the change theory chosen or the changes proposed. Bueker (2005) stated, “One of the most difficult aspects of implementing a whole school reform is striking a balance between proper program implementation and individual teacher flexibility” (p. 411). Bueker noted that empowering teachers, treating teachers with professional respect, and providing structured and continuing support for staff, could minimize the negative effects of school change.

National trends, such as the accountability movement and federal mandates like the No Child Left Behind Act, can prescribe change. H. K. Meyer and Rowan (2006) described the affect that trends can have on education when they stated, “we might apply new institutional constructs that can account for both an evolving theory and its application to changing policy contexts, including the “tightening control of government over the core technology of schooling” linked to standards and accountability reforms” (as cited in Huerta and Zuckerman, (2009), p. 417). The choice for school reform can be beyond the control of the school district, the administration, and the teachers it will affect.

Conclusions

School change is constant. Eyal (2008) suggested, “despite the prevalent image of public institutions as highly conservative and stagnant, it might be interesting to investigate their potential as sources of innovations that are no less radical than the alternatives proposed by free-market ideologues” (p. 487). School reform creates stress on all stakeholders and requires careful consideration of theoretical framework. Vernez, et al. (2004) reported that there is little evidence to support the validity and effectiveness of many school reform initiative policies, which makes research of the different strategies essential.

An analysis of change theory models prior to setting a course is critical. The RT model described by Gabriele is research-based and proven to be an effective school change theory. The effectiveness of the RT model in practice, during the call for reform to meet the skills of the 21st Century, warrants further research on the applicability of RT in meeting the educational needs of the future. School structure will continue to evolve, and the reform theories proven effective by research will continue to be refined.

References

Bueker, C. (2005). Teachers’ reports of the effects of a whole-school literacy reform model on teacher turnover. Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 395-416. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com

Eyal, O. (2009). Degeneracy, resilience and free markets in educational innovation. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 26(4), 487-491. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com, doi:10.1002/sres.940

Huerta, L. & Zuckerman, A. (2009). An institutional theory analysis of charter schools: Addressing institutional challenges to scale. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 414-431. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com, doi:10.1080/01619560902973621

Gabriele, S. F. (2002). The “roundtable” for school learning and planning groups: Planting a seed for systemic renewal. Kybernetes: Special Double Issue: Systems and Cybernetics: New…, 31(9/10), 1361-1368. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 277870851).

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Jones, B. A. (2007). “Table top theory” as a policy framework for gauging the confluence of teaching and private sector interests. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 185-204.

Related posts:

1. Empowering Change in Education
2. Radical change and wikis: teaching new literacies.
3. The Edge of Education Carnival. Issue 3

A Chapter Club Annotation

Chapter Club is a practice that allows one to read, learn, and review books by chapter–and feel good about not having to read (or finish) an entire book before embarking upon valuable reflection.

Goldman breaks this book into 5 parts. Chapter two and three are still within Part 1, entitled, The Emotional Brain.

In Chapter 2, Goldman does a great job mixing stories, examples and research with a basic explanation of how the brain evolved, and how its different anatomical parts have different duties. About three years ago, I took a 3 credit correspondence class through St. Thomas called, Teaching With The Brain in Mind, by Eric Jensen, so much of Goldman’s anatomy lesson was review. The added bonus in Goldman’s approach however, was that it was sprinkled with stories and anecdotes that helped to drive home the lesson—the thrust of which is that the amygdala (from the Greek almond), two almond shaped clusters of interconnected structures nestled just above the brain stem, is the “specialist for emotional matters.”

But more than that, in this chapter, Goldman discusses the complex balance (or often lack thereof) between rational and controlled thought and the actions (as well as the horomonal responses) precipitated by the amygdala—which controls “rage and compassion alike.” And sites studies that seem to indicate that without access and control of an “emotional memory,” people struggle to make even simple decisions and often even “make disastrous choices in business and their personal lives.”

As a middle school teacher I’ve always recognized that emotions are constantly playing a role in what is going on during learning—often to an extreme degree. For example, I can point to at least two different students that shed tears in my classroom today. Neither incident had anything to do with me or my class (one girl had gum in her hair). But in both cases their emotions were so strong that they were somewhat distracting to other students. Last week emotions ran hot between some boys. The end result was that three of them were suspended for fighting.

And these are only the extreme cases. How many other students are waging internal wars with their emotions such that they are unable to focus or engage in the learning in my classroom?

The next chapter begins Part 2 of the book, and is entitled, When Smart is Dumb. I’m very interested in this topic so I stole some time and read ahead a bit. Next, Goldman begins a discussion of the merits of being smart with your emotions. I’d like to learn more about what happens when “smart” people (as defined by traditional IQ scores, SAT tests, or grades), lack the ability to recognize and/or manage their emotional responses.

Related posts:

1. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Goldman, D.
2. Teaching with the brain in mind.
3. What is Differentiation?

Merrilee Henk is a teacher and life long learner. She has a background in psychology and  emotional and behavioral disabilities. Merrilee currently teaches elementary special education and is working on her doctorate in education. She has written numerous articles on parenting, discipline, behavior modification, and other child related topics. Merrilee gives presentations for the Wisconsin Public Library Summer Reading Program for Children and recently began writing for eHow. Follow these links to view non-teaching related articles by this author: How to Attack the “After Christmas Naughty“  and How to Change Your Life. . .Pick Your Vice.

Introduction

Teachers in every district face the frustrations of working under poor leadership, as well as the satisfaction and personal growth that can be realized when working for exceptional leaders. Cunningham and Cordiero (2006) stated, “leaders need to ensure that the focus, structure, and process of their work with faculty and staff is always focused on teaching and learning” (76). Maintaining this focus can be challenging, especially when faced with change. The choice of leadership style and reform model becomes critical to the success of an educational organization in need of reform. Transactional leadership, shared governance, and transformational leadership are some leadership styles that can affect the success of the reform model used by the district leader to initiate change.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leaders can be effective in achieving performance goals. According to Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, 2008) transactional leaders “[exchange] rewards or recognition for cooperation and compliance behaviors consistent with task requirements” (p. 38-39). Transactional leaders closely follow the task accomplishments of their followers. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) stated that “the leaders react to whether the followers carry out what the leaders and followers have ‘transacted’ to do” and Burns (1978) described transactional leaders as motivating their followers by satisfying the self-interests of the followers (as cited in Lo, de Run, and Ling, 2009, Literature Review section, para 3). Transactional leadership can be effective. One study by Lo, de Run, and Ling suggested that transactional leaders have followers that are more committed to change than those of transformational leaders, yet other studies suggest the opposite (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin and Popper, 1998; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003, as cited in Lo, de Run, and Ling, 2009).

The traditional hierarchical transactional style of leadership often found in school districts may achieve compliance, but not commitment. Commitment is essential when educational reform is needed. Senge (1996) stated initiatives directed from the top down often backfire and prevent forward movement by organizations. Marion (2005) stated that the “bureaucracy legacy [is] clearly evident in the way we organize and run schools” (p. 22), but it can be replaced.

Shared Leadership

Shared leadership follows common sense reasoning that “many minds are better than one”, yet has not taken hold in K-12 public schools (Lindahl, 2008). Sarason (1996) wrote, “the failure of school reform was predictable because of the power relationships that exist in schools” (as cited in Lindahl). Shared leadership, in theory, removes the power relationships with shared decision-making. Lindahl asserted, “Teachers can share leadership, however. In schools, leadership can be shared among many people, not only the select few who might be formally designated as administrators or teacher leaders” (Why Have K-12 Schools Struggled with Shared Leadership? section, para 7). Yukl and Lepsinger (2007) explained that when complex school reform is needed, it takes more than one person to gain understanding of, and commitment to, a new vision and the decisions needed to successfully realize that vision (as cited in Lindahl).

Beach (2006) listed six leadership responsibilities that teachers could feasibly contribute to: assessment, culture, vision, plans, implementation, and follow through (as cited in Lindahl). Lindahl listed other leadership responsibilities related to the vision of the school. Teachers can take a leadership role in creating the vision, demonstrating it in their classrooms, and making it real for students, parents, and other stakeholders in the district. Lindahl asserted that strong involvement from teachers in the implementation of the vision would lead to greater likelihood of success.

Transformational Leadership

Organizations require employee willingness to cooperate with and believe in a common vision (Barnard, 1938, as cited in Marion, 2002). Transformational leadership is associated with achieving high levels of employee performance in organizations (Kark and Shamir, as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, 2008). Yukl (1998) suggested that transformational leaders transform the “values and priorities of followers and [motivate] them to perform beyond their expectations” (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino). Teachers managed by the use of strict rules and demeaning supervision may perform only to the level that satisfies the rules and never be motivated to pursue a level of excellence (Marion).

Pratt (1998) cited social identification with the leader or the organization as a common effect of transformational leadership behavior (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino) by building strong bonds and emotional ties with their followers. Social bonding could produce critical benefits for a superintendent attempting to improve the work of employees by positively affecting the motivation of employees to improve performance. According to Burns (1978) and Bass (1985), the most important effect of transformational leadership is “getting followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the group, organization, or movement” (as cited in Avolio and Yammarino, p. 85).

There are many leadership models proven effective in times of school reform, which all public school districts are facing as they move into the 21st century. One model suggested by Goddard and Clarke (2007), follows in the style of transformational leadership. This model includes eight stages, the first four that focus on institutional change are individual mobilization, community building, creating an enabling environment, and focus on student learning.

Individual mobilization begins with relationship building. Cunningham and Gordiero (2006) stated, “Good leaders do not communicate with people because they need something, but to enjoy the shared experience of working toward exciting outcomes. They have a genuine interest in the staff and their optimal performance” (p. 23). As teachers and students develop interpersonal relationships, they begin to redefine their identity within the school (Goddard and Clarke). Self-actualization can lead teachers to develop new ideas and beliefs about their roles and responsibilities.

Salisbury and McGregor (2002) discussed a strategy for community building, which would also follow in the transformational leadership style. School culture could be enhanced by reaching out to the community, encouraging meaningful participation by  parents, positively altering the community’s perception of the school district (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5). Parents, teachers, students, and administrators could become parts of a cohesive group. Kohm (2002) and Lick (2002) suggested strategies such as teacher study groups (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5).

Goddard and Clarke described administrators acting in this capacity as “catalysts, willing to take a moral stand on their beliefs and bringing teachers together in collaborative approaches to student learning” (Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5). Godard and Clarke suggested that this strategy would create a culture in which “staff and students adopt the school culture in a deep personal way and…take responsibility for making sure the [school] culture survives” (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 5).

Creating an enabling environment is necessary to improve student achievement. Schools need to make data driven decisions and strive to change teachers’ views of students from a deficiency model (Goddard and Clarke). Cummins (2001) stated:

When we choose to frame the discourse about underachievement primarily in terms of children’s deficits in some area of physiological or linguistic functioning, we expel culture, language, identity, intellect, and imagination from our image of the child, and we eliminate these constructs from our image of the effective teacher of that child (as cited in Goddard and Clarke, Developing an Integrated Model of School Change section, para 7).

Teachers are motivated by the ability to engage in the art of teaching. Davies (2002) acknowledged, “There is a tension between compliance and performance. Excessive compliance reduces the scope for creativity and limits performance. It will also put undue emphasis on outcomes, with processes having to be ignored” (The Changing Tensions Between Autonomy and Recentralization section, para 4).

In stage four the focus turns to individual student learning. Resources are dedicated to research based materials and programs, and teachers and parents align in supporting student needs. The outcomes measured must go beyond reading and math. Davies (2002) claimed that the process of teaching “thinking skills” is critical to the development of deep learning and that “The outcomes addiction also diminishes the central importance of a vision of education that is wider and deeper than simple test results. (The Changing Tensions Between Autonomy and Recentralization section, para 4).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has fueled the outcomes addiction at the expense of real learning. Rothstein and Jacobsen (2006) described the unbalancing of instruction between the individual subject areas, creating a focus on reading and math, reducing the amount of time spent on non-tested curriculum. Curriculum has been narrowed as a result. School leaders focusing on individual student learning will provide a rich curriculum that includes critical thinking skills.

Conclusion

Educational change is an evolving interaction of individual mobilization, community building, creating an enabling environment, and focus on student learning. Institutional complacency must be avoided in place of constant revision and renewal with the holistic picture in mind (Goddard and Clarke). Transformational leaders can have a powerful effect on educational institutions and teachers for lasting change through strong relationships and a shared vision. Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee (2002) stated that leaders of reform need to build relationships with many, those who think like they do and those who don’t (as cited in Fullan, 2002). Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee claimed, “In complex times, emotional intelligence is a must. Emotionally intelligent leaders are able to build relationships because they are aware of their own emotional makeup and are sensitive and inspiring to others” (as cited in Fullan).

References

Avolio, B. J. & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2008). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road     ahead.  Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Cunningham, W. G. and Cordeiro, P. A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (3rd ed) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century: Changes and challenges. The International Journal of Educational Management (16)4/5, 196-207.

Fullan, M. (2002, May). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Goddard, J. T. & Bohac-Clarke, V. (2007, Fall). The cycles of school change: Toward an integrated developmental model. The Journal of Educational Thought. 41(2), 105-124.

Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4), 298-308.

Lo, M., Ramayah, T., de Run, E., & Ling, V. (2009, May). New leadership, leader-member exchange, and commitment to change: The case of higher education in Malaysia. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 41, 574-580. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Marion, R. (2005). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Rothstein, R., & Jacobsen, R. (2006, December). The goals of education. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 264,272. Retrieved August 6, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Senge, P. (1996, December). Leading learning organizations. Training & Development, 50(12), 36.   Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

Related posts:

1. Change Theories in Education
2. Radical change and wikis: teaching new literacies.
3. Brown, N.E. and K. Bussert. Information literacy 2.0: empowering students through personal engagement.