Help Wanted—Heroes

Board of Education directors with

independence, vision, objectivity, courage and
impatience to “save our kids’ futures.”
This position will require strong backbone and determination to stimulate the change
urgently needed to begin serving the kids and the community the way they deserve to
be served. If positive change is to happen it will have to be caused by your leadership.
The educators while well-meaning have been in a mental rut that automatically
suppresses/ignores problems because they have been programmed to do things in a
highly structured way which suspends honest evaluation of what is being done. The all
too common approach in education when faced with poor results, e.g. achievement gap,
achievement levels overall, is to go back and do the same things over with a resolve to
do them better this time. Of course, as Einstein observed, “Doing the same things over
and over each time expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.” Thus the
educators are working hard but it hasn’t resulted in acceptable performance but instead
in continuing to harm the kids’ futures in a time when our nation’s ability to compete is
increasingly threatened by those in other countries who know how to educate their kids
better. I have appended a “book review” of E.D. Hirsch’s book The Knowledge Deficit.
Please stop here and read it through. It is short but a good way to start to understand
the “catechism” style brainwashing that our educators are subject to in their education
school training. Note Hirsch’s statements about our educators “education knowledge”
not being the same as that of educators in countries that do better at educating their
kids than we do ours. Note that the current methods; content free, how-to curricula
ubiquitously used in the vast majority of school districts are scientifically proven to not
work but because of the brainwashing are not even questioned when looking for ways to
improve performance. I call our education system The Fiefdom because it has evolved
into a defensive, delusional, insular and inbred place where reality is suppressed and
outside inputs are not allowed. All decisions are felt to be those of the “experts” who
aren’t expert as their results undeniably show.

An example from one of our competitors; Singapore, the world leader in teaching their
kids math, shows the benefit of true collaboration resulting in real synergy. This story is
related by Tom Friedman in his book The World is Flat. The Singapore Ministry of
Education hired an Indian company called Heymath.com to tutor math students over the
web and to work with Singapore math teachers to develop “jazzy” animated PowerPoint
presentations to use in teaching math to the students. Heymath.com, an Indian
company, hires engineering students from the local Indian Institute of Technology
campus to do the work. As an aside the IIT is recognized as being competitive with MIT
here for its rigorous engineering education. The quality control from a curriculum point
of view is done by Cambridge University in England. Thus you have a level of
collaboration that bridges academic majors and international boundaries to provide the
best education for kids. That is simply not allowed here. Our educators are loath to let
any power or money from the public trough escape them.

If any of you are interested I can supply a huge trove of research and reading materials
[or even a training session(s)] to help you understand the urgent need to reform the way
we educate kids. Change will only come if it is driven from outside the mainstream. As
the Colorado Closing the Achievement Gap Commission Final Report (11/05) comments:
While spending billions on efforts to close the gap it is demonstrably worse than it was a
third of a century ago when Robert Kennedy called it a stain on our national honor. This
insanity (doing the same things over and over expecting a different result) must stop.

I know you are thinking if you got this far; “Gosh, I thought this board seat would be
mostly an activity to confirm the decisions of the expert administrators. If approached
that way more thousands of kids will be harmed by the status quo approach which will
certainly not do any better than it has done in the past. Yet, you must face the fact that
the administration does not have the objective grasp of the harm they are doing that
would motivate them to change. The board must declare that change WILL happen, that
is non-negotiable or no positive change of the magnitude required will occur.

The current district curricula, structure, decision making process and most of all
performance are all unacceptable IF you really care about serving the kids and
community at competent levels. A few words on curriculum follow. Curricula and other
areas are discussed more fully in the report card section.

Curricula—content free and scientifically proven to not work

The district uses content-poor, how-to curricula based on the romantic notions of
Rousseau, Dewey, etc. There are many sources to learn the truth of what is required but
education schools only train graduates in the proven to be wrong approaches. In my
opinion, E.D. Hirsh Jr. is the best single source. He founded the Core Knowledge
curriculum and was the primary stimulus for the Massachusetts Miracle. That came
about because a few enlightened politicians in Massachusetts who were distressed by
the poor performance in achievement and especially the gap, passed laws requiring
content rich curricula. Much better performance followed quickly. His latest book, The
Making of Americans, is featured in a booktv.org program (search on E.D. Hirsch) with
more info on the harmful nature of the current curricula in use in the vast majority of
districts across America. Some of the key points from the booktv program are— The
bottom line is that the current educational methods yield the results favored by `progressive' and `liberal'
educators, while their methods drive everyone down, particularly the poor. Hirsch says, “It is hard to
conceive of a greater social evil.”

Other comments he makes in the video also ring true.

• On the Governors’ effort to establish a national curriculum standard: “a politically

craven and content free approach.”
• Our schools need to teach the founding principles of the Enlightenment and the blessings
of liberty, not an intellectual tyranny.
 • The last 50+ years have been characterized by; technically wrong ideas, fragmented
courses, watered down texts.
• Critical thinking skills are powerfully knowledge dependent, meaning that the current
approach of teaching critical thinking skills in a content free environment is a waste of
time.
• The “how to” approach has always failed and always must fail.

See the following District Report Card for more detailed discussion of the biggest
problems (opportunities for improvement) and suggested actions that could/should be
taken immediately IF you wish to perform at heroic levels and bring the district up to
world-class levels of performance. If you can’t do it, you should resign as the kids will
continue to be harmed by the status quo.

You can really improve things for the kids. You only have to remember that
leadership is not a popularity contest, at its best, leadership is accepting the
responsibility to provide a work climate in which everyone has a chance (and the expectation) to
grow and mature as individuals, as members of a group by satisfying their own needs, while working
for the success of the organization. This is definitely not happening in the current top-down, central
office, non-participative style practiced in the vast majority of districts. The current management
structure effectively casts most staff in the role of robots programmed by the central office “experts.”

If you step up to the challenge and force the needed change, you could well be regarded as heroes just
as the political leaders in Massachusetts are. They found the courage to go against the ed power
groups who had contributed heavily to their campaigns and did the right thing for the kids. You
should expect no less of youselves as board members.

Stop!
Before going on ask yourself if you
can objectively face the truth of
District performance. Only
proceed to the Report Card section
if you can answer affirmatively.
As an aside; yes this is 18 pages long. I often hear directors whining about how busy you
are and I believe it. However, this should be read and has higher probability of causing
positive changes than anything else you can read. This is not War and Peace or Gone with
the Wind. Please read all of it.
Generic District Report Card—Paul Richardson

I sense when attending school board meetings that the people on the board are committed to
improved performance in their district, especially in the area of achievement. I will structure this
into parts; Current Status with comparison to other states and nations, Context from education
and management research, Action Items if improved performance is desired. I will make this as
objective as I can. You may be shocked because in public education a filter is in place that
allows positive (and plumped) data through but suppresses anything negative regarding
performance. As someone with long and successful management experience I need to assert
that the negative areas are where the opportunity lies for greatly improved future performance.
Facing and fixing those will yield the fastest and most positive performance improvements.
Before we go on I want to say that most districts are basically the same as other school districts
in the state. That should be of no comfort and should instead be viewed as an opportunity to
break out of the mediocre pack and shine.

Current Status

Achievement—To understand where your district fits in this area some background is required
first. Thus, you need to understand that Colorado CSAP test standards are among the lowest of
all states and in most cases the lowest. This is based on two studies out in 2007. The first, The
Proficiency Illusion was a joint effort by NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association, which the
district uses for its MAPS testing) and The Fordham Institute. They studied the 26 states that
used MAPS to compare the rigor of those states’ achievement tests using the MAPS data. On an
overall average basis across all tested grades Colorado had the lowest standards for both Math
and Reading among the 26 states. The other report, Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic
Standards in States: Workshop Summary, Nat’l Academies Press, used NAEP results to compare
state achievement test rigor. This also showed Colorado being at or near the bottom among all
states. Conclusion: Meeting Colorado standards is nothing to brag about and not
meeting Colorado standards is something to be very concerned about. This needs to
be remembered when we look later at achievement levels.

Next let’s look at how the US compares to other competitor nations in achievement. There are
many tests to look at but I will show you how we stack up in one called TIMSS (The International
Math and Science Study). The following table will show the result of a study done by the
American Institutes for Research (2007) using correlations between NAEP and TIMSS testing to
compute a “proficient or better” comparison between the countries who participated in the
testing.

NAEP vs. TIMSS, 8th Grade Math

Singapore 73

South Korea 65

Hong Kong 64

Japan and Chinese Taipei 61

Belgium (Flemish) 51

Netherlands 41
Hungary, Slovak Rep., Slovenia, Canada, 39 to 35
Russia, Australia
Czech Rep., Malaysia, Bulgaria, Finland 32 to 29

United States 27

The thing to remember when looking at District achievement is that there is a big gap between
Colorado standards and the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) and there is
another huge gap between the NAEP levels and those of our strongest international competitors.
I have read a study done comparing math test questions on the NAEP and the Singapore test.
The Singapore standards are about 3 grade levels ahead of the NAEP. This is confirmed by an
anecdotal bit of data from a foreign exchange student from Hong Kong attending 10th grade at
Palmer HS. She was interviewed about 3 years ago for a local TV news broadcast. When asked
her impressions of Palmer she said, “I am surprised by the math. I studied the same content I
am getting here in 10th grade three years ago in Hong Kong.”

Conclusions

District achievement test results are poor for reading and totally unacceptable for math. While
they don’t compare that badly to the Colorado competition, they certainly don’t prepare our kids
for success in the increasingly competitive, global meritocracy for well paying jobs. When you
look at reading you see that as a first order approximation, district kids progress about a grade
level every year versus the standards (basically flat tops across the grades). It is obvious that to
“get better” kids have to advance more than one grade level per year versus the standards.

For math the picture is much worse because students on average are not progressing enough in
a year to meet the increase in standards for each successive grade. Again, to fix this picture
kids must on average progress more than a grade level in each instructional year.

The disaggregated picture is extremely troubling and unacceptable. The gap efforts in
education are basically, “say what the critics want to hear and then go on with the same status
quo as always because real change is hard and threatening to them.” I believe a “kill’em with
kindness” approach is at work regarding the gap. That is, I believe too many educators “know”
that “those kids” can’t learn to a high standard so they “expect less” of them in an effort to be
kind. I believe that the vast majority of kids can learn to the standards and should be expected
to do so. A quote from Michael Barone’s Hard America, Soft America, Competition vs. Coddling
and the Battle for the Nation’s Future is enlightening. “John McWhorter, who is black and is now
a linguistics professor at Berkeley, remembers that in high school he “quite deliberately
refrained from working to my highest potential because I knew I would be accepted to top
universities without doing so.” He goes on: “Imagine telling a Martian who expressed an interest
in American education policy: ‘We allow whites in only if they have a GPA of 3.7 and a SAT score
of 1300 or above. We let blacks in with a GPA of 3.0 and a SAT of 900. Now, what we have been
pondering for years is why black students continue to submit higher grades and scores than this
so rarely.’ Well, mercy me—what a perplexing problem!”

See appended Regression Analysis of Typical District’s 2008 Reading CSAP Scores –Paul
Richardson 0209 which shows that the achievement gap is strongly in place for reading as well. I
could include many representations of the achievement data for the district but the above charts
tell the story well enough to make conclusions on the scope of the problem.

Another huge problem contributing to the gap is curriculum. E.D. Hirsch Jr. in his many writings
has argued that the curricula favored by the education school faculties are ineffective
and particularly harmful to poor and minority students. I watched the video of his forum
on his latest book on the booktv website. One interesting question was about “teaching to the
test.” He said if the curriculum is basically content free [as happens in most districts] then
teaching to the test is bad, if the curriculum is content rich then teaching to the test is what
happens automatically when you teach the curriculum. In that book, The Making of Americans,
he argues that education theory, i.e., the education theory of schools of education, has, for over
six decades, been `child-centered' rather than `teacher-centered' and it has resisted the notion
of a core curriculum, particularly for the grammar school grades. It has demonized core curricula
by associating them with `rote memorization' and `drill and grill' pedagogy. There is only one
problem: the touchy-feely practices advocated by schools of education are disastrous
failures. American test scores are an embarrassment and the results are particularly
harsh for the poor.

The schools of education claim that the test scores are low because American education is
diverse and many students come from backgrounds of poverty. This is rubbish, Hirsch argues.
Other countries have diverse populations and students from poor families; their test scores are
higher because they have core curricula. Test scores have also fallen in less diverse (white,
largely middle class) states such as Iowa because of the absence of core curricula there. The
methods (or lack of methods) are to blame, not the students. Moreover, when core curricula are
installed, the performance gaps between rich and poor students narrow. The bottom line is that
`traditional' educational methods yield the results favored by `progressive' and `liberal'
educators, while their methods drive everyone down, particularly the poor. Hirsch,
himself a traditional liberal, cites distinguished left-leaning thinkers like Rawls and far-left-
leaning thinkers like Gramsci to underline his point.

None of this comes as a surprise, of course. The root notion (the same root notion that
undergirded his best-selling book from the late 80's, Cultural Literacy) is clear and, I believe,
indisputable: reading is fundamental and students are better able to read and comprehend when
they have knowledge of the subject. Every piece of writing assumes prior knowledge. (Hence, we
cannot have a society in which we all participate as citizens without sharing core, prior
knowledge.) He gives several clever examples. For example--a description of a cricket match. All
of the words in the paragraph are common, but one, words that each American could put in a
sentence. Nevertheless, the paragraph is unintelligible to Americans ignorant of the rules of
cricket. He gives a quote from the Nixon tapes--a very straightforward and intelligible quote, but
only if you know what a president is, what a budget director is, who George Meany and Hubert
Humphrey are, how unions relate to democrat politics, what Watergate was, what audiotape is,
and so on. He has the most fun, perhaps, in bloodying the noses of the schools of education
types who think that technique is more important than knowledge, individuals who try to train
students to tease out key ideas rather than instill in them a knowledge of the material which
forms the basis for the ideas. He gives a quote from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and then asks
which notion (a, b, c or d) is the key idea. This is impossible unless one has some sense of what
Kant means by words such as `manifold' and `category'. [Book review comments copied from a
review of the book on Amazon]
Hirsch proved the worth of his approach when he became the key contributor to the
“Massachusetts miracle.” Massachusetts adopted his core knowledge principles and greatly
improved their achievement over a relatively short period of time. The message is clear, if the
district wishes to really improve achievement it will have to break away from the mediocre herd
and embrace much more rigorous methods and expectations to get there. There is no law
against having internal standards more rigorous than the abysmally low state
standards. This will require a much different leadership regimen than currently exists but it will
be very much worth it. If embraced it would result in a change from coping with slowly declining
enrollment to quickly increasing enrollment as the increased performance became a magnet for
parents who want the best education for their kids. Will it be easy? Nope! Will it be worth it?
Yes!! What worthwhile change was ever easy? If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

What Underlying Problems Need to be Faced if the District Wants to Improve

1. Management style—The current style in place is one that if continued to be used results in
a “you can’t get where you want to go from here” outcome. The decision making process
is glacial at best; committees, audits, interminable meetings and finally board approval
months later if you can find time on the agenda. The sense of urgency is plodding at best.
The style is top down (central office command and control) which short circuits
accessing the huge synergy available in a more enlightened and powerful
participative management approach. It is time to face the fact that what needs to be
done is very well known. All efforts by individual districts to “reinvent” the wheel are just
a ploy to maintain the status quo. This is harmful to kids, especially the Gap kids. It is
time to implement the known and needed changes and quite “fiddling while kids’ futures
burn.”

Where is the feedback in the system? That is, who on the board will take the
responsibility and time to provide the quality control on the process? In large,
complex endeavors where performance is critical (seems that should fit the education
system), they all rely on a quality control, quality assurance function to help them stay on
course and out of trouble by providing early warning of adverse trends. The district
doesn’t have that function in place. Probably because the intended course of action is
running in place so there is no course for real improvement plotted out. Once a program
is put in place, it is rarely removed especially if a failure. Who would want to admit that
the millions spent on it were a waste? The answer: a good manager who wanted to free
up resources to fund things that work. There is no shame in making a poor decision.
The shame is in ignoring the reality of a bad decision and letting it continue to
harm performance long term. You need to include a QC/QA person who reports to both
the board and Superintendent. The link to the board is vital as the person needs to be
free to be objective and able to be totally honest, not muzzled by the line management.
This can be looked at as a conscience function like Jiminy Cricket performed for Pinocchio.
You can’t allow an “I don’t want to hear it” from line managers to stifle the bald-faced
truth. It could be viewed as similar to an Inspector General function in government terms.

From EdWeek article—We Know how to turn schools around, Allan R. Odden
Dec. 9, 2009
"The problem isn't funding, it is having the will and persistence to fix the
system."

• The first step is to create a sense of urgency

• The next step is setting ambitious—some might call them eye-popping—
goals
• The next step for turnaround schools is to throw out the old curriculum and
adopt new textbooks, create new curriculum programs, and start to build, over
time, a common understanding of effective instruction
• The fourth strategy is to move beyond a concentration on state tests
• Step five is creating and implementing an intensive and ongoing
professional-development program
• Many students will need extended learning time and extra help to attain
proficiency [until the new curricula prime the system with kids who have
the knowledge base to learn well].
• Time is also used more effectively in these schools
• Leadership
• Turnaround schools and districts are professional in the best sense of the word
• It takes talent to accomplish lofty goals and implement the collaborative and
powerful educational strategies discussed here. Often, the initial talent in low-
performing schools is not up to the task. [As Jim Collins said in his book Good
to Great the old saying that people are your most important asset is
wrong, “the right people are your most important asset.”]

The admin in the district will tell you they are doing most if not all of these. They aren’t
even close to the rigorous status required to get things moving in the right direction or the
results would be a lot better.

Other research by Peters and Waterman [In Search of Excellence] studied successful
American companies and concluded that there are eight attributes that characterize
innovative companies. They:

1. Have a bias for action--when a problem presents itself, this company acts quickly
to move forward;

2. Are close to the customer--products are the result of customer satisfaction;

3. Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship among all workers--individuals are
encouraged to make a contribution that will benefit the customer and the company;
4. Consider productivity results through the efforts of people--workers are
empowered to do their job and to build-in quality up front;
5. Are “hands-on” and value-driven companies that care about their people and not
only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way;
 6. Stay close to what they know and build upon their strengths;
7. Have simple organization and lean bureaucratic structures--matrix organizational
structures are too complex; and
8. Are both centralized and decentralized--autonomy is centered on the workforce.

Let’s now compare the 8 attributes of successful companies identified by

Waterman and Peters to the attributes of the vast majority of public education
school districts.

Successful Companies Research School Districts

Have a bias for action Appt committees, require multiple levels

of review, final approval by board, SLOW
AND PONDEROUS. Running in place.

Are close to the customer Not responsive to the customer as their

input is not valued by the “education
experts”

Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship The top down structure fosters a “carry
among all workers out the orders from on high” workplace
with no room for individual initiative

Workers are empowered to do their job Workers are not empowered but are
and to build-in quality up front essentially treated like robots

Are “hands-on” and value-driven Are top heavy and insular with little
“management by wandering around.”
Committees are used as cover to delay
taking action.

Build upon their strengths, “tend to their Prone to follow every new fad that is
knitting” touted by ed experts

Simple organization and lean Complex, top heavy, highly formalized,

bureaucratic structures; matrix labyrinthine structures that make
organizational structures are too nimbleness impossible and
complex communication very difficult

Are both centralized and decentralized— Highly centralized leading to the inability
autonomy is centered on the workforce to make improvement let alone quickly,
no workforce autonomy

There can be no doubt that the current management structure in our school
districts is ideal for maintaining the status quo, stifling individual contribution
to their full potential, poor performance in serving the kids, and low rates of job
satisfaction and morale.
1. Curriculum—As pointed out by Hirsch and many others, the ed school promoted
curricula don’t work and harm the minority and poor students most. I want to
clarify what was described as student-centered versus teacher-centered. The student-
centered name applies to content poor, discovery or constructivist approaches. These rely
on the belief that you only need to teach kids “how to learn” because they can Google,
etc. to find what they need. Hirsch makes the point that this is not true because without
the knowledge background you can’t be at all effective. These student-centered
approaches are popular and pushed by ed schools because they de-emphasize the need
for teachers, esp. in elementary grades, to be subject knowledgeable. The most damaging
curricula in this regard are Whole Language and its various “renamed to protect the
guilty” offshoots and the discovery math curricula like Everyday Math. Teacher-centered
curricula work well for all students including the “gap” kids. The problem is that they
require the teachers to have robust subject knowledge.

Implications if content rich curricula are implemented. It is clear from the

Massachusetts experience that the core knowledge approach works and the content poor
curricula do not. Thus, if you want to improve you have to make that change. However,
that will require other changes as well, especially among elementary teachers. All
professional development will have to concentrate on greatly increasing subject
knowledge not on more methods (pedagogy) approaches. This is true of all subject areas
but especially reading and math. This need can be well described by looking at the
research of Liping Ma for math. In her book describing her research, “Knowing and
Teaching Elementary Mathematics,” she created a comparison study of teachers from
China and from the U.S. The Chinese teachers had much less formal education than their
American counterparts. The Chinese system for elementary teachers is to take those with
a ninth grade education and give them 2 to 3 years of “normal school” training beyond
ninth grade to qualify to become teachers. The U.S. elementary level participants in her
study had from 4 to 6 years beyond their high school graduation.
Yet, in spite of that, U.S. students consistently score significantly lower on international
math achievement comparisons. Ma used Deborah Ball’s TELT model (Teacher Education
and Learning to Teach Study) to assess the math knowledge of each teacher in the study.
She found;
• “Even expert [U.S.] teachers, experienced teachers who were [inappropriately]
mathematically confident, and teachers who actively participated in current
mathematics teaching reform did not seem to have a thorough knowledge of the
mathematics taught in elementary school.”
• Teachers’ subject knowledge correlated very well with their student’s
achievement.
• Number of math courses taken in college [education school] did not.
What are we to conclude from this review of the research and the international
achievement testing results?
• Seat time in education school classes does not result in adequate subject
knowledge for the teachers.
• If we desire to improve math achievement, we must provide subject
knowledge training for the existing cadre of teachers. This will need to take
the place of the ubiquitous teaching of more pedagogy processes which are already
 overdone in education schools. Only by teaching subject knowledge can balance be
brought to the teachers’ skill sets.
• Starting with elementary teachers is where the most leverage exists. This
is because if children don’t get a rigorous foundation in elementary grades they are
too far behind to catch up in the middle and high school class work.

1. Create a mind set, especially among the leadership, that to get where we need to go,
every current part of the structure is subject to review, possible elimination, redirection,
etc. That is, assuming the current structure is fine and only incremental
changes are required to make the massive improvements needed is not
realistic. There will be plenty of work for everyone if they are flexible enough and willing
to learn new techniques quickly.
Recommended Action List if you want to go ahead. Immediately—
1. Instill a very high sense of urgency in the district. Reward quick action.
Remember decisions can be modified or rescinded quickly if need be. A fast decision
cycle will benefit performance greatly.
2. Set “eye-popping” improvement goals for achievement. I would suggest at
least aiming for [and meaning it] a reduction in the below proficient for math by one-
half in 3 years or less. Also, aiming for 90% proficient or better in reading in three
years or less. Lastly, the gap must be eliminated. A goal to cut it in half in 3 years is
recommended. It can be done, you just need to believe and act on it. This will require-
3. Replace the “how-to” failed curricula with content rich, knowledge promoting
curricula immediately.
4. Train the leadership (including superintendent and board) to upgrade
management skills to modern as opposed to the currently used 100 year old
command and control techniques. See appended list of Change Leader skills.
5. Restructure management to become nimble and use a much more
participative approach to gain the synergy available.
6. As part of allowing a faster decision cycle use MBO with supe but implement
a QC/QA function to ensure feedback and objective tracking of progress. I
worked in both roles (functional manager and quality manager) at HP and while
sometimes as functional manager I thought the quality function was too unbending it
always facilitated good communication and faster resolution of real problems. As
quality manager a big part of my job was to train line people in early problem
recognition and solution techniques which emphasized fixing the problem for all time,
as opposed to short term band aid fixes that required ongoing resources over and over.
Paul Richardson
Pwrgo2@msn.com
Regression Analysis of a Typical District’s 2008 Reading CSAP Scores –Paul Richardson 0209

Research Question—Is there a significant relationship between student demographics (as

represented by eligibility for free and reduced lunch program or not) and achievement on the
CSAP tests.

Database used—created by extracting data from Excel spreadsheet downloaded from the
Colorado Dept of Education website http://www.cde.state.co.us/, accessed 12/10/2008. The
extraction process involved extracting the data for Colorado Springs School District 11 for
Reading scores for grades 3 through 10. The data given delineates scores for each of three
groups in each grade; those eligible for free lunch, those eligible for reduced cost lunch, and
those not eligible for free or reduced lunch. I combined the free and the reduced into one
category computing the volume weighted average score for those scoring proficient or better on
the reading CSAP. Other untested variables include; percent scoring unsatisfactory, percent
scoring partially proficient, percent scoring proficient and percent scoring advanced. In
preparing the data for the SPSS statistical software package I used 1 for free and reduced lunch
and 2 for no free and reduced lunch. The total number of students in the sample was 16373
giving the resulting analysis good validity.

Regression

Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 lunch, gradea . Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The dependent variable is Percent Proficient or Better

The independent variables are the grade and lunch status; 1 or 2

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .974a .948 .940 3.24954

a. Predictors: (Constant), lunch, grade

The overall correlation for the total model is 0.974 with an R Square of 0.948 showing a very powerful
predictive relationship between the dependent and independent variables
 ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2496.866 2 1248.433 118.228 .000a

Residual 137.274 13 10.560

Total 2634.140 15

a. Predictors: (Constant), lunch, grade

b. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The result is significant at the .001 level.

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 40.727 3.451 11.801 .000

grade -1.403 .355 -.251 -3.958 .002

lunch 24.142 1.625 .941 14.859 .000

a. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The result is a negative Beta of -0.251 for the grade variable significant at the 0.01 level (scores go down as
grade number goes up) and a positive Beta of 0.941 for the lunch variable significant at the 0.001 level (those
who qualify for free and reduced lunch score significantly lower than those who do not).
Graph

1 = students who qualify for free or reduced lunch

2 = students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch

PWR Skill/Knowledge Requirements for Change Leaders

Foundational Management and Motivation Theory and Research

• Organizational problems are people based
• Change: 4 levels; Knowledge, Attitudes, Individual Behavior, Group Behavior
• Leadership definition
• Leadership Process: Plan, Organize, Lead, Control
• Three types of leadership skill: Technical skill, Human Skill, Conceptual skill, GRID
• Effective Human Skills---Understanding past behavior, predicting future behavior,
directing, changing and controlling behavior
• Motivation and Behavior---behavior is goal oriented, motivation is the “will to do”;
motive strength. Strongest motive leads to activity
• Need satisfaction, blocking, cognitive dissonance, frustration (imaginary and real
barriers), rational coping (alternate goal setting), irrational behavior
(aggression/hostility, rationalization, regression, fixation, and resignation). Motives
recur (hunger).
• Expectation levels—Subordinates will perform to their manager’s expectations:
High expectations result in high performance, Low expectations result in low
performance.
• Achievement-motivated people; high need for achievement and seek situations in
which they get concrete feedback on how well they are doing. More concerned
with personal achievement than rewards. Rewards aren’t rejected. For example,
money is valued as a gauge of their performance.
• Theory X and theory Y—McGregor
• Immaturity-maturity continuum
• Leadership responsible to provide a work climate in which everyone has a
chance to grow and mature as individuals, as members of a group by
satisfying their own needs, while working for the success of the
organization.
• Herzberg—motivation and hygiene factors
• Job enrichment

Situational Leadership—Hersey and Blanchard

• Leadership Style Grid
• Machiavelli—Personal Power and Position Power
• Coach Example
• Situational Leadership Model
• Maturity
• Change Process

Implementation of Performance Standards

• Performance needs a yardstick to measure merit.

• A pass/fail or point (goal only) system doesn’t encourage people to subscribe to
“reaching goals.”
• Goals are the other end of the yardstick. Thus merit is measured as the progress
made toward reaching the goal above and beyond the performance specified in
 the performance standard and merit is positive if progress is made even if the
goal isn’t met.
• Performance standards are not set on attributes but on measurable results of the
person for whom the standards are written. For example, “Performance is
acceptable when: the learning assessment scores required to meet the Principal’s
AYPs are met overall and by sub category.” A performance standard is not, for
example, “PAW: 80% of the teachers working in the building are happy with the
principal.”
• Performance standards should include all areas the supervisor might want to
criticize and all of the areas the employee might want credit for doing (more
education, community involvement, etc.)
• Supervisors must not criticize performance for which no standard exists until a
new standard negotiated with the employee is in place. And this only allows
supervisor to criticize performance in the new area in the future. This is
equivalent to the “no ex post facto” law requirement in the U.S. Constitution.
• The employee is responsible to track performance to standards on a real time
basis. Periodic meetings between supervisor and employee are set to track
performance through the evaluation period. It is in the interest of both parties to
take corrective action as soon as an “adverse trend” is recognized.
• Because performance to the standards is tracked all through the year, the
performance review has no surprises and can concentrate on what are the next
steps for the following review period after documenting the current past period.

Managing Management Time

• Conflict between leadership and vocational activities

• Tendency to retreat to the familiar
• When the amateur is confronted with additional responsibility he reacts by
working longer and harder at what he does best and loves to do most; the pro
responds by moving his managerial fulcrum over.
• Leadership is either—getting things done through others, or one damn thing after
another
• Three types of managerial time; boss imposed, system imposed and self imposed.
• Molecule of Leadership
• Three molecule roles: Leadership (them), Teamwork (peers), Followership (boss)
• The amateur believes that the organization owes him the active support of his
superior, peers and subordinates; the pro takes nothing for granted, so works
tirelessly at getting and holding their active support and failing that, makes a
career decision.
• The Pareto Principle—80/20 Rule
• Rules of the road—between your and boss’ plan, boss has right of way
• The boss may not always be right but is always the judge
• The priority of the boss’ satisfaction (sell to the boss).
• Managing Time—Getting control of the timing and content of what you do.
• Degrees of leadership freedom (insurance for boss): Act on own with routine
reporting, Act but advise at once, recommend and then take action resulting from
boss dialogue, ask what to do, wait until told.
• Leverage: employee time, supervisory time, executive time.
• Managing monkeys
Effective Communications

• Psychological Games
• Social styles
• Backup styles
• Opposing strengths and weaknesses
• Versatility
• Diagnosing problem interfaces

Data Gathering and Analysis/Reflection

• Lifeblood of Closed Loop Management, the only way to improve

• Pareto Analysis (vital for continuous improvement efforts)
• Pair wise Comparison Techniques
• Effective data analysis, what do the data tell us?
• Statistical testing for significance
• Reflection . . . the intellectual exercise through which managers and
leaders focus upon events in order to ascertain how one’s beliefs and
assumptions as well as one’s background and experiences impact
organizational functioning.

Sergi
ovanni
 The Infamous Four

They Sound Good But They Don’t Work

Why Johnny Can’t Read

PWR July 2006

E. D. Hirsch Jr. in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit, points out why American education is not
succeeding in educating our kids well and why the achievement gap between minority and low
income students is not responding to the current methods.

Hirsch calls the current situation a “perfect storm” of Bad Educational Ideas. The Four on his list
include:

• Naturalism—“The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as
for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are
fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about
reading comprehension. Their well-intentioned yet mistaken views are the significant
reason (more than other constantly blamed factors, even poverty) that many of our
children are not attaining reading proficiency, thus crippling their later schooling. …[A]
complacent faith in the benefits of nature. …reading is or should be natural.” Other
names that are synonymous are romanticism, transcendentalism, progressive as in John
Dewey. Caused Hirsch to write Cultural Literacy which pointed out that reading
comprehension – literacy itself – depends on specific background knowledge. “The
dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the
educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same
as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a
monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of
American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train
almost all of the teachers and administrators who must carry out the provisions of NCLB, is
the history of intellectual cloning. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent
organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic
principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education
schools. Even today criticism of those fundamental ideas is hard to find in these
institutions.”

• Formalism—“A lot of dead information is to be replaced by all-purpose, how-to knowledge

(formalism). Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a
kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. In
practice the two principles are not always compatible. …the how-to notion of reading
comprehension that stresses clarifying, summarizing, questioning - will inevitably lead to
drill-like activities which will be anathematized by the naturalistic principle that learning
should be an engaging activity. The dominant principles of naturalism and formalism,
being opposed to the systematic teaching of a great deal of information, are deadly
enemies of the reading goals of NCLB. Advances in reading will depend on students
gaining a great deal of information. This conflict of ideas is, then, the root cause of the
impasse between the NCLB law and the schools, for the only way to improve scores in
reading comprehension and to narrow the reading gap between groups is
systematically to provide children with the wide-ranging, specific background
knowledge they need to comprehend what they read.”
 • Determinism—the belief that demographics determine ability to learn. “Determinism is
nonetheless a flawed and dismal theory, which, while conveniently exculpating
the schools, undermines the founding principles of democratic education.”

• Localism--"Along with the terrible trinity of naturalism, formalism, and determinism,

localism deserves a dishonored place in American education. Among the wider public it
may be the most powerful educational idea of all. On the surface it just implies that our
state or our town will decide what should be taught in our schools. It says nothing about
what those things should be, so localism is another content-free idea, and as a
practical matter it powerfully reinforces an approach that is short on content. It
brings liberals and conservatives together to collaborate in support of anti-content,
process oriented ideas about education."

"This suspicion fed collaboration between liberals and conservatives helps explain why the
process point of view has persisted despite its inability to raise achievement or attain
fairness. Educationist, process ideas thrive on the liberal-conservative standoff,
and our schools and school boards operate under a gentleman's agreement that unites
these groups behind the process-oriented creed."

“The failure of romantic [naturalism, progressivism, constructivism, etc] ideas to improve

educational achievement is an inevitable result of their scientific inadequacy and inaccuracy.
Reading is not, as romantics hold, either a natural acquisition or a formal skill. But mere
scientific inadequacy can be a practical irrelevance in American education. Professors,
including those who teach our teachers, do not easily give up their long-asserted ideas, even
under the pressure of unfavorable scientific evidence.” Thus, the professors blame society
because they won’t face the lie they are telling themselves by ignoring the scientific evidence.

“Old people grow blunt; they haven’t time for slow niceties. Let me be blunt about the
implication of the intellectual history I have traced…If its recommendations are followed, reading
scores will rise for all groups of children, and so will scores in math and science, because, as
common sense would predict, reading is strongly correlated with ability to learn in all subjects.
Equally important, social justice will be served, because the reading gap between social groups
will be greatly narrowed by following the …pro-knowledge recommendations.”