A Bounded Decision

Erin Peters

George Mason University

EDUC 802 Leadership Seminar

Dr. S. David Brazer

October 12, 2004


For several years, Arlington County Public Schools has tried to find ways to support its three county-wide goals:  to improve student achievement, to reduce the achievement gap between African American students and white students, and to reduce the achievement gap between Hispanic students and white students.  Arlington County Public Schools’ senior staff, a group including the superintendent and the leaders in each administrative department, evaluates schools’ progress toward these goals by monitoring the Virginia Standards of Learning Assessment scores.  Over four years, the senior staff noticed that the reading scores on the Grade 8 test were not improving at the same rate as the other content tests.  When the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act became active, four of the six middle schools in Arlington County were not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading.  The senior staff proposed three new positions for reading teachers at all middle schools in Arlington and the budget was approved by the school board.  The decision made by the senior staff of Arlington County to add three new reading teacher positions Watch out for repetitive words or phrases. to each of the middle schools was limited by time and the information available to the senior staff, causing them to choose only an adequate solution which resulted in shortened instructional time for all 6th grade courses, unnecessary program changes for some of the middle schools, and communication problems among teachers. You have a fine introduction and a clear thesis. I think the thesis would help you more if it contained the concepts related to BR that you intend to use.

               The reading scores in Arlington County Schools have been leveling off for several years, but the implementation of the No Child Left Behind law forced the senior staff to take action immediately to remedy this problem.  Consequently, the senior staff had limited time in which to make the decision. I wonder if this limitation was self-imposed and a bit phony. If the problem had already existed for a while, then it makes more sense to give it careful consideration rather than rush into something. Easy for me to say,  I know.  The test results from the 2002-2003 school year was were the baseline measurement from which Adequate Yearly Progress  was measured by the No Child Left Behind law.  When four of the six middle schools in Arlington did not make AYP in the school year 2003-2004, the senior staff was required to make a decision quickly Presumably, they already knew there was a problem before the 03 – 04 scores came out. Seems like an attention problem contributing to BR. so that the solution could be implemented in the 2004-2005 school year.  The county was notified in April that four middle schools did not make AYP due to a lack of improvement in reading scores, so the senior staff had only two months to take action in order for teachers to implement the plan over the summer months. The senior staff’s decision to add three reading teachers was restricted in one aspect by time. The decision itself wasn’t restricted by time, but the decision making process was.

               The solution chosen by the senior staff was not based on current educational research but rather on the personal experiences of the senior staff members.  The senior staff brought their personal beliefs and experiences to the table, and in doing so failed to inform themselves of a variety of possible solutions.  By attempting to view the problem only through the perspective of the members of the senior staff, they oversimplified the problem. A & Z apply here.  The members of the senior staff each drew from their repertoire of rules established by their experience, but did not turn to outside sources for information.  In order to make decisions and take action quickly, people utilize their habits of mind to permit for appropriate retrieval retrieve an appropriate of a possible solution.   The habits of mind the senior staff had available were limited by their familiarity with Arlington County Public Schools.  Additional possible solutions could have been generated if the senior staff had referred to current educational research instead of their own limited experience. Is this behavior part of an organizational output or rotines or SOPs in some way?   The information regarding the possible causes of the leveling off of the reading scores was gathered exclusively from a brainstorming session which limited the information available to the senior staff.  Routines seem entrenched. Why not at least talk with teachers?

            The senior staff examined the composite scores of Arlington County but failed to analyze the scores of each individual middle school before making their decision.  As a consequence, the senior staff limited the amount of information used to select a solution. According to Herbert Simon, humans have a limited cognitive capacity and will reduce the size of a problem in order to shape it to the resources that are at hand.  The problem identified by the senior staff was that the reading scores of middle school children in Arlington were not increasing.  A closer look at the problem would have revealed that the two schools had increased reading scores by 20% over the two years. Wow! The senior staff limited the information because they replaced the actual problem with a simplified version of the problem. Yes, great point. Excellent application of Simon.

               Since humans cannot possibly conceptualize the number of solutions to a problem and choose the best one, humans choose the first solution that is adequate.  In this way, humans find a way to reach a reasonable decision, a term Simon calls satisficing.  The senior staff of Arlington discussed many of the possible choices of solutions and settled on installing a highly qualified reading teacher for each team of students in the sixth grade. The senior staff members categorized ideas by how well they thought the ideas would work and chose the mostan adequate solution.  Several members of the senior staff had experiences where highly qualified reading teachers improved the reading strategies of students.   Their decision was not based on research, but on the residual concept that if qualified reading teachers were placed in the program, reading could be improved.  The staff placed the reading teachers at the 6th grade because the scheduling of the 6th grade core classes could accommodate an extra period for reading instruction. A classic rationale.  Since all conditions of the problem were met, the senior staff was satisfied that they had made a reasonable decision. 

            The changes required for implementation of the new reading initiative had several negative unintended consequences.  One of the more influential changes included shortening the core subject time from 51 minutes per period to 43 minutes per period to accommodate an additional period for reading.  The English teachers had been informed of the impending changes, but due to the somewhat departmentalized nature of middle school, none of the teachers from the other core areas, science, math, or social studies were informed in a timely manner.  The science, math, and social studies teachers found out about the schedule changes only three months before the school year and were required to alter their curriculum in order to fit their delivered instruction into 43 minutes. One of the unintended consequences of the senior staff’s decision was that the science, math, and social studies curricula were truncated, and a portion of the time given to for all subject matter instruction was eliminated.  Routines seem important here, too. The routines of the other subject teachers were rendered obsolete with no alternative offered, apparently.

                Another unintended consequence of the senior staff’s decision to add reading teachers was the unnecessary changes to the curriculum for the two schools in the county that had high reading scores.   Of the six middle schools in Arlington County, two of the schools had 90% or more of their students at the passing level and did not require any intervention.  In the four schools that had low reading scores, the reading teachers were welcomed and the staff considered the changes made to the schedule necessary.  The staff at the remaining two schools felt believed that they were already accomplishing the task of preparing students for high achievement in reading and considered the addition of reading teachers unnecessary to their programs. Yup, I would agree. As a parent it would make me mad, too.  All English teachers across the county were instructed by the administration to give the reading activities to the reading teachers.  Since the English teachers at the high achieving schools had previously incorporated reading in their curriculum, they were left with a void in their sequence of lessons. In an effort to remain consistent across the county, Why is this important? the senior staff made a decision that caused two of the schools in Arlington County to make unnecessary changes to their curriculum.

               In the rush to make a decision, the senior staff created another unintended consequence, the lack of a scope and sequence for the reading curriculum.   Due to the need for a rapid response by the faculty in order to implement the decision, there was not time for teachers to construct a detailed reading curriculum. Michael Fullan discusses the downfalls of hasty decisions in his book, Leading in a Culture of Change.  He states that in cases where the problem is complicated, then decisions that come from rapid decision making do not suit the problem. In this case, the decision was made in the spring and the teachers only had four months to develop a scope and sequence, given that the teachers were hired immediately.  Teachers were given time over the summer to develop curriculum, but the product was hastily constructed and delivered to the reading teachers several days before classes were scheduled to begin. Each reading teacher was given a loose structure of reading strategies, but no set scope or sequence.  The decision to have additional reading teachers by the 2004-2005 school year may have been well-intended, but the senior staff did not consider the schedule of implementation in their planning process. Do you know yet about consequences for the quality of reading instructions?

               The combination of shortened instructional time, the implementation of unnecessary programs and the condensed timing of the development of the program caused communication problems among the teachers.  The reduction of eight minutes of class each day caused the teachers to be territorial about their class instruction time.  Teachers on teams no longer were cooperative about giving extra time to other core subjects for special projects.  Collegiality was no longer the dominant attitude among the 6th grade teachers.  They adopted a competitive nature, and carefully protected their class time by not allowing any interruptions to the class.    The teachers at the low achieving schools felt that the extended exposure to reading class was beneficial, but the teachers at the high achieving schools felt that their system was working.  This caused animosity between the English teachers and the reading teachers at the high achieving schools and eliminated any future knowledge sharing or relationship building that may have occurred.  The reading curriculum was so loosely defined, that the administration required the English teachers to give their reading activities to the reading teachers. That’s weird. Seems as though English teachers would think, “Why do we need these folks if I’m giving them curriculum?”  Previously, English teachers used novels to teach vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension.  As they were required to give the novels to the reading teachers, they had no baseline text from which to teach.  . (If you’re interested, I think we had a model at my high school that would fit here and solve the problem of the novels being taken away from English teachers.)  The mandate from the administration that English teachers were to give their reading materials to the teachers caused an animosity toward the reading teachers that evolved from the system, not from individual interactions.  The senior staff’s decision required the teachers at the 6th grade level to condense their instructional time and to change their curriculum caused communication problems among the staff.

               The senior staff’s decision to add three reading teachers to the 6th grade program was limited by time because they were informed of a deficiency in AYP in the spring, and needed to take action to implement a program for the following school year.  Their decision was limited by information since the senior staff decided to brainstorm using only their previous experience rather than be informed by educational research outside of their restricted community.  From the list of possible solutions, the members chose the most familiar solution, not necessarily the best solution.  Had the senior staff defined the problem with more detail, they may have been able to choose a solution that was more than adequate.  The problem could have been defined according to the needs of each school, rather than defined as an Arlington County problem and the implementation of unnecessary programs could have been eliminated. 

               In the Rational Actor Model of decision making, the group making the decision must be informed of the goals, consider the possible inputs to reach the goal and analyze the possible outcomes in order to choose the maximum possible output for the decision.  Perhaps the senior staff did not consider all of the possible logistic or interpersonal complications that could arise by adding staff to an already full curricular program. Ok, but don’t forget that Simon and A & Z agree that they would be incapable of doing so.  If they had defined the problem more clearly in the beginning, then their list of possible solutions would have been different.  Having defined the problem more accurately, the possible solutions to the problem could have attempted to incorporate the complications of serving a diverse population across the county and eliminated barriers to communication between the reading and English teachers.   The senior staff understood their goal was to raise the reading SOL scores, and that one possible input to increase the chances of reaching the goal as the addition of reading teachers, but they did not fully consider the consequences of their actions.

You’ve done a very good job with this paper, Erin. Your writing is clear, analytical, and persuasive. You use Simon and Model I appropriately, but I think you could have done more with concepts from the readings. Of particular note is the applicability of Model II, specifically routines and SOPs. I suspect there was something of an Arlington way of doing business that was a handicap in this situation. You seemed to get somewhat caught up in the factual detailswhat happened—and lost sight a bit of possible analytical tools. These comments are intended as polishing tools, not an indictment of your paper. It is quite strong.

 

Thesis: 6  Developing Arguments: 5 (left out one or two important ones) Conclusions: 6  Grammar & Mechanics: 2               Total = 19