Globalization and Change

some would say that the world is now flat, based on the fact that lighting fast communications have created a global economy. Friedman (2005) stated that technology and geo-economics is fundamentally reshaping our lives much more quickly than many people realize (Friedman, 2005). Faster communication means that people on opposite sides of the world can now collaborate in real time. This process of a virtually shrinking world with interconnected economies is referred to as globalization. Globalization was greatly sped up by the internet beginning around the year 2000. Suddenly it was possible for the whole world to be interconnected as countries began to develop the infrastructure to connect to the internet and the World Wide Web (WWW). However the WWW was not the first time globalization occurred. So far it has taken place in three main phases. Globalization 1.0 (1492 to 1800) shrank the world from large to medium via international trade of resources and imperial conquests. Globalization 2.0 (1800 to 2000) shrank the world even more to a small size. This was spearheaded by companies globalizing markets and using international labor. Around 2000, Globalization 3.0 began shrinking the world even more to a tiny sized world that seems to be virtually flat. Globalization 3.0 is different from 1.0 and 2.0 because it uses advanced communication technology to shrink the world and empower individuals. Most of these empowered individuals are diverse and are usually non-Western and nonwhite (Friedman, 2005). Friedman (2005) also writes that it is now possible for more people than ever to collaborate and compete in real time with more people in different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world (Friedman, 2005). And why not? Sauve (2007) stated that time after time it has been proven that a large group of peers is more adept at solving complex problems than a small group of experts (Sauve, 2007). All of this globalization ultimately means there is a greater level of diversity in teams. It is not unusual these days for many people in the United States (US) to have co-workers in other countries. In the US, many businesses that remain based here have also taken a queue from globalization and teamed up employees from difference states. In order to make these diverse teams work, leaders and co-workers must practice inclusion. Inclusion is the practice where everyone is treated and informed equally with no bias based on race or geographical location. Young (2007) wrote that you must create an inclusive environment by changing the organization culture. Young goes on to say that a truly diverse organization has employees that actually have the freedom to stand apart, bring in different ideas and challenge what is entrenched. Above all, these employees bring their passion to their work and build a sustainable future for the business (Young, 2007). Globalization also leads to outsourcing and off-shoring, perhaps the two most obvious examples of major changes that affect almost every large organization (Anderson, 2003). Outsourcing and off-shoring are terms used to describe how jobs and manufacturing are moved outside the US using cheap labor and cheap raw materials. This has led to many job losses in the US. For those in the US that have been displaced, globalization can create personnel issues within an organization. This makes inclusion training for employees even more important. Globalization, diversity and technology advances can lead to challenging issues when creating training programs for today’s organizational teams. One possible answer to this, as posited by Sauve (2007), is where organizations tap into the expertise of the learners themselves by empowering them to teach each other (Sauve, 2007). Instructional design graduate students need to take globalization, diversity and technology advances into consideration when creating training programs. How to develop and present curriculum to a global audience full of diverse technologically savvy means having to be ready for just about anything. Designers should brush up on their diverse team member’s cultural “do’s” and “don’ts”. Instructional designers also need to adapt to new technology and become proficient at it. Additionally designers need to remember that the learner remains at the center of the instructional design process. What the learner needs to know, when, and how are essential in delivering information and instruction in the real world (Anonymous, 2010). Many organizations today also use process improvement based on Six Sigma methodology. This in itself can actually lead to off-shoring and outsourcing. As reported by Chakravorty (2010), Six Sigma aims to remove all processes that don't add value to the final product or service. However, many of the organizations that have implemented Six Sigma have discovered that nearly 60% of all corporate Six Sigma initiatives fail to yield the desire results (Chakravorty, 2010). In this light, not only does the instructional designer have to be aware of globalization, diversity and inclusion, but they also have to deal with a resistant to change culture which has been in "change overload" for some time. Diversity is very important. Learning about the culture of others. Being professional. As instructional designers we would take that into consideration. Diversity brings tolerance. It might help make the world a better place.

The case of Kelsey High School

Change in any organization will be met with resistance and so a good leader will anticipate the resistance and have a solution to combat it (Dr. Bligh).  Resistance is not necessarily, negative as it can force the change agent to question their own beliefs and form a more powerful proposal.   (Gullickson, 2009)This week I looked at the case of Kelsey High School in which the new interim Principal, Rose, tries to make the necessary changes but is faced with resistance (Payne, 2007)

When Rose started at Kelsey High School, some of the major problems at Kelsey High included low test score, teacher vs administration culture, and lack of consistency in disciplining students. After her briefing of the problems at the high school, Rose drew her own conclusions and was excited about embracing the challenge.  She looked at the staff developed strategic plan and came to the decision that all classes should be at the “college preparatory level regardless of student’s post-secondary education plans” (Payne, 2007, 26) Rose’s vision was based on sound research and it was obvious she was very excited about it. However, when she shared this with the staff, and asked them to explore the option, their response was not the same.  She was bombarded with questions and negativity which, in turn, baffled her. She could not understand why the staff would resist “a positive change… a science based practice” (Payne, 2007, 26). In this situation, Rose had made a number of errors. Firstly she created a vision without any input. Secondly she did not anticipate any resistance from the staff and lastly she saw the resistance as negative.  Each of these points needs to be examined separately to understand what Rose could have done differently.

Rose developed a vision for the school, without input from anybody and then expected the staff to embrace her plan. From her debriefing session with the superintendent Rose should have understood, that due to the errors made by her predecessor, the staff would not trust her easily; she would have to build her credibility. The research based idea that, Rose wanted to remodel the curriculum on should not have been announced at a meeting. Instead, she should have focused on the key influencers (Kim, & Mauborgne,  2003) as “ one cannot and should not try to win over everyone (Michelman, 2007, 3) and so she should have focused her efforts where “they’ll have the most impact” (Michelman, 2007, 3).  If she had put the ideas to the department heads and allowed them to explore the idea, she may have had better luck. Although there are many differences between the administration and faculty at Kelsey High, everyone agree with one problem: the low performance of the students on the standardized test. At the meeting, Rose should have started off with this idea and reminded everyone of this common purpose and a common vision (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This would have been a good starting point. Reminding everyone that they are working together for a common goal sets the tone for the meeting. She could have then said that there are a number of ways that student scores could be improved and a college bound curriculum was one of the options that they could look at together.  Making people feel included in the change process helps them understand what is expected of them and how this will affects their role (Beach, 2006)

Rose’s other major problem was that she had not anticipated the resistance she would face from the staff.  Had she been prepared for it, she might have done a better job convincing them of a need for change. With the knowledge of the problems at Kelsey High, Rose should have anticipated that her ideas would cause, at the very least, some resistance. My suggestion to her would have been to play devil’s advocate with her vision. She should have outlined all the negativity people would see in her proposal and should have prepared material to deal with that. In her outline she could have looked at whether resistance would be due to “lack of understanding, different assessments, self-interest, and low tolerance for change” (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2009, 498). Maybe she should have conducted a survey as these “can help scout out pockets of resistance among units. Even anonymous polls gauging attitudes toward change can reveal important trends” (Michelman, 2007, 3).   I also believe that change leaders need to be sympathetic when they communicate the idea of change and that any resistance is “bought up by uncertainty and fear” and so Rose could have started the communication with telling the faculty that the idea she has is something the staff should consider to improve scores and she knew that the teachers were working hard and this new idea would assist them in this area.  Then she could have addressed some of the fears of the teachers and shown them that this was not just to assist students but teachers too.  When the resistance arose, Rose could have given them the opportunity to “express the resistance more authentically” which would have helped to “diffuse tension by allowing it to be expressed and addressed honestly (Anderson, 2010, 166). Since she would have already anticipated some of these and prepared for them, she would have been able to deal with them one at a time and make the staff understand her reasons for the choice. Her lack of anticipation and preparation caused Rose to lose credibility.  As a leader, Rose should have understood and prepared for the DADA syndrome (Hitt, Miller & Collela, 2009). Providing support and being persistent during the stages is also an important aspect of leadership. Rose gave up at the denial stage and so could not persist with her research based idea. Had she allowed the DADA syndrome to take its course and as a leader had she provided the necessary support and persistence, I believe the staff would have eventually accepted the change.

Additionally, Rose viewed the resistance from the staff as negative. I believe that Rose had good understanding of the research based, college bound curriculum, but failed to understand her role as a leader. Otherwise she would have understood that resistance “gave us the opportunity to explore, to reflect, to clarify what truly mattered to us (Gullickson, 2009, 8).  

As a leader, Rose should have begun by exploring the culture of the school, instead of relying on just the superintendent. Exploring the culture before the announcement of the vision would have helped her understand the history and status quo (Beach, 2006) and what forms of resistance would arise because of these.  She should have then reflected on her vision to see if she needed to make any accommodations due to this knowledge or if she needed to focus on “areas that needed attention, situations that may have required further thought, ways to use resources that had been overlooked (Gullickson, 2009, 8).  Rose, on the other hand, found herself becoming “frustrated by others” (Gullickson, 2009, 10).  At this point she should have asked herself if the change she wanted really was something that would work. What were her reasons for wanting this particular type of curriculum or was their another possibility that they could explore? What was it?  If she could not answer these questions herself, then she was not convinced of the change herself and needed to work on herself first. If she was able to answer these questions then should have communicated these to the staff.

Although Rose had some excellent ideas as an educator, her leadership skills needed further development as “recognizing resistance is an important skill, and the ability to work it is an even more important skill” (Anderson, 2010, 164). Rose failed to realize that “there is a lot of distrust between employees and management historically and that can be a huge source of resistance to change” (Dr. Bligh). Rose should have worked with the key influencers to explore ways of increasing student scores. Together they could have come up with a common vision and anticipated the resistance the staff might have felt. They could have outlined the advantages and looked at ways of dealing with the negativities. She should have then announced the common vision at the faculty meeting and allowed people to air their resistances.  She should have allowed the key influencers to address the concerns with her and then allowed those that weren’t convinced to go through the stages of DADA, while providing support and persistently pushing the vision. I believe that had she taken these steps, she may have had better results. 

Anderson, D. L. (2010). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Beach, L. R. (2006). Leadership and the art of change: a practical guide to organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.) by Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. Copyright 2008 by John Wiley & Sons Inc

Organizational Behavior: A Strategic Approach (2nd ed.) by Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. Copyright 2009 by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Gullickson, B. R. (2009). Working with resistance. Strategic Finance. 90(8), 8–10. 

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60–69. 

 Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming resistance to change. Harvard Management Update, 12(7), 3–4. 

Payne, H. J. (2007). Hard times at Kelsey high: Issues of change, climate, and culture. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 13(5), 25–29. 

 “Resistance to Change” Dr. Bligh

Organizational Change- The Change Process

People fear change. Human beings are accustomed to working in patterns and following schedules. When a change occurs it upsets the natural balance of things and this is what most causes conflict.  However, there are people who thrive on change and see it as an opportunity. These are people who understand that change is necessary for the survival of an organization. A good leader deals with these two conflicting views and presents the change as an opportunity and focuses on the positive. Dr. Blair outlines, in “Leading change in organizations”, three stages to change: the beginning stage, the implementation stage and the after period of the change.  The leader’s role is to ensure that the change is for the better and is a lasting change, while reassuring members that it is for the good of the organization.

In the beginning stage there needs to be, an assessment, a reason for change. During this period the organization will look at the positive and negative aspects of itself and so members may appear defensive. Many people do not like to look at the negative aspect and so might resist change from the beginning. The leader has to have knowledge of the internal and external environment (Beach, 2006) A good leader’s role includes the “ability to convince their members of the organizations to follow them on the paths on this fund of knowledge” (Beach, 2006, 3). She must have a good relationship with the members to convince them of the change.  Dr. Bligh says, in the video program “Organizational Change”, that the leader must have a good understanding of the culture of the organization and the status quo before implementing any change.  The leader must gather information and present it in such a form that members can see the threat to the organization and also the potential opportunities. If members do not trust the leader, and see the change as negative, there will be resistance. The nature of the change will also affect people’s reaction. For example, if the company has to downsize, then there will be strong resistance to that. Providing strong knowledge from internal and external assessments and reaffirming the vision to the unit leaders may help with this.  Recently our school made lesson plans mandatory. Every teacher was told that lesson plans for the week had to posted, on our common drive for principles to see, on the Wednesday of the week before. The new Assistant Principle of Instruction had made that decision. She did not initially state the reason behind it. This caused much stress amongst teachers as each team had already been submitting a quarterly plan. They saw this as an additional burden. Although there was not open resistance to the change, there was plenty behind closed doors. A few weeks later, at a faculty meeting, the API explained that our school wanted to move from recognized status to exemplary. She explained that research showed, that detailed planning led to better results and it was a way for leaders to monitor consistency amongst teams and departments. After the meeting some people were convinced, but others thought this would not be a long lasting change, that the principle, API and the APs would eventually stop checking.

The second stage of the change is the implementation of the change. Even though the leader might have convinced members of a need for change, the danger is not over. The members must be convinced that the organization can change successfully (Miller & Colella, 2009) that the change is beneficial and lasting. If leaders fail to do this at this stage then members will not be committed to the change. To help them with this, leaders will have to provide “a compelling vision of the future (Miller & Colella, 2009, 494). A good support system needs to be in place for those that are unsure. Highlighting “quick and highly visible successes can be helpful in supporting this stage of the change process” (Miller & Colella, 2009, 494).   If members are shown the benefits of change, i.e. pay raise, they maybe more susceptible to it (Mcallaster, 2004).  Leaders and members should understand that mistakes will be made and that there needs to be a strategy and process in place for this. The organization will learn whether changes are effective, and they may have to make changes to the original plan (Mcallaster, 2004). Sometimes in this stage a reassessment might be necessary. If management and leaders can continue to support the members and reassure them that success and failure are part of the implementation, they maybe more committed. Leaders may have to keep penalties at a minimum as a way of reassurance.  In this stage communication is vital (Mcallaster, 2004). Members need to feel secure and should feel that leaders and management are not hiding anything. If there are is no communication, then members will rely on hearsay which could give conflicting information. This could mean that “moral takes a nosedive” (Mcallaster, 2004, 322).  This can illustrated further with my example of the lesson plans. Once teachers started to post their plans online, they were given feedback on the quality of the plans and whether teams were aligned within the department. This communication helped to reinforce the idea that the lesson plans were all about moving towards exemplary status and not simply a time filler. The teachers also let the principle know that Wednesday was too early and that some teachers like to wait till Friday to create lesson plans for the following week. This was taken into account and teachers were given permission to submit plans on Friday.

The final stage of the process is to ensure that change is permanent.   This is the most volatile stage of the process of change. In this stage members must see leaders and management is firm in the change and remains consistent (Mcallaster, 2004, 322). Members will look at leaders and management to see if they still believe in the change or if it is “just another fad they can wait out” (Mcallaster, 2004, 322). If they to want sustain their credibility, and then they must persist with the change. This provides reassurance to the members that the change is for the better of the organization, especially when it has changed or modified the culture. Members need to know and understand that it was required and worth it. Again leaders will have to appease the naysayers and may have to “create minor levels of guilt/ anxiety about not changing (Miller & Colella, 2009, 493).  They will have to put in an accountability and evaluation system in place to assure members that the change is long lasting. If members see this, then they will view this as a long lasting change and so will know that they must continue with the change.   Some months after the implementation of the lesson plans, some teachers stopped posting them. These teachers were contacted by the principles and reminded of our goal of exemplary status. A school wide announcement was made that lesson plans would be part of teacher evaluations.

A good leader is active during the process of change and one of their most important duties is to ensure that members see change as positive, even though there may be some negative aspects. For example, if a company has to downsize and fire people, leaders need to assure members that this is a necessary step for the continuation and survival or the organization (Beach, 2006).  People may react negatively to change; they might be stressed and this may manifest itself in poor quality of work or lack of commitment. Good leaders combat this by presenting: a strong vision, threats and opportunities discovered during external and internal assessments, and specifying the necessity for change (Beach, 2006).  After almost seven months of creating and posting lesson plans, many teachers have seen the value of them. It has given each department chair an idea of what each team is doing and what changes need to be made to the curriculum so that each grade level is aligned and how it can reach exemplary status.

Organizational Behavior: A Strategic Approach (2nd ed.) by Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. Copyright 2009 by John Wiley & Sons

McAllaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P’s of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics. 33(3), 318–328. 

Beach, L. R. (2006). Leadership and the art of change:  a practical guide to organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Video Program: “Leading Change in Organizations” Dr. Nancy Blair

Video Program: “Organizational Change” Dr. Michelle Bligh

Organizational Change

Leadership is multi-faceted. As the video program “The Many Hats of Leaders” shows, a leader has to fulfill many roles. In my ten years as a teacher, I have encountered many different types of leadership, some extremely effective and some not so much. In ‘Reframing Leadership’ Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss various types of leaderships such as political, symbolic, human resources and a few others. I believe that a good leader possess a combination of those skills, although their leadership may lean towards any one of them. Unfortunately, every organization has a Wayne (Beach, 2006, xi) that assumes that being a manager is the same as being a leader.

One of the best leaders I encountered was an Assistant Principle of Instruction (API). She was the epitome of leadership. She made it a point to introduce herself to new staff members, spent time with teachers at lunch time, consistently praised people and knew how to approach people if they were not fulfilling their roles.  She went beyond her job description to help people as she discussed health issues with people and recommended doctors. Her motto was that a “happy and healthy staff is a successful staff.”  Anytime she introduced any new changes, she always discussed the big picture and “saw the need to cultivate understanding and acceptance of major decisions” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 360). People such as this API do not struggle to make changes in any organization. However, no matter how good a leader is with her team, she must also have “the skill in managing relationships with all stake holders, including superiors ( Bolman & Deal,  2008, 348) Although our API was apt at dealing with conflict between people, she was unable to deal with conflict between herself and higher management and this led to her taking a job in another organization. I think had she been able to resolve this conflict our school would have continued to benefit from her leadership.

Leaders do not always have to be people of position (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Leaders are people who take initiative and work for the greater good of the organization. They are people who become leaders because a situation requires it. Two years ago, a teacher suddenly left our school, in the middle of the school year, without any notice. With just a few weeks left to the state test, her students were left in the lurch.  Different substitute teachers were placed with the students. These substitutes had little understanding of the state TAKS and so were unable to assist the students. The school district has a lengthy process for hiring teachers and so the students were left to the mercy of untrained substitutes.  During that time, one of the teachers decided that she would take the extra students herself. She placed the needs of the students first and instead of teaching thirty five students each period, she started teaching seventy. When the other teacher’s in the team saw this, they were inspired by her and wanted to help. The students were then divided between three teachers. Each one of those teachers did this without any incentive; they simply put the needs of the students first; “Authentic leaders put the interests of their organizations before their own” (Beach, 2006, xvii).  Like the case of Giulliani,  (Bolman & Deal, 2008). True leadership is highlighted in the times of crises.

            True leaders also see themselves as team members. A good example of this is the specialist of our English department, who always maintains that a department can only be successful if everyone works as a team. Even when she held the position as head of the English department, she held true to the belief that Together Everyone Achieves More (TEAM). To an outsider this may seem a childlike idea but it became an important part of the culture of our department and continues to bind the members. The secret to her success is her belief in “horizontal leadership” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 361) in which there are no hierarchies and an innate culture of trust. Due to this she is able to bring changes into the department without resistance from the teachers.

            In many organizations, the belief is that leadership is synonymous with position. I think this is the cause of resistance during the process of change. When new managers take up their positions they think “that the only way to lead is to be tough, make massive changes, and force recalcitrant subordinates to do things a new way” (Beach, 2006, xvi). They forget that first they must earn the trust of their subordinates by proving that they understand the culture of the organization and that they too work for the success and survival of the organization.

            The examples I have used to illustrate my idea of leadership are all from a school point of view. It would be interesting to see if this idea transpires in other organization too.

The many hats of leaders. Laureate Education Inc

Bolman, L. G. & Deal T.E., (2008). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (4th Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc

 Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60–69. 

Organizational Change - culture of an organization -

An organization can have many factors that contribute to its inherent culture. However, every organization has the idea of success at its core and is the very reason of its existence.  In an idealistic world this would translate into every member of the organization working equally hard to contribute to its success.  An organization’s past is very important in influencing its present and shaping its future. I believe how an organization, especially its leaders, uses the lessons from its past determines its degree of success. Although there are many factors that contribute to the success of an organization, I would like to discuss the idea of symbolic artifacts, stories from organization’s past and leadership and would like to present some of my personal observations.

When any organization recruits new people, they are told to delve into its history.  They will be told to look at the founder of the establishment or understand the reasoning behind naming a building after someone, or read and listen to the stories of its heroes and heroines. They might even be asked to understand certain rituals and ceremonies associated with them (Bolman).  New recruits are told to understand ways that have been tried and tested, and have contributed to the overall success of the organization. The purpose of this tradition, according to Bolman, is to bring uniformity, motivate for success and understand the deep rooted traditions of the establishment. Many times new recruits may not understand the symbols and it may take grounding into the establishment before this happens. (Beach)  When I was hired for employment at my school, I was given a similar talk and introduced to our school mascot: the fighting bear.  Coming from an education system that did not employ this idea, I failed to grasp the symbolism.  I, however, eventually came to understand that the founder of the school had ensured the survival of the school through some tough times, hence the mascot. The story of the founder and the symbol of the mascot serve multiple purposes. For the students, it is a reminder that even during hard times, one must persevere. For the faculty it is a reminder that the school survived through tough times and it is the duty of everyone to ensure its continuous survival and success.  This symbol binds the members of the organization.  Sometimes symbols of the past are important to motivate people to continue contributing to the success of the organization.

Sometimes leaders who do not value the input of all the members of the organization, or who rely too heavily on the success stories of the past, can become a hindrance to success. The unfortunate cases of Columbia and Challenger at NASA are a testimony to this.  While Bolman & Deal and also Beach agree that stories of the past are an intrinsic part of the culture of an organization, Hall’s observations clearly show how this can be dangerous.  When an organization becomes path dependent (Hall), it opens itself to errors. NASAs management relied too much on the success of its previous explorations and did not take into account deviants which could alter due to external factors. The top management believed it knew best and so did not take into account the concerns of the engineers.  Similarly when No Child Left Behind was introduced, many educators and legislators felt the act was flawed (Mier,  Kohn, Hammond, Sizer and Wood 2004, Many Children Left Behind) Like the upper level management  at NASA, the creators of NCLB based their standards on the success of previous small scale research. The application of those standards to a wider field (every state,) and without the input of people in the frontline (the teachers), proved to be disastrous in many cases. Schools that had Limited English Proficient students felt this variable had not been taken into account when the standards were set. And so when the state measured school for Adequate Yearly Progress, it seemed some schools had failed in their ‘mission’.  Just as the top managers at NASA had failed to listen to its engineers, many felt congress had failed to listen to its teachers. The result, in both cases, failed missions and disgruntled workers.  It can be concluded then that if any organization wants to be successful then its leadership needs to honor its past but listen to the concerns of the members of the organization for maximum success.

If the past can serve to be inspirational but also be the cause of hindrance, is it possible to find a middle ground? My belief is that it is absolutely necessary for the continued success of the organization.  Take the case of BMW (Bolman and Deal) and how the company learnt from its past mistakes to improve its future. The leaders in the company valued the contribution of all its members and so were able to yield successful results. The organizations past must help in creating its future and so this may mean making new and diverse changes.  This is the basis of American Society. Wasn’t it deemed necessary to make changes to the constitution through the amendments to ensure the success of the American people? What would American society look like today had it continued with the ways of the Founding Fathers? If all the members in an organization feel valued, shouldn’t changing the culture be easier?  Had the leaders at NASA listened to the engineers could the disasters of Columbia and Challenger have been prevented? Had congress listened to educators would NCLB have created so much controversy?  These are questions that warrant further study.

 Mier  D,  Kohn  A, Hammond L, Sizer T and Wood  G 2004, Many Children Left Behind.  (2004 )Massachusetts , Beacon Press