Normandy Crossing Elementary School According to Pryor,

Normandy Crossing Elementary School

According to Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, & Humphreys (2007), there are 5P's of strategy implementation. The formation of strategy has long been studied, but the implementation of that strategy has not been as clearly addressed. Most of the planning that companies do on a strategic level is wasted because they invest a significant number of resources into the implementation of the strategy only to have it not work correctly. More of an integrative approach needs to be utilized in order to ensure that strategic planning is not wasted and information that the company works to create is acceptable for the type of plan the company wishes to implement (Pryor, et al., 2007). The 5P's model created and addressed here is universal, and can be used as a comprehensive representation of the effective implementation of any kind of strategy, which is why there is so much value to using it for all different types of companies and business situations.

As for the strategic implementation of the plan created by Normandy Crossing Elementary School, it was flawed from the start. In order to have a solid plan for the growth of the test scores and achievement of a student body, a school must focus on ensuring that the students are learning all they need to know in order to be successful in life. If the students are doing poorly, giving them the answers in any form or fashion will not allow them to see continued success (Simon, 2010). Instead, they will simply be "taught for the test" will not have really learned the material. Many schools are accused of teaching for the test because they spend so much time getting their children ready for standardized testing, but there is a vast difference between focusing on the subjects that are on the test and focusing on actually acquiring a look at the test so the "study guide" can essentially provide the students with the answers that they will need to do well on the test.

The first option is a focused, integrated effort to have the students perform well on a test. The second option is clearly cheating. When this was discovered, Normandy Crossing Elementary School, part of Galena Park ISD, ended up in serious trouble (Simon, 2010). The bonuses and good standing that everyone was expecting from the school were stripped away, and that put a serious "black mark" on the school's record. The ISD in which the school is located was seriously reprimanded, as well, and ended up struggling to get its good standing back. The ISD was deeply ashamed of what the school had done, and other schools in that ISD were then looked upon with suspicion, as well. That led to concern over other schools and other ISDs, because where one school had figured out something of that nature to do, other schools could certainly figure out the same types of things. It was a situation that was not winnable by any schools or districts at that point in time.

Of course, what went wrong is the obvious question. The answer is up for interpretation, but could easily be the result of too much pressure for the school to perform well (Galena, 2012; Normandy, 2012). The implementation of the strategy of cheating had a specific purpose: so the students could be given a "study guide" that would, essentially, give them the answers to the test. By providing them with that type of guide, they scored much higher than they would have otherwise. Essentially, they knew all the answers to the test questions from the study materials they had been given (Simon, 2010). The students were unsuspecting, and trusted their teachers to give them an appropriate study guide. There was so much pressure on the teachers (and so many chances at good bonuses, as well), that many of the teachers simply caved in to the pressure and decided that they were going to use deceptive tactics in order for their students to get high marks on the test. The purpose was to have a good showing, but also to get bonuses and perks that came from their students getting those high marks.

In order to fix or prevent this kind of issue in the future, there are two things that can be done. First, there is no reason that the teachers or anyone at the schools should have any access to the materials in time to make up a study guide for their students. If the students have been properly taught throughout the year, they will be able to do well on the test. No access to the information means no temptation to cheat and no serious problems like what took place at Normandy Crossing Elementary School. Additionally, the pressure that is put upon teachers to perform and to have their students perform at certain levels is very serious today. It is more than it needs to be, and with that in mind it is very important to make sure that teachers are not pressured so excessively that they feel the need to cheat in order to be accepted or in order to be rewarded properly for their work. Not all teachers feel that level of pressure but the Normandy Crossing Elementary School incident indicates that teachers are struggling with what they are asked to do for their students.

The goals and mission/vision of the school and the ISD is like any other school and district - to help students succeed and make them good, strong members of the community (Galena, 2012; Normandy, 2012). That was what was planned, but it did not work out that way when the teachers decided that they were going to provide the students with the answers in order to get higher scores for the school and bonuses for themselves. The goals of the school and the ISD are good ones and do not need to be changed. They simply need to be honored and used correctly and appropriately instead of ignored or only used when they are convenient for the teachers and district. The interests of the students should always come first, and it appeared that those interests were placed on the back burner in an effort to see the school "do well" and see the teachers receive a higher level of compensation. Had that been earned, there would have been no problem at all with it. It was the way in which it was "earned" that was at issue.

The 5P's model was not handled appropriately by Normandy Crossing Elementary School, because the purpose of the way the issue was handled was to cheat, which was dishonest from the beginning. The purpose should have been to provide students with adequate learning, and then there would have been no need for cheating. Principles were compromised and processes were adjusted by people who knew better and knew that what they were doing was wrong, all to get a measure of performance that made everyone look better than they actually were and provided perks and recognition that were completely undeserved. In short, it was wrong and flawed from the start, which was a significant issue to address and consider where the 5P's are concerned. Pressure to succeed was put before principles and even processes, and when a person or group of people starts to put pressure to achieve a particular thing before the correct way to achieve that thing, it can quickly become a messy issue where there is little that can be done to stop the snowball effect (Pryor, et al., 2007).