In This Issue:

  1. Understanding the fundamental attribution error

  2. How leaders can build trust

  3. A study of teacher merit pay in Houston

  4. Two case studies of data-driven improvement

  5. An elementary school improves student attendance

  6. A richer and deeper view of student success

  7. Demo lessons: some suggestions

  8. Ten common budget planning mistakes

  9. Questions to ask before spending money on new technology

10. A California teacher on effective use of online resources

11. Why a boss’s feedback might be ignored

12. Short item: Economics demystified

 

Quotes of the Week

“Humans instinctively judge other humans; it’s a survival trait… Essentially, we’re hardwired to overemphasize people’s internal characteristics and minimize the impact of the system or situation at hand.”

            Kristen Swanson, Gayle Allen, and Rob Mancabelli (see item #1)

 

“When we honor people’s work and assume positive intent, innovative solutions follow.”

            Kristen Swanson, Gayle Allen, and Rob Mancabelli (ibid.)

 

“The real magic lies not in the technology itself, but in school communities developing a deeper sense of purpose and clarity about what matters most and (only) then applying technology to help students succeed.”

            Bryan Goodwin in “Why Use Technology? No, Really… Why?” in Changing Schools,

Fall 2015 (Vol. 74, p. 10-11); Goodwin is at [email protected].

 

“Because data analysis is so effective in addressing the mastery of discrete skills, the process tends to see everything as a discrete skill. It assumes that learning is a linear process, skill by skill, bit by bit, starting in kindergarten at A and ending with a PhD at Z.”

            Steven Levy (see item #6)

 

“Assessment isn’t something done ‘to’ students, but something they use to improve and demonstrate their own performance.”

            Steven Levy (ibid.)

 

 

 

 

 

1. Understanding the Fundamental Attribution Error

(Originally titled “Eliminating the Blame Game”)

            “Humans instinctively judge other humans,” say Kristen Swanson, Gayle Allen, and Rob Mancabelli (The Research Institute at Bright-Bytes) in this article in Educational Leadership; “it’s a survival trait.” Researchers in the 1960s identified and named the fundamental attribution error – a strong tendency to fault people, not systems. For example, when another driver cuts in front of us or goes through a red light, we immediately conclude the person is rude and reckless – even though there could be a medical emergency, or perhaps the person’s car is malfunctioning. “But it’s unlikely that our first instinct would be to consider these possibilities,” say the authors. “You’d assume the person is the problem… Essentially, we’re hardwired to overemphasize people’s internal characteristics and minimize the impact of the system or situation at hand.”

            Our tendencies when driving in traffic can also surface when looking at student achievement data. “In an effort to act swiftly and decisively, we focus on what people are doing wrong,” say Swanson, Allen, and Mancabelli – the blame game. They have three suggestions to counteract this habit:

• Teach colleagues about the fundamental attribution error. Help them catch themselves before they jump to conclusions and blame students or colleagues when other factors are at work. “Combating biases around data begins with awareness,” say the authors. “When we simply make colleagues aware of these underlying human tendencies, they become more likely to catch themselves engaging in ineffective, judgmental behavior.”

• Search for root causes. One well-known strategy is to ask Why? at least five times.

• Maintain a formative outlook. “Celebrating improvement and growth, not just success, helps everyone maintain momentum,” say Swanson, Allen, and Mancabelli. “When we honor people’s work and assume positive intent, innovative solutions follow.” This goes for the vocabulary we use when talking about data – for example, not there yet, beginning, emerging.

 

“Eliminating the Blame Game” by Kristen Swanson, Gayle Allen, and Rob Mancabelli in Educational Leadership, November 2015 (Vol. 73, #3, p. 68-71), http://bit.ly/1O05d3h; the authors can be reached at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Back to page one

 

2. How Leaders Can Build Trust

            In this Wharton Leadership Nano Tools paper, Adam Galinsky (Columbia Business

School) and Maurice Schweitzer (Wharton School) say there are two misconceptions about

winning trust:

-   It’s a long, slow process.

-   As long as leaders are trustworthy, people will naturally trust them.

Not true, say Galinsky and Schweitzer: “New research shows that building trust doesn’t have to take years, and even the most trustworthy people don’t automatically win trust – especially from people they work with – no matter how much time is involved… In an age where it’s all too easy to get lured into a sense of false intimacy created through social media and e-mail, real trust can be a rare commodity.”

Leaders who inspire the most trust exhibit two distinct traits: warmth and competence. “We trust warm people, because we believe they care about us,” say the authors, “and we trust competent people because they are credible, effective, and efficient.” Some specific suggestions:

            • Show genuine concern – Effective leaders project caring through a mixture of verbal and non-verbal cues with colleagues: walking around the workplace, having face-to-face talks, handshakes, eye contact, a pat on the back, asking about colleagues’ personal lives (loved ones, children, and vacation plans), remembering birthdays, sending flowers and a handwritten note to a team member who has experienced a loss. One CEO wrote letters to the parents of exceptional employees telling them what wonderful people their children were. Of course, genuinely listening to people’s responses is essential; without that, expressions of interest and concern come across as phony.

• Show competence – Convincingly projecting competence comes through effective actions, credentials, “talking the talk” (knowledgeably using professional language), and, ironically, admitting mistakes and conveying vulnerability – showing you’re only human and are still learning.

 

“Building Trust: A Leader’s Action Plan” by Adam Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer in Nano Tools: Wharton Leadership, October 29, 2015,

http://wlp.wharton.upenn.edu/nano-tools/nano-tool-2/

Back to page one

 

3. A Study of Teacher Merit Pay in Houston

            In this Education Gadfly review, Damien Schuster examines a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper on ASPIRE, Houston ISD’s recent experiment with merit pay (Accelerating Student Progress, Increasing Results and Expectations). The program gave bonuses to grade 3-8 teachers whose students made the greatest value-added gains – $3,870 if VAM scores topped the 50^th percentile, $7,700 if scores were above the 75^th percentile. The researchers hypothesized that teachers who were close to the higher merit pay threshold would have a stronger incentive to improve than those with lower VAM scores. However, there was virtually no difference in second-year student gains between teachers closer to and more distant from the 75 percentile mark.

            Why didn’t the lure of almost $4,000 in additional pay spur teachers to do even better? The researchers looked at several possible explanations:

-   Teachers were already “giving it their all” and couldn’t do more.

-   Teachers lacked the necessary tools and knowledge to boost achievement higher.

-   There is too much variation in value-added estimates, which fluctuate widely from year to year, to give teachers specific information on how to improve instruction.

The researchers concluded that the third was the most likely explanation.

“From a policy standpoint,” concludes Schuster, “the study reveals a glaring weakness in merit pay schemes. It suggests that for teacher-based incentive programs to work, they must offer sizable bonuses, be easy for teachers to understand, and be based on reliable and transparent measures of teacher ability.”

 

“Teachers and Financial Incentives: Structure Matters” by Damien Schuster in The Education Gadfly, November 4, 2015 (Vol. 15, #43), http://bit.ly/1SDHFCV; the full study is “Achievement Effects of Individual Performance Incentives in a Teacher Merit Pay Tournament” by Margaret Brehm, Scott Imberman, and Michael Loverheim in National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper # 21598, September 2015

Back to page one

 

4. Two Case Studies of Data-Driven Improvement

(Originally titled “Going Quantitative (But Using Common Sense)”)

            In this article in Educational Leadership, Rob Traver (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) describes how a teacher and a teacher team used data and SMART goals to improve teaching and learning.

            • A high-school English teacher – Charlie was discouraged because when he read a new poem aloud and pointed out some of its features, only a handful of students responded and the energy level of discussions was low. He believed this was because (a) students lacked confidence in their literacy skills, and (b) students were hesitant to speak up when they weren’t sure what they were talking about. To get more students responding to poems with more confidence, he thought that having students write their ideas before speaking would reduce the level of risk and get more students participating.

So after reading the next poem, Charlie gave out index cards and suggested several prompts to get students writing:

-   The first thing that came to mind when I heard the poem was…

-   I heard this in the poem and I like it/don’t know what it means/thought it was weird/thought it was beautiful.

-   This poem reminds me of another poem we heard because…

After giving students a few minutes to jot down their thoughts, he asked several students to read what was on their cards, pass them to a classmate to read, or let him read them. He then asked students to respond to the responses or responded himself, and at the end of the class had students sign their cards and hand them in.

            Tracking the number of students speaking up in each class, Charlie was pleased with the results – a lot more participation, and he met his SMART goal of going from the baseline of 5-6 students participating to 10-12. But looking more closely at the class-by-class and poem-by-poem data, he also noticed some anomalies. A contemporary poem about teens and their parents got a much higher participation rate; the participation rate increased across the board as his poetry unit progressed; and one class had a much lower discussion rate than the others. So he set to work figuring out how to get more participation from students in that class. “This is rather fun,” he said, “once you see how it works.”

            • A high-school science team – Alice, Brad, Christine, and Derek taught physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and general science in a small high school. They decided to focus as a department on presentation skills, and set a SMART goal of all students doing a four-minute science presentation each quarter, evaluated on a rubric with eight domains (organization, content knowledge, visuals, mechanics, volume, vocabulary, demeanor, and pacing).

Alice and Christine’s chemistry students did the first round of presentations, and when the four science teachers looked at the results, several things stood out. First, Alice seemed to be a much harder grader than Christine (this was in line with her reputation), suggesting inconsistent application of the rubric. Second, pacing and vocabulary were the weakest areas across the board. Third, visuals and content knowledge were relatively strong. The team went to work on boosting the quality of presentations and came up with several ideas: having students with moderately good presentations do them again so peers could appreciate and critique them; making videos of students’ initial presentations so they could analyze and improve them; and having students look at their rubric data to zero in on areas that needed improvement. Overall presentation results showed steady improvement. One boy said, “When you want us to do something right, it works better to show us than to tell us.”

 

“Going Quantitative (But Using Common Sense) by Rob Traver in Educational Leadership, November 2015 (Vol. 73, #3, p. 34-39), available for purchase at http://bit.ly/1iOtmhX; Traver can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

5. An Elementary School Improves Student Attendance

(Originally titled “Dramatically Improving Attendance”)

            In this Educational Leadership article, Jessica Sprick (Safe and Civil Schools) and Jake Alabiso and Kim Yore (Barnes Elementary School, Kelso, Washington) describe how this 350-student school boosted attendance. The turnaround began when teachers were asked to list the number of students with regular attendance (absent 5 percent or less of the year) and chronic absenteeism (out 10 percent or more). Educators were shocked to find that 26 percent of students were chronically absent and only 46 percent had regular attendance. “This realization inspired our whole staff to immediate action,” say the authors. “We put aside our excuses and decided that all Barnes students could achieve 95 percent attendance… We also began thinking about attendance not as an issue mostly controlled by parents but as an issue influenced by the school.” Their steps:

            • Define chronic absenteeism. Research shows that missing 10 percent or more of a school year for any reason – excused or unexcused absences and suspensions – places students at risk of academic failure, involvement with juvenile justice, and dropping out. The goal should be students missing no more than one day of school a month.

            • Mine attendance data. “For schools to develop effective systems, looking at the right attendance data is key,” say the authors. “Any time students are not present, they risk falling behind.” The school realized that average daily attendance figures mask chronic attendance problems, so they focused on regular attendance and chronic absenteeism, breaking them down by class, grade, month, and day of the week.

            • Develop a multi-tiered approach. The school addressed its attendance problem at three levels: (a) Schoolwide, using the PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports) team to review the school’s attendance “health” every 2-4 weeks; (b) Classroom, with teachers getting updated data on chronic absentees, students at risk, and regular attendees; and

(c) Individual student, with those in the chronic category monitored each week by the principal, counselor, and school psychologist.

            • Implement universal prevention strategies. The school spread the message about the importance of regular attendance through multiple channels – classroom meetings, schoolwide assemblies, letters home, back-to-school nights, social media, posters around the community, school board meetings, and an article in the local paper. School staff also used motivational systems, including a Big Bear BBQ for students achieving regular attendance, a BEAR attendance chart out front displaying progress toward a schoolwide goal, and recognition and rewards for classrooms and individual students. The school also used surveys and other data to identify and address triggers for absenteeism, including asthma and respiratory illnesses and concerns about school climate and safety.

            • Support students with low attendance. Homeroom teachers made supportive, problem-solving contact with families of students when attendance fell below 95 percent for the year. If attendance continued to be low, the attendance team contacted parents, and if the problem persisted, the classroom teacher, family, and attendance team met to diagnose and solve underlying issues.

            The result of this effort? In one year, regular attendance climbed from 46 to 62 percent and chronic absenteeism fell from 26 to 16 percent. The school is working toward the goal of all students having regular attendance.

 

“Dramatically Improving Attendance” by Jessica Sprick, Jake Alabiso, and Kim Yore in Educational Leadership, November 2015 (Vol. 73, #3, p. 50-54), http://bit.ly/1M2C1YH; the authors can be reached at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Back to page one

 

6. A Richer and Deeper View of Student Success

(Originally titled “Who’s In the Driver’s Seat?”)

            In this Educational Leadership article, author/consultant Steven Levy makes the case for taking data use beyond test scores and getting students to own the process, collecting and analyzing pertinent information and setting their own goals. “Because data analysis is so effective in addressing the mastery of discrete skills,” says Levy, “the process tends to see everything as a discrete skill. It assumes that learning is a linear process, skill by skill, bit by bit, starting in kindergarten at A and ending with a PhD at Z… How can we invite data into schools without letting data usurp the fullness of our humanity?”

            The question is whether the non-cognitive domain be measured – perseverance, beautiful work, human emotions. Levy believes so, and gives a small example of how a second-grade class in Boston designed a project to convince people not to be afraid of snakes. To measure their outcomes, students designed a “fear scale” with these ratings:

1.  I love snakes SO much, if a snake crawled into my bed I’d kiss it.

2.  I would let a snake crawl on me, but not for long.

3.  I am scared of snakes, but won’t faint if I see one.

4.  Every time I see a snake I panic. I hate snakes so much I would move to Jupiter. I would rather eat a dragon than look at a snake.

Respondents were asked, if they rated themselves 3 or 4, to explain their fear of snakes.

            Levy says that Expeditionary Learning, where he works, embraces “an expanded view of student success,” focusing on three dimensions of achievement:

            • Mastery of knowledge and skills – Students’ progress in this traditional realm is measured by solving problems, thinking critically, applying learning in new situations, and communicating clearly about complex ideas. Students are also in the driver’s seat when it comes to data – for example, keeping records of the kinds of math errors they’re making (computational, procedural, or conceptual misunderstandings), analyzing patterns, and setting improvement goals. “Assessment isn’t something done ‘to’ students,” says Levy, “but something they use to improve and demonstrate their own performance.”

            • Character and engagement – This includes performance character (academic mindsets and habits of scholarship, including perseverance and organization) and relational character (how students work with others, including respect and collaboration). Students keep track of their own progress on the specific character goals and get feedback from peers and teachers.

            • High-quality work – The criterion here is transferring traditional knowledge and skills to performances in authentic contexts. Students in Expeditionary Learning schools must present their work to diverse audiences and communicate their thinking through writing and speaking. The criteria for success are:

-   Complexity – This includes higher-order thinking, grasping big concepts across academic disciplines, seeing different perspectives, and being able to transfer concepts to new situations and understand sophisticated texts.

-   Craftsmanship – Work is done with care and precision and attention to accuracy and detail; there’s beauty in conception and execution.

-   Authenticity – The work really matters to students, includes original thinking, and uses formats, standards, and sometimes audiences from outside the school.

Educators in Expeditionary Learning schools use these lenses to examine student work, praise what’s good, and improve what falls below standards.

“Who’s In the Driver’s Seat?” by Steven Levy in Educational Leadership, November 2015 (Vol. 73, #3, p. 62-67), http://bit.ly/1OA8WaO; Levy can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

7. Demo Lessons: Some Suggestions

            “The teaching demonstration is one of the most artificial segments of a job seeker’s campus interview, yet also one of the most telling and evocative,” says Nicole Matos (College of DuPage) in a Chronicle of Higher Education article with clear implications for K-12. For the teaching candidate, demo lessons are artificial because the students aren’t really “yours,” the lesson is a one-shot deal with no opportunity to anticipate what might go wrong, and you can’t take a mulligan and fix mistakes afterward. And yet, says Matos, having teaching candidates teach a simulated lesson tells a lot about future classroom performance that can’t be ascertained in interviews and more-scripted job talks. Here are her suggestions for educators who are asked to teach a demonstration lesson:

            • Be true to yourself. “[I]nauthenticity is a death knell that supersedes any other advice here!” says Matos. Don’t use strategies that feel alien to your teaching style.

            • Interact. “Any teaching mode that will minimize or delay student discussion and inquiry – cough, lecture; cough, PowerPoint presentation – is probably not the best choice for your teaching demo,” she says. “Students are often quite sympathetic to the plight of a job seeker and may be more forthcoming than you might expect.” At the same time, they may clam up, so it’s a good idea to bring materials for students to make name cards so you can say, “Keisha, what are your experiences on that?” It’s also important to avoid the typical teacher-student-teacher-student interaction pattern by polling the whole class with an oral or written round-robin and following up with questions like, “Ted, what might be the weakness of Keisha’s argument if you were going to argue the other side?”

            • Manage the classroom. There probably won’t be classroom management issues with school administrators and other teachers present, but it’s important for candidates to demonstrate comfort with their own authority. Work the room, own the classroom space, teach from the side or the back, and interact with small groups of students. And unless you’re told not to, don’t be afraid to rearrange furniture or students (getting desks in a circle, for example, or having students count off and form groups) to create the physical environment most conducive to the lesson. “It’s better to be a wee bit bossy than stuck in a classroom setup that’s less than ideal for our demo,” says Matos.

            • Privilege the present. The teaching demo should really be a “learning demo,” she says. “I want to see students learning, with all the immediacy and transformation that implies, more than I want to see you teaching in some intransitive sense.” This suggests not over-scripting the lesson and responding in the moment to unexpected questions or learning opportunities.

            • Pretend a future and a past. “To combat the weird decontextualized form of a single stand-alone lesson,” says Matos, “don’t be afraid to gesture toward or even explicitly devise a pretend ‘before’ and ‘after’ for your demo.” This could be an imagined precursor lesson, a set of essential questions, or a suggested follow-up assignment or series of next steps. This, she says, “subtly primes the search committee to think more about your future and your continuity as an effective educator, which is not a bad thing when seeking a job.”

 

“Making the Most of Your Teaching Demo” by Nicole Matos in The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 6, 2015 (Vol. LXII, #10, p. A35),

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1165-making-the-most-of-your-teaching-demo

Back to page one

 

8. Ten Common Budget Planning Mistakes

            In this sidebar within a District Management Journal article on getting the biggest bang from school resources, Nathan Levenson and Kristen Keen list ten mistakes to avoid:

• Assuming that doing more for students requires more money – Often, it’s possible to do more by rethinking and reorganizing existing resources.

• Using only the data you have – Take steps to gather the data you need.

• Analyzing staffing needs at the school or department level – “To find opportunities, you need to go to a more granular level,” say Levenson and Keen – for example, looking at class sizes at the classroom and section level.

• Building staffing plans based on current school staffing – Better to start with projected student enrollment and be open to the possibility that personnel may need to be shifted from one school to another.

• Treating federal funds differently than the operating budget – Better to look at all funds together and how they serve the district’s strategic goals.

• Assuming that the person in charge is the most knowledgeable – “Fearing noncompliance, leaders like grant managers and special education directors may be less likely to uncover opportunities for using resources differently,” say Levenson and Keen. “Look to other district leaders or engage outside experts to help find opportunities.”

• Taking “no” for an answer – Shifting resources can be difficult and confusing, but there are often options that aren’t immediately apparent. It’s essential to maintain a “can do” attitude, be creative, look at detailed data, and use outside expertise.

• Using the current special-education caseload to determine staffing levels – There are other data sources, including the amount of student support time required by IEPs, the amount of time teachers should spend with students, and the desired group size.

• Focusing on more – Instead, focus on better. Although paraprofessionals are less costly, improved teaching and learning may be better served by hiring reading specialists, math interventionists, or certified behaviorists, say Levenson and Keen.

• Making resource strategy planning a one-time exercise – The collection and analysis of enrollment, staffing, and student needs should always be part of the allocation of funds.

 

“Shifting Resources Strategically to Fund District Priorities: 10 Mistakes to Avoid” by Nathan Levenson and Kristen Keen in The District Management Journal, Fall 2015 (Vol. 18, p. 22-23), www.dmcouncil.org

Back to page one

9. Questions to Ask Before Spending Money on New Technology

            In this article in Changing Schools, Howard Pitler suggests some issues to consider before committing resources to new computers and tech systems:

-   Why are we doing this? The outcome goals need to be clear and explicit.

-   How will we know if we are successful? There must be measurable targets and ways of tracking progress toward the goal.

-   Are our teachers ready? Attitudes and prerequisite skills are key factors.

-   Is our facility ready? Infrastructure, bandwidth, local data storage space, and the building’s electrical capacity are essential.

-   What professional development is needed? Budget and time must be allocated to give teachers enough PD.

-   What is your sustainability plan? Repair, maintenance, equipment replacement costs, and professional development must be in place for future years.

 

“Look Before You Launch: 6 Questions to Ask Before You Add More Tech to Your School” by Howard Pitler in Changing Schools, Fall 2015 (Vol. 74, p. 10-11), http://bit.ly/1iOepwf

Back to page one

 

10. A California Teacher on Effective Use of Online Resources

(Originally titled “Using Data to Personalize Learning”)

            In this Educational Leadership column, Sonoma County high-school teacher Catlin Tucker recommends three tech tools she’s found helpful: for informational texts at different readability levels, Smithsonian Tween Tribune http://tweentribune.com and Newsela https://newsela.com; for grammar review, NoRedInk www.noredink.com, which covers everything from subject-verb agreement to semicolons.

            Tucker also describes how she shifted the way she assesses students’ work in Jupiter Grades (her online grading program) from functional categories – homework, classwork, projects, and participation – to standards-based categories: argumentative writing, informative writing, reading and analyzing complex texts, vocabulary development, and speaking and listening. “This approach demystifies grades, helps students better understand what the numbers say about their learning, and thus motivates them to improve,” she says. “Already this year, I have been amazed by the changes in the conversations I am having with both my students and their parents. Instead of asking why they received a C+ on a paper or being frustrated by a grade, my students seek me out at lunch to find out how they can improve their thesis statements or develop their analysis. Parents have reached out to ask how they can support their children in finding stronger evidence or citing properly. The conversations are now focused on developing skills and supporting students, which is exactly where I want to put my time and energy.”

 

“Using Data to Personalize Learning” by Catlin Tucker in Educational Leadership, November 2015 (Vol.. 73, #3, p. 82-83), http://bit.ly/1MSJkWx

Back to page one

11. Why a Boss’s Feedback Might Be Ignored

            “Most employees want to do a good job,” says consultant Karin Hurt in this Let’s Grow Leaders article. “If your feedback is being ignored, dig deeper to get to the root cause.”

            • Too much advice – “I’m trying to do better, I really am,” says the plaintive employee. “But it’s all just too much. Every time we meet, he’s giving me something else to work on. No matter what I do, I can’t seem to get it right, so I’ve learned to just block him out and do the best I can.” To bring about real change, says Hurt, take one behavior at a time.

            • Hypocrisy – “If you want your employees to hear your feedback, be sure you’re following your own standards,” she says. “If there are reasons you make exceptions, be sure you clearly differentiate and explain the thought process, so they can follow consistent parameters.”

            • Skill, not will – “Be sure your feedback is specific and actionable,” says Hurt. “Explain what success looks like in terms of specific behaviors.”

            • Real disagreement – “Sure, we all have to implement policies we may not agree with,” she says. “The important factor here is to really listen to the concerns and explain why. Just shutting down the conversation may lead to compliance, but not always. And it certainly won’t lead to commitment.”

 

“4 Reasons Your Feedback Is Being Ignored” by Karin Hurt in Let’s Grow Leaders, November 6, 2015, http://bit.ly/1RJoUxh

Back to page one

 

12. Short Item:

            Economics demystified – This British link has 60-second videos by David Mitchell explaining economic fundamentals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRNI04tnN8.

 

“60-Second Adventures in Economics” by David Mitchell, October 11, 2012

Back to page one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© Copyright 2015 Marshall Memo LLC

 

If you have feedback or suggestions,

please e-mail [email protected]

 

 

About the Marshall Memo