Creative Studies

Five Signs of an Ineffective School Discipline Program

Discipline issues are the biggest barrier to a school-wide focus on teaching and learning.  There is little doubt among education professionals that safe and orderly learning environments are a pre-requisite of effective schools. Likewise, schools laden with disruption, violence and an unstable atmosphere significantly hinder student learning and achievement. Is your school doing everything possible to create a safe learning environment for students? In order to help determine this, here are five signs that your school’s student behavior management program may be ineffective.   

Sign#1: Little or No Involvement/Communication with Families

In today’s busy society, schools must make a focused effort to include parents in the communication chain. When students are disciplined for poor behaviors, every effort must be made to notify the parents immediately, informing them of the school’s response to such behavior. At the beginning of each school year, parents and students should be educated regarding the student code of conduct and school policy surrounding infractions that occur. Failure to establish the lines of communication results in a loss of opportunity to truly understand the student’s background as well as needed support from the home to deter future behavior problems. Failure to communicate may also encourage a more negative response to the school from parents when something more serious occurs.   Parental involvement and support in school activities is also important. However, schools serving lower socio-economic areas will be challenged, as parents of children in these areas are working harder just to make “ends meet” and have little time to be involved with the child’s education. Also, schools in more poverty prone areas tend to receive little or no financial support from parent donors. Nevertheless, such schools should still aim to blanket these parents with as much information as possible. A good faith effort goes a long with way in obtaining future cooperation with parents when it is absolutely required.  

Sign#2: Lack of incentives to promote positive behavior

School-wide discipline is more than simply establishing rules and consequences for problem behavior.  A comprehensive and effective school-wide discipline program takes preventative measures, which include a positive behavior support component that is designed to demonstrate, promote, and reinforce, positive student behavior.  This approach places major emphasis on the creation of an atmosphere that is predictable and safe, where successful student learning and academic achievement can flourish. Believe it or not, some students, while having a sense of what’s right and wrong, still may not understand what “good” behavior actually is until it’s modeled for them. What better model could be provided for them in the school environment than other students (their peers) who are demonstrating and being rewarded for these good behaviors?   Schools that have been successful in implementing school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports have found

Increases in attendance, Student reports of a more positive and calm environment, Teacher reports of a more positive and calm environment, and Reduction in the number of behavioral disruptions (Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Project, 2000).   

  Sign#3: No systematic data-based decision-making procedures

Without systematic, data-based decision-making procedures, the implementation of a school discipline system is prone to failure. Proper planning of a school-wide discipline program requires reliable data that allows school administrators to strategically target student behaviors, establish preventative measures and effectively identify and provide appropriate interventions for students who exhibit these behaviors.”[Schools require] the information essential to solving problems, selecting appropriate interventions, and providing better support for student learning (Nakasato, 2000). Incident data can also be used to assess the effects of interventions (Flannery, 1998).   Many types of incident reporting are also required by districts, states, and the Federal Government. Well designed incident reporting systems will save time, a limited resource, when schools and districts are required to complete these reports.”   

Sign#4: Lack of strict enforcement of rules

Without a strong commitment from administrators, teachers and staff, having a well constructed school-wide discipline plan on paper means nothing. At the beginning of each school year, students should be thoroughly informed of the school-wide student code of conduct, which should clearly display a list of behavioral expectations. The code of conduct should provide a list of negative behaviors and their consequences. However, it should likewise display a list of positive or acceptable behaviors that will be rewarded. This initial communication to students (and parents), whether it occur at an open house, classroom meeting or parent conference should occur before or on the very first day of student attendance. Administrators should assign top priority to making sure that all members of the faculty and staff are well versed in the contents of the student code of conduct. Additionally, this education process needs to occur each year, even for veteran staff members.  If the faculty does not know the code of conduct, how will they be able to enforce it? Not understanding the student code of conduct only leads to arbitrary and possibly legally indefensible punishments as well as contributes to a less predictable and unstable school atmosphere.   Finally, each member of the faculty and staff should commit to maintaining a resolute determination to follow-through with enforcing the rules. Each member of the faculty and staff should see themselves as the most important link in the chain of student achievement. One weak link can break the entire chain. Therefore consistency among all faculty and staff is required for a successful school-wide discipline program.   Sign#5: Cumbersome and Disorganized Processes

A well written school-wide discipline program can also be ineffective if procedures cannot be executed in a timely and organized manner.   This “process” component generally lies on the shoulders of the school administration and office staff. In a typical school environment, a teacher responds to a classroom discipline incident by completing a form which identifies the student and provides the details of the infraction. This form is then hand-delivered to the administration, usually to an administrator’s mailbox where the administrator retrieves it and initiates a response to the student and parents. After the response, the administrator must make sure the teacher is notified of the response and must file the form.   While some schools are generally effective with this process, there remains much room for improvement, especially with response time. As general rule, a shorter response-time preserves the integrity and impact of the consequence. Why is this true? A delayed response not only gives the student more of an opportunity to continue the misbehavior before the correction takes place, but can psychologically diminish the effectiveness of the applied consequence. In the student’s mind, a delayed response-time implies that the infraction was not that serious. Furthermore, teachers, who are the front line workers, do not perceive that they are receiving the administrative support they need when the response time is delayed.   In Conclusion:   Without a well written and properly executed school-wide discipline program, a school’s number one goal of student academic achievement cannot be met. Now, more than ever, a plethora of tools and knowledge exist that can assist schools in taking dramatic s
trides in reaching their academic achievement goals.  If you would like more information regarding how your particular school can achieve more, please visit http://campaign.behaviorassistant.com or send a message to William.Shoap@behaviorassistant.com.   About Us   William Shoap is a 13-year public school educator holding positions in teaching, school administration and district level administration. William has remained committed to enhancing the public school education environment not only through his various roles, but has more specifically worked to develop and adopt technology solutions to reduce costs and create efficiency. In doing so, he has also acted as a project manager in the implementation major programs in school district Human Resources departments as well as school-based environments serving school administration, faculty, staff and students.   Richard Golko is a career technology consultant and engineer. He has served small, medium and enterprise-level companies since 1992. Clients include Cargill, Inc. in the United States and CEFAS in the United Kingdom. Richard is a Microsoft Partner and is fully up-to-date in cutting edge software architecture and development through the entire project lifecycle.     Richard also has a keen interest in helping young people make better decisions which affect their futures. He wrote a full-featured goal setting and achieving course with accompanying software called Achieve It! He has presented the course to individuals and to corporate teams for the YMCA.    Contact Information

William Shoap

615-394-3501 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              615-394-3501      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

William.Shoap@BehaviorAssistant.com

http://campaign.behaviorassistant.com

  References   Banks, R. (2000). Bullying in schools. ERIC Review, 7(1). Bernhardt, V.L. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive school wide improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Brown, C. (2000). How states and systems use data. Fairfield, AL: Fairfield Board of Education. (Unpublished). Byrd, R. S. and Weitzman, M. L. (1994). Predictors of Early Grade Retention Among Children in the United States. Pediatrics, 93 (3), 81-87. California Department of Education. (2001). California safe schools assessment: communications and media relations workshop. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. California Department of Education. (1997). Challenge toolkit: Safe and healthy schools. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. California Department of Education and the Crime and Violence Prevention Center. (1995). Safe schools: A planning guide for action. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Clay, D. (1996). School safety and discipline. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University. Colorado Trust. (2000). Supporting schools initiative. Denver, CO: Colorado Trust. Cornell, D.G., Loper, A.B., Atkinson, A.J., and Sheras, P.L. (1999). Youth violence prevention in Virginia: A needs assessment. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Youth Violence Prevention Project. Davis, C., Hammond, C., and Benson, D. (2000). Florida SESIR Regional Workshop Training Materials. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Safe Learning Environment Institute at the Florida A & M University and the Florida Department of Education. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., and Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Edmonds, R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. St. Louis, MO.: CEMREL. Flannery, D. (1998). Improving school violence prevention programs through meaningful evaluation. ERIC Digest, 132. Gaskins, B. (1999). How to make a difference through site-based school public relations planning. In K.K. Muir (Ed.), School public relations: Building confidence in education. Rockville, MD: National School Public Relations Association. Gottfredson, D.C., Wilson, D.B., and Najaka, S.S. (2001). School-based crime prevention. In D.P. Farrington, L.W. Sherman and B. Welsh (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention. London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Gottfredson, DC (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L. Sherman, DC Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression: Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (6), 893-903. Holcomb, E.L. (1998). Getting excited about data: How to combine people, passion, and proof. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Johnson, J.H. (1996). Data-driven school improvement. Oregon School Study Council, 39(5). Kame’enui, E.J., And Simmons, DC (1998). Beyond effective practices to schools as host environments: Building and sustaining a school-wide intervention model in reading. OSSC Bulletin, 41(3), 3-24. Kaminski, R.A., And Good, R.H., III (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25,215-227. Kinder, J.A. (2000). A short guide to school public relations. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 464, 7-44. Lezotte, L.W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Linquanti, R., and Berliner, B. (1994). Rebuilding schools as safe havens: A typology for selecting and integrating violence prevention strategies. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Muir, K.K. (Ed.) (1999). School public relations: Building confidence in education. Rockville, MD: National School Public Relations Association. Nakasato, J. (2000). Data-based decisionmaking in Hawaii’s behavior support effort. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2(4). National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nelson, R.J., Martella, R.M., And Marchand-Martella, N. (In press). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Pennsylvania Department of Education (2001). Ridge awards nearly 9 million in safe-school grants. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education. Pepperl, J.C. And Lezotte, L.W. (1999). What the effective schools research says: Safe and orderly environment. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Price, J. (1999). Customer service. In K.K. Muir (Ed.), School public relations: Building confidence in education. Rockville, MD: National School Public Relations Association. Riley, P., and McDaniel, J. (1998). Safe school plans begin with information gathering. School Administrator, 8(55). Ross, V.M. (1999). Internal Communication: PR Training. In K.K. Muir (Ed.), School public relations: Building confidence in education. Rockville, MD: National School Public Relations Association. Sack, J.L. (1999). An ounce of prevention. Education Week, 19(9). Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Project (2000). Developing schoolwide discipline plans. Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools Notes, 3 (3). Shinn, M. (1997). Instructional decisionmaking using curriculum-based measurement. Unpublished workshop materials. Sprague, J., Sugai, G., Horner, R., and Walker, H.M. (1999). Using office discipline referral data to evaluate schoolwide discipline and violence prevention interventions. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 42(2). Squires, D.A., Huitt, W.G., And Segars, J.K. (1983). Effective schools and classrooms: A research-based perspective. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stephens, R. (1994). Planning for safer and better schools: School violence prevention and intervention strategies. School Psychology Review, 23(2). Stephens, R.D. (2000). Safe School Planning. In Elliot, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds
.) Violence in American schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sugai, G., Sprague, J.R., Horner, R.H. And Walker, H.M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor schoolwide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2). Sugai, G.M., Kame’enui, E.J., Horner, R.H., And Simmons, DC (1998). Effective instructional and behavioral support systems: A schoolwide approach to discipline and early literacy. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2000). National incident-based report system, volume 1: Data collection guidelines. Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Valle-Greene, A. (2000). Schools Tackle Discipline in Classrooms. Lakeland Ledger, May 21, 2000. Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. Future of Children, 5 (3), 51-75.

Developing reflective agents of change: a role of Higher Education

Changes in operational procedure, management styles and services offered to clients and customers characterize many places of employment. An examination of the internet and other media reveals the rapid development of new products and seamless modifications of existing ones. A more recent factor which caused major changes in people’s income, life style and attitude, is the disruptions in the world’s financial market.  Given the fact that change is a global reality, one role of higher education institutions is to enable students to not just function effectively in rapidly changing workplace environments, but to become reflective agents of change.

Reflection, a tool of change

Reflection means, careful consideration or thought; a process of disciplined intellectual criticism combining research, knowledge of context, and balanced judgment  (critical  thinking) about  previous,  present,  and  future  actions,  events,  or decisions (Gayle, Gayle 1999). Zeichner  and  Liston  (1996)  put  this  in  practical  terms  when  they  point  out  that  being  reflective  involves examining,  framing,  attempting  to  solve  dilemmas  of  the workplace,  and  asking  questions  about ‘self’,  that  is,  one’s embedded  assumptions and values.  It also involves attending to the institutional and cultural context of the workplace, taking part in change and development, and taking responsibility for one’s own professional development. ‘Framing’,  according  to  Schon  (1987), means  the  individual selects (in  a  qualified  and  circumscribed sense) what  will  be  treated  as  the  problem. He or she  then set  the  boundaries  of their attention  to  the  problem, and imposes on it a  coherence, which  allows  them  to  say what is  wrong and in what directions the  situation  needs  to  be changed.

Being a reflective agents of change

Broadly speaking, a reflective agent of change makes use of reflection in the process of effecting change. Specifically, it involves both cognitive and affective processes such as employing self-directed critical thinking as a means of improving workplace conditions policies and procedures. The reflective agent of change develops an ‘uneasiness’ about protocol, process and procedure which leads to questioning of these aspects of the workplace, trying out new strategies and ideas, seeking alternatives, and using higher  order  thinking skills (Elder, Paul 1994, & Cunningham 2001). The development and use of self-directed critical thinking and ongoing critical inquiry will also result in greater understanding of the workplace. Cole (1997) & Calderhead (1992) categorize this as contextualised knowledge. This kind of knowledge is critical to the implementation of appropriate changes in the workplace because, successful changes to policies or procedure depend on knowledge of the nuances, thinking of the employers and employees and overall ethos of the workplace.

Secondly, being a reflective agent of change also involves the use of one’s affective skills as a means of improving practice. Markham (1999), points out that this includes the use of personal intuition, initiative, values, and experiences in the process of making sound judgment and decisions.  If affective skills are honed, they will improve one’s ability to react, respond, assess, revise, and implement new approaches and activities. According to Cunningham (2001) and Bengtsson (1993), the honing process will develop further self-awareness, self-improvement and knowledge.

Thirdly, being a reflective agent of change also requires willingness to confront the uncertainties of one’s philosophies which undergird judgments, decisions and ideas for change. This is developed by examining ‘self’, personal competences and personal philosophies in a collaborative manner involving receiving, and giving feedback to colleagues

Developing reflective agents of change

From personal research in the  area  of  reflection and reflective  teaching (Minott 2006),  I conclude that everyone  has  the  capacity  to  reflect, for reflection  is  an  element  of  being  human. However,  I  also  agree  with  Posner  (1989)  that  there  are  ‘more’  or  ‘less’  reflective individuals, hence there are ‘more’ or ‘less’ reflective students.  This conclusion  also highlights the fact that there are those who, for any number of reasons, for example, training or a lack of training in  reflective  techniques,  or  personal  disposition  and  likeness  or  dislike  for  reflection, emerges as being either ‘more’ or  ‘less’ reflective.  Therefore, three things are required to develop students as reflective agents of change.

Firstly, there is the need to ascertain their belief and disposition on the matter of reflection.  Again personal research (Minott 2006) as confirmed popular theories, that students’ belief can hinder or help. In this process, it is important to help students to bring their embedded beliefs,  values  and  assumptions  about  reflection  to  the  fore  for  examination  before beginning the process of encouraging their reflective skills.  Secondly, there is the need  to  develop students’  proficiency  in  the  use  of  the  techniques  and  tools  of  reflection. This includes  the  use  of  reflective  journal writing,  collaborative  exercises,  the  use  of  questions,  and  what to question. Thirdly, there is the need to encourage the affective or intuitive  aspect  of  the  practice,  for  example,  sensitivity  to  factors  that  make  particular ways  of  operating  more  or  less  appropriate,  willingness  and  the  capacity  to  ‘research’ their  own  work,  and  an  awareness  that  the  choices  they  make  on  the  job  are  shaped  by their belief.  

References

Bengtsson, J. (1993).  ‘Theory and Practice: two fundamental categories in the philosophy of  Teacher education’.  Educational Review 45.3 Wade B  Davies L,  Thomas  H Upton  G,  Lawn M,  Walker S,  Chitty  C and Martin  D  (Eds) Abingdon,  Carfax  Publishing Co

Calderhead, J. (1992).  ‘The  Role  of  reflection  in  Learning  to  Teach’,  In  Valli  Linda (Editor) Reflective Teacher Education – Cases and Critiques USA: State University of New York

Cole, A.L.(1997).  Impediments to Reflective practice towards a new agenda for research on Teaching. In Teachers and Teaching; theory and practice 3.1 

Cunningham, F.M.A. (2001).  Reflective teaching Practice in Adult ESL in Eric Digest USA: Washington DC http://www.cal.org/caela/esl% 5Fresources/digests/reflect.html (September 8 2005)

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1994). “Critical Thinking: Why we must transform our teaching.” Journal of Developmental Education Fall 34-35

Ghaye, T., & Gaye, K.  (1999). Teaching and Learning through critical reflective practice London: David Fulton Publishers

Minott, M.A. (2006). Reflection and Reflective Teaching A Case Study of Four Seasoned Teachers in the Cayman Islands. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, retrieved  from      http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/227/1/Reflection_and_Reflective_Teaching_Thesis.pdf Thursday April 17 2009

Markham, M. (1999).  ‘Through the Looking Glass:  Reflective Teaching through a Lacanian Lens’ In Curriculum Inquiry 29: 1

Posner, G.J. (1989). Field Experience methods of Reflective Teaching New York: Longman Publishing groups 

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner USA: Jossey-Bass Inc 

Zeichner, K. M.  & Liston, D. P.  (Editors)  (1996). Reflective Teaching- An Introduction USA:  Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc

Do We Really Need The Federal Education Department and The Department Of Energy?

The origin of this article comes from a short blurb in the December 17, 2010 issue of The Week magazine. The latest survey of student school achievement, which is done every three years by the Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development, found that students in Shanghai ranked first in the world in reading, science, and math. Quite a feat, to be number one in all three. The survey measured the education proficiency of fifteen year olds in 60 countries around the world.

The very bad and sad news is that the United States ranked 17th in reading, 23rd in science, and 31th in math. While the article did not give education expenditure information, it is a good bet that the United States ranked much higher in amount of education dollars spent per student than it did in any of the three categories measured. If this assertion is correct, then we are spending a lot of taxpayer money and getting mediocre performance in return.

Which brings us to the Federal Education Department, a bureaucracy that has been around since 1980 and according to its government website, has a discretionary budget of about $49.7 billion (this does not include the $33 billion or so of Pell grants that it administers). I guess one could make the argument that without the Education Department, the United States would have finished worse than 17th, 23rd, and 31th.

However, it is likely we could have finished this poorly without spending the $49.7 billion a year. In fact, if you look at the Education Department website, it acknowledges that “it is important to point out that education in America is a state and local responsibility.”  They admit that they are not the main driver of education in this country but still eat up almost $50 billion a year just to fill a supplemental role.

Let’s do some fantasy math. What if we terminated the Education Department, what could we do with that money:

Since there are 50 states, you could provide an annual supplemental payment to the states, that the Department fully acknowledges has the main responsibility for educating our kids, of $1 billion per state to help improve their facilities and education processes. According to the government’s National Center For Education Statistics, there are 93,295 public elementary and secondary schools in this country. If we divide this number of schools into the Education Department’s budget, each school could theoretically receive an additional $532,000 per school each year to help educate America’s youth. If we purchased the basic iPad product at Best Buys’ current price of $499.95, we could outfit over 99 million students in one year with an iPad for themselves. Given today’s high tech world, wouldn’t iPads (or other worthy technology) be better use of taxpayer funds than a 31st finish in math? Of course, just having a piece of technology is not going to improve an education process but imagine what could happen in education with an iPad. For example, the need for books and the high expense that goes with the school purchase of books could be diverted to hire more teachers, improve school curriculums, enhance teacher training, etc. since bound paper books are more expensive than electronic digital books, a format that that could also be much easily updated. And this is for only one year. With the technology already purchased in year one, next year, billions of more dollars could be spent on other education needs, if we eliminated the Education Department budget. If you are not into helping improve our schools, you could divide the $49.7 billion by the number of U.S. households and give each household an annual check of just over $400. Certainly a better idea than 31st  in math.

The point to be made by these math calculations is that the Education Department has done such a poor job of positioning our kids for success in the world that continuing to budget and pay for this non-performance is a farce. How much worse could it be to take the $50 billion or so and try something new with it? Given that the Department is supplemental, what is the worst that could happen? We fall to 32nd in math? The schools and education approach in Shanghai is getting results, why can’t we get the Federal government out of the way and let the states find a way to mimic what Shanghai is obviously doing right and our Education Department is obviously not doing at all?

While reading about our poor performance as a nation academically, it appears that another Federal agency, the Department of Energy, is also a total failure when it comes to its charter. Although it has been over 30 years since the traumatic energy crises of the 1970s, we as a nation are not closer to having a strategic, workable, and rationale national energy plan today than we were when the Department of Energy was formed decades ago.

Think about it: name one success story from the Department of Energy that you can come up with without doing some serious research? We still have no national energy policy. I can think of no significant project, program, or technology that the Department funded with our taxpayer money that has born fruit, either with cheaper energy, better energy, or less reliance on foreign energy sources.

If you look at their Federal website,you see that the Department Of Energy’s annual budget is around $28 billion, of which just over $11 billion of that is for Defense Department research. If you took that $11 billion and moved it and its staff into the Defense Department, you could dump the remaining parts of the Department Of Energy and save the taxpayers just over $17 billion a year. This would provide an annual tax reduction of about $150 for every U.S. household. What would you rather have: $150 in your pocket or just another government bureaucracy that did  nothing it was supposed to do?

These are the types of questions that need to be asked as the country faces this extraordinary and looming budget crisis of skyrocketing national debt. Just because we always had a government program, does not mean we need to continue to have these programs. An Education  Department that fails at education and a Department of Energy that fails at energy are not good reasons to continue to have them. Better to try somethng different and less expensive. Again, how much worse could it get when it comes to these two monstrosities? 

Just because something exists today does not mean it has to exist tomorrow. Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Montgomery Ward, Service Merchandise, American Motors, Studebaker, GTE, ITT, the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union, etc. all existed and are now all gone. Given this historical perspective, getting rid of a mere Cabinet Department or two should be no big deal, especially the ones that are expensive and ineffective, the cause for the demise of these past giants in their respective fields.