Share Their Concerns And Aspirations For Their Best Future Of Case Management And Se: Fill & Download for Free

Over the last year, education innovators around the country continued to pursue expanded definitions of student success, personalized approaches, and wholly new models of school. For many, the very real challenges of change management and discovering ways to promote scale with quality dominated 2018. But for those conversations to go a level deeper, we can’t assume that these new measures and new models are fully baked or that everything deemed “new” is at it seems. Looking ahead, here are five big ideas I’ll be watching for in 2019:1. ‘Unbundle’ what we mean by SEL.Social-emotional learning. Soft Skills. Habits of mind. These critical but sometimes elusive ideas have gotten their fair share of love over the past year. But pulling back the curtain on the research base, the paltry supply of reliable SEL assessments can make the current energy around SEL interventions feel anemic at best, and hollow at worst. Like personalized learning, “SEL” now connotes a bundle of concepts and aspirations that may need to get unbundled in order to be useful. In that vein, in 2019 I’m most excited to watch emerging SEL point solutionstargeted at specific, narrow skills or dispositions. These innovations are focused on doing a few things really well. For example, GiveThx, the brainchild of Leadership Public Schools’ teacher-entrepreneur Mike Fauteaux, plucks off one particular emotion and skill: gratitude. In a similar vein, Kind Foundation’s effort, Empatico.org, focuses on experiences that inspire empathy across classrooms. I’ll be watching models like these that offer narrower on-ramps to more rigorous measurement and targeted interventions within the exceedingly broad SEL landscape.5 big ideas for #education #innovation in 20192. Commit to threading the coherent curriculum needle.Speaking of the murky waters of personalized learning, rumblings (and occasional shouts) about the fragmented state of curriculum to support personalization have been building for years. One of the fundamental tensions we hear articulated is whether a coherent, evidence-based, off-the-shelf curriculum is better than a potpourri of lessons that teachers and leaders assemble—and in some cases build—themselves. Although these debates are not unique to personalized environments, personalization hinges on a commitment to tailor learning experiences to individual students. But the more varied those experiences and resources are, many worry the less rigorous and coherent curriculum becomes. Through the lens of our own Modularity theory, these tradeoffs aren’t unique to curriculum per se: across industries, a modular approach can be more affordable and flexible, while integrated solutions are pricier but better at pushing the frontier of performance. In 2019, I’ll be keeping an eye on how districts and schools manage to strike a balance between the tradeoffs of modular and flexible versus integrated and coherent approaches to curriculum.

Here's a few. Pardon the redundancies.France:France simply didn’t take the war seriously. It was complacent when it should have been alarmed, and when it came to preparations it behaved in a desultory and unimaginative fashion. It played defense hoping this war would simply go away while it should’ve been opportunistically playing offense. There’s a saying that the defeated plan on winning the next war while victors plan on repeating their success in the last one.In WW1 France had begun the war with grandiose dream of a quick invasion of Germany in the Vosges, taking back Alsace-Lorraine, and reversing the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War…perhaps even driving deep into Germany with great elan and threatening the kaiser in Berlin. It was thought by Belle Epoque war planners in France that a quick, Napoleonic victory with modern, industrial mobility was assured.Instead in August 1914 France quickly had their collective ass handed to them by an overwhelming mechanized assault through neutral Belgium, and then ended up fighting a desperate, existential struggle on their own territory to defend Paris and with it the French nation. With 4yrs of meat grinding, attritional trench warfare France was utterly devastated—northern France was ruined and any appetite for future wars against Germany were quenched. Only reluctantly did it join with high-minded British principles to finally draw a line in the diplomatic sand by standing up for Polish sovereignty. But Polish sovereignty, like Belgian sovereignty a generation earlier, was not a cause the average French soldier was enthusiastic to die for, or to send their husbands and sons to die for—and unlike the British across the Channel—it was abundantly clear who would do most of the dying for this cause if in fact a “real” war with Germany occurred.France was deeply fragmented internally in the 30s—this was true generally in Western democracies but was especially pronounced in France. France was divided between a Soviet funded/intellectually promoted socialist and anti-militarist camp constantly wooing the working class that was being increasingly agitated against the bourgeoisie and capitalist politicians that cared little for them, jingoistic, and archaic colonial military officers that looked to the Nazis and Fascists as models the French should emulate, apathetic pacifists that simply didn’t want to get dragged into any more wars, and a shrinking political center decreasing in relevance. Politics were extremely contentious and petty on the eve of war. Vast sums had been invested in the Maginot line, leaving French military planners confident that Germany would think twice about A) repeating their attack through neutral Belgium or B) directly attacking French soil along their shared border. Either way the safety of the Maginot fortifications would leave the French the luxury of massing in northern France if Germany decided to go around the Line, or piecemeal to plug any gaps if Germany assaulted the Line. An entire generation of French military thought had turned decidedly defensive in nature—how to inflict the greatest casualties on an overwhelming invasion or how to suppress colonial uprisings—while in Germany a new generation of thinkers were investigating the offensive possibilities of massed tanks and mobile infantry and artillery tightly coordinated with air power.So when an unpopular war that most French had no appetite for whatsoever was declared most were content to simply sit back in hopes that the diplomats would paper over this impasse so that this silly war could be forgotten about. Unlike 1914, Germany didn’t seem to want to attack France. For the entire winter of 39–40 France awaited (after a very tentative “Saar offensive” which was too small and slow to help Poland), some sort of blitzkrieg German attack—and none having occurred convinced everyone that this was a “Phony War”. Socialist propaganda helped further a notion that this was an example of Fascists and Capitalists forcing a profiteering war on working people with no vested stake in the conflict but everything to lose. Many officers were wary of fighting the Germans again, especially for the sake of Britain and the Poles, and considered French military resources best spent in the colonial territories. Meanwhile France was sitting on its hands with something like 110 divisions and armor superiority to the 23 German divisions, a preponderance of force at least on paper, and looking at a poorly defended Western Germany across the Line, its military being tied up in Poland, Norway, and the Balkans.Had France taken the war seriously and fought the war they wanted to fight in 1914, instead of the 1917 one they wanted to avoid repeating, they could’ve invaded Germany and forced it early on into a defensive struggle on its own territory. Hitler correctly judged French reluctance to fight and thus felt comfortable doing things like invading Norway and Greece which dazzled the world while France looked on dejectedly.An invasion into Germany might’ve gone badly for France, but it certainly would’ve dramatically altered the course of WW2 in Europe and taken any initiative out of German hands. The waiting for German opening moves ceded all initiative to Germany and assured that the French would be playing defense on their own land again. The USSR probably would not have been invaded and could deal with Japan in Manchuria. The BEF wouldn’t not have been pushed off the continent. France would not have been occupied. SE Asia wouldn’t have fallen into Japanese hands and the Mediterranean wouldn’t have become the Axis sea that it very nearly did.Germany:Primarily diplomatic mistakesGermany got itself into a war against the largest industrial powers on earth: the British Empire, the US, and the Soviet Union. The only ally of any significant military power, Japan, was too far away and too concerned with its own geopolitical aspirations to effectively coordinate with the German war effort. The most powerful neighboring Axis ally, Italy, ended up being more a liability than anything else.Instead of making a reasonable peace with Britain, after the defeat of France, the Werhmacht instead exhausted the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain--a prelude to an amphibious invasion of Great Britain that the Germans (like Napoleon earlier) were never really serious about pursuing. The Germans seriously underestimated British tenacity, American industrial power, and Soviet resilience in the face of seemingly hopeless defeat. The declaration of war on the US was pure folly. The decision to attack the USSR was premature and in the end, suicidal. Once the Germans' brutality became apparent (and it did from day 1 of Barbarossa) the Russians were committed to destroying Nazi Germany, and any chance of rallying the Ukrainians or the people of the Baltic republics, irrevocably lost: there could be no negotiated peace.Naval neglect--the German U-boats were extremely effective but always short on material and manpower. The surface fleet proved (like Napoleon's) largely useless, other than to draw large numbers of British ships to a particular area.R&D. Germany had amazing scientists and engineers (even after the most brilliant fled). However instead of devoting its efforts to one or two breakthrough technologies, Germany focused on many disparate technologies and ended up only producing the first major guided missile, the V2, en masse. Jet technology, modern submarines, nuclear weapons...all were within German grasp but they fell just short. Generally the Germans emphasized complex, spectacular machines that could only be produced in small quantities and were a nightmare to fix in the field, instead of mass producing simple, adaptable platforms like the Soviets had in the reliable T34.Questionable counter-offensives and defense lines. Hitler felt compelled to constantly overrule the advice of his superb staff and micromanage operations--which was another big mistake for Germany. Stalingrad, the Falaise pocket, battle of the Bulge, the entire Lake Balaton offensive, and numerous instances of "last stands" on the Southern Front in the East wasted a lot of precious manpower and resources. Failure to take Malta always meant N Africa would never be logistically secure. Rushed preparation and an impromptu intervention in the Balkans and Greece right before Barbarossa left the biggest invasion in human history short material, motorized transport, and engineering personnel. The Waffen SS units created late in the war were a politically motivated (paranoid) idea that had no good military rationale--all they did was siphon off the best men in the regular army and concentrate them into smaller units--accomplishing nothing in the process.Japan:Same basic diplomatic mistakes as Germany although the Japanese were extremely anxious to avoid provoking the Soviet Union (especially after Nomonhan) even though their army in Manchuria had plenty of golden opportunities.Even though they considered it, the Japanese underestimated US industrial power...and they critically underestimated US popular support for the war. The unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, instead of demoralizing the American public and forcing them to desire a quick peace—a repeat of the Russo-Japanese War—instead instantly created an adversary determined to go to any length to force an unconditional surrender on Japan.In terms of military mistakes...clearly the commitment to Guadalcanal was one of them. Like Germany, the Japanese developed an elite military but neglected to establish the basic supply chain necessary to fight a prolonged modern war. The US submarine fleet in the Pacific was phenomenally successful against the Japanese merchant marine shipping (much more successful than the U-boats of the Kriegsmarine), which was already stretched to begin with. Once the Japanese began to lose critical numbers of supply vessels, oil tankers, and troop transports their island-based army units were left to rot out on the vine.Japanese intelligence was relatively sloppy. This lead to the loss of Yamamoto, the senior naval officer of the IJN...and the ambush at Midway which has to rank amongst the worst naval catastrophes in history. The battle of Midway is the most obvious suite of operational mistakes the Japanese made the whole war--4 fleet carriers sunk in a single day. It still astounds me.The Japanese didn't, or I should say couldn't, successfully evolve their technology much throughout the war. At Pearl Harbor the Japanese basically outclassed the US in every way--at the war's end the opposite was true. The US simply got better tactically and technologically throughout the war and had the resources and industrial flexibility to quickly adapt its production. The Japanese on the other hand ended up in 1945 with concrete decked carriers they couldn't complete (and probably didn't have fuel to run) and programs to arm civilians with bamboo spears to defend against the US invasion and potential nuclear holocaust.A short-sighted training program for naval aviators. The Japanese naval aviators were among the greatest the world had ever seen--but their training advanced slowly and the exclusivity and competitiveness of their craft meant few could follow in their footsteps. After the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot Japan lost nearly all of its experienced naval pilots, so even the remaining naval aircraft it had were manned by almost complete novices that were belatedly rushed into the cockpit sometimes with only a few hours training--this of course was the beginning of the kamikaze. In contrast the US had training programs that had a steady stream of relatively experienced pilots coming on line.In terms of grand strategy, Japan got way too involved in China, Burma, Borneo, Manchuria to realistically engage in the biggest naval struggle on earth at the same time in the central pacific. Furthermore the treatment of the Chinese people was a profound human tragedy that alienated Japan from much of the civilized world.The inability of the weak political leadership to transcend the petty rivalries between the army and navy, and moreover--the domination of the political leadership by each faction in turn--meant that there was no effective centralized control over both, integrating them into one military that furthered Japanese political interests (which as Clausewtiz would tell you is the whole point of war). So Japan ended up with an Army pursuing its own wars, a Navy going off on a series of separate wars, and an industrial base unable to support both simultaneously--that's the biggest mistake.Italy:Mamma mia...where to begin. Mussolini's delusions of neo-Roman Imperial grandeur lead him to repeatedly get Italy into situations it had to be bailed out of. At Keren the Italians were first routed by the Ethiopians, and throughout N Africa they were repeatedly bested by a motley, ad hoc force of British colonial and ANZAC forces. Even during the collapse of France their belated invasion was crushed by a skeleton French force. The whole war was a total mistake for Italy.Soviet Union:Stalin's purge of the Red Army high command in the late 30s was the first mistake, and coupled with the Red Army's pathetic invasion of Finland, tempted Hitler to attack in the first place.Trusting Ribbentrop and Hitler probably wasn't a good idea either, although it isn't clear Stalin who was eager to secure the Baltic republics, had better options diplomatically.Countless military mistakes, particularly at the outset of the Barbarossa...too much emphasis on front-line positions and holding defensive lines. The Soviet Union lost most of its experienced, well-trained troops in the first few weeks of Barbarossa while Stalin was still in denial it was actually happening. Much of the actual resistance to the Wehmacht was civilian/partisan behind enemy lines. Carelessness with its aircraft--the Luftwaffe destroyed much of the Soviet airpower while it sat on runways. General lack of preparedness, and a woeful initial lack of good commanders that could coordinate operations at high levels--not unit 6mos after Barbarossa did Zhukov and Konev come to the fore.At horrific cost the Soviets learned from their repeated drubbings, and, like the US in the Pacific, they slowly got more and more effective. At Kursk they absorbed the German armored pincers and won the largest armored engagement in history (perhaps the recent invasion of Iraq surpasses Kursk in numbers). By the war's end, when the Red Army declared war on Japan and invaded Manchukuo and Korea, the once feared Kwantung army practically evaporated in the face of heavy Red armor.Great Britain:An almost endless litany of military fiascos that essentially ended the British Empire...Overestimating French resistance nearly lost the BEF at Dunkirk. Churchill's penchant for special operations and daring amphibious landings--lead to Gallipoli in WW1 and lead to Dieppe & Anzio in WW2. The complete capitulation of Singapore and Hong Kong without hardly a fight was a stupendous blow the Empire arguably never recovered from, and then there was the routing of the British navy from the South Pacific leaving Australia unprotected and Indonesia easy prey for the Japanese. Montgomery: stalled at Caen, later launched Operation Market Garden, which also ended up being something of a disaster. (In his defense he stopped the German tide in N Africa.) The seeming inability to protect India and its possessions in the Near East (the Germans advanced to El Alamein which is near Cairo and the Suez, the Japanese advanced into India at Imphal) lead to an explosion of anti-colonial/nationalist sentiment in the colonies after the war's end.But they have plenty to be proud of...The British were somewhat slow to organize effective convoys and anti-sub patrols but were nonetheless way ahead of anybody else in that regard. The British were critical in cracking codes and coordinating Allied intelligence activities, their Navy completely neutralized the threat of Axis surface ships, and single handedly fought in Mediterranean for some time. The RAF single handedly destroyed the flower of German air power in the Battle of Britain. Had Britain not kept fighting its seems plausible that W Europe might have accepted a 'German peace' of some sort before Germany expanded to the East at its leisure.To the British credit, they didn't fight because they were jingoistically jealous of the pretensions of other Imperial rivals, they didn't fight to engineer a new balance of power on the continent, and they didn't fight because they were invaded and had no choice. The British chose to fight to honor their agreements to a weak and prostrate nation--Poland--and they had practically nothing to gain from it. In a sense declaring war on Germany was a mistake in that it lead to a much weaker UK after the war--but I would argue it was the most honorable mistake made throughout the war.Of all the powers the UK fought what I consider the good fight--they sincerely tried to peacefully acquiesce to spread of aggressive Fascism, and eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that they must take a stand and fight even if they had nothing at all to gain, and much to lose, in the fight. British suffering was not comparable to the unimaginable scale of devastation suffered by the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Poles--but their sacrifices were largely voluntarily.United States:Lack of preparation: particularly at Pearl Harbor. Only by a stroke of luck were the only two Pacific carriers out on exercises that morning--but the loss of nearly all Pacific battleships left the US on the ropes right as the opening bell rung. Loss of Wake, Guam, and Philippines turned the PTO into both an army and navy theater as opposed to just naval--greatly complicating the war effort.Early on the US had some unimaginative and mediocre commanders, poor infantry discipline and coordination, operational incompetence, plenty of friendly fire incidents, a slowness to embrace carriers and naval airpower as decisive. No protection at all against Uboats at the beginning--and an outstanding but perhaps under-utilized submarine program of its own. Poor tank design rushed into production--US tanks (except maybe for the obscure Pershing that showed up at war's end) were always pathetic in comparison to German and Soviet peers (ironic as the T34 used a US designed suspension and chassis exported to the USSR via lend-lease).The US bungled several operations or undertook many with little purpose--the retaking of Kiska and Attu had little importance militarily and yet it consumed vast resources, like the Alcan highway. Complacency and overconfidence lead to several close calls--one of the first being at the Kesserine Pass, later at the Bulge. Got into some silly military adventures like Anzio and the advance on Rome, or the paratrooper schemes before D-day which mostly failed. The single biggest mistake the US made strategically would've been at Leyte when Halsey took the bait and chased Ozawa's (decoy) fleet thereby exposing the Philippine landing forces to Kurita's center force--a situation only retrieved by desperate fighting on the part of a screen of destroyers. To this day the US carpet bombing and fire storming raids are of controversial value: Speer himself mentioned that German production was most compromised by a single small raid on ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt--not by the wholesale civilian slaughter committed at Dresden or Hamburg. Cheannault's Flying Tigers in China, spectacular as they were may have done more harm than good in terms of Japanese reprisals in their wake.But still the US did plenty right--probably the best example of government/industry cooperation. Accomplished miracles of production like Liberty ships, and Jeeps. Rapidly adopted new technologies and tactics, and had probably the best supply chain management and logistics. While US infantry didn't command much respect, US artillery was particularly feared by the Germans for its accuracy and firepower ("magic fire" they called it), to the point where Germans in Sicily and Italy avoided firing on a US gun for fear of reprisal. Of course there's the Manhattan Project too. Midway was probably the US's greatest victory of the war--with the ferocious Coral Sea and Guadalcanal and the Bulge coming second. The US built the world's biggest navy in just 3yrs (I read somewhere that it did in 1864 too) and won the world's largest naval battle (Philippines).China:To point out any one “big mistake” made by China isn’t exactly fair as China was a dysfunctional, mostly premodern country in the midst of ongoing civil wars when the ruthless Japanese military machine singled it out for conquest. Poland at least had a central government in firm control over its territory and armed forces in 1939 and a highly literate population, something which cannot be said for 1935 China. So calling out Chinese mistakes is a little like blaming the victim. But certainly China could’ve conducted their war somewhat more effectively and the KMT’s management of the war can be criticized.But to start with some context military power in 1920s China was divested to regional warlords who treated with the Japanese and the KMT government informally almost as separate states. The KMT never enjoyed total, unilateral control over China (though it had made some progress in the 30s centralizing power) and had no close allies. The Soviet Union had been not-so-secretly stripping territory from China throughout the 20–30s (Mongolia and Xinjiang being obvious cases), was arming the Communist insurgency, had signed a neutrality pact in 1939 with the Nazi’s, and had mostly looked the other way at Japanese aggression in China. Any intervention by Stalin would be to help the CCP and keep Japanese pressure off of Soviet interests.The British empire had long wanted to carve out a sphere of influence in Tibet and take treaty ports when Chinese fortunes were down, and had shown alongside all the European powers a willingness to military intervene in Chinese politics if it suited their financial interests. The French were another, poorer colonial power with little naval power. America was another faraway power that might’ve been mostly friendly to the KMT, and broadly sympathetic to China, but didn’t show much willingness to intervene directly against Japan until years after Japanese attacks on Chinese cities and people—throughout the 30s the USA decidedly pacifist and non-interventionist. So KMT China was diplomatically isolated and didn’t really have a clear ally when it fought its own struggle against Japan. When it was eventually brought into the camp of Allied powers now fighting a “World War” it wasn’t accustomed to any outside advice or international coordination. American-British-French and even Norwegian & Polish militaries had war gamed and planned together but China was an odd man out.The KMT was never prepared to fight Japan from a military and industrial perspective. While the Soviets were behind Germany technologically the Soviet industrial complex had the resources and know-how to quickly scale up to match them. Nationalist China was probably a few generations behind Japan in industrial and technical development and couldn’t simply build or relocate more factories after Japan seized the little industrial capacity China did have in Manchuria—it didn’t have the energy, fundamental industries, and trained personnel to build factories, with the little it did have being generally foreign set-up and run. In the late 20s the KMT courted the Wehrmacht to help in modernizing their military and as a reaction to the Comintern influenced CCP that Chiang was obsessed with suppressing. But that German help proved tentative and transitory when Nazi Germany and Japan decided to make common cause as Axis powers. Instead of sincerely seeking advice Chiang was notoriously stubborn and often instead plead for supplies that would be squandered or mysteriously lost to corrupt subordinates he had little control over. Chiang may have understood the internal political dynamics and realities of 1930s China well, but he was not a great military mind and his nepotistic clique of trusted subordinates were not either, and the KMT simply wasn’t successful enough against the Japanese to earn any legitimacy from Chinese people on the fence about the future of the country.The KMT simply didn’t have much of a military to defend China with. Heavy armor, planes, radio communications, artillery were in very limited in supply and not replaceable, but what it did have was not always conserved and used efficiently. There were many extremely brave Chinese defenses against overwhelming technological odds, but so often lack of adequate transport and medical care doomed what could’ve been effective fighting units. Lack of shells and fuel would leave idle badly needed guns and transport. As mentioned before, the military arms that Chiang did manage to get, which were incredibly difficult for the Americans and British to get to him, were often lost for stupid reasons.The KMT being the “major” Chinese power was the target of large-scale Japanese military operations and had to fight major battles defending population centers. Its reputation was constantly on the line whether it fought and inevitably lost, or retreated. The Communists generally raided, harassed, and committed guerrilla actions behind Japanese lines, and were well-accustomed to fighting suppression tactics having been doing it for over a decade behind KMT lines. In their own manner of fighting the CCP might’ve been somewhat superior simply because it matched the low-level insurgency they were already committed to before the war. The KMT on the other hand was thrust on the battlefield with officers out of their depth leading poorly trained men equipped with little more than light arms against a state-of-the-art combined arms Japanese field armies lead by a highly motivated and well-educated officer corps.So single-minded was Chiang’s persecution of the war against the Communist Party that warlords had to kidnap him and force him to agree to make common cause with the Communists to defeat the Japanese. Chiang always perceived the war as a three-way fight for China between the KMT-CCP-IJA each with its own international backers and a need to court various regional warlords. He never seemed to believe, or simply thought he had time to wait, to work on winning over the hearts of the Chinese people by pushing through meaningful reforms. Battlefield triumphs might’ve gone a long way to bolstering KMT’s legitimacy with the people but those were not forthcoming. The KMT often kept inept and corrupt officials in office, or generals in the field, simply because of their loyalty to him or regional influence or record of faithful Communist persecution. This compromised the little effectiveness he could muster and didn’t do much to inspire the people to rally to the KMT.Had his time besieged in Chongqing been spent building up a well-educated, meritocratic cadre of advisors and officials as well as investing in fundamental industrial development he might’ve created a shining example of Nationist’s vision for future China, and been well-situated in the post-war recovery period to counter the Communists who had done well in Yanan and in control over Soviet-liberated industrial parts of Manchuria.

The very mention of the term, stock market crash can be rather intimidating.You are reminded of panicked sellers, huge losses, and a sense of gloom across the trading floors.Almost inevitably, being stuck in a stock market crash remains every investor’s worst nightmare.You undertake series of precautionary measures to safeguard against a potential crash.But it is not the market crash alone that you need to take into consideration.You have to take into account the various economic ramifications before and after a crash and its bigger impact on the overall development process.Before You Read the Rest of This Article:Submit your email to receive our eBook for FREE.This eBook shows you the shortest way to acheive Financial Freedom:Stock Market Crash DefinitionSo how would you define stock market crash?In very simple terms, the stock market crash definition would be any sudden and drastic fall in stock prices across a major cross section of the stock market.Invariably, you would notice that a crash in the market is driven by several factors like panic, economic aspects and many other related factors.1. Correction or CrashYou can ask why we can’t call it a correction in stock markets.Well indeed we can but when this correction exceeds 10% or more in intra-day trade, we call it stock market crash.Almost inevitably the stock market crash is the logical consequence of the various speculative actions in the market.Almost always this kind of market bubble results from a multiple of factors.On an average, you can expect a stock market crash when you see the stock prices rising for an extended period or you notice that there is unusual euphoria in the market with regards to a specific news or catalyst for that matter.In other words, this additional optimism in the market often results in stretched market valuation and this invariably results in stock prices correcting eventually and resulting in a stock market crash.2. Stretched ValuationBy stretched valuation I mean, the average price-to-earnings ratio of stock prices breach the long-term price averages.Overleveraging of market forces as a direct extension of these speculative elements is also a key catalyst that could result in a crash.An irrational use of the marginal debt can also contribute to the unusually large correction in the broad stock market prices and not just individual entities.But when you set out to look for a stock market crash definition, you must understand that there is no structured definition of this market phenomena.In many ways, it is also a relative concept that comes to play.But what is important is undoubtedly the drama element.Per se, if you are looking for a mathematical justification or broad-based definition, there is, in fact, no way to exactly substantiate what you understand by the stock market crash.3. Rapid Fall in Prices within a Very Short TimeThat is exactly why the easiest and the most common definition for a stock market crash is undeniably a double-digit dip in prices that results in significant value erosion of not just individual stocks but overall market prices.Normally compared to a fall, when you have a crash in the market, it continues for a prolonged period.It does not end in just one go.Invariably, the spate of decline continues for a fairly long period of time.Normally, it is the rapid fall in prices within a very short time that makes a stock market crash stand out.But, yet again there is a big difference between what you can term as a crash and what would be called a bear market.Traditionally, the bear market extends for months and even years while a crash is a fairly temporary development.But it is also a fact that often a stock market crash could be a precursor of a bigger fall in the markets or even a period of extended market decline that can be eventually termed as a bear market.But it is not always true either.4. Stock Market Crash of 1929 as an ExampleWhile the stock market crash of 1929 led to a huge depression and a bear market in 1929 in the US, the big US stock market crash in 1987 did not result in a bear market.Another example would undoubtedly be the Japanese bear market in the 1990s.You saw this phase extend over several years without any distinct stock market crash to report home about.What Causes Stock Market CrashOnce you have a fair idea of what is stock market crash definition, the next important question in this context is undeniably what causes this crash.Well, there can be several factors contributing to the eventual crash in stock prices.1. Panic Selling:Almost inevitably the first and foremost reason behind a stock market crash is panic selling.There can be a lot of triggers for panic in the market.Starting from a news release to political development to implementation of a market policy, there are many reasons that could potentially result in a crash in stock prices.Essentially in a panic situation, shareholders begin to doubt the profit prospect of their holdings and want to limit future losses.The whole fear factor then leads to a huge depreciation in value of stock prices and that eventually leads to the key indices recording double-digit losses.Invariably panic in stock market follows an irrational bubble in the market.During that period, we see the stock prices rising very high without any reasonable justification.When prices keep rising on speculation, investors almost invariably anticipate the panic situation setting into the market and resulting in losses.Something unique about a panic selling situation is that the price of the stocks just before the panic selling and stock market crash are extremely stretched.There is almost an irrational up move and often the price to earning ratio is unable to justify the stock price.The prices move far higher than fair value level and this is exactly where the trouble begins to set in.2. Quantitative Trading:One of the most recent triggers for a stock market crash has been ascribed to a rather new phenomenon, quantitative trading.This is a comparatively recent development that triggered massive declines in the market.Essentially, in this case, the quant analysts in stock markets took help of mathematical algorithms in existing stock market programs to trade.You have a highly developed software that was operated by a huge number of computers and was so programmed that it would trigger a sell at a certain price point.This is often even related as well.The result was panic in stock market and eventual stock market crash.Just imagine when you have a large number of programs tuned to sell at the same point, the average investor sure gets worried and tries to anticipate the possible triggers and therefore looks at booking profit.This program based trading has been the cause for concern and panic in the markets quite a few times.3. Economic Policy:I am sure you have seen the way the market is apprehensive and trading is impacted ahead of any Fed Policy announcement.Now let’s look at the various steps taken by the US Federal Reserve.Lots of times when the Fed decided to not raise the borrowing rate or continue with its no rate hike policy, or for that matter any such related steps, it resulted in adverse market movement.So, you can now understand market movement is very closely linked with economic developments and how they impact the prospect of generating future returns.Therefore, if there is any economic policy that impacts the markets negatively, it can surely trigger a stock market crash.You have to understand that the severity of the entire crash will depend on how or what the news impacts.Sometimes economic policy also alters the course of global demand and supply dynamics and this can often change how not just individual stocks respond but also how the market reacts.This is exactly why it becomes such an important trigger for potential stock market crash.4. Political News:Another major trigger for stock markets is decidedly the political developments in the country.As we have seen in the case of a few US stock market crash, sometimes political news can really trigger a huge fall in the market, essentially if the fall is triggered by panic amongst shareholders about the potential impact of a possible political development.The market might sometimes interpret a certain development as negative for the future prospects of the country and that is how the panic settles in the entire market.This is what will then lead to a sell-off and eventual stock market crash.Sometimes the political development might not be in your country.But if the relevant information is in anyway with a negative connotation for the future of your country’s political development, then it will surely lead to a sell-off in the markets and eventually result in stock market crash.5. Geo-Political Development:If you ever followed crude oil prices, I am sure this fact will be very clearly highlighted in the manner how a news trigger can impact market movement.For example, let’s say that a war has broken in some part of the world and several global superpowers are involved, it is bit obvious that there would be ramifications on the overall economic and monetary picture of the country.You are not sure about the fund flow might be impacted and this will surely result in some sort of panic in stock markets.Needless to mention therefore that if the trigger becomes relatively serious, the ramifications too can take on a far more difficult undertone and that can result in stock market crash.Can You Predict Stock Market Crash Mathematically?Often the quant analysis in the market makes you wonder if there is a mathematical way to predict a stock market crash?You did not have to worry about set valuations, explore stretched levels and simply based on some easy calculations, you would have known when it is time to sell!Wishful that sounds but have you explored if you can actually predict a market fall in this manner?In fact, if you notice overall, the mathematical description and analysis of markets using them has been subject to intense discussion and debate.As early as 1963, several mathematicians had begun probing the link between large movement in stock markets and their non-linear analysis and explanation as per the Chaos Theory.In fact, some studies have even indicated that stock market crash followed the cubic law and could even be interpreted as a sign of a kind of ‘self-organized criticality’ by Prof Didier Sornette.In fact, researchers continue much further analysis linking the various index movements and the potential link to a stock market crash.Computer simulations have often been used to create crowd hysteria like the situation to exactly understand the possible link between these crashes and the market movement.– One Year Just Before a Stock Market CrashIn fact, while researching the various links, it was observed that a rise in the market mimicry continues to happen for one year just before a stock market crash.Surprisingly, this fact stands true for every market crash in last 3 decades or so and even before the financial crisis in 2008, the mimicry reached a pinnacle.Obviously, this fact clearly highlights how we can use this data to create a warning mechanism to help deal with the market movement and perhaps even look at creating a warning mechanism.Don’t you think it would be really cool if you just knew the moment the stock market crash would happen and therefore act according to it?There are some interesting mathematical corollaries that have been drawn with regards to the market reversals.Calculations indicate that there has been an inexplicable link between stock market crash and almost 10-40% reversal in just a month’s span.Therefore, it can be easily said that there sure is a clear link between the stock market crash and mathematical analysis of it.However, research is underway and the links are not clearly established between them.In many ways, it is a concept that is replete with potential but the overall concept would need far more probing and investigation.Stock Market Crash of 1929The moment you talk about the stock market crash, it is impossible not to mention the stock market crash of 1929 and depression that it triggered.In fact, in many ways, it was not just the earliest stock market crash but also a completely new experience for investors.Suddenly, shareholders realized the spine-chilling impact of a trade going bad.The share prices kept falling for over 4 days and the total value erosion reached as much as 25%.The stock market crash began on October 24 and has been hence called as Black Thursday.Prices nosedived as much as 11% and then recovered some bit.Nearly 13 million shares were sold in a single trading session.This was in fact more than 3x the average volume.When trading began the next day, Friday, it seemed stocks were back to business but the mayhem continued and the market bled another 13% the following Monday and that is how the term Black Monday came into being.The downslide continued relentlessly and the next day, Black Tuesday saw another 10%+ fall in the indices.Business came to almost a standstill in the course of these four trading sessions.The 1920s till then was a fairly positive phase in US economy.Economic activity was thriving, technology advanced and you had many modern new age innovations unveiling like automobile, radios and aviation.In fact, stocks like General Motors, Radio Corporation and a variety of financial corporations were the toast of Wall Street.Bankers began to float mutual funds and investment trusts and the easy returns that the stock markets were generating became the opium of the common man.Needless to mention that this also meant that the valuations were stretched and the markets were over leveraged.As a result, the economy gradually started shrinking and the summer of 1929 saw some massive price declines.Finally, the unravelling of market forces began and the eventual stock market crash started on October 29.By the time Black Monday set forth, the overall deluge of sellers almost tripped the trading system.Telephone lines, the heart of the entire trading mechanism at that time was absolutely clogged.Fear and panic gripped the investor circle and the jamming of telephone lines led to a further vacuum in the market.The entire information channel got completely clogged and there was a huge vacuum that further aggravated the problem.The problem worsened the following day, Black Tuesday.It was complete mayhem and chaos on Wall Street.Investors were forced to sell their assets because margins started getting triggered.Badly leveraged investors flooded the exchange.They were trying their level best to get rid of the stocks.The result: the markets slumped even further.By the time the week ended and the weekend arrived, the US stock market crash equaled close to almost 40% from its September highs.There was, of course, some rally soon after in the months that follow but the bigger bear market had set in.The stock market crash of 1929, unveiled the most talked about depression in US economy.The Dow in this period lost almost 90% and finally bottomed out by the middle of 1932.It was perhaps one of the most tiring phases and most talked about US stock market crash.Investors had clocked in such huge losses and the stock market crash ushered in such a period of uncertainty that it took quite some time before they actually gained faith and began investing once again.In fact, the traces of the stock market crash of 1929 continued to plague the market sentiment almost as late as the 1950s.The Dow Jones, one of the marquee and most extensively traded US indices did not recover to its pre-1929 crash levels almost till 1954.Perhaps the road to recovery started from their and slow and steadily indices began to scale back to new highs.Investor confidence too began to move up and the overall response to market gradually started again recovering.Other Prominent US Stock Market CrashYou must understand that the stocks operate in a cycle.There will be swings, crests and troughs.The point is how well you can gear up for the potential stock market crash and in what way can you line up your investment to capitalize or limit losses.The horrors of a Black Monday revisited Wall Street again in 1987.It was another October Monday in 1987.The Dow slumped over 20% on October 19.It was the largest single-day loss for the Index till date.The market took almost 2 years to recover from the losses that were clocked.Needless to mention that this crash followed a 40% plus up move and yet again it was a story of over-leveraged positions.But this crash was triggered by three main factorsThe investors were very worried about the Congress perspective on the anti-takeover legislationWhen the US Treasury Secretary announced that he might let the dollar depreciateQuantitative tradingOverall, while the first two factors contributed to the initial triggers for this particular US stock market crash and the third factor, quantitative trading, aggravated the losses even further.1. Major Stock Market Crash in the 1990sWhen you consider the major stock market crash in the 1990s there are a few more that need mention.Perhaps the Dot Com Bubble that crashed in 2000 was one of the most notable ones.In 1999, the technology stocks were moving up and investor interest further boosted the stock price levels.But at the turn of the millennium, the Y2K scare took over investor sentiment.New computers were brought, advanced technologies and software introduced to tackle the difference between 1999 and 2000.While technology stocks rose up but when the millennium took a turn and eventually the bubble crashed.Meanwhile, in Asia around that time, 1997, the stock market crash in Hong Kong unveiled another economic crisis, The Asian Financial Crisis.This was triggered by the long-term capital management crisis. Needless to mention that the aftershocks of this crisis continued for a long while and Asian markets took time to recover from these losses.2. The 2008 US Stock Market CrashPerhaps in this context, another prominent US stock market crash is undeniably that of 2008.Needless to mention this one too triggered a huge economic turmoil and came to be known as the sub-prime crisis.Perhaps the most poignant image of this crash was ex-Lehman employees walking out of their offices with their box.An air of gloom, uncertainty and unrest plagued the markets for the four or five years that followed.In many ways, the global economy is still coming to grips with the impact of the downturn that the 2008 US stock market crash unveiled.The Dow dropped a massive 700 points on September 29, 2008.For many, it was almost like living their worst nightmare.It was the largest intraday point drop by any Index ever on the NYSE.It was primarily triggered by the failure of the bailout bill in the US Senate.Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the markets went on an absolute spin.Such was the intensity of the downward spiral, the Dow lost almost 50% of its value in the 6-month period that this crisis unraveled.Apart from these, there have been notable flash crashes too in the market.The most prominent US stock market crash in this context is undeniably the one that market and investors probably remember the most.In a matter of minutes, the Dow Jones index slumped over 1000 points.It was considered to be a fall out of an inexplicable shutdown in quantitative trading as a result of technical failure.But the sheer volume of the fall created significant ripples across markets and investors globally.How Does Stock Market Crash Impact You?So, the most you want to know is how exactly does the stock market crash affect you?It is possible that you might not have been directly impacted by the immediate crash but inevitably most major stock market crash result in a bear market that could continue for a rather extended period.Not just that most times stock market crash has resulted into major recessions globally.The impact of this is never easy to weather.Whether you want to invest, start a new business or merely look for jobs, recession invariably impacts almost every walk of our economic aspiration.You must understand while a stock market crash might result in the Index slumping 10-20%, individual stock prices often hit rock bottom levels.When stock prices are moving higher exponentially, there is always a fear of missing out gains that make investors buy even at stretched levels.On the contrary when the stock markets crash happens, they are stuck with extremely devalued stocks, panic sets in yet, again and again, they sell at whatever possible levels to get out of those stocks.So, investors are buying at highs and selling at lows totally defeating the fundamentals of stock market transactions.The Lessons You Learn from the Stock Market CrashWe can conclude that the stock market crash teaches us the most important lesson of investment.Make the trend your friend and avoid any panic-driven moves.You must buy stocks based on their financials and not their emotional value.Be it the stock market crash of 1929 or any other US stock market crash, they all teach us the important lesson that stretched valuation invariably leads to a stock market crash.Perhaps keeping a well-diversified portfolio can help you tackle losses during the stock market crash a lot more effectively.Good Luck!