Implementation
Science and Systematic Practice versus Pseudoscience, Menu-Driven
Frameworks, and “Convenience Store” Implementation
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
For 30 years or more, “School Discipline” and
“Classroom Management” have been cited as among the most consistently pressing
“problems” in schools across the country.
Indeed, when significantly or persistently inappropriate student behavior
disrupts other students’ opportunities to learn, the classroom climate, and
school safety, something must be done.
And, in most
districts and schools, something is being done.
But . . . are the right
things being done? And . . . are the
right outcomes being targeted?
_ _ _ _ _
This Blog
message will discuss:
1. The school discipline and classroom
management “problems” that many schools are trying to address across the
country, and the goals and outcomes that they use to choose their “solutions.”
*** But we will
synthesize these problems into the social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management elements needed to resolve these problems—and
reconceptualize the needed goals, outcomes, and interventions into a
school improvement context.
_ _ _
2. Some of the approaches that schools and
districts are using to “solve” these problems, their limitations, and why they
will not fully solve the identified “problems”—and actually could make them
worse.
*** Here, we will
discuss the “selection criteria” that schools and districts should use to
avoid adopting approaches based on pseudoscience, ineffective
menu-driven frameworks, and “research” that either is poorly done or
inappropriately applied.
_ _ _ _ _
3. How most of the
approaches that could work, are not working.
*** This is because
most of these approaches concentrate on only one or two of the five
interdependent and scientifically-based components that are prerequisite to
school discipline and classroom management success.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Goals of
School Discipline and Classroom Management
The Current Goal of Many Schools
Many schools and
districts have one primary goal relative to school discipline and classroom
management:
To decrease or eliminate (disproportionate)
Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs), Suspensions, Expulsions, and Alternative
School Placements.
_ _ _ _ _
The biggest
problem with this goal is that:
All of these
disciplinary decisions/actions are subjective in nature, and thus, are
unreliable relative to tracking the effectiveness of a school discipline
program.
For example, when
confronted with the same student’s mild or “low level” misbehavior, some
teachers will ignore it (so they don’t reinforce it with attention); others
will use a corrective response; others will respond with a consequence; and
still others will immediately send it to the office.
For mild
misbehavior, science-to-practice would suggest either of the first two
responses. Thus, the Office
Discipline Referrals (ODRs) that result from the latter teachers are both
pedagogically inappropriate, and they artificially inflate a school’s ODR
data.
More
specifically: If a school had five
novice teachers with weak classroom management skills (because of poor or
non-existent university training—which is the norm), and they made 15
inappropriate ODRs (as above) during the same year, the school’s ODR count
would be inaccurately inflated by 75 ODRs.
If these 75 ODRs
were the majority of the school’s ODR count for the year, then the ODR outcome
data would be more representative of these teachers’ inappropriate referrals,
and less reflective of the efficacy of the school’s overall discipline program.
_ _ _ _ _
Relatedly: We know that some teachers (inappropriately)
send students from minority backgrounds and with disabilities, respectively, to
the Office for mild levels of misbehavior, while they “discipline” the
Caucasian students who exhibit the same misbehavior in their
classrooms.
This practice is
one of the root causes of disproportionality across our country.
Critically, when
this occurs, the District-level solution is NOT to initiate policies that
forbid Office Discipline Referrals at certain grade levels.
The solution is to implement
a comprehensive, scientifically-based schoolwide discipline system (see
below) and to train and support all teachers and staff in its
implementation.
[See my earlier
BLOG on this subject:
From One
Extreme to the Other: Changing School
Policy from “Zero Tolerance” to “Total Tolerance will not Work. . . Decreasing
Disproportionate Discipline Referrals and Suspensions Requires Changing Student
and Staff Behavior. . .
CLICK
HERE]
_ _ _ _ _
Some additional
problems occur when the primary School Discipline and Classroom Management goal
for a school or district focuses on decreasing ODRs and other disciplinary
decisions and actions.
1. One problem is
the reactive nature of goal.
Rather than focus
on proactively teaching students appropriate interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and
coping skills, the goal suggests that we (a) wait for inappropriate behavior to
occur; (b) respond to it with an administrative action; and (c) expect that
this action will eliminate inappropriate behavior in the future.
Said a different
way: “The absence of prevention often increases the necessity of
intervention.”
_ _ _ _ _
2. A second problem
is that—implicit in the goal’s “definition of success”—is a belief that when
ODRs are decreasing or at low levels, students’ classroom behavior is
appropriate.
Indeed, just
because ODRs are decreasing over time in a school, this does not necessarily
mean that students are behaving appropriately in their classrooms. In fact, it may simply mean that their
inappropriate classroom behavior is annoying or disruptive, but below the “threshold” or severity that
warrants an ODR.
Said a different
way: “The absence of inappropriate behavior for an ODR does not necessarily
represent the presence of appropriate behavior in the classroom.”
_ _ _ _ _
3. A third problem
with the goal above is the potential to view all student misbehavior as
disciplinary in nature.
Indeed, some
students’ “discipline problems” actually reflect social, emotional, or
behavioral challenges that are medically-, situationally-, or
disability-related. Moreover, these
challenges cannot be changed through disciplinary actions. Critically, these students need strategic or
intensive intervention in order to address their needs.
Said a different
way: “There are differences between ‘Discipline Problems’ and ‘Behavioral
Problems.’ The former respond to
disciplinary actions, while the latter require and respond to intervention.”
_ _ _ _ _
The Needed Goals for ALL Schools
Instead of the single goal above, we
recommend that schools and districts systemically embed their School Discipline
and Classroom Management goals into their effective “school and schooling”
goals.
In fact, based on
Project ACHIEVE’s evidence-based (through the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)
multi-tiered Positive Behavioral Support System, and our 30+ years of
implementation in thousands of schools across the country (
www.projectachieve.net), we suggest
the following goals:
1. High levels of
academic engagement and academic achievement for all students.
2. High levels of
effective interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution,
and emotional control and coping skills by all students (and staff).
3. High levels of
critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving skills by all students (and
staff).
4. High levels of
teacher confidence—relative to instruction, classroom management, and in
helping students with academic or behavior problems.
5. Consistently
effective instruction and classroom management across all
teachers/instructional support staff.
6. Low levels of
classroom discipline problems, discipline problems that need to involve the
Principal, or discipline problems that require student suspensions or
expulsions.
7. High levels of
parent and community support and involvement in student self-management.
_ _ _ _ _
Together, these
seven goals alleviate the concerns with the single discipline-focused goal
typically embraced by most schools and districts (as above). Moreover, these goals reflect the many
factors that converge to help schools become positive, safe, and
proactive—relative to school discipline and classroom management. Finally, these goals illuminate the
interdependency between a school’s academic and social, emotional, and
behavioral programs.
But embedded in
these goals—if it were required—is the one goal that schools and
districts should adopt if they must identify a single goal in the school
discipline and classroom management area.
This goal (#3
above) is:
To teach, prompt, and reinforce students
for high levels of effective, developmentally-appropriate interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and
coping skills—so that social, emotional, and behavioral interactions are
positive, and “problems” are prevented.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
School Discipline
and Classroom Management Approaches:
Effective and Ineffective
The Current Approaches Used by Many Schools
In surveying the
school discipline and classroom management approaches that are most-used around
the country, four trends emerge:
* Some schools
adopt approaches to address social or societal characteristics or gaps that are
present or needed in their community (e.g., Cultural Competence and Proficiency;
Disproportionality; Poverty Awareness and Response programs)
* Some schools
adopt approaches to address student-specific characteristics or problems that
are present in their school (e.g., School Attendance and Truancy; Teasing and
Bullying Prevention Programs; Trauma Sensitive Schools; Restorative Justice)
* Some schools
adopt approaches to improve students’ social, emotional, or behavioral
awareness and skills (e.g., Character Education; Mindfulness; 21st
Century Skill programs; Social Skill instruction programs)
* Some schools
adopt frameworks where schools can select different components, strategies,
activities, or actions to address their goals (e.g., School Safety and Climate,
Social Emotional Learning—SEL; Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports—PBIS)
_ _ _ _ _
The biggest
problems with some or all of these approaches include:
* They focus on behavioral
deficits, and not (also) on students’ social, emotional, and behavioral
awareness, skills, competence, and self-management as their primary outcomes
* Their strategies
or approaches do not have the necessary scientific, psychological foundations, and/or
they do not integrate all five of the interdependent, evidence-based components
that facilitate student self-management
* They do not
correctly translate their (valid) science into effective evidence-based
practices that have been appropriately and objectively field-tested in a wide
variety of representative, randomly-selected, and controlled settings,
situations, and circumstances
* They have not
been independently evaluated using objective multi-assessment, multi-setting,
multi-trait, multi-respondent tools and approaches
* They are based on
frameworks that compile an assortment of different components,
strategies, activities, or actions; and they “allow” schools or districts to self-select
those approaches that they want or think will address their needs.
This renders any
cross-school or district evaluations meaningless (as you are typically
comparing “apples and oranges”), and it increases the risk that the approaches
selected will not work and might make the problem worse.
_ _ _ _ _
Clearly, some of
the research that has validated certain strategies, interventions, programs,
or models is sound, is applied to the correct school or district
situations or problems, and is implemented and evaluated with intensity and
integrity.
But. . . some of
the research—as described in the “Biggest Problems” list above—is NOT
sound, or is not appropriately applied.
Indeed, some of the
“research” was done (a) by convenience; (b) with small, non-representative, and
non-random samples; (c) without comparisons to matched “control groups;” and
(d) in scientifically unsound ways. Moreover,
some of the “research” was not independently, objectively, or “blindly”
reviewed (as when someone publishes their work in a “refereed” professional
journal) by three or more experts in the field.
When research is
not sound, it is usually because:
* The “researchers” are more interested in
“marketing, influence, fame, or fortune” and their “research” really doesn’t
even qualify as legitimate research [this “science” is pseudoscience]
* The researchers
are simply not knowledgeable or skilled in conducting sound research [this
science ranges from clumsy to inept]
* The researchers
do not have the resources to conduct the complexity or sophisticated level of
the research needed [this science is ranges from ill-advised to well-intended]
When research is
not appropriately applied, it is usually because:
* The researchers
have interpreted (or recommend the use of) their results in ways that go well
beyond the intent of their original research, or the people, problems, or
parameters involved in that research
* The researchers
have confused or represented correlational results as causal results,
and implementing schools or districts have accepted the (false) belief that,
for example, “research has proven that this program will directly and
exclusively solve this problem”
* The implementing
schools or districts do not have the skills or capacity to independently
evaluate the research, and they mistakenly (or wishfully) conclude that, for
example, a specific program will work “with our students, in our settings, with
our staff and resources, given our current problems and desired outcomes”—even
though that program has never been tested or validated under those
circumstances
_ _ _ _ _
The Needed Science for ALL Schools
If the primary goal
of school discipline and classroom management is to teach, prompt, and
reinforce students’ social, emotional, and behavioral self-management,
there is a clear and demonstrated scientific psychological foundation. This foundation involves five
interdependent components that are organized along a multi-tiered continuum.
The components (see
figure below) that “anchor” the underlying science of social, emotional, and
behavioral self-management are:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and
Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and
Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
From: Knoff, H.M. (2014). School
Discipline, Classroom Management, and
Student Self-Management: A Positive
Behavioral Support Implementation
Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
While I have
discussed these components in past Blogs, so that readers do not have to “jump
back” to these Blogs, I will briefly describe the five components below.
Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
Effective schools
work consciously, planfully, and on an on-going basis to develop, reinforce,
and sustain positive and productive relationships so that their cross-school
and in-classroom climates mirror these relationships.
Critically,
however, these relationships include the following: Students to Students, Students to Staff,
Staff to Staff, Students to Parents, and Staff to Parents.
And functionally,
they involve training and reinforcement.
For example, students need to learn the social and interactional skills
that build positive relationships with others, and the peer group must “buy
into” the process.
Similarly, teachers
need to recognize the importance of committing to effective communication,
collaboration, and collegial consultation.
But, they also need to have the skills to accomplish these. . . in good
times and bad.
All of this
generalizes to self-management. When
students have good social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills,
they rarely demonstrate them in negative, aversive, or toxic environments.
When they don’t
have these skills, the absence of positive relationships and school/classroom
climates often impede the instruction, their learning, or their motivation to
learn.
_ _ _ _ _
Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
Students—from
preschool through high school—need to know the explicit social, emotional, and
behavioral expectations in the classrooms and across the common areas of the
school. These expectations need to be
communicated in a prosocial way as “what they need to do,” rather than in a
negative, deficit-focused way as “what they do not need to do.”
Indeed, teachers
and administrators have more success teaching students to (a) walk down the
hallway, rather than do not run; (b) raise your hand and wait to be called on,
rather than don’t blurt out answers; (c) accept a consequence, rather than
don’t roll your eyes and give me attitude.
In addition, these
expectations need to be behaviorally specific—that is, we need to describe
exactly what we want the students to do (e.g., in the hallways, bathrooms,
cafeteria, and on the bus).
Moreover, it is not
instructionally helpful to talk in constructs—telling students that they need
to be “Respectful, Responsible, Polite, Safe, and Trustworthy.” This is because each of these constructs
involve a wide range of behaviors. At
the elementary school level, students really do not functionally or
behaviorally understand these higher-ordered thinking constructs. At the secondary level, students may
interpret these constructs (and their many inherent behaviors) differently than
staff.
And it is the behaviors
that we need to teach . . . so that students can fully demonstrate the global
constructs that we want.
In the final
analysis, however: You can’t teach a
behavioral construct. You need to teach
the behaviors that are represented within each construct that you want your
students to demonstrate.
Thus, beyond
specifying the social, emotional, and behavioral expectations in a school or
classroom, these social, emotional, and behavioral skills must be taught as
part of classroom management.
In fact, these
skills are taught the same way that we teach a football team their offensive or
defensive schemes and plays, an orchestra its music and movements, a drama club
and actors a play’s scenes and lines, or a student who to break-down and learn
a specific academic task.
And, the teaching
methodology that needs to be used involved social learning theory. Explicitly, we need to teach the skills and
their steps, to demonstrate them, to give students opportunities to practice
them and receive feedback, and then to help students to apply their new skills
to “real-world” situations.
Relative to self-management and this
component, we need to communicate our social, emotional, and behavioral
expectations to students, and then teach them to perform them—in different
settings, with different people, in different contexts, and under different
conditions of emotionality.
Functionally, this means that our schools need to consciously and
explicitly set aside time for social skills instruction, and then embed the
application of this instruction into their classrooms and group activities, and
(for example) cooperative and project-based instruction.
_ _ _ _ _
Student Motivation and Accountability
For the skill
instruction described above to “work,” students need to be held accountable for
demonstrating positive and effective social, emotional, and behavioral
skills. But to accomplish this, students
need to be motivated (eventually, self-motivated) to perform these skills.
Motivation is
based on two component parts:
Incentives and Consequences. But
critically, these incentives and consequences must be meaningful and powerful to
the students (not just to the adults in a school).
Too often, schools
create “motivational programs” for students that involve incentives and
consequences that the students couldn’t care less about. Thus, it looks good “on paper,” but it holds
no weight in actuality—from the students’ perspectives.
At other times,
schools forget that they need to recognize, engage, and activate the peer group
in a motivational program. This is
because, at times, the peer group actually is undermining a positive behavioral
program by negatively reinforcing specific students (on the playground, after
school, on social media). These students
then “behave” appropriately only when they are interacting one-on-one with
adults (i.e., in the absence of the “negative” peer group), and they behave
inappropriately with adults in the presence of the peer group—to avoid later
(on the playground, after school, etc.) peer disapproval, rejection, or
aggression.
On a functional
level, both incentives and consequences result in positive and prosocial
behavior. The incentives motivate
students toward the expected behaviors, and the consequences motivate students
away from the inappropriate behaviors (and, again, toward the expected ones).
But critically,
educators need to understand that you can only create motivating
conditions. That is, we can’t force
students to meet the social, emotional, and behavioral expectations. Indeed, when we force students to do
anything, we are managing their behavior, not facilitating
self-management. And while we must do
some adult management to get to student self-management. . . if we only manage
students’ behavior, then they will not (know how to) self-manage when the
adults are not present.
Ultimately,
relative to this component, the goal is self-motivation and self-accountability. When this occurs, we have a high probability
of comprehensive student self-management.
_ _ _ _ _
Consistency
Consistency is a
process. It would be great if we could
“download” it into all students and staff. . . or put it in their annual flu
shots. . . but that’s not going to happen.
Consistency needs
to be “grown” experientially over time and, even then, it needs to be sustained
in an ongoing way. It is grown through
effective strategic planning with explicit implementation plans, good
communication and collaboration, sound implementation and evaluation, and
consensus-building coupled with constructive feedback and change.
It’s not easy. . .
but it is necessary for school success.
But relative to
school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management,
consistency must occur all four of the other interdependent components.
That is, in order
to be successful, staff (and students) need to (a) demonstrate consistent
prosocial relationships and interactions—resulting in consistently positive and
productive school and classroom environments; (b) communicate consistent
behavioral expectations, while consistently teaching and practicing them; (c)
use consistent incentives and consequences, while holding student consistently
accountable for their appropriate behavior; and then (d) apply all of these
components consistently across all of the settings, circumstances, and peer
groups in the school.
Moreover,
consistency occurs when staff are consistent (a) with individual students, (b)
across different students, (c) within their grade levels or instructional
teams, (d) across time, (e) across settings, and (f) across situations and
circumstances.
Critically, when
staff are inconsistent, students feel that they are treated unfairly, they
sometimes behave differently for different staff or in different settings, they
can become manipulative—pitting one staff person against another, and they
often emotionally react—some students getting angry with the inconsistency, and
others simply withdrawing because they feel powerless to change it.
Said a different
way: Inconsistency undercuts student
accountability, and you don’t get the consistent social, emotional, or
behavioral self-management that you want in class or across the school.
A football coach,
orchestra conductor, drama director, or classroom teacher (academically) would
never teach, practice, or reinforce their “skills” inconsistently. Neither should those responsible for the
social, emotional, and behavioral program (which necessarily involves everyone)
in a school.
_ _ _ _ _
Implementation and Application Across All Settings and
All Peer Groups
The last component
of the school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management
model focuses on the application of the previous four components to all of the
settings, situations, circumstances, and peer/adult interactions in the school.
Relative to the
first area, it is important to understand that the common areas of a school are
more complex and dynamic than the classroom settings. Indeed, in the hallways, bathrooms, buses,
cafeteria, and on the playground (or playing fields), there typically are more
multi-aged or cross-grade students, more and varied social interactions, more
space or fewer physical limitations, fewer staff and supervisors, and different
social demands.
As such, the
positive student social, emotional, and behavioral interactions that may occur
more easily in the classroom often are more taxed in the common school areas.
Accordingly,
students need to be taught how to demonstrate their interpersonal, social
problem solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping
skills in each common school area.
Moreover, the training needs to be tailored to the social demands and
expectations of these settings.
Relative to the
latter area, and as above, it is important to understand that the peer group is
often a more dominant social and emotional “force” than the adults in a
school. As such, the school’s approaches
to student self-management must be consciously generalized and applied
(relative to climate, relationships, expectations, skill instruction,
motivation, and accountability) to help prevent peer-to-peer teasing, taunting,
bullying, harassment, hazing, and physical aggression.
This is done by
involving the different peer groups in a school in group “prevention and early
response” training, and motivating them—across the entire school—to take the
lead relative to prosocial interactions.
Truly, the more the
peer group can be trained, motivated, and reinforced to do “the heavy prosocial
lifting,” the more successful the staff and the school will be relative to
positive school climate and consistently safe schools. And, the more successful students will be
relative to social, emotional, and behavioral self-management.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Applying the Five
Scientific Components to Commonly-Used School Discipline Approaches in Schools
Earlier in this
Blog, we identified a number of commonly-used discipline approaches that are
used in some schools:
* Cultural
Competence and Proficiency
* Disproportionality
* Poverty Awareness
and Response
* School Attendance
and Truancy
* Teasing and
Bullying Prevention Programs
* Trauma Sensitive
Schools
* Restorative
Justice
* Character
Education
* Mindfulness
* 21st
Century Skill programs
* Social Skill
instruction programs
* School Safety and
Climate
* Social-Emotional
Learning (SEL)
* Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Below, I am going
to briefly (a) summarize the research foundation for each approach; (b)
identify which of the five interdependent scientific components described above
each approach covers (assuming it has a sound research foundation); and (c)
cite (with date and title) previous Blogs where the approach has been
discussed.
[For the previous Blog citations (c
above), please go to the upper right-hand side of this Blog page. There you will find a Blog Archive. Using that Archive, pull down the month
and year of the Blog, and click on the Blog’s title to link to the original
message.]
_ _ _ _ _
Cultural Competence and Proficiency
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
_ _ _ _ _
Disproportionality
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Student
Motivation and Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
November 13, 2016: Beating Kids in
Schools: How Corporal Punishment Reinforces Bias, Violence, Trauma, Poor
Social Problem-Solving, and the Fallacy of Intervention. . . The
Alternative? Eliminate Corporal Punishment by Preventing its Need, and
Implementing Interventions that Actually Change Student Behavior
August 20, 2016: From One Extreme to the
Other: Changing School Policy from “Zero Tolerance” to “Total Tolerance”
Will Not Work. . . Decreasing Disproportionate Discipline Referrals and
Suspensions Requires Changing Student and Staff Behavior
June 21, 2015: School Disproportionality
and the Charleston Murders: Systemic Change vs. State Statutes
September 21, 2014: Minneapolis
Superintendent Bans Most Suspensions for their Youngest Students: What
Districts Need to do Instead of Suspending (Young) Students
September 6, 2014: New Superintendents’
Survey: Suspensions Do NOT Change Behavior— What does?
June 8, 2014: New National Report
Discusses Ways to Improve School Learning Conditions for Students and Staff. .
. and How to Break the "School to Prison" Link for Behaviorally
Challenging Students
April 6, 2014: Preschoolers Most
Suspended Age Group: New Report and What It Means for You
March 9, 2014: Approaches to Eliminate
Disproportionality: New Study Reinforces State-wide Student Discipline
Inequities
December 15, 2013: The National Council
on Teacher Quality and The New York Times: Teacher Training Programs NOT
Preparing New Teachers in Classroom Management, and Zero Tolerance Procedures
for School Discipline Do not Work
_ _ _ _ _
Poverty Awareness and Response
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Student Motivation and
Accountability
_ _ _ _ _
School Attendance and Truancy
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Student
Motivation and Accountability
Previous Blogs
June 12, 2016: How to Improve your
Chronically Absent Students' Attendance. . . During the Summer
_ _ _ _ _
Teasing and Bullying Prevention Programs
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
There ARE a small
number of programs in this area that have been identified as evidence-based
model programs. At the same time, there
are many programs that do not have an appropriate research foundation
here.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations but
usually NOT Skills Instruction
* Implementation and Application Across
All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
February 19, 2017: Federal and State
Policies ARE NOT Eliminating Teasing and Bullying in Our Schools: Teasing
and Bullying is Harming our Students Psychologically and Academically—Here’s
How to Change this Epidemic through Behavioral Science and Evidence-based
Practices
_ _ _ _ _
Trauma Sensitive Schools
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
There are a number
of the well-researched and well-established cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional psychological interventions available to address
significantly-involved students in this area.
In contrast, few—if any—of the “nationally-touted ‘packaged programs’”
have been validated.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and
Accountability
Previous Blogs
October 11, 2014: Another Federal Push…
What’s the Deal with Trauma Sensitive Schools?
July 22, 2014: Student Mental Health and
Wellness: What the New RWJ Foundation Report Means for You
_ _ _ _ _
Restorative Justice
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is largely
a strategy that has been implemented in the context of different
programs attempting to decrease disproportionate ODRs, and suspensions and
expulsions. While extant research
(largely focused on “positive practice and/or restitutional overcorrect”
interventions) is available to support this strategy’s underlying principles,
the contemporary use of this strategy has not been well-researched in its own
right.
In addition, some
individuals and organizations have “packaged” this strategy within a broader
school- or district-wide disciplinary process.
However, to date, high-quality, objective, and generalizable research
has not been reported on the efficacy of these programs.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Student
Motivation and Accountability
Previous Blogs
March 15, 2015: Restorative Practices and
Reducing Suspensions: The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up
_ _ _ _ _
Character Education
Summary of
Research Foundation: There are a
great many “character education” programs on the market. The research and efficacy of the vast
majority of them is either non-existent or of poor quality. Moreover, most character education programs
focus more on increasing students’ awareness of different character traits or
behaviors than on actually teaching specific behaviors in a scientifically-sound
way. Even if “research” appears to validate a particular program, schools and
districts still need to objectively determine whether the research is sound,
and whether the program can be effectively used with their specific students,
staff, and schools.
There ARE a few
programs in this area that have been identified as evidence-based. At the same time, there are many
character education programs (including some touted by the national
organizations in this area) that do not have an appropriate research
foundation.
Scientific Components
Covered: To a large degree, programs
in this area only cover the following of the five interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations but
usually NOT Skills Instruction
* Implementation and Application Across All
Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
November 27, 2016: When Character
Education Programs Do Not Work: Creating “Awareness” Does NOT CHANGE
“Behavior” . . . TEACHING Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills
Requires Behavioral Instruction
May 30, 2016: The Difference between
Social Stories and Social Skills Training? A BIG Difference!
_ _ _ _ _
Mindfulness
Summary of
Research Foundation: This area has
recently become a media and marketing juggernaut—even though agreed-upon
“definitions” of what constitutes “mindfulness” are missing. And while (a) some groups have “packaged”
specific “mindfulness programs,” (b) testimonials “validating” these programs
seem to be publicized frequently (mostly in local newspapers whose stories are
then picked up on social media), and (c) a number of large school districts
(according to these stories) have begun implementing these “programs,”
definitive research is lacking.
In many respects, a
“media bandwagon effect” appears to be occurring, there are concerns that these
techniques and/or programs have not been fully validated (and that we are
“experimenting” on the students involved), and some researchers believe that the
reported “successes” cannot be causally explained by the techniques and/or
programs.
Beyond the media
frenzy. . . to date, much of the mindfulness research that has been published
in professional journals is either in unrefereed journals (that is, the
research has not been blindly and objectively reviewed by experts in the
field), or is of poor quality.
All of this puts
the schools and districts considering mindfulness strategies or programs “on
notice” that they are responsible for vetting and validating these programs
before they are introduced into their classrooms. While increasing students’ social, emotional,
and behavioral awareness is an important component of self-management, we do
not need “mindfulness programs” to “get the job done.”
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations usually
in the context of Emotional Control Skills
Previous Blogs
February 13, 2016: Reviewing Mindfulness
and Other Mind-Related Programs (Part II). More Bandwagons that
Need to be Derailed?
January 30, 2016: Reviewing
Mindfulness and Other Mind-Related Programs: Have We Just Lost our
Minds? (Part I). Why Schools Sometimes Waste their Time and (Staff)
Resources on Fads with Poor Research and Unrealistic Results.
_ _ _ _ _
21st Century Skill programs
Summary of
Research Foundation: The term “21st
Century Skills” came out of a national report that identified the academic,
social-emotional, and vocational skills needed by future high school graduates
(and beyond) in order to compete in 21st Century job market. Thus, while there is a separate research
foundation for many of the social, emotional, and behavioral skills cited, no
research has truly validated the synthesis of skills cited in the report.
Thus, to the degree
that anyone has packaged these skills into a curriculum or program, any
research used to support said curriculum or program needs to be independently
evaluated. Even if the research
validates the approaches, schools and districts still need to objectively
determine whether they can be effectively used with their specific students,
staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
* Implementation and Application Across
All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
July 8, 2015: The Unfulfilled Promise of
Education: Students' Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills
_ _ _ _ _
Social Skill instruction programs
Summary of
Research Foundation: While there are
literally hundreds of social skills curricula and programs available “on the
market,” there are very few programs that are evidence-based—for example,
through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and its National Registry of
Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP).
Some of these programs are stand-alone programs; others (like the Stop
& Think Social Skills Program) have been embedded in broader school discipline
systems that are then integrated into school improvement programs (like Project
ACHIEVE).
Regardless,
evidence-based programs have substantial supporting research, but they have
been implemented in many settings, their outcomes have been compared with
non-involved control or comparison groups, and their results have been
objectively evaluated by experts in the field.
Schools and
districts interested in implementing social, emotional, and behavioral skill
instruction programs should begin by evaluating the current status of their
students, and their desired outcomes.
They then should review the evidence-based social skills programs
available to determine whether a good match exists. They also should consider other
research-based programs—if their research foundations are sound, and if they
match well to their students, settings, and goals.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and
Skills Instruction
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
July 9, 2016: Teaching Students
Self-Management Skills: If We Want Them to Behave, We Need to Teach Them
to Behave
September 19, 2015: Why Students Don't
Behave? Because We are not Teaching Them the Social, Emotional, and
Behavioral Skills that They Need
_ _ _ _ _
School Safety and Climate
Summary of
Research Foundation: This is a broad
area with different programs, strategies, and perspectives. The research used to support any program in
this area needs to be independently evaluated.
Even if the research validates the programs, schools and districts still
need to objectively determine whether the program can be effectively used with
their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and
Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and
Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
May 15, 2016: Student Engagement (Down),
Teacher Satisfaction (Down), School Safety and Academic Expectations (Down)--
How Do We Raise Up our Students and Schools to Success?
November 1, 2015: Research to
Practice: How do Teachers Influence Students' Classroom
Self-Management? New Report says that Positive Classroom Climates and
Relationships Most Influence Student Motivation
August 3, 2014: Implementing the U.S.
Department of Education's School Safety Report: Resources to Prepare your
School at the Policy, Procedure, and Practice Levels
June 22, 2014: The 2013 U.S. School Crime
Report Just Released by the US Departments of Education and Justice:
Making Schools Safer during the Summer, so They are Safe in the Fall
March 1, 2014: Implementing the U.S.
Department of Education's New School Discipline Policies: A Three-Year Positive
Behavioral Support Implementation Blueprint
January 26, 2014: New Brown University
Study: 90,000 Students per Year Suffer "Intentional" Injuries at
School between 2001 and 2008….Resources to Help Schools and Districts Prevent
Student Violence, Assaults, and Aggression
January 12, 2014: U.S. Department of
Education Report: "Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for
Improving School Climate and Discipline"
_ _ _ _ _
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)
Summary of
Research Foundation: While this framework
is generally attributed to CASEL (the Collaborative for Social Emotional
Learning), other groups have similarly used “SEL” to describe their
approaches. Regardless, SEL is a
framework and, as such, it consists of a number of different programs, strategies,
and interventions—all focused on teaching students specific social, emotional,
and behavioral skills.
As a framework,
schools and districts are encouraged to choose those strategies to accomplish
their goals and, thus, it is difficult to attribute any successes to any common
set of approaches. This makes it
difficult to validate or even replicate the SEL framework—no one knows exactly
why it works in different settings.
As such, the
research used to support any program that calls itself an “SEL” program needs
to be independently evaluated—as do the individual strategies and interventions
that are in the SEL framework. Even if
the research validates a particular SEL program, strategy, or intervention,
schools and districts still need to objectively determine whether they can be
effectively used with their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and
Skills Instruction
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
_ _ _ _ _
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Summary of
Research Foundation: While this
framework is generally attributed to the National PBIS Technical Assistance
Center (at the Universities of Oregon and Connecticut), other groups have
similarly used “PBIS” to describe their approaches. Regardless, PBIS is a framework and, as such,
it consists of a number of different programs, strategies, and
interventions—all focused on providing “positive behavioral interventions and
supports” to different levels of students.
As a framework,
schools and districts are encouraged to choose those strategies to accomplish
their different “PBIS” goals and, thus, it is difficult to attribute any
successes to any common set of approaches.
This makes it difficult to validate or even replicate the PBIS
framework—no one knows exactly why it works in different settings. In fact, a national report published in 2013
documented these same concerns and others.
Given all of this,
the research used to support any program that calls itself a “PBIS” program
needs to be independently evaluated—as do the individual strategies and
interventions that are in the PBIS framework (although a number of them have
clear validating research). Even if the
research validates a particular PBIS program, strategy, or intervention,
schools and districts still need to objectively determine whether they can be
effectively used with their specific students, staff, and schools.
Scientific
Components Covered: To a large
degree, programs in this area only cover the following of the five
interdependent components:
* Positive
Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
* Positive Behavioral Expectations and
Skills Instruction
* Student Motivation and
Accountability
* Consistency
* Implementation and Application
Across All Settings and All Peer Groups
Previous Blogs
September 25, 2016: U.S. Department of Education
Reminds Educators about Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports for
Students with Disabilities: But. . . Watch Out for Their Recommendations
and References
July 24, 2016: Rethinking School
Improvement and Success, Staff Development and Accountability, and Students'
Academic and Behavioral Proficiency: Using ESEA/ESSA’s New Flexibility to
Replace the U.S. Department of Education’s Ineffective NCLB Initiatives
March 4, 2016: The New ESEA/ESSA:
Discontinuing the U.S. Department of Education's School Turn-Around, and
Multi-tiered Academic (RtI) and Behavioral (PBIS) System of Support (MTSS)
Frameworks
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
I hope that this
discussion has been useful to you.
Please understand
that I am not trying to be critical of the different school discipline and
classroom management programs, strategies, and approaches that are available.
At the same time, I
AM providing a critique of these
approaches, because it is critical that we implement programs in our
schools that have the highest probability of success.
Said a different
way: We cannot play “Intervention Roulette” in our schools and districts
with our children and adolescents. That
is, we cannot identify or define what we think are the problems, brainstorm or
“phone-a-friend” to get some suggestions, and then implement interventions that
have a low probability of success.
We must use a
data-based, functional assessment, problem-solving process.
Moreover, as part
of this process, we need to critically review the quality, quantity, relevance,
and applicability of a program’s research; and make informed, strategic,
data-based decisions on the resources and training needed for implementation,
and the probability for sustained success.
Only then can we be
certain that we are ready to implement services, supports, strategies,
programs, and interventions that have the highest probability of implementing
effective school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management
approaches.
_ _ _ _ _
Blogs Supporting the Five Scientific Components
Relative to
validating and applying the five scientific components of school discipline,
classroom management, and student self-management above, a number of previous
Blogs have provided supporting documentation.
These Blogs include
the following:
May 14, 2017: The Endrew F.
Decision Re-Defines a “Free Appropriate Public Education" (FAPE) for
Students with Disabilities: A Multi-Tiered School Discipline, Classroom
Management, and Student Self-Management Model to Guide Your FAPE (and even
Disproportionality) Decisions (Part III)
January 7, 2017: Education Week Series
on RtI Highlights Kentucky/Appalachian Mountain Grant Site’s Successful School
Discipline Program: An Overview of the Scientific Components Behind this
Success, and a Free Implementation Guide for Those Who Want to Follow
August 7, 2016: Effective School
Discipline, Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: The Five
Components that Every School Needs. . . Reflections on a National Survey of
Administrators and Teachers
August 22, 2015: New National Education
Association (NEA) Policy Brief Highlights Project ACHIEVE's Positive Behavioral
Support System (PBSS) as an Evidence-based Model for School Discipline,
Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management
November 22, 2014: Academically
Struggling and Behaviorally Challenging Students: Your Doctor Wouldn’t Practice
this Way
_ _ _ _ _
Additional research
and practice support in this area can be found in my recent Corwin Press book:
School
Discipline, Classroom Management, and Student
Self-Management: A Positive
Behavioral Support
Implementation Guide.
CLICK HERE for more
information.
In fact, if you are
interested in this book, I am happy to
provide the 100+ page Study Guide to this book FOR FREE.
All you have to do
is to e-mail me (
knoffprojectachieve@earthlink.net
), and request the
Guide.
_ _ _ _ _
Meanwhile, I always
look forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you
in any of the multi-tiered areas discussed in this message, I am always happy
to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you
clarify your needs and directions on behalf of your students.
As your school year winds down (or has
already ended), please accept my best wishes for a safe, restful, and fun
summer !!!
Best,
Howie
