The Hazards of ESEA/ESSA’s Freedom and Flexibility at the State and Local Levels
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
As we plan in
earnest for the full implementation of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act/Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA/ESSA), the following
“truths” have become self-evident:
* There is going to
be an incredible amount of variability—relative to school and teacher
effectiveness, student standards and assessments, multi-tiered academic and
behavioral interventions, and school “success” and student “proficiency”—across
our states and districts . . . than ever before.
* States, districts, and schools will be more
responsible for selecting their own approaches relative to curriculum,
instruction, assessment, intervention, and evaluation . . . than ever before.
And because of
this:
* The impact of frequently-changing
superintendents and school administrators, inequitable school staffing and
teacher shortages, and a focus on the type of school (e.g., public
versus charter schools) rather than the quality of a school . . . will
result in more student gaps and failures than ever before.
_ _ _ _ _
This is a good
thing and a bad thing.
It is a good
thing, because many of the U.S. Department of Education’s preferred and
pushed No Child Left Behind frameworks (e.g., School Improvement, PBIS,
RtI/MTSS, Reading First/Literacy) did not work, and yet, were funded
(and continue to be funded relative to PBIS and MTSS) by billions
(that’s with a “B”) of your taxpayer dollars.
[See—as an
example—my June 3rd Blog, Effective School-wide Discipline Approaches:
Avoiding Educational Bandwagons that Promise the Moon, Frustrate Staff, and
Potentially Harm Students . . . CLICK HERE]
In essence, across
two administrations—one Republican (Bush II) and one Democratic (Obama)—the
U.S. Department of Education failed us, and—in their arrogance that they
knew best how to educate all students—they left us all behind.
_ _ _ _ _
It is a bad
thing because, as alluded to above, our districts and schools—who
have enough to do with the day-to-day education of our students—will need to
make more curriculum, instruction, intervention, and evaluation decisions than
ever before.
And, I fear, they
are not prepared to make these decisions in scientifically, psychometrically,
methodologically, and contextually-sound ways.
_ _ _ _ _
It’s not that our educators across the
country are trying to be ineffective.
It is just that
they do not have the time, people, and resources to be MORE effective,
and they often do not know what they do not know.
That is, some educators do not have the sophisticated scientific, psychometric, or methodological in-house expertise to make some critical decisions. And so, they go out-house to the “experts”—some of whom are expert more in marketing themselves, than in recommending or providing true evidence-based, sustainable outcomes.
That is, some educators do not have the sophisticated scientific, psychometric, or methodological in-house expertise to make some critical decisions. And so, they go out-house to the “experts”—some of whom are expert more in marketing themselves, than in recommending or providing true evidence-based, sustainable outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The “Top Ten” Ways
that Educators Make Bad Programmatic Decisions
As a practitioner
who has worked in the schools, at two Research I universities, within a state
department of education, and as a consultant in every state in the country over
35+ years, I find that educators make important, large-scale (i.e., at
the state, district, or school levels) programmatic (curriculum,
instruction, intervention, or evaluation) decisions in ways that are
incredibly flawed.
And these flawed
decisions waste time, money, resources, and energy . . . and they often
progressively result in frustrated and resistant staff, and disengaged
and negatively-impacted students.
I bring these flaws
to your consciousness so that we can all recognize and eliminate these flaws in
the future.
At the same time, I
fully recognize that, sometimes, a flawed decision actually works. (Remember that even
low-probability-of-success events sometimes are successful! Someone is going to win the lottery—against
all odds!)
PLEASE NOTE ALSO
that the “personal labels” associated with each Reason below are not intended
to offend anyone . . . I just want you to think about the implications—to
students, colleagues, and schools—of each flaw.
_ _ _ _ _
And so: Here—with brief commentary—are the “David
Letterman Top Ten Reasons” why educators make (sometimes flawed) programmatic
decisions.
Reason #1: “Because I Know Best” (The “Autocrat”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by the educators “in
control” of the District or its schools.
They are autocratic leaders who make largely unilateral decisions (a)
because they “know everything;” (b) they “can;” (c) it’s politically expedient;
(d) because of who “has their ear;” or (e) due to some related factor or
influence.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #2: “Because My Colleague Says It Works” (The
“Daydream Believer”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who depend
on the testimonials of “trusted colleagues” who attest that a specific program
“works” because either (a) they have tried it; or (b) one of their
“trusted colleagues” has recommended it.
Often, these
“trusted colleagues” have not themselves objectively validated
the program’s efficacy—based on sound research or actual implementation. More critically, for the educator making the
decision for their District or school, it appears that “blind trust” has
“carried the day.”
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #3: “Because It’s On-Line” (The “Connected
One”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who believe
that anything posted on-line (by the media, marketers, actual researchers, or
others) is true—simply because it is on-line.
They assume that when something goes “viral”—the “likes,” “retweets,”
and “shares” attest to the validity of the program.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #4: “Because It’s Free” (The “Bargain Basement
Boss”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who
embrace a program because it is provided “at no cost” to the District or its
schools. They fail to understand that a
“free” program that does not work or actually impedes or implodes the
progress of the District has significant negative costs—to students, staff, and schools.
As alluded to
above, the U.S. Department of Education (as well as many state departments of
education, and many non-profit Foundations) have “pushed” their
preferred programs down to districts and schools by providing “free” grants and
training. Given restricted and tight
budgets, many “accept” the training—assuming that these “experts” know what they
are doing (see Reasons #7 and 8).
Relative to the
departments of education, these programs are not free—they use your taxpayer
dollars. Relative to the Foundations, we
need to be aware that social, political, or other agendas may be embedded in
the grants. Relative to all, we need to
independently validate the programs before we “cash the checks.”
Critically: We need to get away from the “If it’s free,
it’s for me” mentality in education.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #5: “Because the Committee Recommended It”
(The “Failed Consensus-Builder”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by the educators “in
control” of the District or its schools based on the recommendations of a
formally-constituted or informally-constituted committee or task force.
The “benign” flaw
here is when the Educator embraces the programmatic recommendation assuming
that the committee has done its “due diligence,” and that “it knows best.”
The “damaging” flaw
is when the Educator accepts a committee’s recommendation (a) knowing that it
is flawed, but (b) is afraid of the functional or political consequences of
overturning it.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #6: “Because a National Expert Recommended It”
(The “Groupie”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators because
they were recommended by a “national expert”—an author, presenter, program
developer, or consultant—who is either working independently, or working for a
company, educational resource center, state or federal department of education,
etc.
While, clearly, some
experts are “true” experts, well-intended, and their recommendations are sound, decision-making
educators still need to independently validate their recommendations, and—even
if sound—determine whether they can be applied to the students, staff, and
schools in question.
Other “experts”— who
advocate untested, unreliable, non-transferable, or invalid programs—run the
spectrum from those who truly believe that they are doing good, to those who are
out to do good only for themselves.
The bottom line? Decision-makers are accountable for their
decisions, NOT the recommendations from an expert.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #7: "Because It’s Developed by a Non-Profit"
(The “Do-Gooder”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who believe
that programs developed and disseminated by non-profit agencies, organizations,
or foundations “must be good” because they come from groups with pure,
altruistic, or selfless intentions or motivations.
While this may be
true, this is not necessarily true.
The reality, with all due respect to my non-profit colleagues, is that non-profits
are businesses that need to make money to stay in business.
Simplistically, the
differences between for-profits and non-profits are that the latter are
legally-bound to use their profits in specific, IRS-controlled ways, and
they are legally-restricted (depending on their categorization) to certain,
limited (or NO) political/lobbying activities.
And so . . . a
program from a non-profit should be objectively analyzed and vetted in
the same way as a program from a for-profit organization or company.
Significantly, I do
not want educators to become cynical relative to non-profit agencies or
foundations. However, I do want
them to remain vigilant and accountable to the students and staff whom they
serve.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #8: "Because It’s Federally- or State-Recommended"
(The “Enabler”)
Studies report that
up to 35% of school districts nationwide implement department of education
programs without any independent analysis or asking any questions.
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators because
they believe that their federal and state departments of education (a) are
working in everyone’s best educational interests; and that (b) they have
objectively analyzed the outcome data of the programs they are recommending
(using their own required “Gold Standard” approach); (c) they would not
recommend a program that does not have a high probability of success; and (d)
they have “no dog in the fight.”
Moreover, some educators
make these programmatic decisions believing that adopting a federally- or
state-recommended program is a safe bet—or, at least, that they will "be protected" regardless of the outcomes.
Wake up, America!
Let’s remember:
That only a third of the districts adopting
one of the billion-dollar-supported federal School Improvement models (under No
Child Left Behind) had any positive results . . . And that the districts—that did
not make progress under the federally-required
options—were still held accountable for their failing outcomes.
And, remember
that: Less than 10 years ago
. . . the Bush administration’s billion-dollar Reading First Program was
unfunded by Congress because officials in the U.S. Department of Education were
found guilty of (a) favoring specific reading programs, while eliminating a
number of exceptional programs from consideration; (b) “stacking” the grant
review panels with members biased toward the favored programs; and (c) changing
state grant proposals after they were reviewed so that they could be
funded with the favored programs.
And while you can
say that “this is all in the past” . . . it is not. The federal law (ESEA/ESSA and IDEA) discusses
or requires districts to provide “positive behavioral interventions and
supports” and “multi-tiered systems of supports” (written in these laws in lower case and without acronyms).
And yet, the U.S.
Department of Education, through most state departments of education, continues
to singularly advocate their federally-funded (for years) and preferred PBIS
and MTSS frameworks, respectively. In fact, the Department-funded national Technical Assistance Centers for these frameworks continually misquote the federal laws to make it appear that their UPPER CASE
approaches are legally mandated (through their lower case appearances in federal law).
Relative to Reason
#8, the “Enabling” educator making decisions in this area often is simply
ignoring the “elephant in the room.”
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #9: "Because It’s Federally- or State-Mandated"
(The “Abdicator”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who passively
comply with federal and state department of education programs that represent
these departments’ interpretation or operationalization of federal
(e.g., ESEA, IDEA) and/or state laws or statutes.
Instead of
abdicating and implementing programs that everyone knows will not positively
impact students, staff, and schools, these educators should (a) question the
programs and their efficacy; (b) recommend a proven, alternative program that
has a higher probability of attaining the desired results; and/or (c) request
and defend the need for a waiver.
Unfortunately, educators
sometimes abdicate their responsibilities in this area because they feel they
can deflect the responsibility for a failed program “because it was mandated.” At other times, they comply for fear of retribution
or retaliation—for example, receiving undue scrutiny or sanctions during state
department of education audits or compliance visits.
While this is not
fair. . . it is real.
_ _ _ _ _
Reason #10: "Because It’s “Research-based” (The “Mad
Scientist”)
The Flaw: These are bad decisions made by educators who review
the “research” that appears to support a specific program, but who do not understand
the difference between (a) methodologically sound versus unsound
research; (b) research that measures perceptions versus research that
objectively measures definitive and replicable outcomes; and (c) research that “works”
in a perfectly controlled vacuum versus research that truly works in the
real world.
See . . . it’s not
about a program’s association with research.
It is about the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the
research.
More specifically,
some “research” is 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.
Here, educational
decision-makers need to understand (or hire other professionals who understand)
that this “research” has a low probability of succeeding when scaled-up in
their district.
Moreover, some “research”
has not been independently, objectively, or “blindly” reviewed by three or more
experts in the field (as when someone publishes their work in a “refereed” professional
journal).
Relative to this latter point, educators
need to understand that—even when studies are published in a refereed journal—that
some research is published because article submissions are low, and the
publisher cannot “stop the presses.”
Said a different way, journals need to be published in order to
attract annual subscriptions and stay in business.
The ultimate point
here is that educational decision-makers should not be “Mad Scientists”—assuming
that “being published” correlates with “good research.” They need to be “Discriminating Consumers”
who recognize sound versus unsound research, and the importance of choosing
only the former for programmatic implementation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary and Coming
Attractions
As noted in the
Introduction, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESEA/ESSA) gives states, districts, and schools more freedom,
flexibility, and responsibility for selecting their own approaches to
curriculum, instruction, assessment, intervention, and evaluation.
By describing the “Top
Ten Ways that Educators Make Bad, Large-Scale Programmatic Decisions,” the hope
is that school, district, state, and other educational leaders avoid these
hazards, and make their decisions in empirically and functionally sound ways.
There are
some great, evidence-based approaches available to schools across the
country. Some of them, however, are getting
lost in the marketing, promotion, publishing, and competitive “noise” that
invades our professional lives each day.
Mark Millar (who,
believe it or not, writes comic books for a living) said:
“Organizations who
win, think deeply, choose wisely, and act decisively.”
Educational
decision-makers need to think deeply about the true needs of their students,
staff, and schools—identifying what is working and needs to be maintained, as
well as the gaps that exist, why they exist, and how they are going to be
closed.
They then need to choose wisely from the
services, supports, programs, and interventions that are available, and that
have demonstrated their ability—from research to practice—to close the gaps. Here, they need to avoid the Top Ten
approaches above—sometimes choosing to take “the road less traveled.”
Finally, they need
to act decisively—making sure that the training, resources, and mentoring needed
for successful implementation is available and sustained.
If we do all this,
the “permission” granted by ESEA/ESSA will result in the “promise” of better
academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for all students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Once again, the
goal of this Blog was not to stereotype, offend, or blame anyone
relative to their educational decision-making processes. Instead, the goal was to recognize,
characterize, and memorialize some of the ways that poor decisions are made—and
to emphasize that these decisions have real and sometimes long-lasting impact
on students, staff, and schools.
In Part II
of this Blog message (in two weeks), we will continue to look at ways to
understand sound versus unsound research. In this message, we will look at the definitions, histories, and functional aspects of the terms "scientifically based," "evidence-based," and "research-based" specifically in the ESEA and IDEA federal laws We will also discuss the critical questions that educational leaders should ask when a researcher or practitioner (recommending or endorsing a specific program or intervention) says that that program or intervention has research demonstrating its efficacy.
Part III of this Blog is
tentatively titled, Hattie’s Meta-Analysis Madness: The Method is Missing. Obviously, this Blog will discuss the "in's and out's" of a meta-analysis, and what educational leaders need to know about Hattie's work and conclusions. Stay tuned.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I look
forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
And—with the new
school year now upon us: If I can
help you in any of the school improvement, school discipline and behavioral
intervention, or multi-tiered service and support areas where I specialize,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
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, staff/colleagues,
school(s), and district.
Welcome back! Make it a GREAT YEAR !!!
Best,
Howie
