Prevention, Disproportionality, Trauma, and Seclusions & Restraints
Dear
Colleagues,
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
Introduction
With the whole New Years thing going on, and
our transition into a new decade, I’m in the mood to start this Blog with a
quote.
So I googled and read through some
“inspirational” New Years quotes, and actually picked out a few possibilities.
But then my writing got interrupted and,
before resuming, I found myself multi-tasking and watching a few minutes of the
Steve Jobs movie on HBO.
While I’ve never watched the entire movie, I
happened to be at the point where Steve Jobs is invited back to his own
company, and re-installed as Interim CEO.
Serendipitously, that’s when the
following quote was delivered:
“When you grow up you tend to get told that the world
is the way it is, and your life is just to live your life, and try not to bash
into the walls too much.
That’s a very limited life.
Life can be much broader once you discover one simple
fact—everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were
no smarter than you.
Shake off this erroneous notion that life is there,
and you’re just going to live in it. . . versus make your mark upon it.
Once you learn that, you will never be the same
again.”
_ _ _ _ _
While this quote speaks to me on multiple
levels, I want it to speak to you as you read this Blog.
This is because none of us should be limited
in our professional lives to the boundaries, parameters, and constraints
of present frameworks, programs, or traditions.
To this end, this Blog (Part II) integrates
and summarizes the Blogs that I wrote during 2019 that focused on helping:
- Schools to improve their school climates and school-wide “disciplinary” approaches;
- Teachers and Support Staff to improve their classroom instruction and management to increase students’ academic engagement and group interactions; and
- Students to learn, apply, and independently use their interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and coping self-management skills.
To paraphrase the quote above, here
is the underlying message of this Blog:
“When you enter education you tend to get told that
the world is the way it is, and your professional life will be best served by living
within this world, while trying not to bash into the walls too much.
That’s a very limited life. [Which explains why so
many talented educators leave the profession so quickly and so permanently.]
Professional life as an educator can be much broader
once you discover one simple fact—everything around your professional life was
made up by people who were no smarter than you . . . [but who may have had more
status or power, more seed money or backers, better marketing or more political
“friends”].
Shake off this erroneous notion that your professional
life is fixed and determined, and that you’re just going to live in it. . .
Make your own mark upon it.”
_ _ _ _ _
My friends, there are lots of great
educational researchers and thought-leaders with good hearts and dedicated
spirits in our world today.
And yet, there are other influential
educators who say they are motivated to help our students, but (a) are
motivated more for themselves than our students, or (b) believe that they are
helping our students, but—based on the objective evaluation data—they are not.
I am talking primarily at the national and
state levels here.
Indeed, as you will read below, our country
has been stuck in a 20+ year psycho-educational “world” in the areas of school
discipline, classroom management, and student self-management where certain
prevailing frameworks (PBIS, SEL, Restorative Practices, Trauma-Informed
Programs, Mindfulness, and Hattie-driven Interventions) have claimed
validity and impact through the illusion of research and the illegitimacy of
politics.
The results—for our students—have
included continued inequity, disproportionality, underachievement, and
socio-economic stagnation, and these outcomes have passed from one generation
to the next—especially for students of color and students with disabilities.
But significantly, a newer “world” of
politically-backed social, emotional, and behavioral “movements” has also
recently emerged. And many schools have
embraced these bandwagon movements—investing precious time, money, and
personnel—based more on their social media and marketing presence, than their
research-to-practice validity.
_ _ _ _ _
In Part I of
this two-part Year-in-Review series, we discussed our 2019 Blogs organized
in the following clusters:
- Equity in Education and Educational Funding
- Improving Students’ Academic Achievement
- Untested and Ineffective Practices: The U.S. Department of Education
_ _ _ _ _
In this Part II,
we will integrate and summarize our 2019 Blogs in the following areas:
- Concerns with the Trauma Sensitive/Informed School Movement
- Improving School Discipline, Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management
- The School Seclusion and Restraint Epidemic
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Concerns with the Trauma Sensitive/Informed School
Movement
The following Blogs
addressed issues and realities related to the trauma sensitive or trauma
informed “movement” in the media and as transposed to our schools today. As usual, I reviewed a number of new national
reports that addressed this issue, and then added my analysis, perspectives,
and recommendations on the topic at-hand.
If you CLICK on
the date of the Blogs below, you will link directly to the Blog that is
posted on my website (www.projectachieve.info/blog).
Aren’t Schools with Positive,
Safe Climates Already “Trauma Sensitive”? Unmasking the ACEs, and Helping
Students Manage their Emotions in School
_ _ _ _ _
The Traps and Trouble with
“Trauma Sensitive” Schools: Most Approaches Are Not Scientifically-Based,
Field-Tested, Validated, or Multi-Tiered. A National Education Talk Radio
Interview (Free Link Included) Puts it All into Perspective
_ _ _ _ _
Synopsis of these
Blogs
Over the past five years or more, issues
related to the presence and impact of student trauma in our schools . . . and
the push toward “trauma-sensitive” or “trauma-informed” schools and strategies
. . . have dominated the educational media and landscape.
At the same time, I have tried to stay above
(and, in fact, to moderate) the “media fray” and the market-driven “trauma
promotions” by maintaining a more comprehensive, integrated, ecological,
science-to-practice, and assessment-to-intervention perspective.
Indeed, in the two 2019 Blogs devoted to
this subject, we stated our beliefs that:
- Some educators have become over-sensitized to this issue—for example, incorrectly attributing some students’ emotional or behavioral issues to “trauma” when they are due to other factors;
- Some schools do not understand and are misusing the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale and research; and
- Some districts—with all good intents—have adopted “trauma sensitive” programs and protocols that are either not needed or not advisable.
Indeed, relative to this latter point, some
districts are adopting “trauma sensitive or informed” programs, protocols, and
practices that are NOT scientifically-based, NOT field-tested, NOT validated
using objective and methodologically-sound approaches, NOT applicable to their
students and needs, and NOT implemented along a multi-tiered continuum.
And while we understand the “public
pressure” and the “good intentions” of needing to respond to the
school-apparent effects of students’ trauma, the results of implementing the
wrong or unsuccessful programs or interventions are that:
- Staff and student time, resources, efforts, and expectations are wasted;
- Some students are not provided the correct services or supports that they need right now—which delays the social, emotional, or behavioral change process (and may actually make their “problems” worse or more resistant to change in the future); and
- Students and staff mistakenly conclude that the “problem is worse than we thought,” or they believe that more intensive, community-base “solutions” are needed when their (incorrect or mis-applied strategies) do not work.
To support these statements, the August 17th
Blog described in detail answers to the following questions:
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
Issue #1: Do Practitioners Understand the Original
ACEs Research, Its Strengths, and Its Limitations to School-Based Practice?
Issue #2. Are
Schools Implementing Specialized “Trauma Sensitive” Programs When They Should
be Implementing More Comprehensive (Pervasive and Preventative) Positive School
Climate Practices?
Issue #3. Do
Schools (Have the Time to) Evaluate the Integrity and Utility of their Trauma
Sensitive Programs Prior to Implementation, and How Many Schools Choose
their Programs Due to Cost and Not Outcomes?
Issue #4. Do
Schools Understand the Science-to-Practice Components that Facilitate Students’
Emotional Self-Management—The Key Preventative “Skill” Needed by All Students?
Finally, the August
17 Blog addressed one of the ultimate goals of a comprehensive, multi-tiered
school discipline (Positive Behavioral Support/Social-Emotional Learning,
PBSS/SEL) system: To teach and motivate students
to learn, master, and independently apply social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management skills.
We further defined
“Emotional Self-management Skills” as those skills that all students need to
learn, master, demonstrate, and apply in the areas of: emotional awareness, emotional
control, and emotional coping.
Here, we described
these three components and their characteristics from a psychological and
neuropsychological science-to-practice perspective—a perspective that often is
missing in many “trauma-sensitive” programs.
We then addressed these components from a multi-tiered perspective,
identifying a number of specific Tier II and Tier III interventions for
students with significant trauma-related needs.
Finally, we noted the
importance that schools not become “trauma-rigid”— interpreting all students’
emotional reactions as trauma related.
To demonstrate this
point, we identified a large number of other triggers of students’ emotions
that do not involve traumatic situations:
·
Academic Frustration
·
Test/Homework/Work Completion Anxiety
·
Peer (including Girlfriend/Boyfriend)
Conflicts/Rejection
·
Teasing and Bullying—Direct, Indirect, Social,
and Social Media
·
Gender Status or Discrimination
·
Racial or Multi-Cultural Status or
Discrimination
·
Sexual Identification or Orientation
Discrimination
·
Socio-economic Status or Discrimination
·
Circumstances Related to Poverty/Parental Income
·
Family Moves/Housing Mobility/Homelessness
·
Competition/Losing
·
Physical or Other Limitations or Disabilities
Our Take-Aways were:
- There are multiple circumstances or events that trigger students’ emotionality in school. Many of them are not specifically (or by definition) traumatic events and, thus, schools that are using trauma-sensitive programs may easily miss them.
- Schools need to assess and identify the emotional triggers that are most prevalent across their student bodies, and the emotional triggers (if different) that are most often present for the students presenting with the most frequent, significant, or severe social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.
- For the former group, these triggers need to be integrated into the social skills curriculum at the prevention and early response levels.
- For the latter group, these triggers need to frame the strategic or intensive interventions or therapies that related services personnel need to be prepared to deliver.
- Finally, schools and districts need to be prepared to deliver the full multi-tiered continuum of services, supports, strategies, and interventions. This includes the necessary training, resources, and personnel both in general, and as needed on a year-to-year basis.
_ _ _ _ _
The October 12th Blog
updated the August discussion, and provided a link to a national radio broadcast interview that I did on this subject
with Larry Jacobs, the host of Education Talk Radio—on October 4, 2019.
_ _ _ _ _
Once again, please feel free to re-read the
original Blogs to get a more detailed analysis of the Reports and summary
discussed above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Improving School Discipline, Classroom Management, and
Student Self-Management
The following Blogs
addressed contemporary and ongoing issues related to school discipline,
classroom management, and students’ social, emotional, and behavioral status
and self-management. As usual, I
reviewed a number of new national reports that addressed this issue, and then
added my analysis, perspectives, and recommendations on the topic at-hand.
If you CLICK on
the date of the Blogs below, you will link directly to the Blog that is
posted on my website (www.projectachieve.info/blog).
New Rand Corporation Study
Finds Restorative Practices Produce Mixed and Underwhelming Results: But
Some Publications are “Spinning” the Outcomes and Twisting these Results
_ _ _ _ _
Analyzing Your School
Discipline Data and Your SEL (PBIS or School Discipline) Program: Students’
Discipline Problems are Increasing Nationally Despite Widespread SEL/PBIS Use
(Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
Analyzing Your School
Discipline Data Now . . . to Prepare for the New School Year: Conducting
“Special Situation Analyses” for Common School Areas and Peer-Related
Anti-Social Behavior (Part II)
_ _ _ _ _
Analyzing Your School
Discipline Data Now . . . to Prepare for the New School Year (Part III):
Conducting “Special Situation Analyses” for Your Hallways, Bathrooms, Buses,
Playgrounds, and Cafeteria
_ _ _ _ _
An Open Letter to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Its Report, Beyond Suspensions: Examining
School Discipline Policies. Begin with the End in Mind: It’s about
Root Causes and Intervention—Not About Policies or Positions
_ _ _ _ _
As Cyberbullying Increases,
Positive School Climate Decreases: Student Involvement Must Be Part of
the Solution. . . How to Do It
_ _ _ _ _
Synopsis of these
Blogs
For decades, school
discipline, classroom management, and student self-management has been a
dominant national concern for educators each year—a concern similarly expressed
by students, parents, community leaders, educators, and others.
And while positive
school and classroom climate and students’ social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management strongly correlate with academic engagement and achievement
(and fewer school or classroom discipline problems), many educators still
haven’t embraced the fact that:
- Prevention is the key;
- Self-management is made up of a series of scaffolded, articulated learned skills; and
- Schools are not effectively teaching these skills—just like those in literacy, math, and science—in pedagogically effective ways from preschool through high school.
In addition, many
educators don’t understand that—when students are systematically learning and
mastering interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and
resolution, and emotional control and coping skills—the negative social,
emotional, and behavioral triggers related to (a) who they are and how they see
themselves; (b) where they live, who they live with, and how they grew up; (c)
who their friends and how effective their support systems are/were; and (d) how
they have performed academically and socially in school become disarmed.
Finally, given the
national reports reviewed and analyzed in this cluster of 2019 Blogs, educators
still are struggling with many of the same school discipline problems as in
previous years, they continue to re-apply the same “band-aides” that have not
worked or sustained in the past, and they continue to select approaches for
their schools based more on testimonials and social media marketing, than by
objective science-to-practice facts.
This is evident as
we (a) summarize the July 27th Blog on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report, Beyond Suspensions; (b) discuss how the PBIS, SEL, and
Restorative Practice frameworks are not improving school discipline and student
behavior outcomes (June 3rd and January 26th Blogs); (c) demonstrate how a
data-based problem-solving approach helps schools to analyze the root causes of
their student, classroom, and common school area problems. . . linking the
results to high-probability-of-success interventions (June 15 and June 29
Blogs); and (d) emphasize the importance of student involvement in virtually
all interventions—especially those related to peer-to-peer interactions like
cyberbullying and social media victimization or harassment (August 31 Blog).
_ _ _ _ _
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report, Beyond
Suspensions (July 27)
On July 23, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights published a 224-page Report,
Beyond Suspensions: Examining School Discipline Policies and
Connections to the School-to-Prison Pipeline For Students of Color and with
Disabilities,
which detailed extensive analyses of past and present national
survey and incident data, research, and commentary—especially from two panels
of experts who testified before the Commission on December 8, 2017.
During the week that it
was released, I summarized the Report’s stated findings, focusing most of my
discussion on (a) the importance of reading the two dissenting Commission
members’ statements at the very end of the Report (starting on Page 177);
(b) how some Report recommendations simply endorsed the flawed PBIS and
Restorative Practice approaches long-advocated by the U.S. Department of
Education; and (c) what schools and districts need to pragmatically understand
and do to provide the best services, supports, strategies, and interventions to
students exhibiting significant behavioral challenges.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
Our analysis concluded
that the main body of the Report:
- Provided limited student-specific psychoeducational analyses regarding why students demonstrate inappropriate behavior and how they can more consistently demonstrate appropriate behavior; or
- How to link these analyses to specific multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, and/or interventions that will change inappropriate student behavior into appropriate behavior.
Beyond this, the July
27th Blog discussed a number of critical “Take-Aways” from the Report.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
Practical District
and School Take-Aways I, II, and III:
The first three Take-Aways, in combination, cautioned educators to be
careful to not accept “popular press” summaries of any major state or federal
policy document, or the “sound bites” emanating from those who were not
dedicated to describing the nuances of the complex issues embedded in the
Commission Report.
Our attention in these
Take-Aways were essential as the Commission Report recommended both
Restorative Practices and PBIS as viable interventions to address the
exclusionary discipline and disproportionality problems described above.
These recommendations
were published even though (a) two of its Commissioners published Minority
Statements at the end of the Report with data and citations that invalidated
these recommendations; and (b) expert testimony was quoted in the Report that
similarly refuted these recommendations.
The Report also
misrepresented federal law by saying that PBIS is required by IDEA 2004.
_ _ _ _ _
Practical District
and School Take-Away IV: The fourth
Take-Away was a recommendation that districts and schools collect and analyze
their discipline data—for students with disabilities—by disaggregating the data
across the thirteen different disability areas specified in IDEA 2004.
A significant benefit in
doing this is that, given the wide variety of service, support, strategy, and
intervention needs for students in these thirteen different disability areas,
these analyses may elucidate critical process and outcome trends.
_ _ _ _ _
Practical District
and School Take-Away V: Finally, in
the last Take-Away, we encouraged districts and schools to look at their
current functional assessment and intervention practices—asking themselves
whether they are assessing students with social, emotional, and behavioral
issues to determine the “root causes” of their problems, or simply to label and
place them?
Here, we identified
three critical assessment principles, as well as some of the primary reasons
why students demonstrate social, emotional, or behavioral problems in classrooms
or schools. We concluded by identifying a list of strategic or intensive
interventions needed for students with behavioral challenges—noting that most
districts and schools do not have mental health professionals trained in
helping teachers and others to implement these interventions.
_ _ _ _ _
The PBIS, SEL, and Restorative Practice Frameworks Are
Not Working (June 3 and January 26)
While they came
before the July 27th Blog described immediately above, these two Blogs were
cited extensively in that Blog.
The January 26th Blog analyzed the 132-page
Report published by the Rand Corporation on December 27, 2018 titled:
Can Restorative Practices Improve School Climate and Curb
Suspensions? An Evaluation of the Impact
of Restorative Practices in a Mid-Sized Urban School District.
The Report describes the results of the Rand
Corporation’s study to determine the efficacy of the International Institute
for Restorative Practices (IIRP) use of its SaferSanerSchools
Whole-School Change restorative practices program in the Pittsburgh Public
Schools. A partner with the Collaborative
for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning (CASEL), the IIRP (according to
its website) is “the world’s first graduate school wholly devoted to
restorative practices.”
To evaluate the two-year implementation of
the IIRP’s Restorative Practices Program, the Rand Corporation used a highly
sophisticated randomized controlled study.
Indeed, the Program was implemented in 22 randomly-selected Pittsburgh
schools, with 22 other randomly-selected Pittsburgh schools serving as
non-participating Control schools.
The “surface-level” results of the study
(see more detail below) indicated that, while the District’s suspension rates
had been declining prior to the implementation of the study, the
suspension rates in the Restorative Practices schools declined even more than
the rates in the Control schools.
In addition, in the Restorative Practices
schools (a) alternative school placements decreased; (b) students were less
likely to be suspended multiple times; (c) disparities in suspension rates
between African-American (vs. Caucasian), and low-income (vs. higher-income)
students, respectively, decreased; and (d) suspension rates for female students
declined.
However, the deeper comparative statistical
analyses revealed that:
- While suspension rates in the Restorative Practices schools declined by 36% during the two-year study, suspension rates in the Control schools also declined 18% during the same time period.
- The overall suspension results were driven by lower rates in the Restorative Practices elementary schools.
- Fewer suspensions were not found in the Restorative Practices Middle schools (Grades 6 to 8).
- Fewer suspensions were not found for male students or students with disabilities.
- There were no reductions in student arrests, or for incidents of violence or weapons violations.
- In the Restorative Practices Middle schools, academic outcomes actually worsened when compared with the Control schools.
- Survey results from staff in the Restorative Practices schools indicated that they did not think the IIRP program was affecting student behavior. They did, however, report that their relationships with students had improved because of program involvement.
In the final analysis, the study as a whole
raised a number of questions regarding the efficacy of the restorative practice
program investigated, as well as the ability of most schools to sustain the
complex two-year training and implementation process with fidelity,
consistency, and continuity.
_ _ _ _ _
The June 3rd Blog encouraged schools
to evaluate the behavioral outcomes generated by their Social-Emotional
Learning, Positive Behavioral Support, or school safety and discipline systems for
the school year that had just ended.
To encourage this,
we established a context by reviewing a number of recent national reports that surveyed
educators about students’ behavioral problems in their schools, as well as
other reports suggesting that bullying (including cyberbullying) was
increasing in our schools nationwide.
The Reports
looking a Student Behavior or Social-Emotional Learning included the following:
- Report 1. A recent survey of 800 nationally-representative kindergarten through high school principals completed by the MCH Strategic Data company and published last month as K-12 Principals’ Assessment of Education.
- Report 2. A report, Breaking Bad Behavior, published by research company EAB that validates and extends the MCH Report above relative to elementary students’ behavioral challenges.
- Report 3. A report, Teacher and Principal Perspectives on Social and Emotional Learning in America’s Schools, published earlier this year by the Rand Corporation. It is based on a Spring, 2018 survey of the American Educator Panels that involved 15,719 nationally-representative teacher and school principal respondents. These educators answered questions about the importance and value of SEL in schools, how they were promoting and measuring SEL, and how they thought SEL approaches could be improved.
The School
Safety and Bullying Reports included the following:
- Report 1. Published by YouthTruth, Learning from Student Voice: Bullying Today analyzed survey responses from students during the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years regarding their experiences with school climate and safety.
- Report 2. Published by Comparitech, this report discussed a survey on student bullying completed by over 1,000 parents.
Based on these reports, our strong
recommendation was that all districts and schools analyze their
discipline, school climate, and classroom management data from this and past
school years to determine (a) the current status of their students, staff,
and schools; (b) what has been accomplished (or not) in these important areas;
(c) each school’s “return on investment” relative to, for example, their SEL or
PBIS program(s); and (d) what situations need to be addressed at the present
time.
Based on these
reports as well as our own research and analysis, we discussed six significant
flaws in the SEL framework advocated by the Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
These flaws
included:
- CASEL’s approach to SEL in the schools is to provide a loose implementation framework, and to tell schools to “create your own initiative.” This means that SEL programs across schools cannot be objectively compared or validated, and that many schools may be implementing ineffective approaches that are not producing demonstrable student-focused social, emotional, or behavioral outcomes.
- CASEL’s five SEL outcomes (Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, Relationship Skills, and Responsible Decision-Making) were not scientifically derived, they have never been validated, and they are largely constructs that cannot be reliably or validly measured because they are not discretely observable.
- Some of the meta-analytic research used by CASEL to validate SEL approaches were conducted internally by CASEL leaders and were not independently and objectively reviewed or published. A review of this research indicates that this research has significant methodological flaws that call their conclusions into question.
- The only CASEL-sponsored meta-analytic study that was published in an independent professional journal also had significant methodological shortcomings.
- CASEL is now sponsoring activities focused on improving the evaluation of SEL outcomes. This begs the question: “If CASEL acknowledges that current SEL evaluation instruments and tools are lacking, how can it use existing studies that have utilized these instruments to validate its empirical foundation?”
- CASEL’s SEL framework does not address students’ gender, age, cultural, racial, or socio-economic differences; and it does not address the multi-tiered service and support needs of students with disabilities and other behavioral/mental health issues.
We are also on the
record relative to the many flaws in the PBIS framework:
- PBIS is a framework and not a sequential model. Thus, schools can choose whatever PBIS activities to implement that they want—in whatever sequence, place, or student group that they want.
[This means that cross-school
comparisons of PBIS’s efficacy is virtually impossible, and one cannot
generalize the (positive or negative) results from one PBIS school (or study)
to another.]
- Regardless of the thousands of schools “implementing” PBIS, the National Directors believed that approximately half of the schools might be implementing with “a reasonable level of integrity.”
[The issue here is that the number
of schools implementing PBIS is not what is important, it is the
objective, demonstrable, and sustainable student-centered PBIS results that
are important.]
- PBIS has traditionally used decreases in Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) and school suspensions or expulsions as the primary outcome “validating” its framework. ODRs have been methodologically demonstrated to be horribly unreliable.
- Most PBIS schools focus predominantly on behavior in the Common Areas of the school (i.e., the hallways, bathrooms, cafeteria, etc.) and not in the classroom where students spend 85% of their time.
- The PBIS Triangle has never been validated. The Tier I (80%—All), Tier II (15%—Some), and Tier III (5%—Few) convention was made up by the National PBIS Directors for community-based epidemiological research that does not apply to education.
- PBIS recommends that challenging students sequentially receive Tier I to Tier II to Tier III services, and that record reviews and functional assessments of individual student behavior be delayed until Tier III.
[There is no research to support
this practice, and it has resulted in (a) individual student interventions and
supports being delayed to some students; (b) an increase in student resistance
to intervention (because initial interventions were inappropriate and
unsuccessful as they were implemented without reviewing students’ background
information and histories); and (c) the need for more intensive
interventions—even within Tier III—because student problems have gotten worse
or more complicated because of the delays and the previous inappropriate
interventions.]
- PBIS recommends universal social, emotional, and behavioral screening of all students in a school without describing the scientifically-appropriate multiple-gated procedures needed to do this accurately and effectively.
[This has resulted in schools using
unscientifically founded emotional screening procedures that have actually
increased the disproportionate (and false-positive) identification of some
students.]
- Most PBIS schools were found to be implementing PBIS framework activities only at the Tier I level. . . with many schools unable to sustain even this level of PBIS practices for more than three years.
- The PBIS framework is largely implemented by a PBIS team that comes from each implementing school. This team receives large-group training (with other teams) in off-site settings that are off of school grounds.
[Said differently, virtually no
PBIS training occurs by trained national or state PBIS leaders at the school
site. Moreover, there is little or no on-site
and direct PBIS consultation or technical assistance provided to implementing
schools by experienced and expert PBIS Trainers or Facilitators. Thus,
most PBIS schools are being led by school personnel who have received generic
training, no direct supervision or coaching, and who may not have the
prerequisite skills to be successful.]
- In some states, a state-level PBIS team annually evaluates the PBIS implementation of its schools. This evaluation and its “Gold,” “Silver,” and “Bronze” awards are largely based on the implementation of activities, and not students’ social, emotional, or behavioral outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _
Using Data-Based Problem-Solving To Analyze Student,
Classroom, and Common School Area Problems (June 15 and June 29)
Based on the
Reports in the June 3rd Blog discussed above, we addressed the importance of
analyzing school discipline data with an eye toward existing bullying and
cyberbullying problems in and outside of our schools in the next two Blogs.
The “bottom line” in this Blog was that policies
rarely decrease school discipline problems or increase school safety or student
engagement and their prosocial interactions. Instead, student behavior and school
discipline problems are functionally changed through integrated,
multi-tiered evidence-based practices.
This June 15th Blog discussed six national
actions that have slowed our progress in legitimately decreasing
disproportionate disciplinary actions for students of color and with
disabilities, but disciplinary actions with all students. It then described our Special Situation
Analysis process, and applied it both to analyzing school discipline data
and to developing systemic interventions for school bullying when it is present.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _
In the June 29th
Blog, we described how to apply the Special Situation Analysis
process to school situations (a) where significant numbers of disciplinary
problems are occurring in the Common School Areas—the hallways, bathrooms,
buses, playgrounds, and cafeteria; and where (b) excessively high levels of
peer-initiated Teasing, Taunting, Bullying, Harassment, Hazing, and
Fighting/Physical Aggression are present.
Here, we discussed
the components and completion of the Special Situation Analysis process in
detail, then providing detailed examples for problematic cafeteria and school bus
situations, respectfully.
Throughout this
discussion, we emphasized the need for a data-based problem-solving process to
comprehensively (and effectively) address existing, persistent, and/or
significant Common School Area or Peer-Related Antisocial Behavior
problems.
The components
of the process include:
- Student Characteristics, Issues, and Factors
- Teacher/Staff Characteristics, Issues, and Factors
- Environmental Characteristics, Issues, and Factors—Physical Plant and Logistics
- Motivational Factors: Incentives and Consequences
- Resources
- Peer Group Characteristics, Issues, and Factors
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message
describing these components in detail]
_ _ _ _ _
To demonstrate
the need for this ecologically-grounded assessment process, we noted that the
Common Areas in a school often have:
- A larger number of multi-aged students (than in a classroom) who are in closer proximity to each other;
- A larger student-to-staff ratio (resulting in less adult supervision, and, sometimes, supervision by paraprofessionals who are less-respected by some students);
- A physical lay-out that is different than a classroom with space that is often larger (e.g., a cafeteria, the playground) and with physical boundaries that are less defined; and
- A climate that includes more noise, higher (physical) energy levels, and more external stimulation.
Relative to the
ecological assessment of Peer-Related Antisocial interactions, we noted
that student-to-student teasing or bullying (for example) often:
- Occur in the Common Areas of a school (hence, the remaining characteristics below are interfaced with the Common Area characteristics above);
- Include one or more student aggressors, some of whom are teased or bullied by other peers, and are “passing the aggression” along;
- Include one or more student targets, some of whom lack critical social skills which either set them up as targets or undermine their ability to appropriately handle the situation—so it does not reoccur;
- Include one or more by-standing students whose inaction (when that occurs) serves to inadvertently reinforce the aggressors’ teasing or bullying;
- Include no adults near the incidents, or adults who observe the incidents and do not intervene (for various reasons); and, in summary,
- Involve clear goals or intents on the part of the aggressors who, in the absence of timely and meaningful consequences, are empowered and reinforced by their anti-social acts.
_ _ _ _ _
The Importance of Student Voice and Involvement
(August 31)
In this last Blog
(in this specific “Year in Review” cluster), we focused intensely on the
“anti-social” media and cyberbullying epidemic in this country by (a) defining cyberbullying
and discussing its current prevalence levels; (b) describing eight interdependent
elements that schools should include in their comprehensive
cyberbullying prevention to intervention plans; and (c) highlighting the
importance of student voice and involvement in analyzing and helping to solve
the problem.
Early in this discussion,
we noted that, while involving elements of teasing, taunting, bullying, and
harassment, cyberbullying is somewhat unique and potentially more traumatic or
harmful than face-to-face bullying because:
- Victims may not know who the bully is, how or why they have been selected, or what the bully’s intent or goal is;
- Even when they do know the bully, victims may not know who else has seen or received the message or post—thus putting them in a potentially powerless and defensive position;
- Victims may decide to (unwisely) respond with a return post—running the risk of being misinterpreted, exacerbating the problem, or being perceived as a bully-victim or a victim-casualty;
- A post or exchange can inadvertently escalate to involve entire schools, communities, states, and countries if the story, picture, or post “goes viral;”
- The bullying may be easier (for the bully) because (a) it is anonymous or invisible, (b) it is empowering as it cannot be immediately defended, or (c) it has no immediate consequences—as there are no bystanders to provide negative feedback or administrators to hold the bully accountable; and
- The post may result in others “liking it,” or forwarding it to others— resulting in a continuation, reinforcement, or compounding of reactions (or assaults to) the victim.
Later in the Blog,
we recommended a number of actions that districts and schools should consider
when preventing and responding to social media and cyberbullying offenses, and a series of student questions when involving
them in school-wide initiatives to address ongoing anti-social
media/cyberbullying problems.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _
Once again, please feel free to re-read the
original Blogs to get a more detailed analysis of the Reports and summary
discussed above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
The School Seclusion and Restraint Epidemic
The following Blogs
addressed a national issue—the seclusion or restraint of students demonstrating
significant behavioral upsets in our schools today—that was especially
highlighted this past year. As usual, I
reviewed a number of new national reports that addressed this issue, and then
added my analysis, perspectives, and recommendations on the topic at-hand.
If you CLICK on
the date of the Blogs below, you will link directly to the Blog that is
posted on my website (www.projectachieve.info/blog).
Congress Take Note: How to
Really Address the School Seclusion and Restraint Epidemic. The U.S.
Department of Education Keeps Pushing PBIS, but PBIS Ain’t Got Nothing to Give
(Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
States Take Note: How to
Really Address the School Seclusion and Restraint Epidemic. What State
Departments of Education Need to Learn If Using PBIS to “Solve” This Problem
(Part II)
_ _ _ _ _
Revisiting the School
Seclusion and Restraint Epidemic: The Federal Government Says It's Worse
than Thought. While the Numbers are Important, We Need to Focus on the
Reasons and Solutions
_ _ _ _ _
Synopsis of these
Blogs
The first two Blogs
in this cluster formed a two-part Series.
In Part I of this Series (March 2), the following areas were discussed:
- The definitions of seclusion and restraints
- The historical and current incident levels of these actions in schools
- The U.S. Department of Education’s formal attention to this issue since 2009
- The U.S. Department of Education’s faulty advocacy of the PBIS framework as a solution to this problem
Relative to the
latter bullet above, we were particularly struck by the fact that—yet again—the
U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) selected Dr. George Sugai, the Director of
the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center, to present at a February 27,
2019 House of Representatives hearing on seclusions and restraints.
The lack of
surprise came as (a) the USDoE—and its Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
has used the Directors of the National PBIS TA Center to testify virtually
every time (since its first 1997 funding) a national issue in school discipline
arises; and (b) Dr. Sugai predictably touted PBIS as the “solution to all
school problems behavioral” despite the fact that PBIS has never been
independently validated as an evidence-based program.
But Part II of this
Blog (March 16) went one step further, as it posted a Table with the
most-recent (2013-2014) national data for seclusion and restraints for students
with disabilities. Analyzing the “Top
Ten” states ranked either by their Total Number of Seclusion and Restraint
Incidents, or their Number of Seclusion and Restraint Incidents per School,
respectively, the Table showed that Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
and Oregon were prominently cited on the two lists.
Critically, these
Top Ten Seclusion and Restraint states house some of the most well-established
and touted state PBIS networks in the country.
Indeed, the PBIS National TA Center has been jointly housed for many
years at the University of Oregon and the University of Connecticut. And
National PBIS leaders are often drawn from the state PBIS centers in Illinois,
Maryland, and Michigan.
While we noted that
state-specific issues certainly always present, one would think that these
well-established PBIS state programs would be so well-established in the
schools in their respective states that these states would not be on the
Top-Ten Seclusion and Restraint lists.
In the end, we
concluded the March 2nd Blog with a warning:
Districts and schools to be cautious—if not
wary—about the U.S. Department of Education’s (and, perhaps, your State
Department of Education’s) advocacy of the PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention
and Supports) Framework as a viable one to help you decrease seclusions and
restraints with your most behaviorally-challenging students.
_ _ _ _ _
In the March 16th Blog, we discussed
(a) the seclusion and restraint data that states are supposed to be reporting
to the USDOE (and its Office for Civil Rights) each year; (b) the fact that
most states are not analyzing their data to determine why their district-level
seclusion and restraints are occurring; and (c) the professional development
gaps, present in most states, relative to the science-to-practice interventions
that can prevent or decrease the need for these “last resort” student actions.
Significantly, we
made three points after analyzing the publicly-available data from a number of
state departments of education (SDoEs):
- SDoEs are not fully analyzing their state’s seclusion and restraint data such that they understand the functional nature of the problem, and how and why the numbers are changing over time.
- SDoEs often focus predominantly on the incident numbers. They typically do not collect data that would help functionally identify the root causes of the student behaviors that are prompting the need for seclusions and restraints.
- Many SDoEs are doing a lot of PBIS framework-driven training. This training rarely (if at all) is aligned with the information and root cause analyses noted as needed in the two bullets above. Moreover, the training rarely (if at all) is coherent, comprehensive, or scientifically-based. The training misses many of the social, emotional, and behavioral interventions that, once again, can help prevent the need for crisis-oriented seclusions and restraints.
Critically, if SDoEs were analyzing these data, they would find that
students with autism, developmental delays, emotional disturbances, and other
health impairments are the ones being frequently secluded or restrained.
They would also find that—in many states—these disability areas are
most-responsible for the increases in seclusions and restraints, because the
number of students classified in these areas have often increased over the past
number of years.
Finally, if they did an audit of the interventions (not) being used to
address the need to seclude or restrain certain students, the SDoEs would find
many of the (a) Emotional Control and Coping Interventions/Therapies, (b) Student
Motivation Interventions, and (c) Social Skill (and other) Instructional
interventions that we specifically listed in this Blog message “missing in
action.”
_ _ _ _ _
In the July 13th
Blog, we revealed how our concerns with the seclusion and restraint data
collected by SDoEs across the country were confirmed.
Here, we described
and quoted from a June 18, 2019 letter to the respective leaders of the Senate
and House of Representatives Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations by
Jacqueline M. Nowicki, the Director of the Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Office in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
This letter was
titled: K-12 Education: Education
Should Take Immediate Action to Address Inaccuracies in Federal Restraint and
Seclusion Data, and it described the results of an investigation that was
prompted when a number of states were incredulously found to have no (or
blank) incidents of seclusions or restraints in key districts.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
Consistent with
this quote, the July 13th Blog also provided a number of charts showing the
most-recent national seclusion and restraint data by race, student disability,
and enrollment. It is also discussed the
importance of disaggregating these data by specific disability category. And, it again emphasized that SDoEs, districts,
and schools need to go beyond even this disaggregation by determining the root
causes underlying the behavior of each individual student who is restrained or
secluded.
This Blog concluded
by encouraging SDoEs to determine whether they have the “right” services,
supports, strategies, and interventions available to prevent and respond to the
root causes of excessive seclusions and restraints in districts in their
respective states, and whether there are training needs or gaps that need to be
addressed. The Blog also identified a
number of root causes underlying the social, emotional, and behavioral
challenges that put some students at-risk of experiencing a seclusion or
restraint.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _
Once again, please feel free to re-read the
original Blogs to get a more detailed analysis of the Reports and summary
discussed above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Summary
We started this Blog with a Steve Jobs
quote that emphasized—from my perspective—that none of us should be limited in
our professional lives to the boundaries, parameters, and constraints of
present frameworks, programs, or traditions.
Let’s end, in the spirit of New Years, with
a quote about setting (professional) resolutions.
In this regard,
Catherine Pulsifer noted:
We set resolutions because we want something to change
in our life. But if we are not specific and have no detailed plans about how we
are going to change it, then we can expect things to remain as they currently
are. And then, we will end the year without the resolution accomplished.
So rather than set them. . . if we should recognize
what we have accomplished in the past year and build on them, where is there
the potential to do more, to be more?
In writing the two parts of this “Year in
Review,” my goal was to summarize the issues, analyses, and recommendations
made through my 2019 Blogs to help all schools and districts to improve the
academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes of all students.
To
accomplish this, we need to focus on the scientific practices that should guide
our success. . . rather than embracing the testimonials of others who tout
frameworks or approaches that have not been objectively proven, nor sustained
across time, settings, and circumstances.
We also need to focus on implementation
science . . . the planning, implementation, and formative and summative
evaluation practices that ensure that initiatives are well-conceived,
well-resourced, implemented with fidelity, and evaluated in ways that
demonstrate student-sensitive outcomes.
Finally, to accomplish our goals, we need to
celebrate our own and others’ resolution.
That is, their commitment to excellence, and
their excellence when taking action.
This is needed not just when things are going well, but when challenges
and road-blocks arise.
In the end, as in the quote above, we need
to start from our current positions . . . building off of our last successes.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this, and the previous, “Year in
Review” Blog will help you to envision your “next steps toward sustained success”.
. . having thought about your past successes and “lessons learned.”
I hope that these Blogs will help you create
your plan for the future, so that that future will result—for yourself, your
students, and your colleagues—in the successes that you expect.
As we enter the New Year: Remember
that if any of you—with your school or district team—would like to talk with me
by phone, Skype, Google Hangouts, etc. about any of practices shared in these
last two Blogs, all you need to do is contact me and get on my schedule. The first conference call is totally free.
Moreover, as we also enter a New Decade,
please accept my best wishes for productive and prodigious New Year.
Be successful and well !!!
Best,
Howie
