Saturday, March 30, 2019

The Art of Doubling Down: How the U.S. Department of Education Creates Grant Programs to Fund and Validate its own Frameworks


Call Your Members of Congress:  The Tainting of RtI, PBIS, MTSS, and SEL

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   In Poker, a player “doubles down” when they have a losing hand, but they want the other players to think that it’s a winner.  And so, they double what was originally a losing bet (when they should be folding instead) to make it appear that they are eminently confident that they have a winner.  If the bluff works, the other players fold, and the winner collects the pot (usually without revealing the bluff).

   Recently, “doubling down” has become popular in politics.  Indeed, some news channels have described our President as “doubling down” when he originally makes an illogical, untenable, or fabricated statement, then is confronted by the facts, and then reasserted his statement more vociferously.

   And finally, sometimes doubling-down occurs in life.  For example, when people face a losing situation or take an unwise risk, they may decide to put more energy, resources, or time into it in an effort to turn “lemons into lemonade.” 

   This is what some business start-ups do when they buy massive amounts of prime-time advertising for a new product that just is not catching on.  Here, the product either “gets hot,” or the company goes out of business.
_ _ _ _ _

   When a private company decides to double down, it is the essence of capitalism in a free market economy.  But when this scenario involves the federal government and your tax dollars, there should be a pause for reflection. 

   And if a federal government agency doubles down on its own agenda, program, or initiative—and the decision involves (or has the appearance of) a political conflict of interest or fiduciary malfeasance, there should be moral, ethical, and/or legal outrage.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The U.S. Department of Education’s Near-Exclusive “Advocacy” of RtI, PBIS, and MTSS

  In past Blogs, I have presented the data and documentation to demonstrate that the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE)—at the very least—has given its RtI, PBIS, and MTSS frameworks preferential treatment, funding, and funding opportunities. 

   It has done this, often through its funded National Technical Assistance (TA) Centers, in ways where

·       It has misrepresented the federal law;
·       It has recommended or used only these programs in other federal grant programs—serving to extend these frameworks’ “legitimacy” and national reach;
·       By default, it has ignored, minimized, or failed to similarly acknowledge other evidence-based or effective models or programs that (often) report better results than their frameworks; and
·       It has done all of this as part of a conscious agenda whose goal is to “brand” their frameworks in national prominence.

   While, as above, representing multiple conflicts of interest (or, at least, the appearance of some), these actions began in 1997 with the first federal grant award to the National PBIS TA Center and have continued since (see below). 

   Collectively. . . 

   The lack of success of these frameworks (see citations below) has cost districts and schools millions of hours organizational and staff development time and resources, and our country and districts millions of dollars of taxpayer funds. . . with no real or sustained return on investment.

   More important are the services, support, programs, and interventions that academically struggling and behaviorally challenged students have not received because of the misguided advocacy of these frameworks.
_ _ _ _ _

   In this Blog, I am going to give examples (with citations to earlier Blogs) of the assertions above.

   But then, I am going to reveal how the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) doubles down on these frameworks—especially when major research studies show them to be ineffective.  The USDoE does this by funding new studies with your tax dollars. . . in an attempt to “prove” that earlier research was incorrect, and that their frameworks are actually beneficial.
_ _ _ _ _

Is the USDoE Misrepresenting Federal Law?  MTSS, PBIS, and RtI

   The current Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/ESSA, 2015) includes the terms “multi-tiered system of supports” (five times) and “positive behavioral interventions and supports” (three times).  The first term does not appear in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), and the second term appears in IDEA six times—although there are innumerable variations of this phrase sprinkled across IDEA.

   The term “response-to-intervention” (i.e., RtI), or any of its derivatives, does not appear in ESEA/ESSA.  Similarly, by way of history, the explicit term “response-to-intervention” never appeared in IDEA, nor did not appear in the previous version of ESEA (the No Child Left Behind Act).

   Indeed, the closest that IDEA came to using the term “response-to-intervention” was in the section on learning disabilities where it stated,

“In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).”

   The critical issue here is this:

   ESEA and IDEA both reference “multi-tiered system of supports” and “positive behavioral interventions and supports” as generic terms, in lower case words, and without acronyms.  This means that federal law does not require either the MTSS or the PBIS frameworks advocated by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) or its tax-funded and related national TA centers.

   And yet for years, OSEP and the USDoE have confused the public by making it appear that their upper-case frameworks are required by federal law.  This is readily apparent on the PBIS and the Law page on the National PBIS TA Center’s website (https://www.pbis.org/policy-and-pbis/pbis-and-the-law) in an entry that has been present and virtually unchanged for over a decade. 

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message that provides quotes and a detailed analysis of this webpage.]

   Moving On:  Beyond these publicly-posted misrepresentations of federal law, I have attended close to one hundred PBIS national and state presentations over the years, where PBIS national leaders have even more directly stated that “Federal law requires the PBIS framework.”
_ _ _ _ _

   For the past fifteen years or more, OSEP staff have allowed this misinterpretation.  I know this because I formally protested the website entry above over fifteen years ago (a) to the Assistant Secretary directing OSEP… and (b) in a hand-delivered letter that I personally gave to Secretary Arne Duncan after a presentation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

   This upper-case/lower-case differentiation is not semantics, and this is not an “innocent” oversight. 

   From my perspective, this is a pure powerplay that is predicated on OSEP’s belief (and experience) that most educators (a) trust the U.S. Department of Education, assume that it acts in the best interests of all students, and believe that its recommended practices are based on the most up-to-date research available; and (b) think that the U.S. Department of Education and OSERS/OSEP have no reason to promote (and fund) their own agenda.

   Relative to MTSS, the USDoE and OSEP have similarly confused the “multi-tiered systems of support” language in ESEA with its own MTSS framework that they have funded and developed through relevant national TA centers.  Once again, many unaware and trusting school practitioners have accepted the incorrect assumption that ESEA requires the MTSS framework created by and largely advocated through OSEP. 

   Relative to other facets of RtI and MTSS, the USDoE and OSEP have been more “subtle.”  Here, they have largely worked through each state’s department of education (which they evaluate on an annual basis prior to releasing each year’s federal dollars to them).  The “work” has largely focused on promoting the RtI and now MTSS frameworks by providing “free” consultation from the relevant National TA Centers and regional resource centers, and by “encouraging” the use of federal funds for these frameworks.

   In addition, many state department of education colleagues across the country have privately shared with me their fears that a rejection of the USDoE’s frameworks might result in fewer federal funds, or more intensive USDoE “attention” during their annual and triennial state education performance reviews.
_ _ _ _ _

Is the USDoE Inappropriately Recommending the Use of Other Federal Funds for PBIS?

   The USDoE has long encouraged Chief State School Officers and other state governmental officials to use different types federal funds and federally-funded programs to support or implement OSEP’s (and other departments’) “home-grown” frameworks.

  The most egregious example here is the PBIS framework, where PBIS was explicitly recommended to the nation’s Chief State School Officers in direct letters sent by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (a) for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding in February, 2009, and (b) to address the national epidemic of seclusions and restraints— especially for students with disabilities (July 31, 2009).

   [See details in the “A Brief U.S. Department of Education/PBIS History” section of my March 2, 2019 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)


   In addition to the above, the PBIS framework was exclusively advocated (a) in the U.S. Department of Education’s 2011-2014 and 2014-2018 Strategic Plans; (b) in the White House’s Safe Schools brief released in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre; and (c) as a required partner in the five-year federal School Climate Transformation grants awarded to 71 school districts in 2014, and 25 state departments of education collectively in 2014 and 2018.

   Relative to the latter School Climate Transformation Grants, the Request for Proposals not only expressed a preference for grantees to use the PBIS framework, but it required grantees to budget for and attend a national PBIS conference each October—for the five years of the grant.  Thus, all of the grantees—whether they are using the PBIS framework or not—are required to support the National PBIS TA Center’s annual conference.

   Once again, the USDoE’s singular advocacy for the use and funding of the PBIS framework that it initiated and has helped to develop since 1997, at least has the appearance of a conflict of interest.  More functionally, however, the exclusive PBIS attention and promotion has concurrently minimized national attention to other evidence-based or effective multi-tiered schoolwide discipline models or programs, thereby disadvantaging their use and growth.

   This has been a conscious agenda on the part of the USDoE and OSEP.  Indeed, the OSEP staff overseeing the national PBIS initiative have admitted to their goal of “branding PBIS.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Who Testifies for the USDoE in Congress?

   When there is a national crisis, important pending legislation, or funding questions before it, Congress typically holds hearings and invites the USDoE to recommend speakers.  Not surprisingly, the USDoE most often invites directors from the relevant national TA centers that it funds. 

   The problem here is that, given the limited timeframe for most hearings, the committee or subcommittee receives a potentially limited and biased view of the issues at-hand.  At the very least, they hear what the USDoE wants them to hear, and they may not understand that there are others who disagree with the USDoE’s views and who have significantly different and defensible perspectives.

   This occurred just recently at a Congressional hearing on seclusions and restraints in our nation’s schools.

   Specifically, on February 27, 2019, an education subcommittee of the House of Representatives conducted a hearing where the most-recent number of seclusions and restraints across the country was reported, possible alternative approaches were outlined, and the role of the federal government in decreasing seclusions and restraints was discussed. 

   During this hearing, the U.S. Department of Education promoted George Sugai’s testimony.  Sugai has been the Co-Director of the National Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Technical Assistance (TA) Center since its inception in 1997.  Rather than talking about the root causes of the seclusion and restraint dilemma in our schools, Sugai instead spent some of his precious testimony time promoting his (and OSEP’s) PBIS framework.
_ _ _ _ _

Summary

   As noted above, the USDoE and OSEP have used their “bully pulpit” to dominate the agenda, practices, and discussions in education for decades.  To a large degree, they have successfully controlled what educators hear, the books that are published and that they read, and the professional development activities that they are required or choose to attend.

   By default, the USDoE and OSEP’s promotion of the RtI, PBIS, and MTSS frameworks has resulted in other evidence-based models or programs being ignored, minimized, or unable to compete.  This is especially problematic given the studies over the years that have questioned the efficacy especially of the RtI and PBIS frameworks.

   And so, the story continues.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

National Studies Question the Validity of the RtI/MTSS and PBIS Frameworks

   As they prepare to meet the expectations of ESEA/ESSA, state departments of education and school districts nationwide must recognize that a number of major research and evaluation reports—some commissioned or conducted by the federal government—have shown that the federal RtI/MTSS and PBIS frameworks has not produced expected student outcomes.

   Thus, as state departments of education and districts rethink their multi-tiered systems of supports, they need to recognize and correct the flaws that have undermined these earlier (and, sometimes, current) RtI and MTSS approaches.

[CLICK HERE to access the Project ACHIEVE website where you can receive our free analysis, A Multi-Tiered Service & Support Implementation Blueprint for Schools & Districts: Revisiting the Science to Improve the Practice]
_ _ _ _ _

   The full Blog message provides a detailed description and analyses of studies that question the validity and utility of the USDoE’s frameworks in RtI/MTSS and PBIS.

   In the area of RtI, we describe and discuss the Balu, Zhu, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, and Gersten (2015) study.  This study analyzed the literacy progress of approximately 24,000 first through third grade students in 13 states.  Commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences and the largest federal investigation of its kind, the authors statistically compared 146 schools that had been implementing key elements from the U.S. Department of Education’s Response-to-Intervention (RtI) framework in literacy for at least three years with 100 randomly-selected comparison schools in the same 13 states, who were not implementing RtI.

   In the area of PBIS, we describe and discuss a qualitative study commissioned by the USDoE’s Institute of Education Science (IES) on a contract to a joint research team from the University of South Carolina’s School Mental Health Team, Tanglewood Research Inc., and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International. 

   The goal of the study was to evaluate—circa 2012-2013—the status of the science, practice, and outcomes of school-wide positive behavioral support systems (SWPBS) across the United States, and to design a comprehensive study to evaluate the efficacy of these systems that would subsequently be funded.  The study investigated four specific approaches:  PBIS, Safe and Civil Schools, BEST, and my Positive Behavioral Support System (PBSS) approach through Project ACHIEVE.

   Here, we identify—from the results of the study—eleven questionable and/or inappropriate practices within the PBIS framework and their student-centered implications.

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _

   Also, in the area of PBIS, we describe and analyze the recent national data on the disproportionate discipline referrals of students of color and students with disabilities, and separately, (b) the recent national seclusion and restraint data for students with disabilities—as well as the practical “usefulness” of a technical assistance paper written by the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center on this topic.

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message for detailed data and a comprehensive analysis of both of these important areas.]

   Our conclusions:

   While clearly there are intervening factors in these practice areas at the local and state levels, we believe that the National PBIS Directors need to be held accountable for the poor national results in both of these areas—providing a formal report and/or public explanation. 

   The National PBIS TA Center has been run by the same national directors out of the University of Oregon (and, recently, additional partner universities) since 1997.  The Center has received millions of federal tax dollars to address the areas of school discipline, classroom management, student self-management, and strategic/intensive interventions for students demonstrating social, emotional, or behavioral challenges.

   This means that the Center has had more than 20 years to successfully address the areas noted above.  And yet, the data suggest that they have been unsuccessful.

   For example, we pooled the national seclusions and restraint data for all students with disabilities gathered from across the country from the 2013-2014 school year (the last year where detailed state-by-state currently exists).  This pool included those students receiving services under both IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

   We then analyzed the data to identify (a) the “Top Ten” states that were secluding or restraining students with disabilities in sheer absolute numbers, and (b) the “Top Ten” states that were secluding or restraining students with disabilities per school in the state.  While there are other ways to analyze these data, we thought that these were sufficient to make our major points.

   Below is a table with the results of our analyses.


   Critically, from a PBIS perspective, it is interesting—in the Table above—to see Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Oregon on the “Top Ten” lists.  From my (and other national leaders') perspective(s), these are states with the some of the most well-established 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, once again, there certainly are state-specific issues 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 listed in the Table above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How the USDoE is Doubling Down on these Poor Results

   In the Introduction to this Blog, we discussed how “doubling down” occurs in many different contexts. . . poker, politics, life, business, and within the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE). 

   In business, when a product or company is failing—that is, when it is not producing good quality results (such that people don’t want to buy it or invest in it), the business either folds . . . or it goes back to research and development, and it re-makes itself.

   In this Blog, we have presented sound and objective data and results that tell us that the USDoE’s RtI/MTSS and PBIS frameworks are not working for students, staff, and schools (SEL will be discussed below). 

   But rather than admitting that the frameworks are scientifically substandard and unviable, and going back to “research and development,” the USDoE has doubled down. . . multiple times . . . throwing more taxpayer money at more research in an attempt to validate their flawed frameworks.

   And in these acts of doubling down (four times), the USDoE has demonstrated (at least) the appearance of a conflict of interest, and (at least) some level of fiscal irresponsibility.  But no one has been there to stop it.

   Here are the “Double Down Examples” described, with corroborating information and citations, in the full Blog message.

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

Double Down #1:  The National RtI Study of Grade 1 to 3 Literacy (As Described Above)

   When IDEA 2004 opened the Response-to-Intervention door, the USDoE, OSEP, and the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded
$14,204,339 to the New York City-based non-profit education and social policy research organization, MDRC, from March 26, 2008 through March 25, 2014 to validate its own RtI framework.

   As described in the Blog, the framework actually produced negative results for academically struggling readers from Grades 1 through 3.

   This grant award resulted in the Balu, Zhu, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, & Gersten (2015) study—the largest federal education study of its kind. . . a study that investigated the literacy progress of approximately 24,000 first through third grade students in 13 states. 
_ _ _ _ _

Double Down #2: Impact Evaluation Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading (MTSS-R) in Early Elementary School

   In response to the disappointing Balu et al. (2015), the USDoE’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) released a Request for Proposals in the Spring/early Summer of 2018 for the grant program titled above.  The grant was awarded in the late summer to the American Institutes for Research (AIR), another large, non-profit educational research company based in Washington, D.C. 

   This Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading (MTSS-R) grant in question here will run from September, 2018 through August, 2024 to the tune of $17,281,100 !!! 

   Besides the involvement of more taxpayer money, this AIR study is basically designed as an attempt to revalidate the USDoE’s MTSS-B framework that is simply the updated, but rebranded USDoE RtI framework (that did not produce positive results as in Balu et al. above).
_ _ _ _ _

Double Down #3: USDoE/IES Study on the Efficacy of PBIS

   Earlier in the full Blog, we describe the results of the qualitative study of the PBIS framework as developed and implemented through the National PBIS TA Center.  The circa 2012-2013 study, commissioned by the USDoE’s Institute of Education Science (IES), was completed by a joint research team from the University of South Carolina’s School Mental Health Team, Tanglewood Research Inc., and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International. 

   The study was never formally published by the USDoE.  Instead (due to its negative/disappointing results, it was “hidden” as an Appendix to a new RFP designed to address the “negative” results by investigating the PBIS framework through more controlled research.

   The Double Down here is that, once again, the USDoE, OSEP, and the IES threw additional grant money to fund a PBIS framework research study because its own evaluation of the framework showed significant gaps in its processes.  This grant was awarded jointly to MDRC (of Balu et al., 2015 fame), and AIR (of MTSS-R fame) from November, 2013 through August, 2020 to the tune of $23,796,966 in taxpayer money!!!

    And rather than calling it a “PBIS” study, they once again rebranded PBIS—now calling it the Multi-tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B).
_ _ _ _ _

   But one more issue occurred here.

   This grant award was designed to include a subgrant for the actual implementation of the intended PBIS/MTSS-B study.  This subgrant was awarded to the Center for Social Behavior Support (CSBS), which is a collaboration between The Illinois-Midwest PBIS Network at the School Association for Special Education in DuPage, Illinois (SASED), and the PBIS Regional Training and Technical Assistance Center at Sheppard Pratt, in Maryland.

   But employed members of the Illinois-Midwest PBIS Network were on the Technical Working Group that in February, 2013 designed the MTSS-Behavior study. . . that then was awarded in September, 2014 to the Illinois-PBIS Network and Maryland-PBIS.

   From my perspective, the involvement of these two individual in 2013 could have given the Illinois-PBIS group an unfair competitive advantage in writing for the later RFP.

   A clear conflict of interest is present here, and the Illinois-PBIS group should have been disqualified from writing for (much less being awarded) the MTSS-B subcontract/grant.

   I personally filed a complaint with the Inspector General’s Office within the U.S. Department of Education on this issue.

   My petition was denied.

   So. . . not only did the USDoE double down by awarding a $23 million dollar grant to validate its own PBIS (read MTSS-B) framework, but it allowed a subcontract within that grant to be awarded improperly.
_ _ _ _ _

Double Down #4: Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

   Over the past year or two, it is nearly impossible to avoid recognizing that social-emotional learning (SEL) has taken over education.

   Significantly, when you look at the national media attention recently given to SEL versus PBIS, SEL wins hands down.  SEL has garnered the “lion’s share” of the attention.  Indeed, it is dominating “the market.”

   And we are guessing that the USDoE is concerned about this—given their advocacy and funding of PBIS/MTSS-B.

   And if this is correct, then the following double-down should be considered.

   In May, 2018, the USDoE’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education initiated an RFP for the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety.

   Our read on the rationale behind this USDoE grant is that “If you can’t beat ‘em, you join ‘em. . . so then you can beat 'em."

   We believe that the USDoE was increasingly concerned that SEL was going to (if it had not already succeeded in) eclipsing PBIS/MTSS-B. 

   So, the USDoE created and funded this new SEL Center in an attempt (a) to reclaim the bully pulpit in this area, and (b) to re-establish its “voice” and influence in this area (over the independent Collaborative for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning).

   Thus, a fourth Double-Down example. . . . to the tune of $5 million dollars over the next five years.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   The bottom line in all of this are the students, staff, and schools that need effective, objective, and expert science-to-practice services, supports, strategies, and interventions. . . and who are not getting them because of political, financial, and personal agendas.

   I don’t expect the USDoE to stop funding professionals who have different ideas about how to best serve our students.

   But I do expect the staff within the USDoE to be fair about getting this done.

   And I believe that the history, facts, decisions, and actions that I have described above suggest (if not prove) that fairness has been compromised—at some points in time—within the USDoE and its different offices—including its own Office of the Inspector General.

   What do you think?

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _

   As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments. 

   I am always available to provide a free hour of telephone consultation if you want to discuss your student, school, or district needs.  Feel free to contact me at any time if there is anything that I can do to support your work.

[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]

Best,

Howie

No comments:

Post a Comment