When Schools Struggle with Struggling Students: “We Didn’t Start the Fire”
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
The last three
weeks have been a blur. Just over three
weeks ago, I landed in Singapore to keynote at an International Conference with
over 1,000 delegates from around the world.
At the end of last
week, I began writing this Blog message as I was flying home after a
consultation with a community high school district just south of Chicago. I have been working with this district for the
past year.
While we have been
focusing especially on redesigning their multi-tiered system of supports, there
have been many challenges. Among them:
- The District receives ninth grade students each year from up to ten different feeder districts that it has no instructional control over.
- Many of the students are from working class homes where they are living in poverty, where community violence is omni-present, and where mental health and social service supports are lacking.
- Many of the students enter the District without the academic prerequisites to succeed in ninth grade, and the District is identifying some students as students with disabilities (receiving either 504 Plans or IEPs) for the first time because their feeder districts are not identifying them through Child Find.
- One high school in the District is in almost a daily state of crisis— dealing especially with students who make threats on social media, and who then come to school—forcing the school to expend administrative and related service time (with staff counselors, social workers, school psychologists) on threat assessments, ranging from potential mass shootings to individual and copy-cat suicides.
The “good news” is that
the District has leveraged federal, state, and other funds such that they have
sufficient instructional, administrative, and related services (including
counselors and social workers) personnel.
The “bad news” is
that the multi-tiered system of supports in the District and its schools:
- Is not aligned, integrated, calibrated, or consistent;
- Is not grounded by a sound data-based problem-solving process;
- Is geared more to testing students so that deficiencies, disabilities, and clinical conditions can be “described and diagnosed”—rather than to the functional assessment of students so that the root causes of their challenges can be determined and linked to the evidence-based strategies and interventions that will improve their academic and/or behavioral performance; and
- Does not have staff with the expertise to implement the aforementioned strategies and interventions—even if they were accurately determined.
A critical point in
all of this is that, in my 35+ years of working across this country, what I am
describing above is typical of most Districts.
What may be
atypical is that this District is devoting 15% of its annual IDEA funds (as
allowed by law) to professional development and on-site consultation to
help prevent general education students from needing more strategic or
intensive services and supports at the “deeper” ends of its multi-tiered
continuum. It is also braiding this money
with strategically-placed Title I and Title IV dollars so that its schools can
literally get “the biggest bang for the buck.”
Finally, this
District is “going slow to go fast.”
They did not ask me to come in to “fix” or “upgrade” their multi-tiered system
of supports.
We spent this first
year (a) building relationships and listening to staff, administrators,
students, and parents; (b) identifying District strengths and resources,
weaknesses and limitations, opportunities and alignments, and barriers and threats;
and (c) creating the underlying systems and the infrastructure for improvement
and change.
And I believe, as
with other districts and schools that I have worked with in the past, that we
are going to be successful. . . on behalf of the students, their families, and
the community.
But our success is
tempered by “high and realistic” expectations. We are not going to solve every problem,
service every need, or save every student.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We Didn’t Start
the Fire, and We Don’t Have Enough Extinguishers
I grew up with
Billy Joel. One of his most notable
songs is, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”
The song’s lyrics
include more than 100 rapid-fire citations of historical events, notable
people, and memorable occasions between 1949, when Billy Joel was born, and
1989, when he turned 40. Joel got the
idea for the song when he was in a recording studio and met a friend of Sean
Lennon who had just turned 21. The
friend remarked, "It's a terrible time to be 21," and Joel replied,
"Yeah, I remember when I was 21. I
thought it was an awful time. We had
Vietnam, and drug problems, and civil rights problems, and everything seemed to
be awful."
The friend replied,
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's different for you. You were a kid in the
fifties, and everybody knows that nothing happened in the fifties.” Joel responded,
"Wait a minute, didn't you hear of the Korean War, or the Suez Canal
Crisis?”
Joel later said
those headlines formed the basic framework for the song.
_ _ _ _ _
In this Blog, I am
going to use “We Didn’t Start the Fire” metaphorically.
First of all,
as in the song, I am going to string together a number of research studies and
policy papers to make some somewhat fatalistic educational (school, staff, and
student) points. And while I am
linking these studies and papers to make my points—just as in the historical
events that Billy Joel lists—some of these links are not causal.
Second, as
in the song, “good history” will be mixed in with “bad history.” While it is important to learn from (and not
just remember) history, some unfortunate events nonetheless reoccur.
To this point: Schools do not have full control over all of
the incoming or intervening student, family, community, or political events
that impact them on a daily basis (and sometimes “set them on fire”). Thus, schools cannot be held fully
accountable for every student “failure”—especially when they are sometimes
“playing with a 45-card deck.”
Said a different
way: Sometimes schools “didn’t start
the fire”. . . nor do they have the capacity “to fully extinguish the fire.”
Third, if a
school is “on fire,” the goal is to minimize the impact of the crisis and to,
hopefully, prevent the next one from occurring.
But crisis
prevention often requires the redistribution of existing resources and the
allocation (sometimes, for a short time) of new resources. For some, this sounds unfair—because many
still hold the belief that a district’s resources need to be equally
distributed across its schools. For
others, they are looking for any resources because the district is underfunded
and/or under-resourced.
This is all about
equity.
But, in the end, real
equity occurs only when all of the schools in a district receive the same
financial, personnel, and resource “core” needed for success, and the schools with
more student challenges (e.g., more at-risk, underachieving, unresponsive,
and unsuccessful students) receive the additional financial, personnel, and
resource allocation plus that they need to be fully successful.
This is what I call
Core-Plus District Funding.
This is the essence
of how districts need to practice “equity,” so that all of their schools have a
chance to be “excellent.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Outlining and
Beginning to Travel this Blog’s Road Ahead
Here are the
threads that I tie together in this Blog:
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
- Teachers’ relationships with their students are one of the strongest predictors of student engagement and learning.
- But fostering student engagement and learning is difficult when there is an ever-present inequity in schools that serve high numbers of students who are living in poverty.
- Many of these schools also serve some of the most challenging students in our country, and these schools are sometimes in a constant state of crisis.
- Because of the inequity, these students often do not receive the comprehensive multi-tiered services that they need, and the schools often do not successfully emerge from their persistent states of crisis.
- This then circles back to make it difficult for teachers to build strong, positive relationships with all of their students, thus impacting even more students’ educational opportunities and learning outcomes, and creating another “layer” of student challenges.
These threads are
discussed within the metaphorical stages of “starting a fire”... watching
the fire grow to the point that it is out of control.
_ _ _ _ _
The Tinder and Kindling
- Teachers’ relationships with their students are one of the strongest predictors of student engagement and learning.
A March 13, 2019 Education
Week article [CLICK
HERE], “Why Teacher-Student Relationships Matter,” reviewed a number of
research studies which demonstrate that these classroom relationships have a
significant effect on:
both short- and long-term improvements on practically
every measure schools care about—higher student academic engagement, attendance,
grades, fewer disruptive behaviors and suspensions, and lower school dropout
rates. These effects were strong even after controlling for differences in
students’ individual, family, and school backgrounds.
Among numerous
citations, the article referenced a forthcoming Bank Street College of
Education longitudinal study investigating the impact of highly effective
teachers on low-income students’ engagement and critical thinking—an outcome
resulting from their ability to create classroom norms that established
students’ feelings of safety and trust.
The article also
discussed a Review of Educational Research analysis of 46 studies (13 of
them collecting longitudinal data) that reinforced the student outcomes
described in the quote above.
The bottom line
is that relationships do matter. [Hattie summarizes its meta-meta-analytic
effect on student achievement at a strong 0.52.] They involve teachers’ sensitivity to student
gender, race, culture, socio-economic status, and academic skills and potential.
. . and an understanding of how—for example—student trauma and student
disability impact interpersonal relationships and academic engagement.
But it is difficult
to develop positive, consistent, and sustained relationships when teachers:
- Are new to the field,
- Have not received adequate training in classroom management,
- Do not have adequate resources and support,
- Have too many challenging students with different skill levels and varied social-emotional needs to teach at once, and
- Do not have experienced mentors who are available for multiple years.
And high-poverty
schools possess most of these characteristics.
This leads us to our next thread.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Layering the Firewood
- Fostering student engagement and learning is difficult when there is an ever-present inequity in schools that serve high numbers of students who are living in poverty.
For high-poverty
schools, these inequities result in fewer resources than middle class or
suburban schools, and they indirectly relate to staff recruitment, experience,
and retention. More specifically,
schools with high number of students living in poverty typically are often (a)
underfunded (especially relative to their students’ needs), and (b) staffed by
less experienced teachers who, naturally, have more skill gaps, and who resign
from the school more often and after fewer years in-rank.
[The full Blog
message describes two recent studies (from the Shanker Institute and EdBuild)
that validate the scary inequities in school funding at the state and local
levels—especially for high-poverty schools.
The conclusion is
that these funding inequities affect the resources and staffing of all
high-poverty districts—but, even more so, in the concentrated non-white high-poverty
districts.
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sparks and Combustion
- Many of these (non-white high poverty) schools also serve some of the most challenging students in our country, and these schools are sometimes in a constant state of crisis.
[Specific article links are provided in the full Blog
message.]
These factors then
circle back to negatively affect students’ school attendance and expectations,
classroom engagement and motivation, academic readiness and proficiency,
emotional self-control and prosocial interactions and, ultimately, high school
graduation and readiness for the workforce.
At the extreme,
many high-poverty schools are constantly dealing with high numbers of (a)
truant and chronically-absent students; (b) students with significant,
multi-year academic skill gaps; and (c) students who are physical or school
safety threats, or who have mental health needs that transcend the school’s
available services. These students then
impact the staff’s effectiveness and efficiency, the school’s climate and
culture, and the educational process and its outcomes.
These correlations are
clearly seen when analyzing where schools are rated on their respective state
department of education report card each year.
In general, the data consistently show that high-poverty schools tend to
be the lowest rated schools in most individual states—a status that many
superintendents consider “a crisis.”
[Data-based examples from the Arkansas Department of Education,
and from a national study of over 1,500 NWEA MAP Growth schools are provided in
the full Blog message.]
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
All of the
information presented supports the conclusion that high-poverty schools have
some of the most academically-challenging students in our country. If these schools had the financial
resources—the primary point of this Blog—they could more effectively address
these students’ challenges. But the
financial inequities already discussed often allow initial academic gaps and problems
to progressively magnify as students move from grade-to-grade. . . to the point
where long-term solutions are replaced by short-term survival.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Fire Becomes an Inferno
- Because of the inequity, students with academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges often do not receive the comprehensive multi-tiered services that they need, and the schools often do not successfully emerge from their persistent states of crisis.
- The implementation of the missing foundational programs; and
- The availability of strategic and intensive interventions for students with significant academic and social, emotional, or behavioral problems—some that are student-specific, and some that are due to the programmatic gaps caused by the inequity.
[Two recent reports—one from Virginia and the other from Public
Impact and the Oak Foundation—are described to validate these point.]
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
Critically, these reports
largely focused on whole-system or whole-school reparations. They do not address the multi-tiered
strategic and intensive academic and/or behavioral services, supports,
strategies, and interventions needed by students who are products of the gaps
(as above) caused by inequitable funding patterns.
The ultimate point
is that the lack of an effective multi-tiered system results in a continuation
or exacerbation of these student problems, the “fire continues to burn, and
becomes an inferno.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What If the Inferno Can’t be Extinguished?
- This then circles back to make it difficult for teachers to build strong, positive relationships with all of their students, thus impacting even more students’ educational opportunities and learning outcomes, and creating another “layer” of student challenges.
Relative to high-poverty schools with
inequitable funding: If the original student
challenges were related to the funding gaps, and if there are limited or no
funds for strategic or intensive interventions, then why would we expect the
school to suddenly have resources or highly-skilled professionals to deal with
the intensification of the crisis?
While there are no
intervention “silver bullets” for some students’ needs, when a system is in
crisis, the resources and interventions typically need to be focused on
stabilizing the crisis before re-focusing on addressing the needs of (a)
the individual students at the center of the crisis, and (b) the students who
are at-risk of becoming the next phase or layer of the crisis.
But if there is no
money to address the crisis, then the fire may have to burn itself out.
Metaphorically,
this leaves you with rubble, and the need to fully re-build. In education, this is called
“reconstitution”. . . or what happens to some schools when they “sell-out” and
get taken over by a charter school or for-profit school company.
_ _ _ _ _
One Solution:
Core-Plus Funding. While this is
but one solution for the inequitable funding problem, and it clearly has
political and fiscal implications, Core-Plus Funding is a potential and viable
“equity toward excellence” solution.
[Core-Plus Funding is defined, with federal through
local examples, in the full Blog message.]
[CLICK HERE for the full Blog message]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
High-poverty
non-white schools in this country receive significantly less money per pupil
each year than high-poverty white schools and middle or upper class dominated
schools, respectfully. This involves
approximately 12.8 million students—many of them attending schools in urban
settings.
Because of the
financial inequity, these high-poverty schools have fewer resources than middle
or upper class-dominant schools, and they are typically staffed by less
experienced teachers who, naturally, have more skill gaps, and who resign from
the school more often and after fewer years in-rank. In addition, the students in these schools have
less access to high level science, math, and advanced placement courses, and less
access to needed multi-tiered academic and social, emotional, and behavioral
services, supports, programs, and interventions.
Correlated with the
poverty, many of these students exhibit health, mental health, academic, and
social, emotional, and behavioral challenges, that also triangulate with stress
and trauma—including the impact of hunger and poor nutrition, parental
incarceration and loss, abuse and neglect, and the exposure to violence and
drugs.
From a school
perspective, all of this translates into lower numbers of
academically-proficient students, and schools that are either in their state’s
school improvement programs or that are rated at the low end of the state’s
school report card scale.
From a student
perspective, all of this translates into negative effects on students’ school
attendance and expectations, classroom engagement and motivation, academic
readiness and proficiency, emotional self-control and prosocial interactions
and, ultimately, their high school graduation and readiness for the
workforce.
The financial
inequity occurs at the federal level relative to funding for students with
disabilities. Some of the inequity also rests
at the state level relative to its funding formulas and how it distributes
educational funds to all of its districts.
Other inequities occur at the district level relative to funds generated
from local property taxes.
In the final
analysis at the school level, a vicious cycle is created. Despite the fact that teachers’ relationships
with their students are one of the strongest predictors of student engagement
and learning, these relationships are hard to establish and maintain given the
effects (noted above) that correlate with schools that are
underfunded—especially relative to the intensity of the conditions in their
communities and of the needs of their students.
Because of the
under-funding, many of these schools do not have the effective multi-tiered
system of supports that the students need.
Thus, the students’ problems persist or expand, classrooms and schools
go into crisis, staff become reactive instead of proactive, more students are
sucked into the negative climate and culture, and the entire cycle begins anew.
Systemic changes
are needed—at the federal, state, and district levels—relative to educational
funding policy, principles, and practice.
While a Core-Plus Funding process was suggested, it will take more than
this.
It will take a
collective vision, and a decision—especially by the educators, community
leaders, and parents in the successful districts and schools across this
country—to see and advocate for the unsuccessful districts and schools in
their states as their own.
Part of this vision and decision requires
seeing what is happening—not just in these schools, but to these
schools, and why. Some of this requires
an understanding of history, white privilege, and equity rights. Some of this requires an understanding of the
circular factors described in this Blog.
As Billy Joel
sings:
We didn't start the fire.
It was always burning, since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire.
No, we didn't light it.
But we tried to fight it.
It was always burning, since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire.
No, we didn't light it.
But we tried to fight it.
_ _ _ _ _
It’s time to fight
it. . . .
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this
discussion has been useful to you.
As always, I look
forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you
in any of the areas discussed in this Blog, 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, school(s), and district.
Best,
Howie
No comments:
Post a Comment