Conducting “Special Situation Analyses” for Common
School Areas and Peer-Related Anti-Social Behavior
Dear Colleagues,
Prologue
Later this week, I
will be attending a small, interdisciplinary working conference, funded by the
Spencer Foundation, that I was invited to by the Loyola University Chicago Schools
of Education and Law. The theme of the
Conference is Reducing Suspensions and Expulsions of Students with
Disabilities: Linking Research, Law, Policy, and Practice.
The focus of the
conference is on building a research and policy agenda centering on changes to
laws, policies, and school practices to prevent and respond to the behaviors of
students with disabilities through non-exclusionary means. The overall goal is to promote greater
inclusion of students with disabilities in schools, and the more successful
implementation of services, supports, and interventions for students
demonstrating social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.
At the Conference,
I will be presenting a paper entitled:
Increasing Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Self-Management and Improving Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support: Most Students with Disabilities
have Behavioral, Not Disciplinary, Problems
_ _ _ _ _
The Conference and
my Paper fit perfectly into the three-part Blog series that we are currently in
the middle of (this being Part II). This
Series is critical not just because bullying and the presence of behaviorally
challenging students are increasing in schools nationwide, but because—as we
have discussed many times before—districts and schools continue to use
frameworks (like PBIS and SEL) and practices (like mindfulness strategies and
Restorative Practice approaches) that have weak evidence-based foundations, and
that sound and objective research studies have shown to be inconsequential at
best.
Unfortunately, even
this week, I continue to hear that schools are sending teams this summer to
PBIS and Restorative Practice trainings—with plans to implement these
approaches come Fall.
These groups
continue to believe (despite long-standing evidence) that a three- or five-day
training of a representative team from a school gives this team the knowledge,
skill, and expertise to implement a comprehensive, psychoeducationally-based
school-wide approach that will change and sustain student, staff, and school
behavior and interactions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Quick Detour:
Max Eden Supports My Critique Above
Before reviewing
Part I of this Blog Series and introducing Part II, I want to summarize a
research-rich article, Studies and Teachers Nationwide Say School Discipline
Reform is Harming Students’ Academic Achievement and Safety, that was published
this week (June 11, 2019) in the daily the74 Million.org newsletter. The article was written by Max Eden, a senior
fellow who specializes in education policy at the Manhattan Institute.
Below are quotes reflecting some of Eden’s
major points:
Last month, New York City Schools Chancellor Richard
Carranza announced
that he would soon unveil further, sweeping changes to the discipline code of
the nation’s largest school district. This promises to be another big step in
the wrong direction for the district’s 1.1 million students, given the data
suggesting that his predecessor’s reforms to sharply curtail school suspensions
have done substantial harm: from rising student perceptions
of violence and disrespect, to a troubling rise in
bullying, to a dramatic increase in
teacher assaults, to a rise in violence and other indicators on state data…
The brightest evidence (of this), which comes to us
from Chicago Public Schools, is rather equivocal: One study found
that decreasing the length of suspensions led to a deterioration in school
climate but had no effect on academics; another study found
that slightly decreasing the frequency with which students were suspended for
serious misbehavior had no impact on school climate and a slightly positive
impact on academics.
Philadelphia went much further than Chicago, banning
suspensions for nonviolent “conduct” offenses such as using profanity or
failing to obey classroom rules. Researchers found a
substantial negative effect on academics: Achievement decreased by 3 percentage
points in math and nearly 7 percentage points in reading after three years.
And, in a perverse irony, African-American students ended up spending more time
out of school on suspension because the number of suspensions for more serious
offenses rose.
Earlier this year, the RAND Corporation published a
randomized control trial examining the effects of
restorative justice in Pittsburgh as the district aggressively reduced
suspensions. The results were mixed. On one hand, teachers in schools that
implemented restorative justice reported an improvement in school safety, staff
morale and their classroom management abilities. But students disagreed: They
said their teachers’ classroom management abilities deteriorated and that
students became less supportive of one another. Perhaps most alarmingly,
academic achievement for African-American students decreased.
Taken as a whole, the academic literature suggests
that modest efforts to reduce suspensions may be pursued with minimal effect,
that aggressive efforts pose a serious risk to academics and that restorative justice
may exacerbate rather than ameliorate harm. . . (A)s I’ve documented, teachers in school
districts that implemented discipline reform under pressure from federal
investigations do not believe it works.
In Denver,
only 23% of teachers say the new approach to discipline improves behavior. In Charleston,
South Carolina, just 14% of teachers believe it is an improvement over previous
discipline policies, and in Madison,
Wisconsin, only 13% of teachers think that it has a positive effect on
behavior. In Oklahoma City,
11% of teachers said a greater implementation of “positive behavior
interventions and supports” would help them be effective, compared with
two-thirds who said greater implementation of traditional discipline would
help.
A recent nationwide poll of
elementary educators found that more than 70 percent believe disruptive
behavior has increased over the past three years.
A statewide poll sponsored
by the Oregon Education Association declared a “crisis of disrupted learning”
and noted that 56% of teachers reported experiencing at least one “room clear”
in the past year. (A “room clear” is when teachers direct all children to leave
the classroom for their own safety while a disruptive student throws a
tantrum.)
_ _ _ _ _
This article reinforces many of the
discipline-focused Blogs that I have written recently and over the years.
The “bottom line” is that policies
rarely decrease school discipline problems or increase school safety or student
engagement and their prosocial interactions . . . student behavior and
school discipline problems are changed through integrated, multi-tiered
evidence-based practices.
In my Spencer
Foundation Conference presentation this week in Chicago, I will discuss six national
flaws that have slowed our progress in decreasing not just disproportionate discipline
actions against students of color and with disabilities, but discipline
actions with all students.
These flaws are:
Flaw #1.
State legislatures and local leaders are trying to change suspension and
expulsion data through policies and mandates that dictate school decisions and
classroom practices.
Flaw #2. The
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs and, relatedly, state departments of
education and other educational leaders are promoting one-size-fits-all
frameworks that do not apply or have not addressed students with specific disabilities—especially
those with the most challenging behaviors.
Flaw #3.
Districts and schools are not recognizing that classroom management and teacher
training, supervision, coaching, mentoring, and evaluation are keys to
decreasing disproportionality.
Flaw #4.
Schools and staff are using motivational strategies to change student behavior
when they have not learned, mastered, or cannot apply the social, emotional,
and behavioral skills needed to succeed.
That is, they are not discriminating skill deficit versus performance
deficit students.
They also are completing Functional Assessments of
Behavior (FBAs) with the most challenging students when these students sometimes
have biologically-based behaviors that are not (wholly) motivational in nature.
Flaw #5.
Even when they are teaching skills, districts and schools often target
constructs of behavior, rather than specific social, emotional, and behavioral
skills.
Flaw #6.
Most districts, schools, and staff do not have the collective and comprehensive
knowledge, skills, and resources needed to implement the multi-tiered
(prevention, strategic intervention, intensive need/crisis management) social,
emotional, and/or behavioral services, supports, and interventions needed by
students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review Part I of this Blog Series, and Introducing
Part II
In Part I of this Blog Series, we encouraged
schools to evaluate the behavioral outcomes generated by their Social-Emotional
Learning (SEL), Positive Behavioral Support System (PBSS), or school safety and
discipline systems for the school year that just ended.
[CLICK HERE for Part I
of this Blog Series]
To do this, we
established a context by reviewing a number of recent national reports that surveyed
educators about students’ behavioral problems in their schools, and other
reports suggesting that bullying (including cyberbullying) is increasing
in our schools nationwide. Some of these
reports focused on Social and Emotional Learning approaches and outcomes, and
some on school safety and bullying.
The Social and
Emotional Learning Reports 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.
Based on these
reports and our research and analysis, we discussed six significant flaws in the
SEL framework advocated by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL).
_ _ _ _ _
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.
A primary implication of these Reports was a
strong recommendation that all districts and schools analyze the
discipline, school climate, and classroom management data from this past school
year. . . NOW. . . to determine (a) their current student, staff, and
school status; (b) what was accomplished (or not) in these important areas; (c)
the school’s “return on investment” relative to, for example, their SEL or PBIS
program(s); and (d) what situations need to be address for the coming school
year.
To assist here, we
identified a series of analyses and questions that schools can use to evaluate
the discipline data from their student information or data management systems.
Based on the result
of these analyses, we then recommended that school administrators and other
leaders select one or two targets to address on the first day of the new school
year, and begin the planning and preparation process.
_ _ _ _ _
In Part II of
this Blog Series, and based on the Reports above, we want to especially
address the school bullying and cyberbullying problem in (and outside of) our
schools.
To do this, we will
introduce our Special Situation Analysis process, and apply it to
analyzing and developing systemic interventions for school bullying. The hope is that schools will use this
process now to develop and implement “prevention and early response”
approaches. . . for immediate roll-out on the first day of the new school
year.
In Part III of this
Series, we will use the Special Situation Analysis process to address cafeteria
and bus situations.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Need and Components of a Special Situations
Analysis
When students
exhibit inappropriate behavior in the Common Areas of a school (e.g., the
hallway, bathroom, buses, playground, or cafeteria), or anti-social behavior
with their peers (e.g., teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, hazing, or
physical aggression/fighting), there are a number of complex individual, small
group, large group, and even environmentally-relevant psychological processes
in play. When there are problems in
these areas, school leaders (and relevant members of their School Discipline
and/or Behavioral Mental Health teams) need to systematically analyze these
processes—in an objective, data-based way—to determine the root causes of the
problems. The results of these analyses
can then be linked to strategic or intensive interventions to decrease and
eliminate the problems—replacing them with appropriate student, staff, and
school interactions and related processes.
Thus, we are
recommending 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. Given the complexity of the “processes in
play” (as above), we call this data-based process a “Special Situation
Analysis.”
To demonstrate the
complex processes present, note 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
complexity of Peer-Related Antisocial interactions, note 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 Components of a Special Situation Analysis
Given the ecological
nature of behavioral problems in the Common Areas of a school or as related
to Peer-to-Peer Antisocial interactions, the Special Situation Analysis must be
similarly ecological in nature. This is
because the root causes of the problem could exist in any one (or a combination)
of the ecological components.
Thus, like the
detective in a murder case, the analysis begins by (a) identifying and
functionally describing what appear to be the essential problems; and (b) systematically
evaluating the characteristics and interactions within each of the
components.
Then, as the data
and analytic results include or exclude the involvement of specific components,
the interdependencies of the remaining components are re-analyzed to objectively
and validly reveal—as much as possible—the root causes of the existing problem.
There are six components
in a Special Situation Analysis. They are
completely described in the Full Blog Message in the context of bullying that
is occurring in a Common School Area.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message’s Description of
the Six Components of a Special Situation Analysis]
_ _ _ _ _
End of the School Year Special Situation Analyses
As discussed above,
a Special Situation Analysis begins by (a) identifying and functionally
describing what appear to be the essential problems; and (b) systematically evaluating
the characteristics and interactions within each of the components. Then, as the data and analytic results
include or exclude the involvement of specific components, the interdependencies
of the remaining components are re-analyzed to objectively and validly reveal—as
much as possible—the root causes of the existing problem.
After this, the
Special Situation Analysis links assessment to intervention to evaluation.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message’s Description of
the Remainder of a Special Situation Analysis’s data-based problem-solving
process.]
_ _ _ _ _
Back to the Future
In going back to
the original theme of this Blog Series, if administrators and school
leaders—who have analyzed their end-of-year discipline data—identify trends or results
that implicate a Common School Area and/or Peer-Related Antisocial
Interactions. . .
We strongly
encourage that they complete a Special Situation Analysis now, that they
develop their Action Plan soon, and that they work toward implementing
that Action Plan on the first day of the new school year.
To accomplish this,
the administrators and school leaders probably need to focus on only one
Special Situation, and they will need to select one where the Special Situation
process has a high probability of being successfully implemented at the beginning
of the school year.
The ultimate point
here is that, without attention and intervention, a “true” Special
Situation at the end of one school year is likely to re-emerge and continue
starting at the beginning of the new year.
Based on well-analyzed
data, the summer is a perfect time to “knock one Special Situation out of the
ballpark”—that is, to move in a strategic and concerted way to address (if not eliminate)
one Special Situation from “re-emerging and continuing” into the next
year. Hopefully, this can then create
the momentum needed for other situations to also be address. . . resulting in a
cumulative effect that improves the safety and climate of the school, and the
prosocial interactions of the students and staff.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Special Note about Cyberbullying
Toward the
beginning of Part I of this Blog Series, I described a recent consultation
where I was helping three urban high schools to analyze their end-of-year
discipline data and analyses. During one
conversation, it became apparent that the schools were reactively dealing with
almost-daily “cyber-dramas” that were escalating into classroom disruptions,
peer conflicts, and innumerable fights.
These situations were not only were negatively impacting school safety
and climate, but they were necessitating time-consuming threat analyses,
crisis-containment “Code Blues,” and post-incident interviews and debriefings.
All of this was
dominating the time of administrators, counselors, social workers, and school
psychologists. In fact, on some days, it
was nearly impossible for these professionals to have a meeting. . . as one
student “blow-up” after another created a series of constant interruptions.
And all of this was
residually impacting other students and many classroom teachers.
As we completed our
Special Situation, the Leadership Team realized that its Social and Emotional
Learning program was not having “real-life” impact. That is, it looked great on paper, but the
time, staff, and process was not producing a social, emotional, or behavioral
“return on investment.” We are now in
the Action Planning stage of the process with a hope that we will have definitive
actions to implement on the first day of the new school year.
Part of the Action
Planning process has included a comprehensive understanding of how cyberbullying
is part of the existing cyber-drama.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message’s Discussion of
Cyberbullying, and What Schools Need to Prepare and Implement at the Beginning
of the New School Year in this Area.]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
The discussion in Part
I of this Blog Series focused on encouraging schools to evaluate their
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), Positive Behavioral Support System (PBSS), or
school safety and discipline systems and outcomes from the school year that is
now ending.
Initially, we
created a context to help schools to evaluate (with a goal of improving) their
SEL programs by reviewing a number of recent national reports that surveyed
educators about students’ behavioral problems in their schools, and other
reports suggesting that bullying (including cyberbullying) is increasing
in our schools nationwide.
We then recommended
that schools analyze their discipline data now so that they can
identify large-scale school problems that have consumed significant amounts of
staff time this past year.
To assist here, we
identified a series of analyses and questions that schools can use to evaluate
this year’s discipline data from their student information or data management
systems.
In this Part II of
the Series, we described our Special Situation Analysis process, and
applied it to analyzing and developing systemic interventions for school
bullying. The hope is that schools will
use this process to develop and implement “prevention and early response”
approaches now . . . for immediate roll-out on the first day of the
new school year.
In the upcoming
Part III of this Series, we will use the Special Situation Analysis process to
address cafeteria and bus situations.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that the information in this Series
has been useful to you. As always, I
look forward to your thoughts and comments.
Please know that, even during the Summer, I
am still available to provide a free hour of telephone consultation to those
who want to discuss their student, school, and/or district needs.
Feel free to contact me at any time if there
is anything that I can do to support your work.
Best,
Howie
