How Have Districts Tried and Failed to Eliminate Disproportionate Discipline Rates for Students of Color and With Disabilities?

It’s Not About the Plan, It’s About What’s IN the Plan: The Most Frequently Recommended Strategies Do Not Work

[CLICK HERE to read this on my Blog Page]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Despite the Pandemic, schools are opening, and I am on the road.

   Indeed, I spent the entire week in two school districts helping them to implement the successful, award-winning, and evidence-based SEL/Positive Behavior Support strategies that I developed over 30 years ago with Project ACHIEVE (www.projectachieve.info) . . . and that I continue to use and refine across the country.

   For those who have never worked with me, these are not your “typical” SEL/PBS strategies. . . and they are not driven by the “special education orientation” that is present in most federal- or state-driven SEL or PBIS frameworks.

   These strategies are based on the cognitive-behavioral psychology of individual students and staff; the social and ecological psychology of classrooms and groups; the learning and emotional psychology of children, adolescents, and adults; and the organizational and systems psychology needed by schools and districts.

   And, in a multi-tiered context, they work because I use evidence-based blueprints that are tailored to student, staff, school, and system needs using a data-based problem-solving approach. In other words, the blueprints are custom-fit to the problems that individual schools and districts want to solve.

_ _ _ _ _

   One of the problems that my Blogs have discussed over the last two months—in a three-part Series—was the disproportionate discipline referral and action rates experienced by students of color. Below are links to the three Blogs in this Series.

CLICK HERE FOR:

July 31, 2021 Blog

The Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This is NOT About Critical Race Theory—But We Discuss It (Part I)

_ _ _ _ _

CLICK HERE FOR:

August 14, 2021 Blog

The Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color Do Not Require Anti-Bias Training: Behind Every Iron Chef is an Iron-Clad Recipe (Part II)

_ _ _ _ _

CLICK HERE FOR:

August 28, 2021 Blog

Disproportionate School Discipline, and How Long-Term Suspensions Don’t Work and Don’t Improve Classroom Conditions When Students are Gone (An Unexpected Part III). The Numbers Don’t Lie, But Are They Enough to Prompt Change?

_ _ _ _ _

   And while I wasn’t planning to revisit this topic for a while, an important study was published this week that addressed disciplinary disproportionality— with both students of color and students with disabilities... a study that reinforced a number of themes and assertions in these three integrated Blogs.

   But most important, this study—which was methodologically well-designed— involved analyzing the effects of interventions implemented by 41 high-disproportionality status school districts to decrease their disproportionate student disciplinary referrals patterns. The results, spanning a five year period of time, were compared to those from 41 matched but low-disproportionality districts.

   The study’s results clearly demonstrated that:

The most common national strategies or “interventions” used to eliminate the disproportionate discipline referrals for students of color and with disabilities did not decrease or eliminate the disproportionality.

   Thus, one of the necessary conclusions is:

The use of these specific strategies or “interventions” must be re-considered and retired, and other approaches that have demonstrated success need to be embraced and implemented.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Story Behind the Study

   This study was published by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Educational Sciences through its National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance and prepared by the Regional Education Laboratory Midwest administered by the American Institutes for Research.

[CLICK HERE for the Study]

The Effect of Discipline Reform Plans on Exclusionary Discipline Outcomes in Minnesota

   The study began when, in 2017, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) identified 43 school districts in the state that were out-of-compliance relative to their disproportionate use—when compared to White and non-disabled students—of exclusionary discipline practices (suspensions, exclusions, and expulsions) with American Indian and Black students, and students with disabilities.

   The study examined the use of these exclusionary discipline practices for the 2014-2015 through 2018-2019 school years, and the impact of the Discipline Reform Plans that they (a) developed during the 2017-2018 school year, and (b) implemented during the 2018-2019 school year to remediate the problem.

   According to the Study:

MDHR identified these 43 local education agencies based on the following criteria:

• Overall suspension and expulsion rates.

• Suspension and expulsion rates of all racial/ethnic minority students.

• Suspension and expulsion rates of American Indian and Black students.

• Suspension and expulsion rates of students in special education programs.

• Rate of suspensions and expulsions determined by MDHR to be assigned for a subjective infraction (actions and behaviors such as disobedience) rather than an objective infraction (actions and behavior such as bringing a weapon to school or fighting. 

   Of the 43 identified local education agencies, 41 agreed to create a Discipline Reform Plan, and the MDHR agreed not to pursue legal action against those local education agencies that participated. These 41 districts’ disproportionality data (and 2018-2019 results) were compared with 41 districts that were demographically matched to the original 41, but that had low disproportionality rates with students of color and with disabilities.

   Critically, in addition to developing and implementing their Plans, the Districts also needed to agree that they would:

• Faithfully implement and measure the effectiveness of strategies such as restorative justice, positive behavioral intervention, and Innocent Classroom (a program that provides professional development to teachers to address racial bias).

• Collaborate with other identified local education agencies to develop best practices to reduce exclusionary discipline actions and implement cultural competency and corrective action strategies.

• Develop meaningful ways for students, parents, teachers, and the broader community to engage and give input on discipline reform.

• Develop a process to collect and analyze data from student discipline referrals to understand the challenges that students face, the needs of teachers, and where implicit bias exists.  

• Limit the role of police liaison officers in school buildings to legal and safety matters rather than student misbehavior.

• Analyze current policies and practices on student discipline

• Report progress to MDHR twice each year for three years.

   Thus, there was a built-in implementation integrity/fidelity provision to both the Plans and this Study.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What Strategies or Interventions Were Used in the Districts’ Disproportionality Plans

   The 41 participating districts used a wide variety and mixture of different strategies and/or interventions. In addition, the Discipline Reform Plans also varied in how specifically they described their approaches, implementation steps, evaluation processes, and formative results. One reason for this variability was that the MDHR did not provide a template nor training for the content of the plans, or their execution and evaluation.

   Below is a table from the Report that identifies how the Study’s authors defined the different strategies and interventions such that they were able to tabulate how frequently they were used.

   In the end, each district’s Discipline Reform Plan included at least seven and up to 18 different strategies or interventions (see Figure 1). While Implicit Bias Training appeared in all 41 plans, and Community Engagement appeared in 38 plans, providing professional development on the discipline referral process was the least common reform—appearing in eight plans.

 

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Results?  Disproportionality Did Not Decrease or Disappear

   The Report summarized (with some editing to improve clarity) the study’s results as follows:

[CLICK HERE for the Details and Figures related to these Results]

• Result 1: Students of Color. Differences in exclusionary discipline action rates by race/ethnicity were larger in the Districts with Discipline Reform Plans than in the Comparison low-disproportionality Districts

_ _ _ _ _

• Result 2: Students with Disabilities. In the 2018-2019 school year, the discipline action rate decreased slightly for students with disabilities in the Districts with Discipline Reform Plans.

However, the difference in discipline action rates between students with disabilities and students not in special education still remained larger in districts with Discipline Reform Plans than in the Comparison low-disproportionality Districts.

_ _ _ _ _

• Result 3: The Impact of a Discipline Reform Plan. Creating a Discipline Reform Plan was not associated with a statistically significant decline in exclusionary disciplinary actions in 2018-2019, after accounting for student and district characteristics and prior trends in exclusionary discipline actions.

[CLICK HERE for the Details and Figures related to these Results]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary and Implications

   Once again, the study’s results clearly demonstrated that:

The most common national strategies or “interventions” used to eliminate the disproportionate discipline referrals for students of color and with disabilities did not decrease or eliminate the disproportionality.

   Thus, one of the necessary conclusions is:

The use of these specific strategies or “interventions” must be re-considered and retired, and other approaches that have demonstrated success need to be embraced and implemented.

_ _ _ _ _

   More specifically (looking at Table 1), this study reinforces numerous research-to-practice conclusions (made in previous Blogs) where it is clear that the following strategies, frameworks, or programs have not been comprehensively field-tested, objectively validated, and do not demonstrate the efficacy for use in schools and districts nationwide:

• Implicit Bias Training

• PBIS

• Trauma-Informed Practices

• Policy Changes

• Socio-emotional Learning (SEL) Professional Development

• Anti-bullying

• Curriculum Changes (including Mindfulness)

_ _ _ _ _

   In addition, the following implications embedded in this study need to be considered:

• Discipline Reform Plans (or the equivalent) must be effectively written (and implemented) so that they specifically include the necessary SMART goals, professional development and follow-up technical assistance training, formative and summative fidelity and outcome evaluations, implementation resources and timelines, staffing and supervision, and strategic integrations into other school and district activities.

_ _ _ _ _

• Different strategies and interventions should not be randomly “stacked” into Discipline Reform Plans (or the equivalent) until their compatibility, efficacy, and time- and cost-effectiveness had been field-tested and validated.

The point here is that the 41 districts in the Study used a multitude of strategies and interventions, and it is possible that some of these interventions were redundant or, worse, that they worked at cross-purposes to one other. . . thus undermining their potential effects and the student and staff outcomes.

It is also possible that the districts, in the course of one year, were trying to implement too much too soon.

_ _ _ _ _

• The districts (and the Study) should have disaggregated the “Students with Disabilities” cohort to identify the specific disabilities (of the 13 different ones identified by law) of the students involved, and whether they had appropriate multi-tiered social, emotional, and behavioral services, supports, strategies, and interventions written into their IEPs.

Nationally, many school staff—including related service professionals—have not been effectively trained in the many well-established social, emotional, and behavioral interventions present in the research.

In addition, they often have not been trained in the data-based, functional assessment, problem-solving processes needed to identify the root causes of these students’ challenges, so that their assessment results can be linked to the highest probability of success services and interventions.

Students with disabilities who have social, emotional, or behavioral challenges that are related to their disabilities should not receive “discipline.” Instead, they should receive the services and interventions needed to decrease or eliminate the behaviors of concern. Simultaneously, classroom teachers should receive the consultation and support needed to help implement these interventions in their classrooms, increasing their understand the effects of the students’ disabilities.

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the review of this Study—and its implications—is useful to you. And I always look forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.

   If I can help you, your colleagues, your school, or your district (a) to address the disproportionality present in your setting; (b) to improve your services and supports for students of color or with disabilities; or (c) to increase the availability of research-supported classroom management strategies or strategic/intensive social, emotional, or behavioral interventions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

   Know that I am always available to you—virtually and on-site—to address your needs. And, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify your needs and potential directions on behalf of your students.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version]

How to Connect the Post-Pandemic Needs of Your Students with Your American Rescue Plan Funding: The Need to Educate the Whole Child

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of this Discussion]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Anyone who was alive and “of-age” remembers where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated (1963). . . when we landed on the Moon (1969). . . when Nixon resigned (1974). . . when the Challenger blew up (1986). . . when 12 students and one teacher were killed at Columbine High School (1999). . . and when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center disintegrated at the hands of terrorists on 9/11 (2001).

   On this 20th anniversary of 9/11, we remember all those whose lives were lost in New York City, Washington, DC, and Shanksville, PA. . . we continue to mourn with all of their family members. . . we honor all of the brave First Responders who risked (with too many losing) their lives. . . and we recognize that, for some, this day brings back anger, fear, loss, grief, and bitter sadness.

   And while we remember where we were on 9/11, our memories of the current Pandemic will be distributed across a far longer period of time.

    And recognizing that all life is sacred—and not to compare these two horrific events—the Pandemic has resulted in a much greater loss of life. . . with a far greater social and economic impact. . . and, certainly, a more significant educational impact on our school children.

   And so, while we remember 9/11 today, the mixed messages of the Pandemic will persist into our now-many tomorrows.

   One of these mixed messages involves the fact that COVID-19 illnesses and deaths are up significantly this Summer and now Fall; yet many schools across the country have fully re-opened. Indeed, last week, nearly 252,000 children tested positive for COVID-19 nationwide—about 15% of all cases reported. As a sidebar, a new CDC study reported that the myocarditis risk is 37 times higher for infected children under 16 years, and seven times higher for infected people ages 16-39 as compared to their uninfected peers.

   For our students (and educators), this creates an omnipresent fear of becoming ill, and a simultaneous pressure to socially and academically reconnect after many months of educational and other life-related disruptions.

   Many have written articles, memos, and e-mails with recommendations on how to balance this academic and social, emotional, and behavioral re-entry. And because of this, most educators are on information over-load.

   In this Blog, I would like to outline exactly what educators need to know. . . and what they need to avoid.

   I do this with, I believe, a unique voice. . . the voice of a school psychologist who has worked continuously throughout this Pandemic with schools across the country (Washington, California, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts)

. . . and the voice of a person who remembers John Kennedy, Neil Armstrong, Gerald Ford, Christa McAuliffe, Coach Dave Sanders, and a day—twenty years ago—when we honored those who we lost with a response of national unity, strength, and determination.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Caution of Where Not to Go

   The reality is: Despite the possibility of contracting COVID-19, most students in this country are returning (or will return, as soon as possible) to full-time, on-site classes at their schools.

   And the complementary reality is: They will need more social, emotional, and behavioral support in order to benefit from the academic support that will “re-start” their educational careers.

_ _ _ _ _

   SPOILER ALERT!

   After this short summary guiding educators on what not to do, we will cite and summarize what we think is the single best science-to-practice, psychoeducationally-grounded document to guide districts and schools on what TO DO, and how to invest some of their American Rescue Plan (ARP) money. . . written in 2018 by Linda Darling-Hammond and Channa Cook-Harvey at the Learning Policy Institute.

_ _ _ _ _

   On May 29 of this year, I published a Blog article:

Sustaining Student Outcomes Beyond the Pandemic: Where Districts Need to Allocate Their American Rescue Plan (2021) Funds. Lessons Learned from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)

that initially discussed the three pandemic-related federal stimulus bills and the Elementary and Secondary Emergency Education Relief (ESSER) funds written into them for districts and schools across the county.

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog Article]

   Significantly, the ESSER II and ESSER III funds [the latter tied to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP)] are available to help districts reopen and operate their schools safely, and to address the academic and social-emotional impact of the Pandemic on their students.

   The ESSER II funds are available through September 30, 2022, while the ESSER III funds are available through September 30, 2023.

   The May, 2021 Blog then went on to analyze how schools used their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) money (responding to the 2009 bank melt-down and global financial crisis in 2009), identifying the lessons learned then that we can apply now to the ARP and its ESSER funds.

   One of the ARRA lessons involved the U.S. Department of Education’s promotion of its own National Technical Assistance (TA) Centers and their frameworks, and the Department’s blatant suggestion that ARRA funds would be well-spent on these Centers and frameworks.

   In the end, however, the outcome data demonstrate what the objective research had previously told us: These school improvement, multi-tiered academic and behavioral intervention, and MTSS/RtI frameworks made no substantive, sustained, systemic difference to addressing the complex needs of students.

_ _ _ _ _

   Unfortunately, what occurred during ARRA is now occurring for ARP and ESSER.

   Indeed, the U.S. Department of Education just recently distributed a formal document with their recommendations on how to use the ESSER funds. . . and once again, it is replete with promotions and links to its National TA Centers and their frameworks.

   [Parenthetically, NOTE that these TA Centers are already well-funded with YOUR federal tax dollars. And yet, the U.S. Department of Education is encouraging you to invest MORE of your federal tax dollars into these Centers and—sometimes—into the consultation pockets of these largely university-affiliated thinktanks.]

   But more important is the fact that—as in 2009—many of the frameworks and programs recommended have not been comprehensively or objectively field-tested and proven to independently improve the academic or social, emotional, or behavioral progress and proficiency of students.

   And some of them have well-designed and executed studies—or research analyses—that indicate that they are not effective, and even produce negative or counterproductive student outcomes.

   Among these frameworks and programs are the following:

• Academic Acceleration

• SEL/Character Education

• PBIS

•  MTSS

• Trauma-Informed Programs

• Meditation/Mindfulness

• Restorative Justice

   And I have put my research-to-practice “money where my mouth is” by documenting the statement above in recent Blogs [CLICK on the DATE to LINK to the BLOG]:

June 26, 2021

Reconsidering or Rejecting Collective Teacher Efficacy and the Acceleration of Students Who are Academically Behind: Take the Bus, Get Off the Bandwagon (Part I)

_ _ _ _ _

July 10, 2021

Reconsidering or Rejecting SEL/Character Education, Meditation/Mindfulness/ Trauma-Informed, and Restorative Justice Programs: Put on Your Hard Hat and Bring Your Lunch Pail (Part II)

_ _ _ _ _

May 1, 2021

Addressing Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs: All is Not What it Appears to Be. Remembering Bob Slavin and Applying his Legacy

_ _ _ _ _

April 3, 2021

Why Schools Need to Evaluate and Validate Before They Select and Direct (Their New Federal Funds to Services and Interventions). Be Cautious—What We Don’t Know about Student Mental Health and the Pandemic

_ _ _ _ _

March 20, 2021

A Consumer Alert: Student Awareness Does Not Usually Change Student Behavior. Do We Need to Dig a Moat Around CASEL’s Approach to Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)?

_ _ _ _ _

March 6, 2021

A Pandemic Playbook to Organize Your Pandemic Strategies Now and to Prepare for the 2020-2021 School Year: Where We’ve Been and What You Should Do

_ _ _ _ _

February 20, 2021

The Pandemic, Students’ Academic Performance, and Preparing for the Rest of the School Year: Helping Teachers Prioritize Their Efforts, Emotions, and Efficacy

_ _ _ _ _

February 6, 2021

Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports during a Pandemic: Upgrading Your Academic and Social-Emotional Prevention, Assessment, and Interventions. It’s Not Your Fault...

_ _ _ _ _

   Parenthetically, yet another review of Restorative Justice Programs and practices documented the lack of objective empirical evidence supporting these approaches.

   Published formally this week (Volume 50, 2021) in the School Psychology Review (“Mind the Gap: A Systematic Review of Research on Restorative Practices in Schools”), this article (integrating its Abstract and Conclusion sections) stated:

Restorative justice approaches in schools have gained popularity given their potential to build safer and more positive school communities, offer alternatives to exclusionary discipline, and promote equity in school outcomes. Historically, research in this area has been lacking, but recent increases in publications point to the need for research syntheses. A systematic literature review was undertaken to describe the state of the literature on restorative practices in schools.

 

A growing body of qualitative and mixed-methods research describes schools’ experiences in adopting a restorative justice approach and signifies predominantly favorable outcomes (e.g., improvements in school climate and discipline; staff’s mindsets; and/or students’ social, emotional, or behavioral skills) associated with such adoption.

 

Yet, limited research evidences the effectiveness of this approach according to established educational evidence standards (my emphasis) despite many schools adopting restorative practices. . . leading to the sustainment of a practice-to-research gap.

 

Results point to the need for future research to precisely define and describe discrete practices of a restorative justice approach, strategically support and measure practice implementation, and prioritize rigorous experimental evaluations.

 

Practitioners are charged with weighing available empirical evidence with school factors and needs in adopting evidence-based practices to cultivate safer and more supportive schools.

 

Further, we call for practitioners to critically appraise the literature in identifying evidence-based practices and to integrate school-wide initiatives within a comprehensive MTSS framework.

_ _ _ _ _

   As noted earlier, if educators are going to invest the money (e.g., ARP), time, training, resources, and effort in helping students re-establish the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral success that they need, proven and well-chosen research-to-practice practices (not frameworks or programs) are needed.

   While it would be nice to believe that the U.S. Department of Education, the popular press, testimonials from “experts” and colleagues, and our own “guts” are going to lead us to success, the data simply do not support these decision-making approaches.

   As Suhail Soshi, CEO of Mixpanel said:

Most of the world will make decisions by either guessing or using their gut. They will be either lucky or wrong.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

An Affirmation of Where TO GO

   A recently published (September, 2021) Snapshot survey by the AASA—the School Superintendents Association, reported that their members used or intended to use their ARP funding in the following areas:

• 75% used funding for summer learning and enrichment offerings

• 62% used funds to purchase technology/devices and/or provide students with internet connectivity

• 66% plan to use funding to add specialized instructional support staff and other specialists

• 52% plan to use funding to implement or advance social-emotional learning practices and systems in their districts and/or on trauma-informed training for their educators

• 44% plan to provide high-intensity tutoring

   Relative to the latter two bullets, we are concerned that the superintendents (a) will use SEL programs or practices that either are unproven or are not research-based practices that will actually help their students; and that (b) the research (for example, after a review of over 7,000 published school-based journal articles) has documented that NO trauma-informed program has yet to be evaluated in an objective, methodologically-sound study.

   At the same time, we are encouraged by the superintendents’ understanding that students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs co-exist with their academic needs.

   And, as foreshadowed above, we now want to cite and summarize the single best science-to-practice, psychoeducationally-grounded document to guide districts and schools to help all of their students.

   In making this recommendation, however, know that it is not a “program,” it is neither sexy nor succinct, and it is not a “silver bullet.”

   Instead, it identifies the research-to-practice characteristics that districts need to know—and know about their respective students, staff, and schools—in order to develop and implement a tailored, personalized plan to address their local needs.

   The recommended report, Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success, was written by Linda Darling-Hammond and Channa Cook-Harvey and published in September, 2018 by the Learning Policy Institute.

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog with a Detailed Summary of this Report]

_ _ _ _ _

   Below is an outline of this Report from its Executive Summary:

Key Lessons From the Science of Learning and Development

 

In recent years, a great deal has been learned about how biology and environment interact  to produce human learning and development. A summary of the research from neuroscience, developmental science, and the learning sciences points to the following foundational principles:

• Development is malleable.

• Variability in human development is the norm, not the exception.

• Human relationships are the essential ingredient that catalyzes healthy development and learning.

• Adversity affects learning—and the way schools respond matters.

• Learning is social, emotional, and academic.

• Children actively construct knowledge based on their experiences, relationships, and social contexts.

_ _ _ _ _

 

The Connection Between Whole Child Education and a Positive School Climate

_ _ _ _ _

 

Implications of the Science of Learning and Development for Schools

 

To support student achievement, attainment, and behavior, research suggests that schools should attend to four major domains:

• Supportive environmental conditions that create a positive school climate and foster strong relationships and community.

• Social and emotional learning that fosters skills, habits, and mindsets which enable academic progress and productive behavior.

• Productive instructional strategies that support motivation, competence, self- efficacy, and self-directed learning.

• Individualized supports that enable healthy development, respond to student needs, and address learning barriers.

      _ _ _ _ _

 

     Recommendations

• Focus accountability, guidance, and investments on developmental supports for young people, including a positive, culturally responsive school climate and supportive instruction and services.

• Design schools to provide settings for healthy development, including secure relationships; coherent, well-designed teaching for 21st century skills; and services that meet the needs of the whole child.

• Enable educators to work effectively to offer successful instruction to diverse students from a wide range of contexts.

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog with a Detailed Summary of this Report]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   As we remember the fallen on this 9/11 anniversary and we remember where we were as that day unfolded, so too will we remember the many days that we have spent during the current Pandemic.

   Recognizing the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral impact of the Pandemic, educators need to take the measured, short- and long-term steps needed to address our students’ needs.

   While immediate, crisis-controlling attention is essential, our success will be measured more by the marathon that we have just begun to run.

   And from a federal funding perspective, that marathon will extend through at least September 30, 2023—over two years from now.

   Schools (per the AASA Survey above) do need more specialized instructional support staff, tutoring, and summer programs. And students do need high-powered technological devices and high-speed connectivity.

   But schools also need to know what practices, training, multi-tiered strategies, and strategic or intensive interventions to implement during the instruction, the tutoring, and the summer. . . and how to sustain that implementation.

   That’s where Darling-Hammond and Cook-Harvey’s Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success comes in.

   And that’s why every district and school in our country needs to start right now by reading, discussing, dissecting, and operationalizing this document... in order to ensure that the marathon course is designed well, and the race is run effectively, efficiently, and successfully.

   We have the time. But success will only come if we take the time.

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that this Blog has been informative and instructive for you.

   While I know that the “strategic planning” recommendations above represent a monumental task for some districts or schools, know that I am happy to help in any way that I can.

   For thirteen years, I worked for the Arkansas Department of Education— which used my work as the foundation to their school improvement, social-emotional learning/positive behavioral support, and multi-tiered system of supports practices. I have done this work in hundreds of districts across the country and, together, I know that we can create the right plan for your students, staff, and school(s).

   To start this process, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify your needs and potential directions on behalf of your students. I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of this Discussion]