[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]:
Reconsidering or Rejecting Collective Teacher Efficacy and the Acceleration of Students Who are Academically Behind: Take the Bus, Get Off the Bandwagon (Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
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)
_ _ _ _ _
Addressing Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs: All is Not What it Appears to Be. Remembering Bob Slavin and Applying his Legacy
_ _ _ _ _
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
_ _ _ _ _
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)?
_ _ _ _ _
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
_ _ _ _ _
The Pandemic, Students’ Academic Performance, and Preparing for the Rest of the School Year: Helping Teachers Prioritize Their Efforts, Emotions, and Efficacy
_ _ _ _ _
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]
