Twelve Critical Components for (Continuous) School, Staff, and Student Improvement: Motivation Cannot Compensate for a System with Systemic Deficits

 [CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   While I love to celebrate the successes attained by the students, staff, and schools that I work with as a consultant, part of my job is to focus on the “half-empty” glasses, facilitating the processes needed to “fill them to the top.”

   And while it is important for districts and schools to celebrate successful strategic planning and professional development sessions (something that seems to be recently rampant on my LinkedIn feed), these celebrations seem somewhat hollow when many of our schools still:

·       Have large percentages of students not attaining academic proficiency, and not demonstrating (at least) grade-level skill mastery in reading, mathematics, science, and writing/language arts; 

·       Have large percentages of students not learning and mastering, and not demonstrating effective grade-level interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and healthy coping skills;

·       “Qualify” large numbers of non-disabled students as “students with disabilities” because (a) they have not provided sound academic and social-emotional skills instruction or remediation at the general education (Tier I) level, and (b) special education classrooms are the only places where strategic interventions are available;

·       Are not providing effective, equitable, and high quality educational services to students from poverty, whose first language is not English, who are homeless or have mental health issues, or who have significant out-of-school stresses or lived traumas; and

·       Are not aware of, or are unresponsive to, explicit or implicit biases that result in disproportionate educational opportunities and negative attention and discipline for students of color and with disabilities.

   I distinctly remember a consultation a few years ago with a district in Wisconsin. I had been virtually coaching a number of their district and school leaders on a monthly basis for over three years, and was asked to come on-site to conduct a special education/multi-tiered services needs assessment.

   Based on my knowledge (from the coaching) of some of the dysfunctional relationships and processes within the district, and having analyzed multiple years of district and school student and staff outcomes, the need assessment’s first on-site meeting was with the two Assistant Superintendents.

   Early in the session, it became apparent that they wanted only to discuss the “successes” within the district. When I identified “success gaps” and critical areas of needed improvement (one of the goals of a needs assessment), they reacted defensively and defiantly.

   After our meeting, they immediately went to the Superintendent who then met with me and, in essence, cancelled the remaining needs assessment activities as well as the contract.

   Clearly, the Superintendent was concerned more about the hurt feelings of her two colleagues than her (and their) accountability to all of the students in the district. . . especially those who were not being served effectively and equitably, and those who were disaffected, underachieving, or failing.

   [Parenthetically, based on the data and information collected, I still wrote and sent a Needs Assessment Report to the Superintendent and her staff, attempting to refocus their attention to all of their students and their accountability to them.]  

   I reminded them: If 67% of your students are academically achieving at the Proficiency level or better, then 33% of your students are not.

   It is fine to celebrate the glass being two-thirds full, but what is being done to fill up the entire glass?

   And what about the schools that need to fill up 85% or more of their glasses?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Tale of Two More School Improvement Districts

   Over the years, I have partnered with many districts and schools, helping them with comprehensive school improvement. I have worked with some of the highest functioning districts in the country—those that want to “keep their edge” in the face of an every-changing educational landscape—and with some of the lowest functioning districts.

   Indeed, when working at the Arkansas Department of Education for 13 years (during the No Child Left Behind years), my Project ACHIEVE school improvement model was the U.S. Department of Education-approved approach for every Focus School in the state.

_ _ _ _ _

   When working with one school district for over five years, there was a “revolving door” of superintendents (and interims) brought in by a well-meaning but uninformed Board that did not understand what skills and experiences predicted the best candidate hire. In fact, at one point, they hired a superintendent with virtually no educational, administrative, or supervisory experience.

   It was not until they hired a superintendent who (a) understood curriculum, instruction, social-emotional learning, and multi-tiered services, and who (b) was not afraid of supervising, coaching, and holding district leaders, school principals, general and special education teachers, and related service professionals accountable to explicit, outcome-generating interactions that there appeared to be true “school improvement hope” for the district.

_ _ _ _ _

   When working with another school district for over five years, we never got past the “good ole boy” culture that prevented the leadership from comprehensively and transparently analyzing every important component (see the Section below) of school improvement and success. This culture resulted in the district being designated a “School in Need of Improvement” by the state department of education.

   Even after the designation, the district’s Leadership/School Improvement Team stayed stuck in the belief that they simply needed to motivate their students and staff to “work harder and be more committed to achievement.”

   This was evident during “planning” conversations focused more on selecting the incentives and consequences needed to change people’s motivation, as opposed to conversations confronting the fact that students were not academically achieving because (a) of poor or inconsistent curriculum, instruction, social-emotional learning, and multi-tiered services; and (b) leaders who were not changing the culture by beginning the hard work of supervising, coaching, and holding their colleagues accountable to effective practice and student services and outcomes.

   But an embedded problem here was that, with all due respect, many of the district’s leaders did not know that they needed to analyze and change the two areas above.

   Instead, they truly believed that their district’s low-functioning school improvement status was because of unmotivated students and staff.

   [Figuratively, they thought their Basketball Team had the players with the needed skills and talent; they were just not effectively motivating these players.]

   Hence, the district’s leaders had school improvement skill deficits on top of their staffs’ curriculum and instruction skill deficits. These leaders did not know what to do to effectively improve their system. And they did not know that they did not know.

   At both levels then—relative to the students and staff, and the district’s leaders, an important school improvement principle was evident:

   You can’t motivate students, staff, or systems out of a Skill Deficit.

That is:

   You can’t change student outcomes or staff behavior using motivational approaches when the root cause of their gaps involve Skill Deficits. . . and

   You can’t change school improvement outcomes at the district leadership level using motivational approaches when the root cause of their gaps involve school improvement Skill Deficits.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Twelve Evidence-based Components of Effective Schools: A School Improvement Template

   Relative to continuous school (and district) improvement, the same research-to-practice components are used for both high-functioning districts that want to extend their progress and “keep their edge,” and low-functioning districts that need to renew their progress and “get off of the edge.”

   Below are brief descriptions of the twelve evidence-based components of effective schools and how they achieve successful, continuous, and consistent school improvement.

   In the hands of experienced, data-driven school improvement experts (whether inside or outside of a school district), the current status, strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and needs related to the specific policies, practices, and procedures within these components must be analyzed. This should result in the design and implementation of a well-resourced and realistic action plan that is evaluated (and modified as needed) on an ongoing basis.

Component 1: Strategic Planning

   Effective schools are dedicated to continuous improvement across the entire school and schooling process. This is accomplished by focusing on all twelve of the components outlined here and how they work interdependently to maximize students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

   Periodically, schools need to complete (a) comprehensive status and needs assessments, (b) SWOT and gap analyses (of their organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), and (c) asset and resource evaluations so they can effectively leverage resources, maximize and build capacity, close gaps, and minimize the impact of conditions that cannot be changed.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 2: Shared Leadership

   Effective schools have effective formal and informal administrative and staff educational leaders who lead with competence and by example.

   Effective schools also have shared leadership committees and/or teams that support school professional development, curriculum and instruction, classroom management, multi-tiered services, and parent and community outreach goals and activities. Every staff member is on at least one school-level committee, and each committee has representatives from every grade level (for elementary and middle schools) or instructional department (for high schools).

   In their respective focus areas, all committees and/or teams are ultimately focused on the successful attainment of all students’ multi-tiered academic and social, emotional, and behavioral goals.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 3: Professional Development

   Staff in effective schools receive ongoing training, mentoring, coaching, evaluation, feedback, and supervision (when needed) in the development and implementation of all school and schooling processes.

   In each area of training, educators’ skill and implementation mastery is tracked in their:

·       Understanding and Mastery of Information, Content, and Knowledge; 

·       Ability to Implement and Adapt—with integrity—relevant Skills and Applications; and

·       Implementation Confidence and Competence on an ongoing basis leading to independence, autonomy, and expert status.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 4: Data Management Systems

   Effective schools have a computer-assisted Student Information/Data Management System and ongoing data collection, analysis, and reporting processes to formatively and summatively evaluate progress toward explicit short- and long-term school, staff, parent, and student goals.

   This data management system should help staff monitor the academic and behavioral progress of all students. For students receiving strategic or intensive multi-tiered or special education services, it should be able to track the implementation and efficacy of all existing student intervention and intervention plans.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 5: School Climate/Behavior Management

   Effective schools have a plan and implement a school-wide Social-Emotional Learning/Positive Behavioral Support System (SEL/PBSS) that facilitates school safety and positive classroom climates through students’ (and staff’s) use of interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills. Embedded in this are the cultural competence skills that address racism and implicit or unconscious bias.

   This SEL/PBSS system is embedded in a multi-tiered system of services, supports, strategies, and interventions that range from prevention to strategic intervention to crisis management and intensive approaches. The latter approaches are especially important for students with persistent and/or significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 6: Academic/SEL Curriculum & Assessment

   Effective schools have publicly accessible documents that outline the scope-and-sequence of all academic and social-emotional goals and objectives—from preschool through high school—that guide lesson development, instruction, evaluation, and outcomes at every grade level in the school.

   These scope and sequence documents are cross-walked and are consistent with state standards and benchmarks, and they are used as formative and summative evaluation guides to track, as above, student learning, progress, and mastery.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 7: Academic Instruction and Engagement

   Staff in effective schools receive ongoing training and supervision—and  have guided discussions with follow-up—in effective classroom organization, behavior management, academic student grouping, and other approaches that maximize students' time on task, academic and instructional engagement, and effective use of allocated academic/behavioral learning time.

   Staff use effective and flexible instructional group patterns and configurations with their students to differentiate instruction, maximize learning outcomes, and create and maintain positive, safe, and cooperative learning environments.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 8: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

   Effective  schools  have  a  written  document  that  outlines  the  process, components, and elements of their multi-tiered system of supports.

  This document guides professional development and implementation relative to how:

·       General education teachers monitor students’ academic and behavioral progress, determine the need for, and provide early intervention support for students not making academic or behavioral progress;

·       Data-based diagnostic or functional assessments are conducted by related services and other staff to determine the root causes of students’ persistent or significant academic struggles or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges; and

·       Assessment  results  are  linked  to  appropriate  multi-tiered services,  supports, strategies, or interventions, and how these are evaluated.

   Effective multi-tiered systems of support focus predominantly on the intensity, integrity, and efficacy of services and supports that students need and receive.

   Involved here are:

·       Grade, department, and building-level teams that provide prereferral and post-assessment interventions for students not making sufficient academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral progress.

·       Related service professionals (e.g., school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and others) who work with or are on these teams, providing consultation and intervention support to general and special education teachers along the school’s multi-tiered continuum.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 9: Data-based Problem-Solving

   When students demonstrate persistent or significant academic or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges, a data-based problem-solving process is used to:

·       Identify, clarify, and contextualize the problem;

·       Functionally analyze the problem to determine its root causes;

·       Link  the  root  cause  analysis  results  to  strategic  or  intensive services, supports, strategies, or interventions; and

·       Evaluate the integrity of the interventions, and the short- and long- term student-focused results.

   In effective schools, instructional, specialized support (school psychologists, counselors, social workers, special educators, intervention personnel, etc.), and administrative staff receive ongoing training, evaluation, feedback, and supervision (when needed) in data-based problem-solving processes.

   This training includes the collection and analysis of student information and data, profession-specific skills in different interventions areas, and the ability to integrate effective consultation processes into the data-based problem-solving process.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 10: Academic & SEL/PBSS Interventions

   Staff in effective schools have the skills to provide (a) effective differentiated academic and social skills instruction for all students; and (b) the multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, or interventions for students who are academically struggling and/or exhibiting behavioral challenges.

   This occurs by teachers in the classroom, and (as needed) in small groups or with individual students by specialized staff or multi-disciplinary service providers. These processes are led by school administrators, and coordinated by the members of a school-level Multi-Tiered Services and Supports Team.

   In the classroom, assistive supports, remediation, accommodations, and modification strategies, respectively, are available to academically struggling or behaviorally challenging students.

   At the small group and individual student levels, research-based strategic or intensive academic, and social, emotional, or behavioral interventions are available in effective schools. These may or may not be connected to 504 or Individualized Education Plans.

   When interventions (or the expertise to implement them) are not available, effective schools utilize outside district, community-based, or other (e.g., virtual) off-site consultants.

   In the physical, occupational, speech and language, social, emotional, or behavioral areas, interventions may involve district professionals or private practitioners who become part of the school’s multi-tiered intervention team for specific student cases.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 11: Year-to-Year Articulation

   Effective schools have an organized, formal, and ongoing process to articulate (or transition) students, academically and behaviorally, from grade to grade and teacher to teacher at the end of the year and during other school-year transitions.

   This articulation process includes effectively transitioning strategic and intensive supports and interventions that have been developed and implemented for students not making sufficient academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral progress. It also includes transitioning the 504 and special education, vocational, and other services that selected students are receiving. Finally, it includes transitioning students to post-graduation (educational, training, workplace, or other) settings.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 12: Parent/Community Outreach

   Effective schools have a written and systematically-implemented parent and community outreach and involvement program.

   The parent outreach program includes activities to encourage parent participation in school activities, parent involvement (at home) in their child or children’s education, and to help parents understand the school’s goals, objectives, programs, and desired student outcomes.

   The community outreach program includes collaboration with social service, mental health, law enforcement, and other relevant agencies, encouraging their direct and indirect support of and participation in relevant school and schooling goals, objectives, and activities.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Whether you are in a high-functioning district, school, or educational agency or setting that wants to extend its progress and success, or in a less effectively-functioning setting that needs to embark on a conscious and concerted improvement effort, the research-to-practice components are essentially the same—albeit with some setting-specific modifications or adaptations.

   This Blog first briefly describes the school improvement experiences of three school districts at different points in the improvement process.

   It then describes the twelve evidence-based components of effective schools needed to guide any school improvement process.

·       Component 1: Strategic Planning

·       Component 2: Shared Leadership

·       Component 3: Professional Development

·       Component 4: Data Management Systems

·       Component 5: School Climate/Behavior Management

·       Component 6: Academic/SEL Curriculum & Assessment

·       Component 7: Academic Instruction and Engagement

·       Component 8: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

·       Component 9: Data-based Problem-Solving

·       Component 10: Academic & SEL/PBSS Interventions

·       Component 11: Year-to-Year Articulation

·       Component 12: Parent/Community Outreach

   One pervasive theme is that school improvement involves a data-based, strategic planning approach that analyzes all of the components above. In most cases, improvement is not just about motivating school leaders and staff to do “more”—especially when they do not have the expertise and/or skills needed to complete the strategic planning process.

   In the end, data-driven school improvement experts (whether inside or outside of a district, school, or agency) analyze the current status, strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and needs related to the specific policies, practices, and procedures in the twelve component areas. This should result in the design and implementation of a well-resourced and realistic action plan that is evaluated (and modified as needed) on an ongoing basis.

   The “bottom line” is the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral learning, mastery, and proficiency of all students from preschool through high school. All improvement activities should be directly or indirectly connected to these outcomes. Anything different potentially diminishes or detracts from any and all school improvement efforts.

_ _ _ _ _

   Thanks for reading this important Blog. I hope that our ideas encourage you to consider—especially at the beginning of this school year—one or more areas that you can target for improvement at the school, staff, school, and system levels. Schools only improve when we collectively make conscious, concerted, candid, consistent, and comprehensive efforts to extend our successes and address our weaknesses.

   As always, know that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you and your colleagues assess one or more of the twelve school improvement components above—translating the assessments into practical, day-to-day actions.

   Please feel free to reach out if you would like to take advantage—as many schools and districts have in the past—of this standing offer.

Best,

Howie

 

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Seven Suggestions to Help Districts Avoid Special Education Hearings: A Short-Term Win May Be a Long-Term Loss

Dear Colleagues,

 [CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Introduction

   Earlier this summer, I served as an Expert Witness for a High School student trying to get more extensive special education services for a very serious and rare medical condition. While we made the best case possible for the Administrative Law Judge, the student lost.

   While I legally understood the Judge’s ruling, the fact is that school districts historically have won the vast majority of special education lawsuits in this country—at both the Due Process and State or Federal Court levels.

   At the same time—having testified many times in State and Federal Court for both students and school districts—I would like to suggest that some Districts focus more on the short-term “Win,” not understanding that, inadvertently, they are also incurring a long-term “Loss.”

   More on this later.

   In the next few years, special education litigation is expected to skyrocket due to the direct and/or related services not provided to Students with Disabilities (SWDs) during the pandemic. In fact, the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) telegraphed this coming “storm cloud” when they published an official Guidance Letter to state and local education agencies on August 24, 2021—while our country was still in the midst of the pandemic.

   The Guidance reiterated OSEP’s “commitment to ensuring children with disabilities and their families have successful early intervention and educational experiences in the 2021-2022 school year.” The byline to the Press Release stated: “Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic or the mode of instruction, children with disabilities are entitled to receive a free, appropriate, public education.”

   And, the Press Release quoted U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona: 

"Serving all children and students with disabilities in our public schools isn't just written into law—it’s a moral obligation and strong equitable practice. When we recognize and celebrate these differences as strengths, and when we help all children make progress toward challenging educational goals, everyone benefits."

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, the pandemic has no “statute of limitations.”

   Thus, it is possible that the parents of a kindergarten student with disabilities—who was not appropriately educated during the pandemic—could file a lawsuit ten years later when that student is failing his/her sophomore year in high school.

   The primary claim? That the pandemic-year loss of services in 2021 created a multi-year “educational cascade of student failure and frustration” in 2031.

   NOTE that I am not saying that these parents will “win” the case.

   What I am saying—for anyone in a district or school who has had to prepare for and participate in a Due Process or Federal special education court case—is that the case still needs to be tried.

   And this will involve countless hours of staff documentation, preparation, and participation. . . not to mention the emotional toll during the entire process.

   Given this, I would like to provide my own “guidance” of what to do and not do when parents of SWDs express serious and ongoing concerns about their child’s IEP services. . . and litigation appears to be on the horizon.

   I do this as a school psychologist who has worked in schools for over 40 years, and as an experienced Expert Witness who has consulted with and/or testified in court for both parents and school districts many times

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Seven Suggestions to Help Districts When Special Education Litigation Looks Inevitable

Suggestion #1. Admit Mistakes/Don’t Focus on Being Right

   Too many times, district or school personnel have made legitimate and important (or, at least, questionable) errors when delivering IEP services. And yet, they fear that these errors will result in sanctions or penalties, and they take a hard line, denying the mistakes while hoping that they can create enough uncertainty to “scare” the parents (or guardians) from filing a formal complaint.

   Here, I suggest taking a page out of the “Corporate Handbook.”

   We have found time and again that—when big companies make major errors—the fall-out is moderated when the CEO sincerely and publicly admits the mistake and outlines a plan to address the breach and make amends.

   In most cases, when legitimate special education mistakes are litigated, the result is a ruling requiring compensatory services.

   Given this, why would a district not admit its mistake(s) to the parents, sincerely apologize, and offer the compensatory services that will likely be required anyways after a long, emotional, and relationship-damaging due process or court case?

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #2. Remember that Younger SWDs (and their Parents) may be in Your District for Another 10 Years

   Expanding on my “relationship-damaging” comment above, district and school personnel need to remember that—while a SWD’s administrators and teachers change over time, a student’s parents typically do not change and they often have long memories.

   Thus, when an emotional, relationship-breaking special education disagreement (with or without a due process or court hearing) occurs early in a SWD’s educational career, this may negatively affect the parents’ attitudes, beliefs, expectations, interpretations, and interactions with school district personnel for many years to come.

   While I am not suggesting that we placate parents who have SWDs, I am saying that (as above) districts may “win” the short-term battle over IEP services, but lose the long-term relationship war.

   And remember, that loss may impact every annual IEP review meeting, every three-year re-evaluation, and many well-meaning staff who don’t know the history, but experience the tension (or worse) nonetheless.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #3. Make Sure that All Communications and Discussions are Clear

   Educators—and, especially, special educators—live in a jargon-filled world. And even when we boil the jargon down to essential special education terms, parents still do not always fully understand these terms.

   For example, do parents of SWDs really understand what the “appropriate” in the phrase, “free and appropriate public education,” really means?

   No.

   Parents hear this phrase and think only about what they belief or know is “appropriate” for their child’s education. They do not understand the case law and the functional (and limited) meaning of this loaded term.

   District and school personnel need to do some soul-searching and analyze what they say when “communicating” with parents of SWDs. These professionals need to especially focus on determining what the parents actually understand versus what they think they communicated.

   The best approach here is to watch parents’ facial and physical reactions during meetings, to listen to their words and intonations, and to respectfully ask them what they thought they heard when there appears to be a disconnect.

   This will go a long way toward clear, consistent, accurate, and parent-centered communication.

   In contrast, the worst approach is to plow through the agenda, get the reports done, and hand the parents the state’s Special Education Procedural Safeguards Manual, checking that step off the meeting checklist while suggesting that they read it.

_ _ _ _ _ 

Suggestion #4. Know that Parents Know What They Know, Not What You Know

   Related to #3 above, districts and schools need to understand that, when unhappy with their child’s special education program, parents with SWDs consult three primary sources: (a) friends or other parents with SWDs; (b) Google; and (c) formal or informal advocates.

   Thus, they only “know what they know.”

   From an advocacy perspective, educators are responsible for educating parents about their child’s status and needs, their roles and responsibilities, and their rights and safeguards.

   Indeed, when educators have their own SWDs, they expect no less.

   For example, some parents come into IEP meetings with specific interventions or programs that their child “must have” in order to succeed.

   When this occurs, some (special) educators at the meeting—for a variety of professional and personal reasons—implicitly or explicitly disallow these suggestions, sometimes citing IDEA and case law saying that “parents are not allowed to dictate specific interventions on an IEP.”

   A more collaborative tact is to first “seek to understand” (a) what the parents’ educational goals are for their child, and (b) how they found and what they understand about the intervention they’ve suggested. This can then move to an educative tact where parents (if true) can be shown how the current (or school-recommended) interventions have the same goals, are more evidenced-based, and have a higher probability of success for their child.

   And, who knows? Maybe the parents have found an intervention that actually is better. . . not just for their child, but for many other SWDs in the school or district.

   The “take-away” here is that educators are too often afraid of educating and empowering parents, because they fear that their “good will” will be turned against them down the road.

   In the end, none of us is an expert on every topic in education. District and school personnel are encouraged to view their work with parents—even “challenging” parents—as a growth experience, especially as they try to understand where they are coming from and how they got “there.”

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #5. Parents often go through the “Stages of Grief”—They are Afraid, Anxious, Angry, or in Denial

   Building onto the suggestions above, district and school personnel need to consider how parents’ emotions—relative to their SWD—are impacting their interactions and behavior.

   For example, it’s scary to have a “child with exceptional needs” when you were expecting (and “everyone else” has) a perfect child. . . and your child is causing financial and other stress within the family unit, and you don’t know what the future will bring—tomorrow or even after your child graduates from high school.

   It’s frustrating when you thought “the school” was committed to your child’s best interests, they “irresponsibly” failed to implement important parts of the IEP, and now you are questioning yours “hands-off” approach and “blind” trust.

   Or, it tests your faith when, as in the Court case I was just involved in, your child has a rare medical condition, no one in the school is listening to you or your doctors, and teachers are questioning the validity of the condition, suggesting that your child is lazy, not sick.

   While parents typically have but one child with a disability, districts are often educating hundreds of SWDs. For this reason, it is easy for district and school personnel to lose the “personal, individual perspective” that parents expect for their child.

   And so, it is not a bad thing for these professionals to continually ask themselves:

   “What would I do if I were this parent and responsible for this child’s life, education, and well-being? And what would I expect of the educators responsible for my child for six hours each day and 180 days each year?”

   Perhaps, these two questions would engender the understanding (I originally wrote, “humanity”) that we all need to fully serve not just our SWDs, but their parents, siblings, and extended families as well.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #6. Keep it Professional, Not Personal

   I fully understand that, at times, frustrated parents “cross the line” and “make it personal.” It’s not appropriate, but it happens.

   I remember a Building Principal who would approach this situation by “killing the parents with love.”

   In essence, this Principal was comfortable “in her own skin,” and she was confident both with her professional motivation and expertise, as well as with how much she cared about her students (and staff).

   She also knew that confronting “fire with fire” would not work, and that she needed to interact with challenging parents with understanding, empathy, and love.

   And even if her love did not change the parents right now, it could be the foundation for change in the future.

   And even if the parents never changed, she—at least—could go home each night knowing that she did everything in her power to work with them professionally and in good faith.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #7. Don’t Mediate if You Don’t Intend to Moderate

   My last recommendation is more procedural than personal. . . except that it often becomes more intensely personal for parents when school districts do it.

   When there are serious special education disagreements, it often is strongly suggested that districts engage in formal dispute mediation with the parents of the SWD involved.

   My recommendation is that districts should not do this if they know ahead of time that they will not change their position(s) during the mediation session.

   Said a different way: Don’t go through the “charade” (never mind the time and expense) of a mediation that has no hope of resolution. The likely result is that you (a) further infuriate the parents; (b) redouble their efforts to “beat you” at the next level (i.e., litigation); and (c) demonstrate—at least to the parents—that you do not have their child’s best interests at heart.

   Districts do not get “brownie points” from Hearing Officers because they were open to negotiation, and “tried” mediation.

   Hearing Officers do not care. They are focused on the facts, the law, and the decisions they have to make when a case comes to their docket.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog has discussed seven suggestions not just to help districts avoid special education litigation, but—really—to help them (a) to truly educate all students with disabilities; and (b) to collaborate with their parents or guardians with empathy, understanding, sensitivity, and professionalism—even when things get tense or confrontative.

   While legally, school districts have a much higher probability of success during special education litigation, and they may “win” most of their cases, the erosion of their good working relationships with parents of SWDs may result, in the long-term, in a “district-net-loss.”

   Indeed—and especially in today’s political environment where parents are being encouraged to confront districts’ educational policies, procedures, and practices—parents of SWDs talk with other parents of SWDs.

   This creates the potential that one parent’s grievance triggers many parents’ shared grievances.

   I am not trying to predict a disaster here. I am trying to write a “cautionary tale.”

   And the suggested “morals” of this tale involved:

·       Suggestion #1. Admit Mistakes/Don’t Focus on Being Right

·       Suggestion #2. Remember that Younger SWD (and their Parents) May Be in Your District for Another 10 Years

·       Suggestion #3. Make Sure that All Communications and Discussions are Clear

·       Suggestion #4. Know that Parents Know What They Know, Not What You Know

·       Suggestion #5. Parents often go through the “Stages of Grief”—They are Afraid, Anxious, Angry, or in Denial 

·       Suggestion #6. Keep it Professional, Not Personal

·       Suggestion #7. Don’t Mediate if You Don’t Intend to Moderate

   In the end, while a short-term, litigation win by a district may result in a long-term parent-relationship loss. . . a short-term special education resolution often creates the foundation for the long-term success of the involved students, staff, and parents.

_ _ _ _ _

   Thanks for reading this important Blog.

   As always, know that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you and your colleagues apply the information and perspectives above into practical, day-to-day action.

   Even if you disagree with some of the suggestions above, I often find that a more personal Zoom discussion identifies both areas of consensus and opportunities for professional and personal growth.

   Please feel free to reach out if you want to “give it a go.”

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]