The “Groundhog Day” Impact of Fear on Staff Mental Health and Job Retention
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Groundhog Day was released in 1993 (30 years ago!) starring Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, and Chris Elliott. It is the story of an off-putting TV meteorologist (Murray), his news producer (MacDowell), and his cameraman (Elliott) who travel—for the fourth year in a row—from their TV station in Pittsburgh to cover the annual Groundhog Day festivities in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.
Unhappy with the repetitive assignment, meteorologist Phil Connors begrudgingly gives his on-site, February 2nd Groundhog Day news report and then, on the way home, gets caught in a blizzard that forces him and his two colleagues to return to Punxsutawney for the night. The next morning, Connors awakens to find that it is Groundhog Day yet again, and he re-lives this second day in exactly the same way—with all of the same personal interactions—as the real one the day before.
This pattern continues as Connors wakes up each day, in a seemingly endless loop, on another “Groundhog Day” in the same (Victorian) bed at the same (6:00 AM) time with the same (“I Got You Babe” by Sonny & Cher) song playing on his clock radio. Significantly, however, he remembers everything that he did on all of the previous “Groundhog Days,” and he begins collecting information on his experiences with the different inhabitants of Punxsutawney. . . as well as Rita, his producer, for whom he begins to have unrequited feelings.
Over time, Connors realizes that everyone around him will talk and act exactly as on the first Groundhog Day unless or until he changes his behavior and interactions with them.
After a number of desperate attempts to stop the recurring Groundhog Days (which do not stop), and to change the events within each new Day (which do not change), Connors begins to consciously “take control” by changing himself. In fact, he begins to spend his time learning a number of new skills: How to play jazz piano, to speak French, to sculpt ice, and to master the art of flipping playing cards into an upturned hat.
According to one review of the film, Connors “changes from an inconsiderate, callous egocentric into a thoughtful, kindhearted philanthropist, refining his understanding of human decency, which, in return, makes him an appreciated and beloved man in the town. (He) is able to befriend almost everyone he meets during the day, using his experiences to save lives and help the townspeople.”
Eventually, Connors
“gets the girl” (news producer Rita) with the two of them waking up together in
bed, finding that it is February 3rd, and finding that the Groundhog
Day loop had been broken.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Groundhog Day Loop in Some Schools
Over the past four months especially, I feel like I have been in the same Groundhog Day loop.
Across the many “Punxsutawney’s” I have visited during these past months, this “loop” has involved the “mystifying” procedures, practices, and strategies that many multidisciplinary MTSS Teams (or the equivalent) still use—typically with good intent—that are, nonetheless, scientifically unsound and (sometimes) even defy common sense relative to quality services to students.
At times, these MTSS Teams are following protocols that have been recommended by others—including their state departments of education.
Sometimes, they have fallen prey to pressure from local administrators or supervisors.
And often, they simply either “don’t know what they don’t know,” or they do not periodically step back to objectively reflect on and evaluate what they are doing and how it is working.
I have discussed numerous examples of this “Groundhog Day loop” in the past three Blog articles.
March 11, 2023. Judy Heumann, Special Education’s History of Litigation, and the Continuing Fight: Complacency and Defensiveness Still Stand in the Way of Students with Disabilities’ Rights
[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog]
_ _ _ _ _
February 25, 2023. “Solutions for Selectively Mute Students and Educators: The Long-Term Adverse Educational Effects When Inappropriate Behavior is Ignored”
[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog]
_ _ _ _ _
February 11, 2023. “Was a First Grade Virginia Teacher Shot Because Her Student was Denied Special Education Services? What School Administrators Face that State Departments of Education Ignore”
[CLICK
HERE to Link to this Blog]
_ _ _ _ _
Some of the major concerns addressed in these Blogs include the fact that many districts and schools historically and currently:
· Lack effective
and explicit multi-tiered systems of support procedures and protocols, including
when to involve 504 accommodations and special education services and
interventions, respectively.
· Lack an effective
multi-tiered continuum of services, supports, interventions, classrooms, and/or
programs within their general education classrooms, as well as “outside” of
school—especially including access to self-contained, day treatment,
residential, and community-based Systems of Care programs as needed for
students with social-emotional challenges.
· Mistake or do not assess some students for the presence of social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health disabilities, concluding—instead—that their behavior is disciplinary in nature and, when extreme, warrants a school suspension, expulsion, alternative school placement, or law enforcement/juvenile court referral.
· Excessively use exclusions, seclusions, restraints, and (where still allowed) corporal punishments— once again, in the absence of effective multi-tiered services and behavior-change interventions.
· Continue to use the flawed Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Response-to-Intervention/Multi-tiered Systems of Support (RtI/MTSS) frameworks advocated by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (and forced on many state departments of education).
· Fail (or wait) to
review, analyze, and objectively evaluate the current and historical facts and functioning
of students who are academically struggling or presenting with social,
emotional, or behavioral challenges at Tier I.
· Do not use (at all or effectively) an objective data-based problem-solving process that links intervention to diagnostic root cause assessments for students with more complex Tier II or Tier III needs... instead implementing interventions generated by convenience, through brainstorming, or to fit a specific staffperson’s skills, caseload, or subjective beliefs regarding “what is needed.”
· Do not train all general education, special education, and related services personnel in the use of differentiation, remediation, modification, assistive supports, and specific, strategically-chosen accommodations for students needing these approaches.
· Lack effective
transition services and pre-vocational supports that include career and
technical education coursework, training, partnerships, or apprenticeships with
regional education resource centers, community businesses, and state offices of
Vocational Rehabilitation (or the equivalent)... as required by IDEA for
students with disabilities starting at age 14, but as equally important to non-disabled
students with these interests.
_ _ _ _ _
Please note: I am not trying to be critical, unfair, or unrealistic relative to the effective and needed systems and practices in the list above.
Indeed, the vast majority of them are required by federal law (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973) or their related rules, statutes, or evaluation mandates (more about this later).
And many of the flawed or unsound approaches noted above came from somewhere. It’s just that the “somewhere” that has been embraced has not delivered the needed outcomes.
Putting this in Groundhog Day terms:
Many districts, schools, and/or MTSS Teams are caught in a Groundhog Day loop where they continue to “relive” their flawed approaches day after day.
And like the Groundhog Day residents of Punxsutawney, some of the MTSS Team members do not even recognize that they are enmeshed in this loop.
The Solution?
Like the fictional Phil Connors, MTSS Teams need to begin making their own changes—disrupting and displacing their educational loops— in order to “wake up the next day” serving students more effectively and/or efficiently.
This can begin when MTSS Teams:
· Question and objectively evaluate their psychoeducational impact on all students—but, particularly, students with academic struggles and behavioral challenges; and
· Design, Commit to, Implement, and Evaluate the
systemic, procedural, and practice-related changes needed to be more successful—on
behalf of their students across the multi-tiered continuum—regardless of
history, tradition, politics, funding, or resistance.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yet Another Groundhog Day Loop
To the list above—and the vignettes described in the past three Blogs—I would like to add another recurring story.
A number of weeks ago, I was observing an MTSS child study meeting at an elementary school that included the parents of the student in question.
The young Hispanic student was in the Third Grade, and she had attended this school for her entire school career. Indeed, prior to her school entrance, the child’s parents had intentionally moved into this school district due to its reputation as a “great” district.
Attending the MTSS meeting were the Principal, the student’s current Third Grade teacher, the student’s Second Grade teacher from the year before, two Reading/Literacy Intervention Specialists, the school’s Math Intervention Specialist, the School Counselor, a Special Education teacher, and another general education teacher representative.
It was a pretty impressive group. . . and, they were “on their game.”
Communicating effectively with and listening intently to the Parents, the group went around the MTSS table describing the student’s strengths and weaknesses, detailing specific instructional and intervention approaches and methods, and sharing outcome data and the student’s current status.
But something just didn’t add up.
This Third Grade student was functioning at the end of Kindergarten to beginning of First Grade levels in reading and math, and she was making progress—but at an incredibly slow pace despite the small group and even one-on-one interventions being provided. She had a history of distractibility, and she was beginning to avoid some schoolwork because she was feeling so unsuccessful.
These learning problems were historic in nature. They were well-documented during the first six on-site months of her Kindergarten year—before the year was disrupted due to the Pandemic, and before her virtual-instruction First Grade year “in school.”
Indeed, when comparing the Student-in-Question to her peers the next “post-pandemic” on-site school year, her Second Grade teacher provided instructional and intervention data demonstrating the same learning struggles (as in Kindergarten and First Grade) and micro-slow progress.
At one point during the MTSS discussion, the Dad asked, “Does my child have a learning disability? Do we need to get her tested?”
So what was amiss?
_ _ _ _ _
After the parents left the meeting-proper, the MTSS Team began to debrief the case and recommendations.
Eventually, they looked at me and asked for my perspectives.
I asked three questions:
· Is this Third Grade student cognitively impaired? Neurologically damaged? Dyslexic? Or what?
Answer: The Team did
not know because the Student had never been formally assessed for a disability
by the Special Education Assessment Team (which was a different team of
professionals in this District—with only one person sitting on both the
MTSS and Special Education eligibility teams).
_ _ _ _ _
· At what point, during this Student’s school career so far, did anyone working with her feel that her skill gaps were not responding to the intensive instruction and interventions being implemented?
Answer: This question caused a little bit of angst and anxiety. Finally, one of the Team members asked if he could be completely candid.
He then confided that different members of the Team wanted to refer the student to the Special Education Assessment Team in Second Grade, but they “were afraid” it would be kicked back because they hadn’t tried “enough interventions” and/or “did not have enough data.”
This was confirmed by the Building Principal who said, in essence, that he had been “told” that too many students in the District had been placed into special education, and the District was at-risk of being “out of compliance” by the state department of education.
This was occurring even though the Special Education Assessment Team was
a school-based team, he was a member, and he was responsible for annually
supervising most of the members.
_ _ _ _ _
· Were there other reasons why the Student was not referred to the Special Education Assessment Team earlier?
ANSWER: Once again, the Team spoke honestly and candidly.
They admitted that, had the parents been “different” (in essence, Middle Class or above, or Non-minority) parents in the District, and/or had “pushed” or had an Outside Advocate, the Second Grade referral would have been easier to initiate and be accepted.
Because I did not need to respond to that striking admission, my primary response was:
“You know that, by federal law (IDEA), if anyone on the MTSS Team suspects that a student’s educational progress is being impeded by a disability, the school must complete the special education eligibility assessments needed to confirm or reject that possibility.
Moreover, while late in the game, as soon as this Parent asked if his daughter was Learning Disabled, that provision of the law was immediately enacted.”
_ _ _ _ _
While well over a year late, this last comment was pro forma. The MTSS Team, during its meeting with the Parents had decided to initiate a referral to the Special Education Assessment Team.
Nonetheless, as shared by the Second Grade
Teacher, “You know, we did not do right by this Student.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
How Systemic Issues Tax the Mental Health and Retention of Staff
Prior to the MTSS Team meeting, different members of the Team were discussing the different staff who were either talking about or actually leaving the School District at the end of the school year. The staff included the full range of professionals employed across the District. . . no single educational role or position was missing.
While it is not easy to be in education today, too many districts and schools make it more challenging... as in the example above. . . than it needs to be.
Everyone working with this Third Grade student was emotionally impacted on some level.
· They were impacted by their desire to serve the Student, the time and effort they were investing in modified instruction and intensive intervention, and their frustration that she was not making demonstrable progress.
· They were impacted by the fear (their word) that a legitimate referral to the Special Education Assessment Team would be kicked back, and that they would be berated (their word) for not “doing their job” (because this had occurred in the past).
·
They
were impacted by their inability to candidly share their frustrations, by recognizing
the inequity of not being able to successfully advocate for parents who have
less money or power than others, and by the resulting sense of hopelessness and
powerlessness.
_ _ _ _ _
Indirectly, this MTSS Team was also being emotionally impacted by some additional systemic issues. These include the fact that:
· The District was (over-)serving 20% of its total population as “students with disabilities” largely because (a) many of these students’ needs were not being addressed in their general education classrooms or at the Tier II levels; (b) the District was placating different groups of parents in the community—who threatened due process hearings—by “qualifying” them for special education services; and (c) the District was allowing each school to create is own MTSS process and continuum of services and supports.
· The State Department of Education was micromanaging the District’s MTSS process while ignoring the unique special education needs in each district by not recognizing that every school district has (a) a different percentage of students with disabilities across the thirteen different federal disability categories; (b) a different percentage of students with “mild,” “moderate,” and “severe” intensity of intervention and related services needs; and (c) a different mix of within-district and across-community resources as a function, for example, of their geographic location (urban, suburban, rural), their demographics (including their families’ socio-economic status), and their funding/tax base.
· The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) continues to annually evaluate state departments of education who simultaneously evaluate individual school districts and regional educational agencies on 17 Special Education Indicators—some of which were set internally by OSEP based on their interpretation of the intent of IDEA.
One critical example is Special Education Indicator 5 which “pressures” districts to serve all of their students with disabilities for at least 80% of their school day in a regular education class.
This Indicator (as above) is not sensitive to each district’s mix of students across the thirteen disability areas, nor to the intensity of their service, support, and intervention needs.
Too many times, I hear this Indicator invoked when Teams are writing
specific students’ Individual Education Plans (IEPs)—putting additional
pressure on everyone in the school when a student is (mis-)placed for too much
of his/her educational program in the general education classroom, while simultaneously
sacrificing the educational benefits that would occur with more time with a
special education teacher.
_ _ _ _ _
All of the issues above represent yet another Groundhog Day loop. And, admittedly, many of these issues sometimes fall in the “gray areas” where there are “no easy answers or pathways” to complete success.
At the same time, this is not a movie. This is real life.
Some of these pressures are artificial or manufactured
and, unchecked, they are taking an undue and unrelenting toll on dedicated and
conscientious educators. . . some of whom are considering other options outside
of their districts and even outside of their professions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
The movie Groundhog Day was metaphorically used to describe the recurring experiences I have been having with MTSS Teams across the country who continue to use “mystifying” procedures, practices, and strategies—typically with good intent—that are, nonetheless, scientifically unsound and (sometimes) even defy common sense relative to quality services to students.
The use of the metaphor continued as we specifically delineated many of these mystifying approaches and their impact on students with academic struggles and/or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges.
We recognized that some MTSS Teams are following protocols that have been recommended by others—including their state departments of education. Others have fallen prey to pressure from local administrators or supervisors. And still others simply either “don’t know what they don’t know,” or they do not periodically step back to objectively reflect on and evaluate what they are doing and how it is working.
But we also recognized that the vast majority of the MTSS gaps across many districts today still are required by federal law (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973) or their related rules, statutes, or evaluation mandates (more about this later).
And many of the mystifying approaches came from somewhere. It’s just that the “somewhere” that has been embraced has not delivered the needed outcomes.
Putting this in Groundhog Day terms, we noted:
Many districts, schools, and/or MTSS Teams are caught in a Groundhog Day loop where they continue to “relive” their flawed approaches day after day.
And like the Groundhog Day residents of Punxsutawney, some of the MTSS Team members do not even recognize that they are enmeshed in this loop.
The Solution?
Like the fictional Phil Connors, MTSS Teams need to begin making their own changes—disrupting and displacing their educational loops— in order to “wake up the next day” serving students more effectively and/or efficiently.
This can begin when MTSS Teams:
· Question and objectively evaluate their psychoeducational impact on all students—but, particularly, students with academic struggles and behavioral challenges; and
· Design, Commit to, Implement, and Evaluate the systemic, procedural, and practice-related changes needed to be more successful—on behalf of their students across the multi-tiered continuum—regardless of history, tradition, politics, funding, or resistance.
_ _ _ _ _
I appreciate your willingness to read our Blogs, reflect on the educational settings where you work, and evaluate the efficacy of your work and your impact on students, colleagues, and programs.
Know that I am working with many schools right now on the Needs Assessments they need to map out their academic and instruction, discipline and behavior management, multi-tiered system of support, and school improvement initiatives for next year.
If I can help you in any of these areas, my first consultative contact with you and your team is free. Just give me a call, or drop me an e-mail.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the
Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
