Are Schools Really Prepared to Address Educators’ Biggest Behavioral Student Concerns Right Now? (Part II)

“We’ve Got Serious Problems and We Need Serious People”

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

Students do not “mature” out of inappropriate behavior. . .

They need to be taught and learn appropriate behavior.

 

                                                                        Howie Knoff

_ _ _ _ _

   Last month, I delivered three presentations at The Model Schools Conference in Orlando. . . sharing my perspectives with over 5,000 attendees.

   Two weeks ago, my Blog (Part I of this Summer Series) discussed one of my Conference presentations, outlining the “Seven Sure Solutions for School Success”—an evidence-based blueprint that I implicitly or explicitly use when helping districts and schools solve some of their thorniest academic or behavioral student challenges.

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

   The Blog used the “Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full” metaphor to emphasize that—despite incremental accomplishments—we still have so much to do in our schools today.

   From an academic perspective, the Blog noted that too many schools publicly define their annual success as an increase in the number of students scoring Proficient or Above on their state standards tests in reading, math, and science. Significantly, many high schools add the percent of students graduating in four (or five) years to this perspective of “success.”

   And yet, using these definitions, the Blog “tipped the glass” and documented that—for example—on the 2023 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP):

·       Over 1.6 million 8th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were Below Proficient in Reading as they entered their first year in high school; and

·       Over 2.1 million 12th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were Below Proficient in Math when they graduated from high school year.

   Significantly, these number were only from the five best-scoring states on the NAEP.

   These numbers did not include the five most populous states in the country: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. And, the 3.7 million deficient students—at just the two academic and grade levels above—exceeded the total individual populations from 23 different states (not combined. . . individually).

   So. . . even as some schools see the glass as half-full. . . the largest part of the glass remains half-empty.

   As Michael Douglas—playing “President Andrew Shephard” at a Press Conference in movie The American President (1995)—said in a memorable soliloquy:

“We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What about Student Behavior and School Climate?

   From a school climate and student behavior perspective, Education Week published an article last week (July 18, 2024) reporting the results of the most-recent School Pulse Panel survey organized by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This Panel has been used over the past few years to track the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the school and schooling process.

   Completed between May 14 and May 28, 2024, this survey involved 1,714 public school K-12 leaders from every state in the country and Washington, D.C.

   Education Week reported the following summary statements from those who completed this NCES survey:

·       83% reported that the pandemic and its lingering effects continue to negatively influence the socioemotional development of students;

·       75% reported that students’ lack of focus or inattention had either a “moderate” or “severe” negative impact on learning during the 2023-24 school year;

·       21% reported that students were academically unprepared for school (e.g., not doing homework, not bringing necessary supplies);

·       19% reported students being disruptive in the classroom (e.g., calling out, talking to others during instruction, getting out of a seat when not allowed, leaving the classroom);

·       19% reported students not doing individual work;

·       18% reported students being physically unprepared for school (e.g., lack of sleep, not eating before school); and

·       16% reported students using cellphones, computers, and other electronic devices when not permitted.

   In addition:

·     57% of the schools surveyed reported confiscating some type of substance from students during the 2023-2024 school year;

·        45% reported having confiscated a weapon from students during the year;

·    36% reported that student acts of disrespect toward teachers or staff members, other than verbal abuse, occurred at least once a week;

·    30% reported instances of cyberbullying that happened at and outside of school at least once a week;

·    20% reported that threats of physical attacks or fights between students occurred at least once a week;

·    18% reported bullying occurring at least once a week; and

·    17% reported students’ verbal abuse of teachers or staff members occurring at least once per week.

   NOTE: If 20% does not sound like a “disruptive” number, consider (a) what a classroom would be like if 1 out of every 5 students, for example, came to school without doing their homework or did not bring needed classroom supplies; or (b) what a school’s climate would be like with at least a weekly threat of a physical attack or student fight.

_ _ _ _ _

   The last reported data from the NCES survey revealed that:

·   76% of the public school leaders said they need “more support for student and/or staff mental health;”

 

·      71% need “more training on supporting students’ socioemotional development;”

 

·       61% need “more training on classroom management strategies;” and

 

·       52% said “more teachers and/or staff need to be hired.”

   All of this at a time when school finances are pinched and experienced teachers are hard to find.

“We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Serious Solutions Require Serious Science

   Given the breadth of the problems above, districts and schools need to look at themselves—especially as the new school year is about to begin—to determine:

·       Which (if any) of these problems exist in their settings and to what degree;

·       Whether the problems identified are independent or inter-related;

·       What problems can be or should be solved during the first days or weeks of the new school year;

·       How to do this in an evidence-based and self-sustaining way; and 

·       Who needs to be involved.

   Many times, districts and schools need an objective, independent perspective here, or they do not have the resources available to fully vet these issues and solutions. This is where an experienced outside expert can be beneficial. . . someone who can be direct and candid, and who will work in a short-term, solution-focused way.

   To begin this process, let me share and briefly comment on three quotes from my Model Schools Conference presentation, while recommending that you (re)read my Blog from last month:

“Does Your School’s SEL Program Teach Social Skill Behaviors, or Just Talk About What Students “Should Do”? If We Taught Reading the Way We Teach SEL, None of Our Students Would Learn How to Read”

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 1

“Students do not “mature” out of inappropriate behavior. . .

They need to be taught and learn appropriate behavior.”

   While some student behavior is developmental in nature, the first days and weeks of the school year should progressively teach students the different classroom and building routines. . . having them physically practice them during supervised “walk-throughs,” while providing supportive or corrective feedback when needed. This should especially be done with all preschool through (and including) new 9th grade high school students.

   All students (preschool through high school) also should learn and discuss the specific behavioral expectations in their classroom—and across the common areas of the school. In addition, they should also learn (or review) and discuss the different intensities of inappropriate behavior. . . that is, what specific behaviors are annoying, disruptive, antisocial, or dangerous or code of conduct offenses.

   Here, the behaviors need to be described in observable—not generic—terms. For example, “disrespect,” “disruptive,” or “defiant” behaviors need to be more behaviorally specified so that everyone is clear what these global terms actually refer to.

   The discussions, moreover, should be more peer-to-peer than adult-to-peer. Peers need to share how inappropriate behavior affects them academically and socially, and they need to make prosocial commitments to each other regarding the importance of appropriate interpersonal behavior. They also need to address and practice how to “call out” and resolve inappropriate peer behavior—even when it is unintentional.

   This is especially important for interactions that relate to gender, socio-economic status, race or culture, sexual orientation, or skill and proficiency. These discussions also should explicitly address individual, peer-related, in-person, or virtual (social media) teasing and bullying, intimidation and taunting, physical or sexual harassment, and micro- and macro-aggressions.

   Separately. . . when students continually demonstrate significant behavioral challenges, consistent with the quote above, it is important to recognize that “Talk alone does not change behavior.”

   That is, while “the talk” may clarify both the inappropriate behavior that should be eliminated and the appropriate prosocial behavior that is needed instead, the only way for students (or anyone) to learn, master, and be able to independently demonstrate the latter, appropriate behavior is:

·       To behaviorally teach and physically demonstrate the desired behavior;

·       Roleplay and practice it behaviorally with the student;

·       Continue to practice it behaviorally with the student using relevant, applied situations in the settings where they most often occur; and

·       Encourage independent behavioral student-practice so target behaviors become automatic and routine.

   Critically, students do not mature or age-out of significant inappropriate behavior. And, as above, they do not demonstrate appropriate behavior automatically even when they “know what they are supposed to do.”

   Moreover, sitting and talking in a “restorative circle”—while it may help clarify and personalize a socially inappropriate interaction—will not, in most cases, prosocially change the behavior the next time.

   By way of analogy, if you want proficient reading behavior, students need to learn, practice, and become automatic readers.

   If you want students to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills, they need to learn, practice, and become automatic in these behaviors.

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 2

“Why is anyone surprised that the science and practice of teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral skills. . . is any less sophisticated than teaching students literacy skills?”

   During my 40+ years in education as a school psychologist, I have seen more than enough haggling and acrimony relative to the “Reading Wars.” And yet, without over-simplification, the steps for teaching reading (not the teaching itself) have never been terribly complex for me as a scientist-practitioner.

   The goal of “the War” is to ensure that our high school graduates are literate. . . that they can truly understand the explicit and implicit meanings after they read (or listen to) different types of text.

   And to progressively—from preschool through high school—help students attain this goal, we need to interdependently teach them layers of phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills.

   Clearly, this involves sophisticated neurolinguistic, psychoeducational processes—some that we still do not fully understand. And while there may be a universal literacy instruction blueprint, it needs to be adapted or modified for some learners.

   But now turning to today’s focus. . . per the quote above, why would anyone think that teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral interactions is any less complex than teaching them reading?

   And (drum roll, please). . . the resounding answer is. . . . it’s not!

   And that’s why it is especially frustrating when Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) is so inadequately described and operationalized in the popular press, as well as by some “researchers,” journal or book authors, and many vendors.

   As I have written in the past:

·       Too much of what educators say is “Social-Emotional Learning” is not; and

·       When educators are concerned that their “Social-Emotional Learning” activities or programs “are not working,” they need to first look at the curriculum and instruction. . . before concluding that this is a (continuing) “student problem.”

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 3

“Every time you do an intervention with a student and it doesn’t work. . .

You make that student more resistant to the next intervention.”

   Too often, educators—individually, in grade-level or instructional teams, or at a whole-school or district level—see what they think are “student problems,” brainstorm what to do about them, and then, choose a “solution” and proceed into implementation.

   When this is done without a root cause analysis—to truly and objectively determine why the problem exists—we call this “Intervention Roulette.”

   This is because this approach has a high probability of failing because (a) the target of the intervention is often a symptom, and not the “real” problem; and (b) the intervention is not well-matched to the root cause—as the root cause analysis step was either skipped or not completed with fidelity.

   The ultimate point here is that, “Interventions for social, emotional, and behavioral challenges are strategic, and not random.”

·       Brainstorming results in a random intervention that has a high probability of failure.

·       Root cause analyses—within the context of a data-based problem-solving process—results in high probability of success interventions.

   And yet, some educators still say, after brainstorming an intervention, “Let’s just try it. How much damage could it do?”

   The answer: A lot of damage.

   Not only will the intervention likely fail, but the implementation experience and failure may also:

·       Make the student’s problem worse, compound it, or make it more convoluted;

·       Put doubt in the student’s mind that s/he can successfully overcome the problem, and that the intervention team is competent and has his/her best interests at heart;

·       Make the intervention team think that the student has a more serious problem than originally thought; and/or 

·       Put doubt in the minds of the staff, who are working on the problem and its solution, that the student is committed to change, that the problem can be solved with the available resources or expertise, or that the problem can be solved at all.

   All of these potential outcomes—when a low probability of success intervention fails—result in an overt or subliminal level of resistance when the next intervention is tried.

   That is, when an intervention does not work, everyone may be “further behind” than when they started.

   The solution?

   Educators need to understand the potential implications of a failed intervention. They need to: (a) stop the implementation of any intervention  generated through brainstorming or unconfirmed speculation regarding why the problem exists; and, instead, (b) make sure that they do their “due diligence” through the data-based problem-solving process and its root cause analysis step—linking the results of an objective and high quality analysis to the selection of well-designed and high probability interventions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog (Part II) revealed the many social, emotional, and behavioral challenges identified in a May, 2024 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) survey of 1,714 public school K-12 leaders from every state in the country and Washington, D.C.

   These challenges included students’ (a) lack of focus and lack of preparation for their classes; (b) classroom disruptions and the use of prohibited cellphones, computers, and other electronic devices; (c) verbal abuse and other acts of disrespect toward teachers; (d) (cyber)bullying and physical attacks or fights with peers; and (e) substance abuse and bringing weapons into school.

   This Blog reflected on the “solutions” suggested by the leaders surveyed by the NCES and, instead, recommended that individual districts and schools (a) objectively and independently analyze their own students, staff, data, and circumstances; and (b) decide which of the reported problems exist in their settings, why they exist, and which ones can be addressed as the new school year begins.

   To facilitate this process, three quotes from a recent presentation at the annual Model Schools Conference were presented along with their implications and importance to generating high probability of success interventions. . . so that the problems above can be effectively and expeditiously solved.

   The quotes emphasized the importance of:

·       Teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral skills;

·       Recognizing that this social-emotional learning instruction is as sophisticated as teaching students how to read; and 

·       Completing root cause analyses, for students with significant or persistent behavioral challenges, to determine the underlying reasons for their challenges, then linking the root cause results with high probability of success interventions.

_ _ _ _ _

   As we turn the “summer corner,” and begin thinking about the impending new school year, we hope that this Blog Series (and this current Part II) is helpful and relevant to you and your colleagues.

   While school finances across the country are tight, we all know that districts and schools benefit—both financially and, especially, relative to student, staff, and school outcomes—when they understand why they are successful and, conversely, why they are less successful.

   Sometimes, this requires on-site expertise from an outside partner.

   If you would like to explore whether I can be that partner, please drop me an e-mail (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info) or set up a free Zoom call so that we can look at your needs and desired outcomes. Together, I know that we can attain the short- and long-term, sustained successes that you and your students need.

Best,

Howie

 

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

The Seven Sure Solutions for Continuous Student and School Success (Part I)

“If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, Any Road Will Get You There”

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

I celebrate the Glass Half-Full, and Those who have worked to fill it. . .

But the Glass needs to be Full, and there is still so much work to do.

 

                                                                        Howie Knoff

 _ _ _ _ _

   A few weeks ago, I delivered three presentations at The Model Schools Conference in Orlando.

   As a Senior Fellow with The Center for Model Schools—the conference’s sponsor—I was honored to be invited. . . especially as there were over 5,000 educators from all over the world in attendance, and over a dozen “Model Schools” who also delivered sessions to discuss their journeys to that status.

   As I listened in these sessions, it was notable how many of these schools had previously (and persistently) been “F” schools per their state department of education’s annual school evaluation systems. Moreover, each school described what had been “insurmountable” student challenges. . . sprinkled with dysfunctional or clinically-discouraged staff—many who left each year, after only one year at the school.

   And yet, as they discussed their accomplishments, they reinforced the theme of one of my Conference presentations. . . namely, that schools in the process of continuous school improvement need to celebrate their accomplishments, but recognize that the proverbial “student glass” remains half full.

   Said a different way: While celebrating a school’s improvement from an “F” to a “C” status. . . schools still need to ask, “How many students are still not as successful as they should be?”

   And understand, I fully believe that the school leaders of the Model Schools at the Conference understood this.

   Each one of them realizes that (as above), even in the midst of accomplishment, school success occurs when every student in a school is performing at the highest academic and social, emotional, and behavioral level possible for them.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

When the Glass Half-Full Seems to be Enough

   Without getting too far “into the weeds,” at any point in time, educational policy—at the federal or state level—adopts specific goals, objectives, and criteria for “success”. . . and the pathways “to get there.”

   To a fault, however, most educational policies typically exemplify a “one size fits all” mentality.

   For example:

·       During the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2002 to 2015) era, states, districts, and schools were required to increase the percentage of students demonstrating “academic proficiency” over time.

Critically, the policy at that time stated that every state basically needed to meet the same federal standards and criteria, and if “sufficient progress” did not occur, the state—and its lowest functioning districts or schools—were placed “in school improvement” status.

_ _ _ _ _

·       In contrast, under current (since 2015) ESEA Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) policies, every state department of education has been allowed to set its own criteria to identify their own districts and schools for school improvement status.

This has resulted in significant state-to-state discrepancies—both in the number of “low performing” schools and districts identified, and their characteristics.

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, educational policy dictates educational practice. . . and the school improvement policies of both NCLB and ESSA were/are anchored to the percent of students scoring “Proficient” on the state “benchmark” exam more than anything else.

   Given this, many schools’ educational practices—still today—concentrate on preparing students to “pass the test,” rather than increasing their learning, mastery, and ability, more broadly, to apply information to solve real-world problems.

   This has resulted, for decades, in a low bar relative to defining “school success.”

   That is, administrators and teachers more often believe that a school year has been “successful” when larger percentages of students have scored “Proficient or above” on the state test.

   But this consistently leaves many students behind, and lots of students with unaddressed needs.

   Metaphorically, education has become satisfied with a glass half-full. . . even though it is still half-empty.

   This is dramatically depicted in this over ten-year-old videoclip from The Newsroom (2012) that—in a very scary way—still resonates today:

 

_ _ _ _ _

The Half-Full Glass

   “The first step to solving any problem is recognizing that there is one.”

   Let’s put some faces onto the percentages.

   Below are data from the most recent 2023 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam. . . the so-called “Nation’s Report Card”. . . which cyclically measures Grade 4, 8, and 12 student achievement in a wide variety of academic areas across the country.

   Critically, the two figures below provide the 2023 Grade 8 data in Reading, and the 2023 Grade 12 data in Math from the five highest scoring states in the country.

   While we could look at the percent of students at Proficient or Above (i.e., the glass half-full), please look at the percent of students in the two Below Proficient categories (i.e., the glass half-empty).

   And then, please imagine the faces of these students. . . the actual numbers of students who scored not Proficient:

·       Over 1.6 million 8th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were unprepared in Reading for their first year in high school; and

·       Over 2.1 million 12th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were unprepared for their first post-high school year in Math.

   Significantly, these—once again—are the five best-scoring states. . . the highest scoring accumulations of students in the nation.

   These numbers do not include the five most populous states in the country: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania.

   And the numbers above exceed the individual total populations of the following 23 states: from Wyoming (584,057 inhabitants), Vermont, Washington D.C., Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Nevada, Iowa, Utah, to Connecticut (3,417,734 inhabitants).

   And so—across the entire country—how many millions of 8th Grade students do you believe are unprepared in Reading, and how many graduating seniors in Math are unprepared for their next year of school, training, or employment?

_ _ _ _ _

   Clearly, based on these and other data. . . not every school in our country (and I visit a lot each year) is even close to maximizing the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes of every student.

   And yet, as noted above, many schools “feel” like they are successful because they have avoided school improvement status.

   And I get it.

   Some schools lack money, certified personnel, and other resources. Some lack training, staff skills, and expertise. Some are struggling with chronic absenteeism related to students with significant mental health or other issues.

   And some think they are doing “quite well”. . . thank you very much.

   But, respectfully, our country’s schools need to look past federal and state policies, and examine their practices. The leaders in every district and school need to look at all of the faces in their classrooms, and dramatically raise the bar of success.

   In doing this, we all recognize that education and the school and schooling process is complex and messy. . . and that conditions change subtly—or radically—from year to year (or sooner).

   And truly, “There are many roads to Rome.”

   But collectively, we in education need to understand and accommodate for the common (or shared) and unique (or idiosyncratic) characteristics of all of the students, staff, and schools in our districts and communities.

   We need to take the strategic paths necessary to “max-out” all students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral potential.

   We need to respond expeditiously and nimbly to local conditions.

   And, we need to follow evidence-based blueprints.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Road Trip Without a Road Map is a Recipe for Disaster

   The title to this Blog includes a quote from Alice in Wonderland:

 “If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, Any Road Will Get You There”

   While attending The Model Schools Conference in Orlando two weeks ago, there were a great many motivational sessions where participants got enthused, energized, and excited!

   And that’s great!

   But all the motivation in the world. . . in education, as in every profession on Earth. . . will not produce the results desired unless people follow a proven road map. . . an evidence-based blueprint.

    Indeed, successful school improvement—from year-to-year—requires planning for all of the components that are essential to the student, staff, and school outcomes desired.

   And then, the planning needs to proceed to acquiring the resources necessary for high quality (a) professional development, coaching, and supervision; (b) instruction, progress monitoring, and (when needed) intervention; (c) formative and summative evaluation; and (d) maintenance and sustainability.

   But, many schools fall down at the beginning of their quest for success.

   Specifically, many schools choose to implement packaged programs and/or frameworks, rather than well-layered evidence-based practices.

   Moreover, they often adopt and implement programs that either:

·       Have not been objectively and independently proven across large numbers of school, in different geographic locations, with different types of students, and experiencing different internal and external conditions and challenges; and/or

·       Have not demonstrated their effectiveness with students who match their school’s students, staff, dynamics, needs, and circumstances.

   Indeed, many schools adopt programs and frameworks based more on testimonials and word-of-mouth recommendations, savvy marketing or slick advertising, and/or promoted and charismatic “experts”. . . rather than data, longevity, and sustained efficacy.

   The end result has been underachievement, frustration, disenchantment, and termination (“wash, rinse, and repeat”).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Seven Sure Solutions School Improvement Blueprint

   With a “tip-of-the-hat” to colleagues involved in school improvement over the past 40 years (e.g., Ted Sizer, Larry Lezotte, James Comer, Robert Marzano, and others), we have synthesized the research and demonstrated the sustained efficacy of the seven components most essential for true and ongoing school success (see www.projectachieve.info).

   These interdependent ”Seven Sure Solutions” have been integrated into an evidence-based research-to-practice blueprint. . . with each Sure Solution having its own evidence-based blueprints.

   We emphasize the term “blueprint,” because the components in each blueprint must be present in order to attain continuous “school improvement” success.

   At the same time, the implementation sequence and areas of emphasis for the blueprints may vary. . . based on a school’s current effective practices and successes, existing skill or resource gaps, and/or unique student or staff challenges or needs.

   The Seven Sure Solutions are (see Figure and brief descriptions below): 

·       Sure Solution 1. Strategic Planning and Organizational Development

·       Sure Solution 2. Community and Family Involvement, Training, Support, and Outreach

·       Sure Solution 3. Professional Development, Supervision, and Accountability

·       Sure Solution 4. Academic Instruction, Intervention, and Achievement

·       Sure Solution 5. Behavioral Instruction, Intervention, and Self-Management

·       Sure Solution 6. Multi-tiered Problem-Solving and Systems of Support

·       Sure Solution 7. Data Management, Evaluation, and Efficacy

 

         The Seven Sure Solutions for School and Student Success

   Sure Solution 1. The Strategic Planning and Organizational Development Component initially focuses on completing needs and gap assessments, and strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) analyses of a school’s organizational and school climate, administrative style and support, staff decision-making and interactions, curriculum and instruction, social-emotional learning and multi-tiered services, and other school and schooling processes.

   Activities move into identifying and reinforcing, or establishing and implementing effective organizational policies, procedures, and data management approaches that support the academic and social, emotional, behavioral success of all students. . . and using data-driven decisions to facilitate student, staff, and school success.

   An important “product” within this component are annual school improvement Action Plans that integrate all of the Seven Solution areas to help schools build capacity and autonomy; to identify and focus resources; to maintain fidelity, productivity, and sustainability; and to produce cumulative and progressive targeted outcomes.

    From an organizational development perspective, effective schools utilize shared and collaborative leadership processes from administration to instructional and related services staff to “non-certified” support staff. One exemplar here involves how a school organizes and fills the positions on its school-level committees. While modified as needed to a school’s size, needs, and staffing patterns, a school’s committee should reflect all of the Seven Sure Solution areas.

   Significantly, the Data Management, Evaluation, and Efficacy processes in Sure Solution 7 are embedded in the functioning and work of every school-level committee.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 2. The Community and Family Involvement, Training, Support, and Outreach Component focuses on increasing the involvement of all parents, but especially the involvement of parents of at-risk, chronically absent, underachieving, and non-performing students.

   Unfortunately, parents in these latter four groups tend to be less involved in and supportive of the school and schooling process. This often produces a cycle of student failure that results in students who drop out of school and/or who are unprepared for post-graduation employment.

   Relative to the community, many schools do not use, and often are unaware of, the “outside” expertise and resources available to them. In addition, there are times when community agencies (e.g., after school, weekend, or summer programs) are providing services that schools could use to complement or extend their instructional, intervention, or other support activities.

   Finally, for students with significant, 24/7 academic or social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges, the need to coordinate and integrate school and community-based professionals and their services, supports, strategies, or programs is essential to the integrity of the progress, treatment, and success for the students involved.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 3. The Professional Development, Supervision, and Accountability Component focuses on how schools implement effective professional development, clinical supervision and evaluation, coaching and feedback, and instruction and intervention accountability practices—at the school and staff levels.

   These practices ensure that (a) differentiated and well-implemented instruction and positive classroom management processes exist in every classroom for every student; and (b) multi-tiered services and interventions are delivered by support and related services staff for students needing strategic (i.e., Tier 2) and intensive (i.e., Tier 3) strategies.

   All of this helps create a school culture where every staff person recognizes that professional development occurs, formally and informally, every day for everyone in a school, and that everyone is a potential consultant for someone else.

   Successful staff professional development has three interdependent goals and components:

·       The Understanding, Learning, and Mastery of the information, content, and knowledge related to a specific professional development topic or initiative; that transfers over time into. . .

·       The effective Skill and Application needed to implement and sustain it successfully with students and/or staff in a classroom or other school setting; that results over time in. . . 

·       Independent Staff Competence and Confidence, because the skills have been implemented many times, under many conditions, with many different kinds of students.

   These three components are essential to maximize the staff interactions needed to successfully accomplish targeted student outcomes. They are so important that they must be part of a district or school’s school improvement Action Plan. . . organized and outlined before a professional development initiative is ever begun.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 4. The Academic Instruction, Intervention, and Achievement Component focuses on creating an effective “Instructional Environment” in every classroom within a school. The Instructional Environment consists of the Curriculum, Teacher-Instruction, and Student processes that are present in all classrooms.   

   Critically, when effective teachers prepare their classroom lessons, they analyze (a) the curriculum and its instructional goals; (b) the prerequisite skills needed, and how to evaluate students’ progress; (c) ways to effectively differentiate their instruction; and (d) how to respond to students who are not learning and mastering the material.

   On the front end, the goal is to create lessons that successfully impact the highest number of students possible. On the back end, for the unsuccessful students, the goal is to determine why they are struggling, and whether there is a need for (a) assistive supports, or (b) remediation, (c) accommodations, (d) modifications, or (e) more targeted interventions, respectfully.

   From a continuous school improvement perspective, schools need to explicitly identify, plan, execute, and evaluate the training, staff, resources, and interactions needed such that teachers and others can immediately implement all of the Sure Solution 4 facets above on behalf of all students.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 5. The Behavioral Instruction, Intervention, and Self-Management Component focuses on helping:

·       Students to learn, master, and apply interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills to individual, teacher and peer, and small- and large-group interactions; and 

·       Staff to create positive, safe, supportive, well-managed, and consistent classroom and school climates that engage and motivate students, while holding them accountable for prosocial behavior. 

·       Schools to promote safe and well-managed common school areas, interactions that support students from different backgrounds (relative, for example, to gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation), and discipline approaches that are educative, measured, equitable, and geared to eliminating future inappropriate behavior, while replacing it with appropriate, prosocial behavior.

   Like Sure Solution 5, most of this Solution focuses on supporting general education teachers to teach, motivate, evaluate, and reinforce all students’ social, emotional, and behavioral self-management. This is accomplished through an evidence-based Social-Emotional Learning/Positive Behavioral Support System (SEL/PBSS) blueprint that includes student behavior in the Common Areas of the school and virtual, out-of-school interactions.

   This Solution includes the classroom-based modifications, accommodations, and interventions needed by students who are not responding to effective classroom management strategies, and the involvement of related service and mental health professionals (e.g., behavioral interventionists, counselors, social workers) when further student support is required.

   When students demonstrate significant social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health gaps, and/or they are not responding to classroom-based intervention and supports, teachers should move more formally into the multi-tiered system of support process through the school’s MTSS (or the equivalent) Team (i.e., Sure Solution 6).

   Finally and once again, from a continuous school improvement perspective, schools need to explicitly identify, plan, execute, and evaluate the training, staff, resources, and interactions needed such that teachers and others can immediately implement all of the Sure Solution 5 facets above on behalf of all students.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 6. The Multi-tiered Problem-Solving and Systems of Support Component focuses on the continuum of academic and/or social, emotional, and behavioral services, supports, and interventions (a) for all students in their general education classrooms (Tier I); to (b) the need to deliver strategic approaches for some students (Tier II); to (c) the need to deliver the most intensive approaches for other students (Tier III).

   Critically, districts are required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to have multi-tiered systems of support that conform to that Act’s definition.

   When students demonstrate significant academic or social, emotional, or behavioral gaps, or they do not respond to the approaches immediately above, teachers (a) move more formally into the multi-tiered system of support process; (b) involve the school’s MTSS Team that collaboratively completes—with the teacher and student—additional multi-disciplinary assessments to determine the root causes of the problem; and then (c) link the data-based results to Tier II and/or Tier III strategies.

   Tier II and Tier III strategies should be organized by the intensity of the approaches needed by a specific student, as well as their availability in a school or district. Indeed, in some schools, the strategies in these respective Tiers are organized by their availability within the school or district (Tier II) versus outside of the school or district (Tier III).

   Most critically, the services in the Tiers should not be organized by who is delivering the services, where the services are delivered, or whether the students receive the services in a small group or individual format. These conditions represent illogical and unverified “MTSS Myths.”

   Other MTSS Myths include (a) the need to sequentially tier the strategies provided to a struggling student; (b) that there are “ideal” percentages of students in a school receiving Tier I vs. Tier II vs. Tier III services; (c) that special education services are Tier III services; and (d) that a student “qualifies” for Tier II or Tier III services only after a specific number of interventions have been implemented for a specific period of time.

   The foundation to this Sure Solution’s success is a “Problem-Solving, Consultation, Intervention” mode of operation. . . as opposed to a “Wait for the Student to Fail, then Test and Place him or her.” In addition, by law, multi-tiered services, supports, and/or interventions should not be strategies designed to delay the assessments a student may need in order to qualify for special education services.

   Critically, multi-tiered services and interventions should be the strategies that the teacher and MTSS Team believe will most benefit a student and facilitate his or her academic or social, emotional, or behavioral progress and proficiency.

_ _ _ _ _

   Sure Solution 7. The Data Management, Evaluation, and Efficacy Component focuses on actively evaluating, formatively and summatively, the status and progress of students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral mastery of information and skills, as well as the efficacy of the Seven Sure Solution processes and activities that support the instructional, staff, and service components of an effective school. In order to accomplish this, districts and schools need to have sound and flexible Student Information or Data Management Systems with the hardware and software that facilitates quick and efficient data collection, storage, analysis, and output.

   Relative to efficacy evaluations, formative and summative data are collected to validate the impact of a school’s activities and efforts relative to (a) strategic planning and continuous school improvement; (b) professional development and organizational development; (c) selection, preparation, and implementation of academic and behavioral curricula and planning; (d) actual teacher instruction, classroom management, problem-solving, and intervention; and (e) MTSS problem-solving, consultation, and intervention for students not making appropriate academic or behavioral progress. 

   Another part of this process involves the quarterly evaluation of all students’ progress, and the transfer of information, data, and “lessons learned” from every student from year to year and (as relevant) school to school.

   In this regard, too often, comprehensive instruction, achievement, intervention, and proficiency data—relative to all students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral status and school-year journeys— are not systematically shared with the next year’s teachers, support staff, and administrators such that every school. . . on the first day of every new school year. . . is fully prepared to educate every student.

   Ultimately, the school’s annual school improvement Action Plan identifies both the outcomes that need to be evaluated, as well as the evaluation activities, measures, and timeframes to be used—and what staff will be involved and responsible.

   While the formative evaluations help keep students, staff, and schools “on track,” the summative evaluations frame the needed activities and approaches for the next year as schools “live” the continuous improvement process.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Using the “Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full” metaphor, this Blog discussed the importance of celebrating school improvement progress (the “Glass Half-Full”), while still recognizing that many students are still academically under-performing or presenting with social, emotional, or behavioral challenges (the “Glass Half-Empty”).

   A related concern discussed was that, given the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s ongoing focus on the percent of students scoring “Proficient and Above” on each state’s annual Academic Proficiency test, too many educators define “school success” as (a) any incremental increase in these percentages from year-to-year (even when the majority of students are “Basic and Below”); and/or (b) the fact that their school has again avoided going into state school improvement status.

   This Blog then encouraged districts and schools to analyze why so many students are not successful each year, and to look beyond federal and state policies and quick-fix or unproven programs and frameworks. To do this, a proven, evidence-based blueprint with Seven Sure Solutions was described.

   These Sure Solutions are:

·       Sure Solution 1. Strategic Planning and Organizational Development

·       Sure Solution 2. Community and Family Involvement, Training, Support, and Outreach

·       Sure Solution 3. Professional Development, Supervision, and Accountability

·       Sure Solution 4. Academic Instruction, Intervention, and Achievement

·       Sure Solution 5. Behavioral Instruction, Intervention, and Self-Management

·       Sure Solution 6. Multi-tiered Problem-Solving and Systems of Support

·       Sure Solution 7. Data Management, Evaluation, and Efficacy

   In the end, all the motivation and good intent in the world will not produce the school success results we all desire unless schools plan and design, implement and evaluate, fine-tune and sustain the processes and activities that best fit their version of this evidence-based blueprint.

   At one of my presentations at The Model Schools Conference in Orlando a few weeks ago, I stated:

“Talk alone does not change a school. . .

The talk needs to evolve into shared commitment, strategic action, and sustained excellence.”

 

   But, as Geoffrey Canada noted a few years ago, some schools are not even talking. . . and no one is “getting crazy about it.”

   Listen to Geoffrey:

_ _ _ _ _

   We hope that this Blog has been both relevant and helpful to you, and we encourage you to review, use, and share the thoughts above with your colleagues.

   As many continue their summer vacations, others are already engaging in the professional development activities needed to change our schools and prepare for our students’ inevitable return to their classrooms.

   If I can help you and your colleagues move to your next levels of district, school, and classroom excellence, drop me an e-mail (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info) or set up a free Zoom call to toss around some ideas and, potentially, begin a profoundly productive partnership.

Best,

Howie

 

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