Students’ Behavior is NOT Improving. . . But It Can

Classroom Management Lessons for Teachers from the Detroit Lions’ Shocking Playoff Loss

[The Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast, hosted by popular AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson, provides an engaging and enlightening synopsis and analysis of this Blog on Spotify... CLICK HERE]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   I am not from Detroit, nor do I live there.

   Heck. . . I’m not even from Michigan, much less the Mid-West.

   But. . . I am a Dan Campbell fan. . . the four-season Head Coach of the National Football League’s (NFL) Detroit Lions!

   And. . . even if you are not a football fan, every educator in the country should know about Dan Campbell, his success, and—most importantly—why he has been successful.

_ _ _ _ _

   This year, Dan led the Lions to a 15 Win – 2 Loss record. . . which made his Team the Number 1 playoff seed in one of the NFL’s two Conferences.

   Critically, as the Lions’ Coach, Campbell’s record over the past four years has progressively improved from 3 wins in 2021, to 9 wins in 2022, to 12 wins in 2023, to 15 wins this year (all out of 17 regular season games played each season).

   Can you spell: I-M-P-R-O-V-E-M-E-N-T ?!

_ _ _ _ _

   In the Playoffs this year, given their talent and regular season play, the Lions were favored to go to the Superbowl.

   But in their first playoff game, they lost 45-31 to the Washington Commanders in a game that was not really even that close.

   But I respect and admire Dan Campbell because of how he stood up and publicly handled the loss.

   Just moments after walking off the field, he faced the “harsh glare of the lights” and the “unforgiving scrutiny of the Media” in a televised press conference geared to dissecting the minutiae of a game that will trigger a deluge of nightmares-to-come.

   And under these lights, Campbell taught us a lesson in candor, humility, perspective, strength, realism, and vulnerability.

   But the Lions’ remarkable improvement over the past four years, their loss in the Playoffs, and Coach Campbell’s contribution to both provides many other extraordinary lessons for all educators, and especially classroom teachers, relative to their leadership, their students’ success, and how to handle the times when things “don’t go as planned.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Students’ Classroom Behavior is Not Improving

   Critically, now three years after our “full return” (Fall, 2021) from the pandemic, students’ classroom behavior is not getting better.

    Indeed, a January 8, 2025 Education Week article reported on a mid-December 2024 survey of 990 educators (134 district leaders, 97 school leaders, and 759 teachers)—chosen as a nationally-representative sample by the EdWeek Research Center.

   The results of this survey indicated:

·       72% of educators said that the students in their classroom, school, or district have been misbehaving either “a little” (24%) or “a lot” (48%) more than in the fall of 2019, the last semester before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

   In contrast:

·       A year ago (early 2023), 70% of educators said that their students were misbehaving either “a little” (36%) or “a lot” (33%) more than in the fall of 2019; and

·       In 2021, 66% of educators said that their students were misbehaving a little or a lot more than in the fall of 2019.

_ _ _ _ _

   The Education Week article went on:

Student misbehavior has routinely topped teachers’ lists of concerns and most pressing challenges in recent years. There’s been a pronounced spike in behavior problems, ranging from minor classroom disruptions to more serious student fights broadcast on social media, since students returned to school buildings. Teachers have also reported a drop in students’ motivation in that time period.

 

Student misbehavior is hurting staff morale, some survey respondents said.

Indeed, past surveys have documented this overall dip in teacher morale. An annual report released in August by the EdWeek Research Center showed that just 18 percent of public school teachers said they are very satisfied with their jobs, a much lower percentage than decades ago, and a slight drop from the year prior when 20 percent of teachers said the same.

 

In that same report, many elementary and middle school teachers said they need more support in dealing with student discipline, and that the additional help would improve their mental health. Eighty percent of teachers reported they have to address students’ behavioral problems “at least a few times a week,” with 58 percent saying this happens every day, according to a Pew Research Center report from April 2024.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Students are Not Going to “Fix” Themselves: School Staff Need to Function as a Team

   While it is easier to “just blame the students, the parents, residual pandemic trauma, and social media” for students’ persistent behavioral challenges, this externalization is not going to solve the problem.

   The students are not going to fix themselves.

   Moreover, there are no quick fixes (otherwise, this problem would have been solved long ago).

   Instead, let’s look at schools. . . and solutions. . . from a “team” perspective.

   And while the students are certainly part of “the team roster,” school teams consist of administrators, related service professionals, teachers and instructional specialists, and support staff—like secretaries, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and paraprofessionals.

   All of them should be contributing members of “the team.”

   Comparatively, an NFL football team typically has 12 coaches, 53 men on its “game-day” roster, and another 16 players on the practice (or taxi) squad... in addition to staff who, for example, include advanced scouts, athletic trainers, game videographers, data analysts, and others.

   The essential team questions—whether we are talking about a school or the Detroit Lions—are:

   Does your Team have:

·       The interdependent talent with the skills, experience, motivation, and commitment to succeed?

For schools, this ultimately involves the Teachers in the classrooms.

For an NFL Team, this ultimately involves the Players on the field.

_ _ _ _ _

·       The evidence-based blueprints to facilitate success?

For schools, this involves the academic curricula with their scope and sequences, as well as the social, emotional, and behavioral components that focus on student self-management.

For an NFL Team, this involves the playbooks for the offense, defense, and special teams, respectively, and how they are applied to specific opponents.

_ _ _ _ _

·       The leadership to guide player development?

For schools, this involves the Administrators, Supervisors, Instructional Coaches, and Related Service Consultants.

For an NFL Team, this involves the Head Coach and the different Position Coaches.

_ _ _ _ _

·       The culture, belief, dedication, persistence, and resilience to consistently act as a Team for “the greater good”?

For schools and NFL teams, this involves everyone. . . but for schools, it also necessarily involves the students, their voices and needs, and their active commitment and involvement.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly, success for an NFL team is measured in wins and championships.

   Success for a school is measured in students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral learning, progress, proficiency, and graduation with the skills needed for post-graduation success.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Classroom Behavior and Teachers

   As noted above, everyone on a successful team needs to have (a) the skills, experience, motivation, and commitment to succeed (b) in an organizational culture that (c) nurtures and reinforces everyone’s “team-first” beliefs, dedication, persistence, and resilience to consistently act for “the greater good.”

   Thus, to truly address the student behavior and classroom management challenges also noted above, schools need to strategically apply their organization’s culture and team talent to (a) analyzing and understanding their present social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in order to (b) address, diminish, or resolve them.

   In most cases, this necessarily starts in every classroom, and involves every teacher—individually, within their grade-level team and/or academic department, and as a member of the entire school community.

   Individually, teachers must recognize that—as an extension of their grade-level, department, and school teams—they are responsible for:

·       Creating and sustaining positive, safe, and productive classroom learning environments;

·       Identifying, teaching, prompting, and reinforcing students’ expected social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and

·       Analyzing and strategically addressing—once again, individually, within their grade-level teams or departments, or through their administrative and/or related service supports—the students who are not conforming or responding to classroom norms.

   While even veteran teachers periodically struggle with classroom management (needing coaching and other supports), it is important that schools with the student, peer, classroom, and schoolwide challenges especially analyze the classroom management skills and student interactions of teachers who are (a) new to the profession, and/or (b) new to the school.

    There are at least three reasons for this recommendation:

·       Teacher Training. Decades of published studies analyzing colleges of education across the country have consistently found that the instruction and supervision of graduates’ classroom management knowledge and skill is sorely lacking.

These knowledge and skill gaps are even more pronounced for many teachers certified through alternative education programs.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Teacher Research. As but one example, a methodologically well-done study in Educational Researcher (“Troublemakers? The Role of Frequent Teacher Referrers in Expanding Racial Disciplinary Disproportionalities;” June 14, 2023) analyzed the characteristics of the referring teachers and the “misbehaving” students from over 75,000 office discipline referrals (ODRs) in a large, racially-diverse urban school district in California during the 2016-2017 through 2019-2020 school years.

Analyzing the teachers responsible for the top 5% of the district’s ODRs, the study determined that (a) this involved only 1.7% of all teachers; (b) Black and Hispanic students were overrepresented among the students referred by these “top referrers”; (c) teachers who were White, early career, and serving in middle schools did the most referring; and (d) after 3 years of classroom experience, the likelihood of being a top referrer quickly dropped—except in Middle schools where the top referrers’ ODRs did not decrease until they had at least 11 years of experience.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. As but one example here, another well-done study in Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis (“’Refining’ Our Understanding of Early Career Teacher Skill Development: Evidence from Classroom Observations;” January 10, 2025) analyzed the instructional progress of 25,000 novice teachers in Tennessee, based on their principals’ observational data from Tennessee’s teacher-evaluation system.

In this system, principals’ classroom observations had to identify one focus area for improvement from among 19 instructional skills—including, for example, teacher questioning, presenting content, behavior management, and problem-solving.

Critically, the researchers found, among the 25% of new teachers who received the lowest overall evaluation scores, administrators were most likely to identify weak behavior management skills.

By contrast, the highest-performing new teachers looked more like veteran teachers when it came to these skills.

_ _ _ _ _

   Taken altogether, once again, schools whose staff report continuing student behavior and classroom management challenges should first analyze where these challenges are occurring and with whom.

   Without blaming these teachers, these analyses should especially look at new or novice (less than three years of experience) teachers.

   Critically: Why should anyone be surprised that new teachers sometimes have the most classroom management problems?

   While most schools. . . and NFL teams. . . have teachers and players, respectively, who are emerging or seasoned veterans with five or more years of successful team experience, they also have new teachers or new players (“rookies”), respectively.

   To be successful, new teachers and rookie NFL players, respectively, need to embrace the organization’s positive, “team-first” culture while learning (a) the “plays” and how to execute them; (b) how to be good teammates; and (c) how to contribute—in the classroom or on the field—to student (for schools) or championship (for NFL teams) outcomes.

   For teachers, part of this contribution is classroom management.

   Moreover: Just as NFL rookies get more instruction, coaching, evaluation, and feedback before they participate in actual games, new and novice teachers need the same opportunities.

   The problem is: Many times, they don’t.

   In fact, new and novice teachers are almost always immediately put “into the game.”

   That is, these teachers are independently placed in charge of their classrooms on the first day of school. . . with little “pre-season” training, coaching, evaluation, and feedback.

   Kind of scary. . . isn’t it?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Classroom Behavior and the Evidence-based Blueprint that Facilitates Success

  Successful NFL teams have well-designed and proven offensive, defensive, and special teams’ playbooks.

   Relative to student behavior and classroom management, many schools. . . not so much.

   The ultimate goal of a “student behavior and classroom management playbook” is to motivate, teach, prompt, and reinforce or correct students’ social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills.

   Just as an NFL team’s best defense is a good offense, a school’s Tier 1 prevention system helps minimize students’ behavioral challenges and the need for more intensive Tier 2 and 3 services, supports, and interventions.

   Across ten years of Blogs (and many publications), we have discussed the five proven, evidence-based, and interdependent components that schools need in their playbook.

   Let’s listen to AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on their Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast of this Blog as they integrate our discussion thus far and expand on the school blueprint more specifically.

   When you “FOLLOW” this podcast, you are automatically notified when each bi-monthly podcast is posted. 

   Briefly, the evidence-based blueprint for school discipline success has the following five interdependent components:

·       Positive School and Classroom Climate, and Staff and Peer Relationships;

·       Explicit Prosocial Behavioral Expectations in classrooms and common school areas, and Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skill Instruction;

·       Student Motivation and Accountability;

·       Consistency and Fidelity—relative to the implementation of all the above components; and

·       Special Situations—the application of the components above to all school settings, all peer interactions, and those students who need more strategic or intensive services and supports.

   Critically, these same components are present in a sound and successful NFL football team. They are introduced and taught especially during the preseason and reinforced and extended during every practice before a regular season or playoff game.

   More specifically, sound and successful NFL teams ensure that their offensive, defensive, and special team units:

·       Develop positive relationships in the midst of a supportive, but competitive climate;

·       Learn and master their playbooks to automaticity;

·       Are motivated and self-accountable;

·       Demonstrate consistent play during each game, as well as those across the entire season; and

·       Apply their skills in different weather conditions, at both home and away games, when different players are injured and are unable to play, and after disappointing losses.

_ _ _ _ _

   To expand the school blueprint more specifically:

·        Positive School and Classroom Climates, and Staff and Peer Relationships

 

This component focuses on building strong, positive relationships across same-grade and cross-grade students, across teachers and other staff and administrators in the school, across students and staff, and across students and staff and parents and others in the community. It also includes activities and expectations that build and sustain support for students from different backgrounds (relative, for example, to gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation).

_ _ _ _ _

 

·   Explicit Prosocial Behavioral Expectations in the Classrooms and Common School areas, and Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skill Instruction

This component is anchored by an evidence-based social skills program that is taught by classroom teachers at every grade level, and that focuses on teaching, modeling, practicing, and applying social and behavioral skills (e.g., Listening, Following Direction, Asking for Help, Ignoring Distractions, Dealing with Teasing, Accepting Consequences). It also includes student training in emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping so that students can demonstrate or perform their social skills even under conditions of emotionality.

_ _ _ _ _

 

·        Student Motivation and Accountability

This component focuses on the developmentally-appropriate incentives and consequences, respectfully, that motivate appropriate, prosocial student behavior, and the differential responses needed to hold students accountable for inappropriate, anti-social behavior. This area includes the development (if needed) of a progressive, tiered school Behavioral Code of Conduct, and how to implement it in equitable ways, eliminating disproportionality—especially for students of color and with disabilities.

_ _ _ _ _

·        Consistency and Fidelity

This component focuses on how to train and reinforce staff and students in the consistent implementation of the activities and processes in the three component areas above. . . so that they are used and applied as empirically designed and with fidelity. Clearly, if evidence-based processes are not implemented with the consistency (across, for example, time, people, settings, and situations), integrity, and intensity needed to facilitate or change behavior, then they will not work or will take longer to work. This can create a resistance or distrust of the change process that potentially undermines current and future change efforts.

_ _ _ _ _

·        Special Situations

This component addresses the more complex, multi-dimensional behaviors related to (a) the school’s Common Areas; (b) peer-driven psychosocial interactions (including teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, hazing, and physical aggression); and (c) the multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions needed by students who are not responding to effective school discipline and classroom management approaches.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Classroom Behavior and Administrators

   Finally, leadership skills are essential whether you are the Head Coach of an NFL football team or a School Principal. Critically, neither leader simply “talked” their way into the position.

   Many head coaches played in the NFL themselves. And they spent many years coaching different parts of a football team. . . often under the tutelage of a Head Coach who saw their potential and mentored them.

   Many school principals were classroom teachers. And they spent many years in different school leadership positions. . . again, under the tutelage of Principals and others who saw their leadership potential.

   But as reinforced above, both Head Coaches and School Principals need to have a great support staff, a sound playbook, and players or teachers, respectively, who are skilled, experienced, motivated, and committed.

   One leader does not a team make.

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to the continuing student discipline and classroom management challenges noted by many schools across the country, school principals need to actively and consistently do the following:

·       Be Present—at staff problem analysis and intervention planning meetings, at professional development and coaching and feedback sessions, interacting in the classrooms and the common areas of the school, and working side-by-side with staff who are working with students to make things better.

·       Be Knowledgeable—about the school’s discipline and classroom model, and the components and activities being implemented by staff with or on behalf of students. Here, principals need to have the knowledge and skills such that they could walk into a classroom or situation and implement the model fluidly and with integrity.

·       Be Respectful and Empathetic—when interacting with classroom teachers, students, other instructional and support staff, and other administrative colleagues. High levels of emotionality or disregard only increase the chances of the same reactions in others. 

·       Be Humble—by knowing when to take the lead and when to delegate, when to make a decision and when to defer to others, when to give encouragement and when to express disappointment, and when to press ahead and when to back off and regroup.

·       Be Aware of and Comfortable with—the difference between a student’s discipline problem, and the problem that reflects a social, emotional, or behavioral student challenge. Discipline problems usually change when strategically-chosen disciplinary actions are implemented. Social, emotional, or behavioral challenges are only responsive to strategically-chosen services, supports, and/or interventions.

   Once again—as embodied by Lions’ Head Coach Dan Campbell—these characteristics explain how his team went from 3 to 9 to 12 to 15 wins over the past four years. . . but also why he reacted to his team’s 45-31 loss last week.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Final Lesson

   There’s one more lesson to learn from Coach Campbell.

   If you watch the video of his press conference again, you see him say:

·       “We fell short;”

·       “It just hurts to lose;”

·       “It was just one of those odd days;”

·       “Things were just off” right from the beginning of the football game; 

·       “It was a ripple effect;”

·       “We just didn’t play great;”

·       “We couldn’t get over the hump;”

·       “I wish I had a better answer;” 

·       “I’ve got to spend some time to look at it and figure it out;” and 

·       “It’s my fault—I didn’t have them ready.”

_ _ _ _ _ _

   Whether we are talking about classroom teachers, school administrators, or any staff group in between. . . there are times—even with the best players, playbook, past, and potential—that things just don’t go as planned.

   Sometimes, the students are just “off”. . . it’s just an “odd day”. . . teachers can’t “get over the hump.”

   For these days, tomorrow is another day.

   But if there are too many of “these days,” the school needs to analyze (a) the talent; (b) evidence-based blueprints; (c) leadership; and (d) the culture, beliefs, dedication, persistence, and resilience of the school and its teams.

   Remember: Students rarely fix their own social, emotional, or behavioral problems, and they rarely “mature” out of these challenging patterns.

   While they need to be part of the solution, educators (and parents) need to take the lead.

   A school may not have a “winning record” right now relative to student behavior and classroom management.

   But—like the Detroit Lions—we can turn things around. . . if we just “listen” to Dan Campbell.

_ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog described a recent nationally-representative Education Week Research Center survey of educators across the country that found that student discipline and classroom management continues to get worse post-pandemic.

   We then asserted that students are not going to fix themselves (and that there are no quick fixes), and that everyone in an affected school—especially teachers and administrators—needs to be part of the problem analysis and strategic solutions.

   The remainder of the Blog used Dan Campbell, the Head Coach of the National Football League’s (NFL) Detroit Lions, and how he handled his recent press conference after his team lost a playoff game that they were overwhelming favorites to win.

   We used his reaction to the loss—even in the face of his team’s significant improvements under his leadership the past four years—to compare the characteristics of a successful football team specifically to what schools need to do to solve their current student behavior and classroom management problems.

   In short, we discussed school leadership and “player development,” the talent and training needed, the “playbook” toward effective school and classroom discipline, and the importance of school culture and commitment.

   We closed by encouraging schools to start now on this road to improvement. . . again emphasizing that there are no quick fixes. . . you’ve got to put in the work to earn the rewards.

_ _ _ _ _

A New Podcast and Professional Development Resource for You

   At the beginning of this month, we announced a new partnership and resource for you.

   The partnership is with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . . and the resource is their Podcast:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive 

   For each bimonthly Blog message that I publish, Davey and Angela will summarize and analyze the Blog in their free-wheeling and “no-holds-barred” Podcast. . . addressing its importance to “education today,” and discussing their recommendations on how to apply the information so that all students, staff, and schools benefit to “the next level of excellence.”

   You can find the Podcast at the following link:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify

   Davey and Angela have already created a Podcast Archive of more than 35 additional and separate podcasts reflecting involving all of our 2024 Blogs (Volume 2), and 14 of our most-popular Blogs from 2023 (Volume 1).

   The Podcasts are posted on Spotify, and you can “Follow” the Podcast Series so that you will be automatically notified whenever a new Podcast is posted.

   Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.

   If you would like to follow a Podcast up with a free one-hour consultation with me, just contact me and we will get it on our schedules.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

 

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

_ _ _ _ _

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: CLICK HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]

While You Can Write a Student’s Individualized Education Plan. . .

It (Legally) Needs to be Acceptable, Actionable, and Appropriate

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: 

CLICK HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]

_ _ _ _ _

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

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Happy New Year !!!

   While it is scary to be thinking about the next (2025-2026) school year when it is only New Years and the current academic year is only half over. . . know that your Superintendent, School Board, and other administrators are already framing out the Budget for next year.

   And with, on average, 14% of your students (at least, nationally) on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) as students with disabilities (SWD), and the federal and your state department of education still grossly underfunds special education and related services. . . know that your anticipated special education needs must be accurately reflected in next year’s budget.

   Today’s Blog provides some legal contexts and definitions—and some practical advice—so that you can begin the needs assessment process, prioritize your students’ 2025-2026 service-delivery needs, and secure your funds, resources, and services for next year.

   To this end, we will focus on the Three A’s. . . the need for IEPs to be Acceptable, Actionable, and Appropriate. . . using three federal special education court cases as support.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The First A: Annual IEP Reviews and Acceptability

   In the next few months, many schools will begin the “IEP Annual Review Marathon” where every student’s current IEP is reviewed and rewritten for the next school year.

   Critically, as this occurs, each IEP Team—which includes the parents/guardians of the SWD—must consider:

·       Each student’s educational strengths and limitations as related to areas of disability and non-disability, respectfully;

·       Age and grade level;

·       Current IEP goals and methodologies;

·       Student progress, evaluations, and outcomes; and

·       How all of the variables above will be integrated in the IEP goals, services, supports, and interventions for next year.

   Typically, this process is collaborative, collegial, and consensual.

   But there are times when the parents are unhappy (or worse), and they contest the acceptability of important facets of the proposed IEP.

   At its extreme, the parents might reject the IEP, take the district to a Due Process hearing, exhaust the available procedural and legal avenues for relief (e.g., dispute resolution or mediation), and bring the case to Federal Court.

Chris D. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1990)

   Many of you know that I am involved in many school law and special education court cases around the country as an Expert Witness (see www.projectachieve.info/services/expert-witness-services).

   Four of my very first cases were heard in Federal Court as I helped defend a number of African-American students with disabilities who were attending the Montgomery County Schools in Montgomery, AL.

   In one of these cases [Chris D. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 743 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990)], the issues directly related to a dispute on the acceptability of the IEP.

   The facts of the Case were as follows:

The case Chris D. v. Montgomery County Board of Education involved a 12-year-old boy named Chris D., who was emotionally disabled. Chris’ mother filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education, claiming that the school system failed to provide Chris with a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) as required by the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA).

 

The court found that the school board did not meet its obligations under the EHA and ordered that Chris be placed in a full-time residential school to address his needs. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that students with disabilities receive the appropriate support and education they need.

 

1988-89 School Year

The 1988-89 school year was very difficult for Chris. He was placed at Bear Elementary School in regular classes with special support for his behavior problems. Almost immediately, Chris began exhibiting behavioral problems which disrupted his classes and resulted in his frequent referral to the principal's office. He became involved in fights with other students, misbehaved in class and on the bus, used profanity, stole money from school personnel, and beat on the walls of the principal's office when called there for disciplining. The police were called in to intervene on at least one occasion.

 

In November, the school system returned Chris to the Davis Learning Center. At Davis, however, Chris continued to have severe emotional and social problems similar to those he had at Bear. He used vulgar language with teachers and other students, he refused to do his work, and he disrupted classroom activities. Finally, in December, Chris’ mother removed him from the school system because the principal at Davis had severely paddled Chris for misbehaving as two other staff held him down. As a result of the paddling, Chris became distrustful of the staff at Davis and exhibited a strong desire for revenge.

 

In January 1989, Chris’ mother met with school officials and requested that Chris be placed in a residential school where he could be supervised 24 hours a day and could receive continuous behavior training. School officials persuaded Chris’ mother to return him instead to Bear Elementary where he could attend a special education class for the full day. At Bear, Chris continued to manifest severe social and emotional behavioral problems, and the police were again called in to help handle him.

 
1989-90 School Year

The 1989-90 school year was even more difficult for Chris. His mother again requested residential placement, but the school system refused to make any changes in his placement at Bear. Chris’ mother immediately sought administrative review and, when that proved unsuccessful, filed this lawsuit.

 

During the fall of 1989 Chris continued to exhibit behavioral problems at Bear, including hitting other students, which resulted in the police department being called on one occasion. In November 1989, Chris was suspended from Bear. The problems continued after Chris returned from his suspension until finally, on February 6, 1990, he was suspended indefinitely as a result of a severe outburst of disruptive behavior.

 

After informal discussions with the court, the school board and Chris’ mother agreed to return him to the special education class at Bear, pending final resolution of this lawsuit. However, on March 28, less than two weeks after returning to school, Chris became aggressive and disruptive again. An officer from the local police department was again called and, after an unsuccessful attempt to talk to Chris, the officer handcuffed Chris and removed him from school grounds. Charges were subsequently brought against Chris in juvenile court.

 

Chris’ mother again requested that the school board be required to place Chris in a residential school. The school board offered instead to return him to the Davis Learning Center. The United States Magistrate who heard the motions agreed with Chris’ mother and recommending that, pending disposition of the Federal lawsuit, the school board should be required to place Chris in a residential school. This recommendation was based on findings that for Chris, "any interim placement must include a behavior modification component" which requires "the opportunity to interact with other students" and that neither individual instruction at home nor individual instruction in an administrative building away from other children could meet this requirement. The magistrate also concluded that Davis Learning Center was inappropriate for Chris. The school board objected to this supplemental recommendation, and the case was tried in Federal Court with Chris’ mother prevailing.

   The implications of the Case include the following:

·       From the formal beginning of the case (the 1988-89 school year), there were no indications that a functional behavioral assessment was done of Chris’ behavior, or that there was any consideration (or use) of a behavioral intervention or positive behavioral interventions and support—consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA. . . which is referred to as EHA above).

·       The use of corporal punishment was completely inappropriate (and emotionally harmful) to Chris as a SWD.

·       Across the continuum of less to more restrictive special education placements, a residential setting is less restrictive than a home-bound setting.

·       As a full member of an IEP Team, a parent or guardian has the right to not accept a new IEP, or to retract an earlier permission. 

If a new IEP is recommending a change in the student’s special education placement or service delivery setting, the current placement or the placement on the last fully accepted IEP must be maintained (this is the “stay-put” provision of IDEA).

_ _ _ _ _

Here and Now Recommendations

   When parents are full partners in the IEP process and the (special) education programming for their child, their acceptance of the new/next IEP during the annual review process is typically routine and uneventful.

   However, as above, when “surprises” arise at the annual review meeting, collaboration and trust can become strained. Such surprises include, for example:

·       IEP goals that have not been addressed or evaluated over the past year;

·       IEP interventions or related services that have not been (consistently) provided;

·       Significant negative changes in the student’s academic or behavioral progress from previous years;

·       The apparent lack of coordination and scaffolding between general education and special education teachers who share the teaching responsibilities for a student;

·       A recommendation of a more or less restrictive setting, by the staff on the Team, which has not been previously discussed with the parents; or

·       A decrease of services and supports—perhaps, because the student is moving from an elementary to a middle or a middle to a high school.

   At this point in the school year (i.e., January), if any of the above (or other) “surprises” are impending for a specific SWD, it is in everyone’s best interest for school staff and parents to discuss the status of a student’s special education services and progress right now. . . well before the annual IEP review meeting later this semester.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Second A: Writing and Delivering an Actionable IEP

   One of Jerry Seinfeld’s most memorable T.V. Show moments occurs when he arrives at a Car Rental place to pick up a mid-size car that he has previously reserved. . . only to find that they “have run out of midsize cars,” and only have compact cars left.

   The actual clip from the Show “tells the story” best.

 

   Applying this to today’s discussion:

   “You can write the IEP (and have it accepted), but you have to deliver the IEP.”

   That is, once the IEP is “signed and sealed,” the district and school need to provide—with integrity—the personnel, services, resources, time, expertise, interventions, evaluations, and feedback written into the IEP.

   Moreover, per the film clip above, IEP Teams should not be promising things in an IEP. . . with the hope that their district’s Special Education Supervisor will “bail them out” when the promises are due to be honored.

   The IEP is a contract. And the provisions in the contract need to be Actionable and enacted.

Cory M. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1990)

   The second of the four cases where, in 1990, I served as an Expert Witness against the Montgomery County Schools in Montgomery, AL. involved an African-American elementary school student receiving special education services as a student with an emotional disability [Chris D. and Cory M. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 743 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990; Civ. A. No. 89-T-1165-N)]. Note that this Case was merged with the Chris D. case above as the lawyers attempted to merge the cases into a class action suit.

   The facts of the Case were as follows:

The case Cory M. v. Montgomery County Board of Education involved a student named Cory M., who was emotionally disabled and claimed that the Montgomery County Board of Education failed to provide him with a "free appropriate public education" as required by the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). Cory's parents filed the lawsuit on his behalf.

 

Cory was a 13-year old boy in the fifth grade in the Montgomery County public school system. Since he entered the system as a first-grader in 1983, Cory achieved little academically and exhibited severely disruptive behavior. Nevertheless, he was not evaluated to determine if he was educationally handicapped until 1987, and only began receiving special education in 1989.

 

Cory's parents alleged that the school board violated a number of procedural and substantive requirements of the EHA. The essential dispute in this case revolves around whether Cory was receiving educational benefit from his current placement or whether significant changes in his educational program along with related services were necessary to provide him with a "free appropriate public education" as required by the EHA. Cory's previous schooling and performance were relevant to determining whether, under the EHA, school system officials were adequately serving his present (at the time the Case was filed) educational needs. Therefore, the court turned first to Cory's background as a student in the Montgomery County public schools.

 

Prior to the 1988-89 School Year

Cory experienced problems from the time he entered the first grade at Patterson Elementary School in Montgomery in September 1983. He failed all his major academic subjects and was required to repeat the first grade. Although Cory was promoted to a higher grade after each of the following three school years, he continued to receive failing marks in virtually all his academic courses. Moreover, Cory's conduct grew progressively worse during this period. By the third grade, his conduct marks had deteriorated from poor to failing.

 

School system officials, however, did not evaluate Cory to determine whether his difficulties in school might be attributable to an educational handicap until 1987, as he was completing the third grade. When a team of special education personnel did evaluate him in June of that year, they considered only whether he might be educably mentally retarded, despite the fact that his test results and school records suggested he suffered instead from an emotional disability. The committee determined that Cory was not retarded and concluded he was not entitled to special education.

Thus instead of receiving special education, Cory was promoted to the fourth grade and attended Davis Elementary School during the 1987-88 school year. Again, Cory received failing grades in most academic areas, exhibited poor conduct, and was held back to repeat the fourth grade the following year. School system officials did not reevaluate Cory that school year and did not provide him with any special education.

 

The 1988-89 School Year

Cory's disruptive behavior grew even more severe in the early weeks of his second year in the fourth grade at Davis Elementary School. During the first semester of the 1988-89 school year, Cory was repeatedly disciplined by his teachers and principal for verbal abuse, hitting other students, and refusing to follow directions, and was ultimately suspended several times for misconduct. Cory also continued to have academic problems, despite the fact that he was repeating a grade.

 

In October 1988, Cory's parents asked school system officials to reevaluate Cory to determine whether he had an educational handicap entitling him to special education. In November 1988, after an evaluation of Cory, a committee of special education personnel concluded that he was educably mentally retarded and recommended his placement in a class exclusively for educably mentally retarded students.

 

In February 1989, Cory's parents told school system officials that they objected to the IEP adopted for Cory as well as to the evaluation.  and placement of Cory as educably mentally retarded. School system officials agreed to reclassify Cory as both educably mentally retarded and emotionally conflicted, but made no changes in Cory's IEP.

 

In July 1989, an Independent Evaluation was completed that concluded that Cory was not mentally retarded, and recommended that Cory be placed in a self-contained classroom for emotionally conflicted children. At the urging of Cory's parents, school system officials re-classified Cory as only emotionally conflicted and agreed to place him in a class designated for emotionally conflicted or learning disabled students for the 1989-90 school year.

 
The 1989-90 School Year

Although it began on a positive note, the 1989-90 school year proved an extremely difficult one for Cory. In September 1989, Cory's teacher wrote a new IEP for him, which was adopted at a meeting among herself, Cory's mother, and a special education supervisor. Like Cory's previous IEP's, the new plan included only broad, generic objectives and vague methods for monitoring Cory's progress. Moreover, despite Cory's extensive record of behavioral difficulties, the new IEP, like those before it, contained no mention of any goals or techniques for teaching Cory to control his conduct. 

 

The absence of any program for addressing Cory's behavior resulted in him manifesting more severe social and emotional problems than ever before. Although school officials made various efforts to control him, including pulling him out of regular classes, locking him in the classroom, calling his parents in for conferences, and assigning him to sit in the office with a special "crisis" teacher, Cory's misbehavior escalated through the second six weeks of the school year. Physical restraints were employed and, early November 1989, school system officials instructed Cory's parents to keep him out of school until further notice.

 

Cory returned to class in January 1990. While his conduct and school work initially improved, it regressed again by Spring. In April 1990, apparently in light of Cory's growing misbehavior, school officials reassembled a "security desk" that physically confined Cory. Overall, Cory's behavior deteriorated in spite of the fact that Cory's teacher had, in February 1990, modified Cory's IEP on her own to include, for the first time, certain general behavioral goals and objectives.

_ _ _ _ _

 

The Court found that the Montgomery County Board of Education did not meet the educational requirements of the EHA and ordered the Board to create a new Individualized Educational Program (IEP) for Cory and provide appropriate counseling and training for his parents. The issue at-hand was not the quality of the IEP, but the fact that the Board of Education did not have the resources and, especially, the expertise to implement the interventions written into the IEP with integrity.

 

The Due Process Hearing

In December 1989, a due process hearing was conducted, as requested by Cory's parents, to examine whether the school board's treatment of Cory violated the EHA. At the hearing, Cory's parents argued that the board had improperly identified, evaluated, and placed Cory, contrary to the requirements of the EHA. They asked the hearing officer to order the board to pay an independent consultant selected by them to develop an appropriate IEP for Cory and to train and instruct teachers and staff in how to implement such an educational program.

 

Cory's parents also requested that the school board be required to provide them with counseling and other services to enable them to help manage Cory's behavior and contribute to his education. The board responded that it had satisfied the EHA because Cory was receiving "some educational benefit" from his current program. The board also argued that its teachers and staff were already adequately trained and that school system officials had made sufficient efforts to involve Cory's mother in his education.

 

The hearing officer determined that the school board was not providing Cory with a free appropriate public education as required by the EHA. He found that the school system's teachers and staff had failed to identify Cory's handicap in a timely manner or to develop and implement an appropriate, legally adequate educational program for Cory. He also suggested that these personnel lacked the ability to develop a program to address Cory's educational needs.

 

The hearing officer ordered school system officials and Cory's parents to arrange an independent evaluation to be used in formulating a new IEP. Subsequently, the school board agreed to pay Dr. Howard Knoff, the outside consultant retained by Cory's parents in this case, to develop an IEP for Cory.

 

However, the hearing officer did not order the school board to implement the recommendations of this expert in developing a new IEP for Cory, and did not address Cory's parents' requests for training of teachers and staff and counseling for themselves. Cory's parents have brought this action under the EHA challenging the hearing officer's decision.  See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(e)(2). As required by the EHA, the court has read the record of the administrative proceeding and conducted a trial at which each side has presented additional evidence.

   In the end, the Federal Court sided with the parents, and ordered that (a) the IEP that I wrote be accepted; and (b) I be hired by the District for 18 months to train, coach, and evaluate the personnel responsible for implementing the IEP with integrity.

   [Parenthetically, the District extended my contract for another 18 months without a court order, and I was asked to train a number of additional schools and staff in multi-tiered social, emotional, and behavioral interventions.]

_ _ _ _ _

   The implications of the Case include the following:

·       The school system did not assess Cory for special education eligibility in a timely way. In today’s terms, a district cannot use its early intervention RtI/MTSS process to delay the assessment of a student for special education eligibility if someone (including the parents) believes that the student is not succeeding due to a disability.

·       Beyond the fact that Cory was originally misclassified and misplaced as “educably mentally retarded” (this term has been modified to “intellectual or cognitive disability”) his initial IEPs did not have social-behavioral goals despite the ever-present “emotionally conflicted” disability classification.

·       Critically, if or once present, these goals should have focused on teaching Cory the emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills that he needed. . . rather than only specifying what would occur when he was emotionally out of control.

·       Even though, early on, the parents accepted Cory’s IEPs once written, the lack of Cory’s academic and behavioral progress in school—per his IEPs—demonstrated that they were not appropriate in that the district did not have the expertise to either identify appropriate interventions or to implement them.

·       IDEA permits parents to request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)—which Cory’s parents used to demonstrate that he was not educably mentally retarded.

·       However, IDEA does not have a provision whereby parents can request (and receive at the district’s expense) an Independent Educational Intervention Consultation, which could be employed when everyone agrees on a student’s disability classification, but when parents disagree on the services, supports, and interventions being recommended by the district for the IEP. 

Currently, the case law defers to districts as “the educational expert,” and IDEA states that districts must “consider” the recommendations of an outside expert—but are not bound by them.

_ _ _ _ _

Here and Now Recommendations

   Clearly, relative to the implications here, districts and schools need to evaluate—right now—the current status of all SWDs and whether the personnel, services, resources, time, expertise, interventions, evaluations, and feedback written in their respective IEPs are being delivered.

   Then, they need to project these students’ needs into the next 2025-2026 school year so that budget process that, as above, has already begun for next year, is appropriate.

   All of this is focused on ensuring that the IEPs that have been accepted by the parents of SWDs will be fully actionable.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 The Third A: IEPs Need to Result in Appropriate Progress

   FAPE—a “free and appropriate public education”—is one of the most-common reasons why parents of SWDs bring districts to due process or to court.

   Thus, at this mid-point in the school year, it is recommended that districts and schools analyze the IEP-driven progress monitoring data being collected for every SWD to gauge whether she or he is receiving an appropriate education.

   IDEA’s definition of “appropriate” is largely defined by the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (137 S. Ct. 988).

The Endrew F. Supreme Court Case (2017)

   The Endrew F. case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, involved a student with autism, Endrew F., who was educated in Colorado's Douglas County School District. Endrew F.’s parents sought reimbursement for private special education services, arguing that the public school program did not provide an appropriate education. The Supreme Court's decision rejected the "de minimis" standard that had previously been used to determine the adequacy of an IEP.

   Instead, the Court held that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. This decision established a higher standard for educational benefit under IDEA, with a greater expectation that IEPs be appropriately ambitious and challenging. 

   The facts of the Case were as follows:

Endrew, a child with autism, attended school in the Douglas County School District from kindergarten through fourth grade. By the fourth grade, Endrew's parents believed his academic and functional progress had stalled, leading them to remove him from public school and enroll him in a specialized private school where he made significant progress.

Endrew's parents sought reimbursement for the costs of the private school placement by filing for a due process administrative hearing. They argued that the new placement was necessary for Endrew to receive FAPE. The administrative hearing decision found against the parents, concluding that the public school had provided Endrew with FAPE. This decision was upheld by a federal district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that an IEP is adequate under the IDEA if it is calculated to confer an educational benefit that is "merely more than de minimis."

However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this standard, stating that an educational program providing a child "merely more than de minimis" progress from year to year can "hardly be said to have been offered an education at all." The Court held that the correct standard of FAPE is whether a school district has presented "an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."

 

This decision emphasized the importance of the unique needs and abilities of the particular student when assessing the adequacy of the individualized educational plan of that student. 

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to the implications of the Case:

·       The Endrew F. case has had a profound impact on special education law, requiring educators to understand the differences between minimal progress and meaningful educational benefit as they work to serve students under IDEA. 

·       The Case has also highlighted the need for more specialized IEPs that focus on facilitating students’ academic and functional skills and progress, driving educators to design IEPs with specific, measurable goals that are linked with appropriate interventions. 

·       Finally, the Case requires special education practices, whereby SWDs have access to instruction that meets their unique needs and promotes their mastery, motivation, and success. These practices must facilitate meaningful educational benefits through individually-tailored services, and appropriate progress monitoring.

_ _ _ _ _

Here and Now Recommendations

   Consistent with the implications above, districts and schools need to evaluate all of their SWDs right now to validate that they are making appropriate progress and receiving the educational benefits consistent with their specific disabilities, the severity of their respective disabilities, and the outcomes outlined in their IEPs.

   For students not making appropriate progress, there is still time this year to re-evaluate the services, supports, and interventions they are receiving so that mid-course corrections can be made.

   For students who are making appropriate progress, analyses can begin to determine what services, supports, and/or interventions are most responsible for their success so that these can be carried into the 2025-2026 school year through their next IEPs.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 Summary

   Even though the academic year is only half over, district leaders are already working on the budget, initiatives, and activities for the next, 2025-2026 school year.

   Moreover, as most districts, on average, (a) have 14% of their students on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) as students with disabilities (SWDs), and (b) do not receive sufficient special education federal or state funding, this Blog discusses how to organize the needs assessment process so that SWDs’ service-delivery needs are appropriately prioritized, staffed, resourced, and funded for next year.

   The needs assessment and budgeting should be organized around the annual rewriting of each student’s IEP, and “The Three A’s.”

   Specifically, each new IEP needs to be written such that it is (a) Acceptable—to the parents of each SWD; (b) Actionable—such that IEP services, supports, and interventions are actually delivered. . . with integrity; and (c) Appropriate—so that each SWD makes the progress that is consistent with their disability-related circumstances.

   Three specific, precedent-setting special education court cases are described to demonstrate the importance for each of the Three A’s. . . two of which personally involved me as an Expert Witness.

   In the end, separate Action Steps are recommended in the Three A’s. . . steps that districts and schools should seriously consider right now.

   With these steps and the needed budgeting, districts and schools will be (a) more prepared to maximize their services and supports in the coming school year; (b) SWDs will make greater academic and behavioral progress; (c) parents of SWDs will remain full and collaborative partners with their respective districts on behalf of their children; and (d) districts will more likely avoid the due process or court litigation that results when IEPs are unacceptable, unactionable, and inappropriate.

_ _ _ _ _

A New Podcast and Professional Development Resource for You

   While I hope that you had a great holiday season and break. . . schools have reopened and there is a lot of work to do.

   Over the break, we engaged in a new partnership and developed a new resource for you.

   The partnership is with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . .and the resource is their Podcast:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive 

   For each bimonthly Blog message that I publish, Davey and Angela will summarize and analyze the Blog in their free-wheeling and “no-holds-barred” Podcast. . . addressing its importance to “education today,” and discussing their recommendations on how to apply the information so that all students, staff, and schools benefit to “the next level of excellence.”

   You can find the Podcast at the following link:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify

   Davey and Angela have already created a Podcast Archive of more than 35 additional and separate podcasts reflecting involving all of our 2024 Blogs (Volume 2), and 14 of our most-popular Blogs from 2023 (Volume 1).

   The Podcasts are posted on Spotify, and you can “Follow” the Podcast Series so that you will be automatically notified whenever a new Podcast is posted.

   Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.

   Of course, if you would like to follow a Podcast up with a free one-hour consultation with me, just contact me and we will get it on our schedules.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

 

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

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: CLICK HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]