How Fad or Flawed School Programs Increase Poor Teacher Morale and Resistance to Change (Part V)

When Education Keeps Adopting the Same Shaky Stuff, It Will Keep Getting Repeated Rocky Results

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   A few weeks ago, I was interviewed by two entrepreneurs who had developed an online program that they were selling to schools to teach students social, cooperative, and leadership skills. The program was game-based. . . meaning that students worked together on a series of online games that required them to virtually communicate, cooperate, and make consensual decisions.

   Over time, I learned that (a) they seemed to be well-meaning and enthusiastic—if not idealistic—professionals who—it appeared—were trying to help students, staff, and schools in the areas above; (b) they had some educational background—but were really businessmen who also admittedly were interested in making money; and (c) they had a psychologist—albeit not a school or developmental psychologist—on their payroll to “ensure” the pedagogical “integrity” of their “instructional process.”

   The “success” that they currently touted on their website was based on the fact that (a) virtually all of the students looked forward to their “game time” each week; (b) the students stayed “engaged” on the platform after each game began; and (c) the students (and some teachers) reported that the students were “more cooperative” and exhibited “more leadership behavior” after playing the games.

   Ever the scientist-practitioner, I suggested to my colleagues that these outcomes did not objectively and scientifically prove that the program taught the participating students anything because—to cite just four examples:

·       They did no assessments of the students’ pre-existing social, cooperative, or leadership skills. . . and some students may have already had these skills—even if they never demonstrated them at school; 

·       Any behavioral improvements might have been a placebo and/or sponsorship or social desirability bias effect because the schools chose and purchased the program, the students and teachers knew the expected outcomes, and everyone was getting “special attention” from the game developers; 

·       The “outcomes” were only self-reported outcomes. . . that is, there were no objective behavioral observations of the students’ leadership behavior in their classrooms. . . during academic tasks that required the same skills as during the game simulations; and

·       The skills being “taught” by the game were hopelessly confounded as the games were simultaneously “teaching” such diverse skills as listening, following directions, addressing disagreements and conflicts, making joint decisions, and dealing with frustration and disappointment.

   These are not criticisms. They are, instead, scientific and methodological critiques.

   And yet. . . generalizing from my brief interactions with these entrepreneurs. . . it is my experience that:

·       Their approach to evaluating and “validating” their product is strikingly similar to how many educators (and other entrepreneurs) assess their instruction, programs, interventions, and purchased “innovations”; 

·       Many schools do not evaluate their curricula, programs, interventions, student information systems, etc. in methodologically, empirically, and functionally-sound ways before spending money and time, training and resources, and staff commitment and faith on less-than-sound approaches; and

·       These faulty patterns repeat as schools often move from one unsuccessful “solution” to the next one. . . without understanding that they need to change how they are selecting their solutions, rather than which solutions they have selected.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Putting a “Spotlight” on Fad or Flawed Approaches

Every time you do an intervention with a struggling student that doesn’t work,you potentially make the student more resistant to the next intervention.  

Every time you do a school-wide intervention with a struggling staff that doesn’t work, you potentially make the staff more resistant to the next school-wide intervention.

                                                                        Howie Knoff

   A recent (August 6, 2024) EdSurge article cogently analyzed the implications when educators fall prey to the “entrepreneurial glitter” that leads to the implementation of an educational fad in their schools.

   In past Blogs, we have extensively covered this phenomenon, exposing many past and still-present fads through objective data and sound, independent research.

   We have also “spotlighted” (metaphorically; see film clip below) the fact that some flawed approaches—like the “upper-case” PBIS, MTSS, SEL, and RtI frameworks. . . and the Restorative Justice, Trauma-Sensitive, and Mindfulness school programs—are promoted by the U.S. Department of Education (or its many tax-payer-funded National Technical Assistance Centers), private political organizations (like CASEL), or private entrepreneurial organizations (like the International Institute for Restorative Practices—IIRP).

   While these organizations make their approaches appear legitimate and sustainable, when they are analyzed in-depth, they are actually “Emperors without empirically-based clothes.” And many people know. . .

   The point here is that, as in the quote above, when these flawed frameworks or programs predictably fail or fade away, there are student and staff losses.

·       The First Loss is the loss of time, resources, and other investments on approaches that, once again—predictably, are not successful. . . and that take the place of other truly evidence-based approaches that have much higher probabilities of student success.

·       The Second Loss is the time and effort needed to “undo the damage” to the original problem or challenge. . . that is now more complex, confounded, or extreme than it was before the flawed framework or program was tried.

·       The Third Loss is to the students and staff who are now more resistance to change and/or the “next” approach because everyone trusted and invested their energy into the flawed framework or program. . . that did not (predictably) work. 

Critically, this Loss is the most insidious of all as it poisons students’ and staff’s willingness to try the “next” intervention. . . even when the next intervention may actually be the “right” intervention.

   So. . . there are losses here. Whether to the individual student in-need (and those working with her or him), or to the groups of students in-need (and an entire school community working with them). . . there are losses here.

_ _ _ _ _

   The EdSurge article asserts that education doesn’t seem to be learning from its past mistakes. Instead, education seems to move from fad to fad.

   EdSurge quoted James Stigler, a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles:

It's not that specific reform ideas are fads. It's that schools seem susceptible to fads because people don't understand what it means to take an idea seriously.

 

In reality, many ideas out there haven’t been properly tried out, because that would mean focusing largely on how they are put into practice in classrooms. There are probably a lot of ideas out there that are effective, but nobody knows what they are.

_ _ _ _ _

   The article then quoted Adrian Simpson, principal of St. Mary's College at Durham University in England and professor of mathematics education:

Evidence is the magic word. It’s also the source of part of the problem.

 

Those questing for evidence-based education approaches tend to rely on randomized controlled trials, a robust form of study widely used in medicine to establish causation. In education, that can mean field experiments that show a practice worked in a particular context or laboratory experiments in cognitive science.

 

But what [these] tell you is very powerful, but very narrow. These studies are taken to show that certain approaches work. But, they only really establish that the sum of all the differences in interventions caused learning for some participants. Which specific intervention worked, and whether it would work for other students, is hard to determine.

 

So it’s tricky to translate the lessons of these experiments into learning. Researchers also understand less about the mechanisms of how people think about, say, fractions than how kidneys function. So the evidence provided by experiments about specific practices in education is weaker than in other areas like medicine where it tends to be similar from person to person. You can’t establish laws of the classroom that will apply everywhere.

 

Ultimately, there’s no quick fix for the reform cycle. Teachers should bring together insights from a number of sources—from research about memory capacity to tips from the teacher next door—to inform how they unlock learning for their students. Rather than asking what they can do to make a student better with fractions, a teacher might ask: ‘What’s causing this child to handle fractions poorly?’ That could provide an insight that isn’t solely focused on teacher interventions which could, nonetheless, help the student learn.

_ _ _ _ _

   The necessary conclusion here is that educators need to be wary about inadvertently implementing flawed frameworks, programs, quick-fix solutions, and fads in their schools and classrooms.

   As advocated by Simpson above, educators—like medical doctors—need to utilize data-based problem-solving approaches that are anchored by evidence-based blueprints.

   These blueprints identify the components that contribute to the fullest understanding of a specific educational area.

   An analysis of these components are used to frame the root cause analysis needed to determine the underlying reasons for students’ challenges in these specific areas. And the results of this analysis are then linked to the services, supports, and interventions needed to address the existing challenges.

   It is during the Problem Identification stage that Simpson’s question above (“What’s causing this child to handle fractions poorly?”) is particularly important as it frames the root cause analyses that follow.

   When moving from problem analysis to intervention, Simpson’s advice above (“Teachers should bring together insights from a number of sources—from research about memory capacity to tips from the teacher next door—to inform how they unlock learning for their students”) is particularly prescient.

   Here, he is emphasizing the importance of a science-to-practice perspective when interventions are being developed. This occurs as experienced teachers utilize the evidence-based blueprint, relevant to the problem at-hand, to determine which research-based interventions have the highest probability of succeeding with an individual—and sometimes, unique—student.

   Significantly, we have discussed a number of these blueprints in this Blog Series:

July 13, 2024   Part I:

The Seven Sure Solutions for Continuous Student and School Success: “If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, Any Road Will Get You There”

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

July 27, 2024   Part II:

Are Schools Really Prepared to Address Educators’ Biggest Behavioral Student Concerns Right Now? “We’ve Got Serious Problems and We Need Serious People”

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

August 10, 2024   Part III:

Will Your School “Win the Gold” for Your Students This Year? Why the U.S. Women’s Gold Medal Olympic Gymnastics Team is a Model for All Schools (Part III)

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

August 24, 2024   Part IV:

Students' Health, Mental Health, and Well-Being Worsens Over the Past 10 Years: Summary of the August 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Report

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   We encourage you to (re)read one or more of these Blogs in the context of this Blog’s discussion.

   But we also want to make one more connection before completing this Blog Series.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Teacher Morale and Fad or Flawed Frameworks and Programs

   An August 12, 2024 Education Week article reported on a survey of 1,487 public school teachers and 131 private school teachers between January and March of this year.

   The article reported:

After an uptick in morale last year, teachers nationally are saying that their mental health has worsened and that they are less satisfied with their careers than they were a year ago.

 

Teacher job satisfaction appeared to reach an all-time low in 2022, with 12% of public school teachers saying they were very satisfied with their jobs as they grappled with the fallout from disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Though job satisfaction climbed last year, it slipped slightly this year to 18% of public school teachers saying they were very satisfied. This is still much lower than it was decades ago.

 

The results come as classrooms are facing increased scrutiny and politicization, students are grappling with mental health concerns and increasing behavioral challenges, and teachers’ pay remains low. Even as educators report more difficult work environments, though, they report having minimal or nonexistent programming to support their mental well-being.

 

Here are key takeaways from the report.

 

1. Teachers want better working conditions and higher pay

 

Past surveys have found that teachers are experiencing poor mental health. However, teachers often point to changes in working conditions—and compensation—as things that would improve their mental health, according to the report.

_ _ _ _ _

 

2. Teachers are increasingly concerned with student discipline

 

Student behavior since the pandemic has increasingly become a concern for educators. More public school teachers wanted to see more support for dealing with student discipline issues. Elementary (74%) and middle school (71%) teachers, and teachers in suburban districts, are more likely to say that more support for dealing with discipline would help improve their mental health.

 

In the survey, teachers wrote in open responses that they felt they weren’t able to discipline students. Even when misbehaving students are sent out of class, they come back with snacks and don’t change their behavior.

_ _ _ _ _

 

3. Administrator support has an impact on well-being

 

Only a small amount of educators said that mental health programming for teachers is extensive. A larger amount—22% of public school teachers, and 24% of private school teachers—said their schools don’t offer any type of mental health programming.

 

Staff were more likely to say their principals provided a lot of concrete support this year compared to last year, but still, more than a quarter of the respondents said the administration did not provide any support at all.

 

Survey results also suggested that positive support from building leadership was not the norm. 11% of public school teachers said their principals provided “a lot” of support of their mental health, whereas 1 in 3 teachers said their principals offered no support at all. Multiple teachers reported in open responses that their principals had negative impacts on their well-being.

_ _ _ _ _

 

4. Student and teacher mental well-being is connected

 

Student mental health has become a more pressing concern following the pandemic’s disruptions, with schools feeling less equipped to support students’ needs. Teachers who say their own mental health is negatively affecting their work are more likely to say that students’ mental health can also have a detrimental impact on learning.

 

There are some positives: Compared to last year, a smaller percentage of teachers reported that students’ mental health concerns are negatively affecting learning and behavior. But a larger share of teachers also reported that students’ mental health declined over the course of the school year, rather than improving.

 

A majority of teachers recommended at least one student receive intervention or counseling services last school year, and roughly half of teachers said their schools needed more counselors, psychologists, and social workers.

 

In an open-ended question, a majority of teachers—83%—said they should be expected to support students’ mental health and refer students to professionals when needed, but the most common response was that teachers should not replace mental health professionals.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly, after reviewing the entire Report and its 32-question survey, it was noted that:

·       Some of the survey questions had “forced-choice” answers where respondents were given:

(a) a specific metric (e.g., “Worse,” “The Same,” or “Better”; or “Negative,” “Positive,” or “Neutral”) to select for their answer; or

(b) lists of items to select from as tbeir “answers” (e.g., “Choose from the list below those additional steps that your district or school could take to better support student mental well-being”; or “What steps could your district or school take to support your mental well-being? Select all that apply”).

_ _ _ _ _

·       Other questions were open-ended or free-response questions that were then coded to fit the responses from the previous year’s survey so they could be compared. 

This “forced-coding” approach may have sacrificed some of the nuances in the 2024 data relative to new issues that have emerged only this past year.

_ _ _ _ _

   Notably: The survey did not directly ask its teachers to specify, for example, the different reasons why their job satisfaction was so low, or why students’ mental health was “worse when compared to the beginning of the 2023-24 school year.”

   And yet, when reading the Report, some district or school staff might incorrectly connect certain highlighted questions as “the reasons” underlying teachers’ current dissatisfaction or mental health issues. . . and then begin initiatives to “address the problem.”

   Hence, this Report might inadvertently create a search resulting in the implementation of fad or flawed programs. . . as discussed earlier in this Blog.

   For example, the Report provided data on “the percent of teachers saying that more/better support for student discipline-related issues is a step their districts/schools could take to improve their mental health.”

   And while this is an important question, it is likely that student discipline is not the only (or even, the predominant) reason or area to target relative to interventions to improve teacher satisfaction or mental health.

   And yet, if a school were to draw this conclusion, and needlessly re-vamp its school-wide discipline approach with a “fad or flawed” program or framework, this might result in more discipline problems, decreased teacher mental health and wellness, and increased teacher dissatisfaction.

_ _ _ _ _

   As another example, the Report referenced “Social-Emotional Learning” in a number of questions. In fact, “Social-Emotional Learning” was the Number Two-rated “service your district or school currently offers to support the mental well-being of your students.”

   And yet, the original survey never defined or described what it meant by “Social-Emotional Learning.”

   But. . . if a school jumped on this reference in this Report, and introduce a “fad or flawed” SEL program or framework, this might result in more student problems, decreased teacher mental health and wellness, and increased teacher dissatisfaction.

_ _ _ _ _

   The ultimate point here, my friends, is:

When districts and schools do not soundly and objectively analyze the root causes of their teacher morale and student behavior/mental health challenges. . . and they adopt fad or flawed programs or interventions. . . and these programs predictably do not work. . . the district and/or school may inadvertently contribute to both a worsening of the original problems and an increase in staff and student resistance to try any more “recommended” approaches.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

The only Real Success in Education is when you can Explain Your Progress, and Extend and Sustain it. One or two years of progress is accomplishment, not success.

 

The only Real Failure in Education is when you cannot explain why you have not Progressed. . . so that you can Change it.

 

                                                                        Howie Knoff

   This is the fifth and last entry in my “Late Summer Blog Series” that highlighted some of the quotes in my June “spotlight” session at The Model Schools Conference in Orlando.

   I have used these quotes to address some current issues and events in education. . . with a focus on helping schools and educational settings to really think about what they want to do—on behalf of their students—during this new school year.

   While there is a lot to unpack in this Blog. . . we discussed the following:

·       Districts and schools need to objectively evaluate the services, supports, interventions, and programs—using sound and accepted methodological, research, and evaluation principles and practices—that they are investigating for student, staff, and school implementation. . . before adopting, purchasing, and beginning the training and implementation process.

Many districts and schools still do not complete (or effectively complete) this necessary due diligence process. . . resulting in too many adopted fads, unproven practices, or flawed frameworks.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Districts and schools need to closely read the original research and reports that are cited or described in the popular (education) press.

Some of these articles are written by authors who have not done, as immediately above, their methodological “due diligence”. . . some are written—given their limited editorial space—in shortened form as the authors assume that the reader will do their own “due diligence”. . . and some are written to highlight only certain elements of the original study (or those elements that the author favors) to make a specific (sometimes biased) point.

Regardless, if districts or schools draw the wrong conclusions or take improper actions based on a popular press article, they are nonetheless responsible.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Finally, and most importantly: districts and schools, obviously, do need to attend to both student and staff health, mental health, and wellness needs. But they need to, first, fully understand the root causes of these needs so that they can address them with the most evidence-based and proven, and highest-probability-of-success approaches.

_ _ _ _ _

   As in the first quote that prefaced this Blog, educators need to avoid implementing poorly-selected approaches that do not succeed, and that both exacerbate the original problems or challenges, and create student and staff resistance to the next approach. . . (which may actually be the “correct” approach).

   As in the quote prefacing this Summary Section, it is important to note that, methodologically, a sustained school-wide approach or initiative cannot be deemed “successful” until it has shown at least three years of objective, data-based progress or accomplishment. . . and until the data causally connect the approach or initiative to the progress or accomplishment.

   Relatedly, there are times when well-selected approaches still do not work.

   While these are certainly “set-backs,” they should not be considered “failures.”

   As above, the only real failure is when educators cannot explain why the set-back occurred.

   Often, once the set-back is understood, staff can make needed “mid-course” corrections—even using the original approach—that produce long-term, sustained success.

_ _ _ _ _

   Now that virtually everyone across the country has begun their school year, we hope that this Blog and the entire Blog Series has been helpful and relevant. We encourage district and school leaders to use one or more of the Blogs in this Series as advanced reading for a staff or committee discussion.

   If you would like me to join that discussion, please drop me an e-mail (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info) so we can set up a free Zoom call to look at your needs and how to close your gaps or attain the outcomes that you want for students and staff.

   Together, I know that we can make this the school year that you want and that every student needs.

Best,

Howie

 

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

The Over-Simplification of Education: When Evidence-based Practices are Diluted, They No Longer are Evidence-Based

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Earlier this week, I was reading an Education Week interview with Sharon Hoover, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Discussing the reasons for so many students’ current mental health challenges, Hoover emphasized that the fixation on social media as the primary root cause is counterproductive.

   Indeed, any educator doing an effective root cause analysis knows that (a) there are many reasons why some students present with the same social-emotional “problem,” and that (b) multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions need to be linked to person-specific analyses completed on individual students.

   Given this, Hoover identified (with some expansion by me) a “high-hit” list of possible reasons for students’ current social, emotional, and behavioral issues in their schools:

·       Online and in-person teasing, bullying, and harassment

·       Schoolwork and homework pressures, and being “academically behind”

·       Grades and graduation—including college/job selection, costs, and attendance

·       School safety and the threat of (gun-related and other) physical violence and injury

·       Gender identity conflicts (self and others), peer/social status, relationships and dating

·       Sleep, diet/nutrition, physical health, exercise

·       Living in poverty, along with housing and food insecurity

·       (Pandemic-related) grief and loss

·       Local/national/world events, and political divisiveness

·       Cultural, minority background, religious, disability, and/or sexual orientation stresses

·       Climate-related and other natural disasters

   Clearly, once confirmed, each of these underlying reasons may require significantly different services, supports, or interventions. Thus, the importance of completing the root cause analysis before prescribing interventions is not just essential. . . it is the ethically- and functionally-necessary thing to do.

   Indeed, the wrong student intervention both delays the correct intervention, and it potentially exacerbates the original problem, making it more resistant to change.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Pressure to Over-Simplify Educational Procedures

   While students’ mental health concerns are a major concern in today’s schools, and—per Hoover’s point above that we cannot explain this concern by “fixating” only on social media as the primary cause. . .

   . . . my essential focus in this Blog is the over-simplification of education, and the fact that—when we over-simplify—we end up implementing inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid procedures, practices, and interventions.

   Once again, relative to students, this serves to delay the correct approaches; it may change, add to, or exacerbate the original problem; and it may make students (and/or staff) more resistant to the “next” (even when correct) academic or social, emotional, or behavioral approaches needed.

   Said a different way:

   Implementing intervention is not a benign act, it is a strategic act.

   The goal is not to “implement interventions.” The goal is to implement the right interventions—the first time—that facilitate positive and sustained changes in the area(s) of student concern.

_ _ _ _ _

Back Story I: Designing Effective Multi-Tiered Services

   When consulting across the country, I am often asked to help districts and schools redesign or upgrade their multi-tiered systems of supports—the continuum of academic or social, emotional, and behavioral instruction, services, supports, and interventions that facilitate learning and mastery for all students across (typically) three-tiers of approaches that increase in specificity and intensity.

   Parenthetically, every district in the United States—per the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—is required by law to have a defensible and student-centered multi-tiered process.

   But ESEA’s definition of a “multi-tiered system of supports” is broad, letting each district decide how to address its own students relative to their academic and behavioral needs. Moreover—reinforcing this “local needs and response” orientation—the law’s benchmark term appears in lower-case with no capitalization or “MTSS” acronym.

   Thus, the primary federal education law that guides school instruction (ESEA) does not require the MTSS (capitalized) framework recommended either by the U.S. Department of Education (or its Office of Special Education Programs), or any State Department of Education—unless, the latter has legally codified a specific MTSS process.

   Given this—after a needs and status assessment, a resource and assets analysis, and a success and gap evaluation—my multi-tiered consultations at the district or school levels often focus on developing a user-friendly multi-tiered procedural Flowchart to guide the “journey” along the instruction to intervention continuum.

   This Flowchart begins in a school’s general education classrooms with (a) effective, differentiated (academic and social-emotional learning) instruction and classroom management, (b) progress monitoring and mastery assessments for all students, and (c) classroom-based modifications and strategies for students who are struggling to succeed.

   The Flowchart then proceeds through a data-driven, problem-solving decision-tree process to identify the root causes of the academic or behavioral challenges that still exist for some students. . . followed by strategic (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) consultation, services, supports, or interventions as needed.

   Significantly, the eligibility and service processes required by Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and special education (through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—IDEA), respectively, are also woven into the Flowchart.

   The result of entire consultation process is both (a) a multi-tiered system of supports Flowchart uniquely tailored to the district or school(s) I am working with; and (b) a Guidebook that fully describes the Flowchart, and provides staff with the necessary forms and resources.

_ _ _ _ _

   If your District or School is interested in our sample Multi-Tiered System of Supports Guidebook, complete with our recommended Flowchart and implementation forms, go to:

[CLICK HERE]

   If your District or School is interested in our nine-session on-line/on-demand Course (which includes the Guidebook above)—

Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports: Academic and Social-Emotional Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention, go to:

[CLICK HERE]

for the Course Syllabus, a free research-to-practice Report, and a free 35-minute Introductory Video.

_ _ _ _ _

Back Story II: Undermining the Design of Effective Multi-Tiered Services

   Periodically, after the initial consultations that result in a district or school’s personalized Multi-Tiered Flowchart and Guidebook, Administrators get fearful.

   The origin of the Fear is often their concern (a) that the Flowchart and/or Guidebook appears too “lengthy, complex, or time-consuming,” and (b) that large numbers of staff members (or a small number of critical staff members) will not “buy-into” and, hence, actively or passively resist or reject the process.

   The result of the Fear is then a request to simplify, cut-down, or “streamline” the process into a “shell” of what it was.

   [Indeed, I have recently been asked to compress a district’s entire multi-tiered services Flowchart into a “One-Pager.”]

   The result of the Cut-Down, as alluded to earlier, is a diluted synopsis that often becomes the “living” public or operational document to the point that no one remembers, attends to, or uses the complete Flowchart.

   Once this occurs, experience has shown, the school’s multi-tiered process deteriorates into an inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid set of procedures resulting in ineffective student services, supports, and interventions. . .

   . . . when these approaches are desperately required by the most-needy students in the school.

   Said a Different Way: Rather than focus on effective implementation science, staff communication and collaboration, administrative leadership and supervised accountability, and student commitment and advocacy. . .

   . . . some Education Leaders, instead, “cater to the maddening crowd” by over-simplifying crucial educational procedures that then undermine and negate their efficacy.

   Hence, this Blog’s title.

   When we over-simplify education, we invalidate evidence-based practices.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

“Never Would I” Analogies

   The request to simplify a district’s multi-tiered system of supports—figuratively—into a one-page flowchart is like:

·       Asking a Medical Professor to simplify a complex operation into a single page of crib-notes

·       Asking the Conductor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra to reduce a four-movement symphony into a single sheet of music

·       Asking a Computer Programmer to shorten the code, sending a rocket into space, to a few lines

·       Asking a Car Mechanic to streamline the directions for repairing a transmission to a single flashcard

    Clearly, no one would make these requests. . . or make these requests and expect a “job well done.”

   But, let’s get “closer to home.”

_ _ _ _ _

   From a district or school perspective, no one would:

·       Ask a Superintendent to simplify the strategic planning process needed to establish the District’s next Five-Year Strategic Plan

·       Ask the Chief Financial Officer to reduce the District’s Chart of Accounts and multi-million dollar budget projections for the next year to a single page print-out

·       Ask a district’s K-12 Math Curriculum Selection Committee to evaluate its top-three curricula by choosing the one that looks easiest to implement

·       Ask a Building Principal to condense Danielson’s Teacher Evaluation System to five items when evaluating teachers for tenure

·       Ask a School Psychologist to shorten a comprehensive special education assessment report to a one-page abstract

·       Ask a Teacher to streamline the instruction of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” to twenty minutes

·       Ask an out-of-district Consultant to summarize the professional development and coaching on the science of reading to one hour

_ _ _ _ _

   I think the point has been made.

   Whether it is an in-house district or school process, or an out-sourced consultation or professional development, detail and integrity matter.

   Educational leaders who expect their staff to embrace the comprehensiveness of their selected initiatives, need to similarly embrace the comprehensiveness of their colleagues’ contributions. . . especially when that comprehensiveness is required to attain desired student outcomes.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Education Week recently published an article about the ten educational “buzzwords” that many educators hate and would like “retired.”

   One of the words is “fidelity.”

   While it would be important to understand the thoughts, emotions, or reactions triggered by this word, this is a tragic reflection on the state of education in our country.

   If we, as educators, are not dedicated to making objective, data-informed decisions—at the district, school, staff, and student levels, and implementing instruction and multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions with fidelity, then are we really fully dedicated to our students, their best interests, and their best educational outcomes?

   This Blog, then, is about doing even hard and complex things the right way.

   In summary: While students’ mental health concerns are a major concern in today’s schools, this Blog’s essential focus is the over-simplification of education, and the fact that—when we over-simplify—we end up implementing inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid, procedures, practices, and interventions.

   Once again, relative to students, this serves to delay the correct approaches. It may change, add to, or exacerbate the original problem. And, it may make students (and/or staff) more resistant to the academic or social, emotional, or behavioral changes needed.

   While most educators work each day “with full plates,” we cannot substitute quality for expediency.

   If we do, we will never solve the (student) challenges that are one of the reasons why our plates are so full.

_ _ _ _ _

   As always, I appreciate everyone who reads this bi-monthly Blog and thinks about the issues or recommendations that we share.

   While there is one more Blog yet to come this year, I wish all of you a “Happy Holiday” season on both a personal and professional level.

   When we return in January, we have five to six more months to positively impact our students, staff and colleagues, schools, and other educational settings.

   If I can help you map out your next few months—for example, in the areas of (a) school improvement, (b) social-emotional learning/positive behavioral discipline and classroom management systems, and (c) multi-tiered (special education) services and supports—feel free to contact me to begin this process now.

Best,

Howie

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

What Boston’s Battle for Integration, Anne Frank, and the Little Rock Nine Can Teach a Divided Country

A Personal Reflection on Why Black Lives, History, and Education Matter

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   My Facebook feed reminded me today that, last year at this time, I was attending my 50th High School reunion.

   While I do not feel one year wiser, I have been reflecting this summer on the Supreme Court’s June 29th decision (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University) to strike down affirmative action-based college admission decisions. Declaring that race cannot be a factor in these decisions, the Court has now forced colleges and universities nationwide to find different ways to select a diverse, multi-racial and multi-cultural matriculating class each year.

   Critically, if you remember or research the Supreme Court’s 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision—ruling that universities’ affirmative action admission decisions were constitutional, but their racial quotas were not—you will recognize that (a) this new Harvard University case has completed what Bakke started; and (b) universities did successfully find new ways to adapt to the decision and recruit diverse entering classes.

   And while the institutions that want a diverse study body—in 2024 and beyond—will again adapt and succeed, the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University decision is yet another historical example of the centuries-long implicit and explicit bias, prejudice, and legal oppression experienced by Black students and the Black community.

   Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina, wrote in her dissent, (This decision) “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

   But today, I want to pass on an analysis of how the recent Supreme Court decision occurred, and reflect on a more personal journey of Black unawareness to a greater (but, still incomplete) beginning level of awareness.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are What We Live

   “I did not get it. And, I’m sorry.”

_ _ _ _ _

   We all necessarily live in an attention deficit world and state of awareness.

   And our attitudes, beliefs, and expectations are all influenced by our lived and “unlived” experiences, and positive and negative biases.

   There are two kinds of unlived experiences. First are those that are experienced by others, but not by us. If one person lives their entire life in New York City, and another in Unalakleet, Alaska, they each live common, yet unique, experiences that the other never has or would understand.

   The second unlived experiences are those that are present in our lives, but that we consciously or subconsciously miss or choose to ignore.

   In today's world with hundreds of satellite TV channels, millions of pages of internet sites, and a constant barrage of news, information, entertainment, and other bytes, we all control our unlived experiences by being “attention deficit.”

   That is, in order to be productive, maintain our sanity, and sustain our ability to “live in the moment,” we have to choose what we attend to—leaving parts of our lives “unlived.”

   But all of us have another dimension of unlived experiences.

   Those are the experiences that are unique to when we “grew up”—the broad historical, social, economic, technological, and other contexts present during our childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, and so on.

   These are the contexts that continually influence us, our communities, our educational system. . . all the way up to who is on our Supreme Court, how individual and coalitions of Judges rule, and what decisions they collectively make.

   And these are the contexts that we must allow today’s preschool through high school students to experience.

   For when these contexts, experiences, and opportunities—for example, through curriculum, instruction, books, and discussion—are controlled, restricted, or denied, these students have lost their potential to be fully educated and prepared to succeed in their worlds.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I am What I’ve Lived

   “I did not get it. And, I’m sorry.”

_ _ _ _ _

   I was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and grew up in the suburbs about 20 miles due west of the city. Our school district was integrated, multi-racial, and multi-cultural, but White students and teachers were clearly in the majority.

   While I was in High School—fifty years ago—the Viet Nam War was escalating, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, Woodstock and the Antiwar Movement collided, the Civil Rights Movement and racial unrest continued, and the Women’s Rights Movement began.

   At the time, I had a number of Black friends, but I knew nothing of Black history—beyond what was superficially taught in American History. Martin Luther King’s assassination was briefly discussed in class, but not in the broader context of 400 years of African-American denial of rights and oppression, slavery and Dred Scott, lynchings and Jim Crow, segregation and red-lining, and Brown v. The Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a decade later.

   In fact, in my ignorance, I remember wondering why there was a need for the emerging courses in African-American history—even though I never questioned why there were history courses in Ancient and Medieval History, Comparative Religion, and the Depression and World War II.

   And not to excuse my ignorance. . . but when I graduated from High School in 1972, many of us understood the world around us—as discussed above—through our lived and unlived experiences, what we were taught in public school during the week and religious school on the weekend, and what we read on our own. At that time, there were four television stations, a morning and evening newspaper, and a large public library which we used to complete research that was assigned at school.

   Clearly: When I “grew up,” we received a White, Eurocentric education. Culturally understanding my Black friends and their history—from a Black perspective—was not on the “agenda.”

   Even when I went to college, I did not learn about Black history or interact often with my Black peers. While the opportunities were there at my small liberal arts college, we were largely allowed to choose our own courses. . . and Black history was not typically embedded in the science and psychology courses that I took.

   In fact, during my junior year abroad in England, I learned more about British, French, and Italian history and art. . . and the Holocaust. . . than I learned about Black history when I hitchhiked extensively around Europe.

   And so. . . relative to my awareness and understanding of Black history, and its depth, breadth, and importance—even as I graduated from college. . . 

   “I did not get it. And, I’m sorry.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Boston’s Battle for Integration

   Ironically, I went to high school and college during an immensely important time for Black students in my birth-town of Boston.

   According to the Encyclopedia of Boston from the Boston Research Center:

In 1965, the Massachusetts General Court passed the Racial Imbalance Act, outlawing segregation in public schools and defining segregated schools as those with a student body comprised of more than fifty percent of a particular racial group. Though 44 of Boston’s schools fell into this category, Boston School Committee members refused to develop or implement plans to integrate the city’s schools.

 

In response, African-American parents began to organize. They organized protests and boycotts, established “freedom schools” with more inclusive, often Afro-centric curricula, and lobbied for access to better-equipped and better-staffed schools in the suburbs. They established the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) in 1966, which enabled African-American students to travel to surrounding suburban schools. African-American parents also partnered with the NAACP to compel the Boston School Committee to integrate the city’s schools, filing a lawsuit, Morgan v. Hennigan, against the committee in 1972 for its ongoing refusal to comply with the state’s Racial Imbalance Act.

 

On June 21, 1974, Judge Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr. found the Committee’s efforts to preserve segregation unconstitutional. To address longstanding segregation, Garrity required the system to desegregate its schools, busing white students to black schools and black students to white schools across the city. Garrity’s decision and his subsequent oversight of the busing plan provoked outrage among many Bostonians. Garrity and his family were subjected to frequent death threats and placed under round-the-clock protection for several years as a result.

 

Critics of the decision also protested that busing would accomplish little other than interracial violence. They argued that moving students from one failing school to another didn’t address the system’s larger failures, pointing to Garrity’s decision to bus students between the poorly performing high schools in South Boston and Roxbury. Though Bostonians often criticized busing on logistical or socioeconomic grounds, their complaints were often motivated by thinly-veiled racism.

 

Protests erupted across the city over the summer of 1974, taking place around City Hall and in the areas of the city most affected by busing. One prominent leader of these anti-busing protests was Louise Day Hicks, chairwoman of the Boston School Committee, former member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and leader of an anti-busing group called Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR). Comprised mainly of women, ROAR staged protests, sit-ins, and prayer sessions, as well as violent protests, arguing that Garrity and the state had usurped the custodial rights of parents. ROAR also worked to intimidate black students, hurling racial epithets at schoolchildren and burning a wooden school bus in effigy. In 1974, ROAR organized a march of thousands on the Massachusetts State House in protest of desegregation.

 

On September 12, 1974, the first day of school, many students stayed home, some in protest, some for safety. Only 13 students from South Boston High School appeared in Roxbury, and only 100 out of the 1300 students from Roxbury assigned to South Boston High School showed up. When black students arrived in South Boston on buses escorted by motorcycle-mounted police officers, protestors met the buses with eggs, bottles, and bricks. The Massachusetts State Police and the Massachusetts National Guard had to be called in to control the area. Throughout the year, violence flared on and beyond school grounds. Bused children were jeered, menaced, and periodically attacked; many students suffered from stress, fear, and illness as a result. All told, 18,000 students were bused into other neighborhoods in the 1974-75 school year. More than 30,000 Boston Public Schools students left to attend private and parochial schools.

   I watched these events from my college perch in Maine and. . .

   “I still did not get it. And, I’m sorry.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Starting to Get It

   I went to Graduate School in 1976 in Syracuse, New York.

   While there, I started to get it.

   But there was no turning point. . . no climactic moment. . . no thunder-and-lightning epiphany.

   It simply started with my practicum work in the inner city schools of Syracuse, and a continuing, horrified recognition of the disparities between rich and poor, Black and White, well-resourced schools and those “on the other side of the city” that were dilapidated and forgotten.

   While my sense of social justice had always been nurtured by my religious and Jewish youth group upbringing, by the Holocaust and my visits to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps while in college, and by the antisemitism that I periodically experienced. . . this sense now included an urgency to understand the discrepancies that I saw in Syracuse (and soon, in schools across the country).

   And so, in order to be an effective psychologist, educator, professional, and person, I have tried to be a student of Black history and experience from my graduate school days on.

   And part of this includes my advocacy that every student in this country learn about the full depth of Black history as part of their understanding of American history.

   And if some students are uncomfortable confronting the facts of Black history. . . then that is a good thing.

   It is the same good thing that explains why at least 20 states in our country require Holocaust education in their schools.

   It is the same good thing that encouraged 60 House of Representative bipartisan co-sponsors and the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism to introduce the Holocaust Education and Antisemitism Lessons (HEAL) Act on January 27, 2023.

   This Bill, still going through the early stages of the legislative process, will determine which states and school district require and/or offer Holocaust education, identify the standards and requirements framing this education, and analyze the approaches used by schools to assess what students are learning.

   The Press Release announcing the filing of this Bill stated:

There is mounting evidence that knowledge about the Holocaust is beginning to fade. A 2020 survey measuring Holocaust awareness in the U.S. found that roughly two-thirds of those asked did not know how many Jewish people died. The survey of Americans between 18 and 40 also found that 48% could not name one concentration camp or ghetto.

   Personally, I don’t know anything more emotional than watching scenes from the Holocaust, or anything more troubling than knowing that our President and Congress at the time restricted Jewish immigration and did not immediately respond to documented reports of the death camps.

   Anne Frank was 15 years old when she died in February 1945 in the Bergen-Belson concentration camp in northern Germany. She would have been a high school junior.

   Shouldn’t every high school junior in our country today be taught about her, and how and why she died? Should they not view and discuss video clips like the one below?

   Will they potentially be upset and impacted emotionally? (Yes)

   But is this not the right thing to do?

 

_ _ _ _ _ 

   And, similarly, should not high school juniors not be taught about the full depth of Black history? And should they not view and discuss video clips like the one below?

   Will they potentially be upset and impacted emotionally? (Yes)

   But, once again, is this not the right thing to do?

 

 

   How can 60 Congressional Representatives agree to co-sponsor a Bill on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and not support legislation that allows teachers across the country to teach the full breadth and depth of Black History without restriction?

   “I’m still trying to get it. And, I’m sorry.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Final Piece in Little Rock, Arkansas

   For 18 years—up until the beginning of this year—I lived in Little Rock, Arkansas. When driving to my Arkansas Department of Education office for 13 years there, or to the airport on a consulting trip for all 18 years, I always passed the exit to Central High School. In fact, on a number of occasions, I attended meetings at Central, a National Historic Site since 1998.

   On September 4, 1957, the first day of school at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas and three years after Brown v. the Board of Education, nine Black students—Minnijean Brown, Terrance Roberts, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Patillo, Gloria Ray, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls—attempted to enter the previously all-White school.

   This was fully 17 years before the buses of Black students arrived at South Boston High School to begin their (desegregated) school year.

   Now known as the Little Rock Nine, they were met on the stairs leading up to Central High School’s ornate, yet intimidating, front doors by an angry White crowd, and members of the Arkansas National Guard who were deployed by Governor Orval Faubus to prevent them from going into the school.

   Responding to Faubus’ action, Thurgood Marshall—part of a team of NAACP lawyers—won a federal district court injunction to prevent the Governor’s attempt to block the students’ entry. And so, on September 23, 1957, protected by police escorts, the Little Rock Nine entered Central High School through a side entrance and began their classes. Significantly, they were protected by federal troops and the Arkansas National Guard for the remainder of the school year.

   Late last month, on the 66th anniversary of their desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High School, the same Little Rock Nine gathered at a press conference in Little Rock. Criticizing legislation sponsored by new Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and passed by the Arkansas Legislature in its Spring 2023 session, they decried their State’s—and all States’—legislation restricting what can be taught in public school classrooms.

   Indeed, one of Governor Huckabee Sanders’ first official acts after being sworn in on January was to sign an Executive Order prohibiting indoctrination and critical race theory in the State’s schools (even though there was no evidence that these were present). The new March, 2023 law prohibits the teaching of “divisive concepts” about racism and critical race theory, as well as classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation before the fifth grade.

   Among those who referenced this legislation at the 66th Little Rock Nine anniversary celebration were:

   Robin White, the Superintendent of the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Society:

Each generation calls for agents of change. And in their moment of courage and change, 66 years ago, the Little Rock Nine, ages ranged from 14 to 17, (became those agents). So yesterday, today, and tomorrow, they are our symbol of hope. They—without pause—paved the way for us, and we are the benefactors of their sacrifices.

_ _ _ _ _

   Jermall Wright, the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District:

(It is) hard to imagine that nine brave young people who were just teenagers, just like you, could cause such a seismic shift in education that would impact generations worldwide.

 

Their cause was simple: equitable access to receive a quality education. Sixty-six years later, our charge and our cause remains the same.

_ _ _ _ _

   Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott Jr., who highlighted the sacrifices made by the Little Rock Nine and their families, and then discussed how Black history in education was under attack:

But yet there's still Elizabeth Eckford, who stood at 15, but yet some weeks ago, she stood at the age of 81 to ensure that the Little Rock School District made certain that their history, American history, was still taught to each of you.

 

And that is the type of fight, that is the type of solidarity, that is the type of work ethic that we need to continue to have in the Little Rock School District and the state of Arkansas: not allowing others to revise our history.

_ _ _ _ _

   Melba Pattillo Beals, one of the Little Rock Nine, who told the high school  students in attendance that there were three things the Little Rock Nine wanted when they integrated their school: Voice, Choice and Inclusion.

   She assured the students:

I've got faith in you, baby. You're going to make it, OK? You deserve to be whoever you think you are.

   Beals compared lawmakers' bans on critical race theory with the opposition to integrating Central High School.

You did it once in 1957, and look what you got. We are nine monsters just roaming forth. Have you ever in your life seen such big-mouthed people? So do it again and see what you get out of it, OK?

_ _ _ _ _

   And, finally, Minnijean Brown-Trickey, another of the Little Rock Nine, who expressed her concern that the history of the desegregation crisis isn't more extensively taught in the United States. She noted that, when she visits other parts of the world, the people there know more about this history than most young people in the United States.

   She noted:

It takes a half-page in your history books, if that, but it's really a complex, amazing story about all components of government, about courts, about persistence of the human spirit.

(I) believe the country grapples with a disease called 'profound intentional ignorance.' When we talk about things like that, it is an intent to have an ill-informed population so that demagogues can do whatever they want.

   She said the desegregation crisis hurts both Black and White students, and she encouraged the audience to imagine what a story like theirs did to the city, and to the country. Later, Brown-Trickey said that people need to look beyond Arkansas—that the national effort to restrict curricula is having a chilling effect on education, learning and thinking.

   She warned:

(Young people) are going to get sick of this stuff. They're going to get sick of being told they don't deserve to know. They're going to get tired of being told they're too young to know. They're going to be tired to have somebody decide whether they should feel guilty or not. And they're going to rise up, and I'm waiting for that. I'm helping them in every possible way I can.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog has asserted that our attitudes, beliefs, and expectations are all influenced by our lived and unlived experiences. . . which often establish and anchor our positive and negative biases.

   While our lived experiences unfold in both planned and unplanned ways across our lifetimes, we discussed two kinds of unlived experiences: (a) those that are experienced by others, but not by us; and (b) those that are present in our lives, but that we consciously or subconsciously miss or choose to ignore.

   But we also noted that many of our experiences (and positive and negative biases) are contextualized by when (i.e., in which decades) we “grew up.” This is because every decade brings different historical, social, economic, technological, and other events to our lives when we were children, adolescents, in early adulthood, and so on.

   Sharing an autobiographical journey, this Blog described how my awareness and understanding of Black history and “being Black in America” has evolved over the years—based not just on who I am and where I’ve lived, but also based on the history I have seen and the people with whom I have interacted.

   Part of this journey (and discussion) juxtaposes the Holocaust with Black history and the Civil Rights Movement (right up to today—2023).

   In the end, this Blog advocates for today’s preschool through high school students—each and every one of them across our country.

   Learning the depth and breadth of Black history should not be an unlived experience for these students as they attend school.

   No one—especially for political purposes—should take away these students’ rights to this information, knowledge, discussion, and understanding.

   Living is made up of thousands of emotional events. And History necessarily involves events that evoke our emotions.

   Students need to experience these events and their emotions as part of their lived experiences, and because we are mandated to educate them in the broadest ways possible.

   This must be our present. . . because these students are our future.

 

_ _ _ _ _

   How have your lived and unlived experiences, and the events during the decades of your life, influenced your journey and current beliefs regarding these issues?

   Will this Blog encourage you to think (and, in some cases, rethink) your beliefs. . . changing them or making them stronger?

Best,

Howie

 

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