Why Hattie’s Research is a Starting-Point, but NOT the
End-Game for Effective Schools
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
This three-part
series is focusing on how states, districts, schools, and educational leaders
make decisions regarding what services, supports, programs, curricula,
instruction, strategies, and interventions to implement in their
classrooms. Recognizing that we need to
use programs that have documented efficacy and the highest probability of
implementation success, it has nonetheless been my experience that many
programs are chosen “for all the wrong reasons”—to the detriment of students,
staff, and schools.
Summarizing Part I of this Blog Series
In Part I of this
series (posted on August 26th), The Top Ten Ways that Educators Make Bad,
Large-Scale Programmatic Decisions: The Hazards of ESEA/ESSA’s Freedom and
Flexibility at the State and Local Levels [CLICK
HERE], I noted that:
·
Beyond the policy-level requirements in
the newly-implemented Elementary and Secondary Education/Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESEA/ESSA), the Act transfers virtually all of the effective
school and schooling decisions, procedures, and practices away from the
U.S. Department of Education, and into the “hands” of the respective state
departments of education and their state’s districts and schools.
·
Because of this “transfer of responsibility,”
states, districts, and schools will be more responsible (and accountable) for
selecting their own approaches to curriculum, instruction, assessment,
intervention, and evaluation than ever before.
·
This will result in significant
variability—across states and districts—in how they define school “success” and
student progress, measure school and teacher effectiveness, apply assessments
to track students’ standards-based knowledge and proficiency, and implement
multi-tiered academic and behavioral services and interventions for students.
All of this means
that districts and schools will have more freedom—but greater responsibility—to evaluate,
select, and implement their own ways of functionally addressing all
students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral learning and
instructional needs—across a multi-tiered continuum that extends from core
instruction to strategic response and intensive intervention.
Part I of this
series then described the “Top Ten” reasons why educational leaders make flawed
large-scale, programmatic decisions—that waste time, money, and resources; and
that frustrate and cause staff and student resistance and disengagement.
The flawed Reasons
discussed were:
1.
The Autocrat (I Know Best)
2.
The Daydream Believer (My Colleague Says It
Works)
3.
The Connected One (It’s On-Line)
4.
The Bargain Basement Boss (If it’s Free, It’s
for Me)
5.
The Consensus-Builder (But the Committee
Recommended It)
6.
The Groupie (But a National Expert Recommended
It)
7.
The Do-Gooder (It’s Developed by a Non-Profit)
8.
The Enabler (It’s Federally or
State-Recommended)
9.
The Abdicator (It’s Federally or State-Mandated)
10. The
Mad Scientist (It’s Research-based)
By self-reflecting
on these flawed approaches, the hope is that educational leaders will avoid
these hazards, and make their district- or school-wide programmatic decisions
in more effective ways.
_ _ _ _ _
Summarizing Part II of this Blog Series
In Part II of this
series (posted on September 9th), “Scientifically based” versus
“Evidence-based” versus “Research-based”—Oh my!!! Making Effective Programmatic
Decisions: Why You Need to Know the History and Questions Behind these Terms
[CLICK
HERE], I noted that:
·
The term “scientifically
based” appeared in ESEA/NCLB 2001 twenty-eight times, it was
formally defined in the law, it appeared in IDEA 2004 (the current federal
special education law), and it was (at that time) the “go-to” definition in
federal education law when discussing how to evaluate the efficacy, for
example, of research or programs that states, districts, and schools needed to
implement as part of their school and schooling processes.
And yet, this term is found in
ESEA/ESSA ONLY four times, and it appears to have been replaced by the term
“evidence-based.”
_ _ _ _ _
·
The term “evidence-based”
DID NOT APPEAR in either ESEA/NCLB 2001 or IDEA 2004, but it DOES appear
in ESEA/ESSA 2015 sixty-three times—most often when describing
“evidence-based research, technical assistance, professional development,
programs, methods, instruction, or intervention.”
As the new “go-to” standard when
determining whether programs or interventions have been empirically
demonstrated as effective, ESEA/ESSA 2105 defines this term.
[CLICK HERE for the ESEA/NCLB
2001 “scientifically based” and ESEA/ESSA 2015 “evidence-based” definitions in
Part II of this Blog]
_ _ _ _ _
·
The term “research-based”
appeared in five times in ESEA/NCLB 2001; it appears four times in
IDEA 2004; and it appears once in ESEA/ESSA 2015. When it appears, the term largely used to
describe programs that need to be implemented by schools to support student
learning.
Significantly, the term “researched-based”
is NOT define in either ESEA law (2001, 2015), or by IDEA 2004.
_ _ _ _ _
Part II of this
series went on to recommend a series of questions that educational leaders
should ask when told that a program, strategy, or intervention is
scientifically based, evidence-based, or research-based.
For example, I
noted: If someone endorses a program as “scientifically based,” educational
leaders should ask what the researcher or practitioner means by that term. Then, the educational leader should ask for
(preferably refereed) studies that “support” the program, and their
descriptions of the:
* Demographic
backgrounds and other characteristics of the students participating in the
studies (so you can compare and contrast these students to your students);
* Research methods
used in the studies (so you can validate that the methods were sound,
objective, and that they involved control or comparison groups not receiving
the program or intervention);
* Outcomes measured
and reported in the studies (so you can validate that the research was
focused on student outcomes, and
especially the student outcomes that you are most interested in for your students);
* Data collection
tools, instruments, or processes used in the studies (so that you are
assured that they were psychometrically reliable, valid, and objective—such
that the data collected and reported are demonstrated to be accurate
* Treatment or
implementation integrity methods and data reported in the studies (so you
can objectively determine that the program or intervention was implemented as
it was designed, and in ways that make sense);
* Data analysis
procedures used in the studies (so you can validate that the data-based
outcomes reported were based on the “right” statistical and analytic approaches);
* Interpretations
and conclusions reported by the studies [so you can objectively validate
that these summarizations are supported by the data reported, and have not been
inaccurately- or over-interpreted by the author(s)]; and the
* Limitations reported
in the studies (so you understand the inherent weaknesses in the studies,
and can assess whether these weaknesses affected the integrity of and
conclusions—relative to the efficacy of the programs or interventions—drawn by
the studies).
_ _ _ _ _
The point of the questions and this discussion
was to encourage educational leaders:
·
To go beyond “testimonials” and “hearsay” when
programs, strategies, or interventions are recommended by others
·
To ask the questions and collect the information
and data needed to objectively determine that a “recommended” program or
intervention is independently responsible for the student outcomes that are
purported and reported
·
To determine if there is enough objective data
to demonstrate that the “recommended” program or intervention is appropriate
for the educational leader’s own students, and if it will potentially result in
the same positive and expected outcomes
·
To determine if the resources needed to implement
the program are time- and cost-effective relative to the program’s
“return-on-investment”
·
To determine if the “recommended” program or
intervention will be acceptable to those involved (e.g., students, staff,
administrators, parents) such that they are motivated to implement it with
integrity and over an extended period of time
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Today’s Discussion: John Hattie and Meta-Analyses
Professor John
Hattie has been the Director of the Melbourne Educational Research Institute at
the University of Melbourne, Australia, since March 2011. His research interests include performance
indicators, models of measurement, and the evaluation of teaching and learning.
He is best known for his books Visible Learning (2009)
and Visible Learning for Teachers (2012).
Anchoring these
books is Hattie’s critical review of thousands of published research studies in
six areas that contribute to student learning: student factors, home
factors, school factors, curricular factors, teacher factors, and teaching and
learning factors. Using those studies
that met his criteria for inclusion, Hattie pooled the effect sizes from these
individual studies, conducted different series of meta-analyses, and rank
ordered the positive to negative effects of over a hundred approaches—again,
related to student learning outcomes.
In Visible
Learning, for example, Hattie described 138 rank ordered influences on
student learning and achievement based on a synthesis of more than 800
meta-studies covering more than 80 million students. In his subsequent research, the list of
effects was expanded (in Visible Learning for Teachers), and now (2016),
the list—based on more than 1,200 meta-studies—includes 195 effects and six
“super-factors.” All of this research
reflects one of the largest integrations of “what works best in education”
available.
_ _ _ _ _
What is a Meta-Analysis?
A meta-analysis is
a statistical procedure that combines the effect sizes from separate studies
that have investigated common programs, strategies, or interventions. The procedure results in a pooled effect size
that provides a more reliable and valid “picture” of the program or
intervention’s usefulness or impact, because it involves more subjects, more
implementation trials and sites, and (usually) more geographic and demographic
diversity. Typically, an effect size of
0.40 is used as the “cut-score” where effect sizes above 0.40 reflect a
“meaningful” impact.
Significantly, when
the impact (or effect) of a “treatment” is consistent across separate studies,
a meta-analysis can be used to identify the common effect. When effect sizes differ across studies, a
meta-analysis can be used to identify the reason for this variability.
_ _ _ _ _
Meta-analytic
research typically follows some common steps.
These involve:
·
Identifying the program, strategy, or
intervention to be studied
·
Completing a literature search of relevant
research studies
·
Deciding on the selection criteria that will be
used to include an individual study’s empirical results
·
Pulling out the relevant data from each study,
and running the statistical analyses
·
Reporting and interpreting the meta-analytic
results
As with all research, there are a number of
subjective decisions embedded in meta-analytic research, and thus, there are good
and bad meta-analytic studies.
Indeed, as
emphasized throughout this three-part series, educational leaders cannot
assume that “all research is good because it is published,” and they cannot
assume that even “good” meta-analytic research is applicable to their
communities, schools, staff, and students.
And so, educational
leaders need to independently evaluate the results of any reported
meta-analytic research—including research discussed by Hattie—before
accepting the results.
Among the
questions that leaders should ask when reviewing (or when told about the
results from) meta-analytic studies are the following:
·
Do the programs, strategies, or interventions
chosen for investigation use similar implementation steps or protocols?
In many past Blogs,
I have discussed the fact that the Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) framework advocated by the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (and its funded national
Technical Assistance centers) is a collection of different activities
that, based on numerous program evaluations, different schools implement in
different degrees (or not at all) in different ways.
Given this, a
meta-analysis of many separate PBIS research studies might conclude that the
“PBIS framework contributes to student learning,” but the educational consumer has
no idea which PBIS activities
contributed to this result, nor how to functionally implement these
different activities.
In addition to this
issue, some researchers warn of an “agenda bias” that occurs when researchers
choose specific areas to investigate based on wanting a personally- or
politically-motivated conclusion. Often,
this bias tends to affect (or continue to bias) many other research-related
procedures (see the other question areas below)—resulting in questionable or
invalid results.
_ _ _ _ _
Next Question:
·
Are the variables investigated, by a
meta-analytic study, variables that are causally- versus correlationally-related
to student learning, and can they be taught to a parent, teacher, or
administrator?
Educational leaders
need to continually differentiate research (including meta-analytic research)
that reports causal factors versus correlational factors. Obviously, causal factors directly affect
student learning, while correlational factors contribute to or predict
student learning.
Similarly, they
need to recognize that some meta-analytic results involve factors (e.g.,
poverty, race, the presence of a significant disability or home condition) that
cannot be changed, taught, or modified.
Moreover . . . once
you read and understand Hattie’s functional definitions for the terms that he
uses to summarize his meta-analyses, you realize that three out of six of
his “Super Factors” cannot be changed by any teacher or classroom intervention
(Teacher Estimates of Achievement, Self-Reported Grades, and Piagetian Levels).
Many of the
approaches that Hattie rates as having the strongest effects on student
learning contribute to (but do not cause) these student
outcomes.
For example, while
effective classroom instruction and behavior management contribute to student
learning, mastery, and proficiency, some students learn a great deal even when
their teachers are not instructionally effective or their classrooms are not
consistently well-managed. Thus, these
factors correlationally contribute to student learning, but they do not cause
student learning.
This crucial point
is not intended to invalidate Hattie’s meta-analytic results (or anyone
else’s). It simply is to say that
educational leaders need to determine the “meaningfulness” of meta-analytic
results, while also putting them into their “implementation context.”
Continuing on:
while some studies differentially and
concurrently investigate multiple programs, strategies, or interventions, these
individual studies are few and far between.
Thus, educational
leaders cannot simply take the “Top Ten” Hattie approaches on his list,
implement them, and assume that student learning results will increase. This is because most of these “Top Ten”
approaches have never been studied together, and they might not be applicable
to their students or instructional conditions.
Relatedly, educational
leaders need to be wary of “Hattie consultants” who believe that they can
synthesize all of the independent meta-analyses of different
programs, strategies, or interventions conducted by Hattie into a
meaningful implementation plan and process for their school or students.
Critically. . .
Hattie has provided a useful “road map” to success. . . but remember, there are
“many roads to Rome.”
_ _ _ _ _
Next Question:
·
In conducting the literature review, did the
researchers consider (and control for) the potential of a “publication bias?”
One of the
realities of published research is that journals most-often publish research
that demonstrates significant effects.
Thus, a specific program or intervention may have ten published articles
that showed a positive effect, and fifty other well-designed studies that
showed no or negative effects. As
the latter unpublished studies are not available (or even known by the
researcher), they will not be included in the meta-analysis. And so, while the meta-analysis may show a
positive effect for a specific program, this outcome may not reflect its
“actual” negative to neutral impact.
There are
research methods and tests (e.g., using funnel plots, the Tandem Method, the
Egger’s regression test) to analyze the presence of publication bias, and to
decrease the potential of false positive conclusion. These, however, are beyond the scope of this Blog.
Suffice it to say
that some statisticians have suggest that 25% of meta-analyses in the
psychological sciences may have inherent publication biases.
What should
educational leaders do? Beyond their own self-study of the meta-analytic
research—including the individual research studies involved—that appears to
support a specific program, strategy, or intervention, educational leaders need
to:
·
Identify the short- and long-term “success
indicators” of these programs specifically for their schools or with their
students;
·
Conduct pilot tests before scaling up to
whole-school or system-wide implementation;
·
Identify and use sensitive formative evaluation
approaches that detect—as quickly as possible—programs that are not working;
and
·
Maintain an “objective, data-driven perspective”
regardless of how much they want to program to succeed.
In other words,
educational leaders need to revalidate any selected program, strategy, or
intervention when implemented with their schools, staff, and/or
students—regardless of that program’s previous validation (which, once again,
may be due to publication bias).
_ _ _ _ _
Next Question:
·
What were the selection criteria used by the
author of the meta-analysis to determine which individual studies would be
included in the analysis, and were these criteria reliably and validly applied?
This is an
important area of potential bias in meta-analytic research. It occurs when researchers, whether
consciously or not, choose biased selection criteria. For example, they may favor large-participant
studies over single subject studies, or randomized controlled studies versus
qualitative studies.
This selection bias
also occurs when researchers do not reliably and/or validly apply their own
sound selection criteria. That is, they
may include certain studies that objectively don’t “qualify” for their
analysis, or exclude other studies that meet all of the criteria.
Regardless,
selection biases influence the individual studies included (or not included) in
a meta-analysis, and this may skew the results.
Critically, the “skew” could be in any direction. That is, the analysis might incorrectly
result in negative, neutral, or positive results.
This issue is even
more compounded as Hattie included numerous meta-analyses conducted by other
researchers in some of his meta-analyses. Thus, he might have pooled other authors’
selection biases with his own selection biases to create some “Super Biases”
(for example) within his “Super Factors.”
While I know that
many educational leaders, at this point in our “conversation,” are probably
wondering (maybe, in frustration), “Why can’t I just ‘trust the experts?’” or
“How do I do all of this?”
And I do
feel your pain...
But the “short
answer” to the first question (as noted in the earlier two Blogs in this
series) is that “blind trust” may result in adopting a program that does not
succeed; that wastes a great deal of time, training, money, and materials; and
that undermines student success and staff confidence.
The “short answer”
to the second question is that these questions should be posed to the
researcher or the person who is advocating a “meta-analytically-proven” program. Let them show you the studies and
reveal the drilled-down data that is (presumably) at the foundation of their
recommendation.
But. . . in
addition. . . please recognize that many school districts have well-qualified
professionals (either in-house, at a nearby university, in the
community/region, or virtually on-line) with the research and analysis
background to “vet and validate” programs, strategies, and interventions of
interest.
Use these
resources.
The “front-end”
time in well-evaluating a program will virtually always save enormous amounts
of “back-end” time when an ineffectively researched or chosen program is
actually implemented.
_ _ _ _ _
Next Question:
·
Were the best statistical methods used in the
meta-analysis? Did one or two large-scale
or large-effect studies outweigh the results of other small-scale,
small-participant studies that also were included? Did the researcher’s conclusions match the
actual statistical results from the meta-analysis?
I’m not going to
answer these questions in detail. . . as we’re now teetering on
methodologically complex (but important) areas.
[If you want to discuss these with me privately, give me a call.]
My ultimate point
here is that—as with any research study—we need to know that the meta-analytic
research results and interpretations for any program, strategy, or intervention
are sound.
As immediately
above, educational leaders need to invest in “high probability of success”
programs. Anything less is
irresponsible.
_ _ _ _ _
But There’s More: The Method is Missing
But. . . there IS
more . . . even when the meta-analytic research is sound.
As alluded to
above. . . just because we know that a program, strategy, or intervention
significantly impacts student learning, we do not necessarily know the
implementation steps that were in the research studies used to calculate the
significant effect . . . and we cannot assume that all or most of the
studies used the same implementation steps.
To get to the point
where we know exactly what implementation steps to replicate and functionally
use in our schools and with our staff and students (to get the benefit of a
particular effect), we (again) need to “research the research.”
Case in point. Below are Hattie’s current “Top Twenty” approaches
that have the strongest effects on student learning and achievement:
Teacher estimates
of achievement
Collective teacher
efficacy
Self-Reported Grades
Self-Reported Grades
Piagetian Programs
Conceptual change
programs
Response to
intervention
Teacher credibility
Micro teaching
Cognitive task
analysis
Classroom
discussion
Interventions for
LD
Teacher clarity
Reciprocal teaching
Feedback
Providing formative
evaluations
Acceleration
Creativity programs
Self-questioning
Concept mapping
Problem solving
teaching
Classroom behavior
After reviewing
these. . . OK . . . I’ll admit it. As a
reasonably experienced school psychologist, I have no idea what that vast
majority of these approaches are at a functional level. . . much less what
implementation steps to recommend.
To begin to figure
it out, I would first go back to Hattie, and look at a Glossary (for example,
from Visible Learning for Teachers, 2012) that explains the research
reflected in the effect sizes for the approaches he has rank-ordered.
Example 1: Self-Reported
Grades
One of Hattie’s
Super Factors, “Self-Reported Grades.”
For this effect, the Glossary linked above provides the following
information:
Self-reported grades are at the top of all influences. Children are the
most accurate when predicting how they will perform. Hattie explains that if he
could write his book Visible Learning for Teachers again, he would
re-name this learning strategy, “Student
Expectations” to express more clearly that this strategy
involves the teacher finding out what are the student’s expectations, and
pushing the learner to exceed these expectations. Once a student has performed
at a level that is beyond their own expectations, he or she gains confidence in
his or her learning ability.
Example for Self-reported grades: Before an exam, ask your class to write down what mark the student expects to achieve. Use this information to engage the student to try to perform even better.
Example for Self-reported grades: Before an exam, ask your class to write down what mark the student expects to achieve. Use this information to engage the student to try to perform even better.
Hattie cites five meta-studies for this effect:
Mabe/West (1982): Validity of self-evaluation of
ability
Fachikov/Boud (1989): Student Self-Assessment in
Higher Education
Ross (1998): Self-assessment in second language
testing
Falchikov/Goldfinch (2000): Student Peer Assessment in
Higher Education
Kuncel/Crede/Thomas (2005): The Validity of
Self-Reported Grade Point Averages, Class Ranks, and Test Scores
As noted earlier in
this Blog, and as defined here, a student’s Self-Reported Grades cannot be
changed by having a classroom teacher “do an intervention.” If students’ beliefs about their prospective
grades are inaccurate, their teachers might be able to provide them with more
data or feedback and, thus, change their accuracy. But what happens if students accurately state
that they are going to fail a test . . . and they do?
How will that
change their motivation or proficiency in the future?
Or, what if
students underestimate their grades on a test, and perform better than
expected? How will this necessarily
improve these students’ motivation such that they master more material in the
future? Perhaps the underestimate and
then the “better-than-expected grades” will lull these students into believing
that they are “doing enough” to get good grades . . . they just didn’t realize
it before?
Herein lies the
danger.
In order to use
Hattie’s results, we need to know his definition of Self-Reported Grades, the
research that was integrated into the meta-analysis, whether the variable can
be externally influenced (e.g., through a teacher’s intercession or
intervention), and then the explicit, scientifically-based methodology needed
to effect the change.
None of these
conditions are immediately or functionally apparent from a rank-ordered list of
meta-analytic effect sizes.
And, there is no
single consultant or “anointed” group of consultants who “hold the keys” to
operationalizing Hattie’s statistics into student success.
_ _ _ _ _
But let’s take
two more Hattie factors/approaches to further demonstrate that “The Method
is Missing.”
Response to Intervention and Comprehensive Interventions
for Learning Disabled Students
Response to
Intervention, once again, is one of Hattie’s Super Factors.
The Glossary
defines Response to Intervention as “an educational approach that
provides early, systematic assistance to children who are struggling
in one or many areas of their learning. RTI seeks to prevent academic
failure through early intervention and frequent progress measurement.” In Visible Learning for Teachers,
Hattie devotes one paragraph to Response to Intervention—citing seven generic
“principles.”
Hattie’s
meta-analysis of the research that he categorized as “Comprehensive
Interventions for Learning Disabled Students” resulted in one of the five top
effect sizes relative to impacting student learning and achievement.
In the cited
Glossary, it was noted that:
The presence of learning disability can make learning
to read, write, and do math especially challenging. Hattie admits that “it
would be possible to have a whole book on the effects of various interventions
for students with learning disabilities” (Hattie 2009), and he references a
1999 meta-study.
To improve achievement teachers must provide students
with tools and strategies to organize themselves as well as new material;
techniques to use while reading, writing, and doing math; and systematic steps
to follow when working through a learning task or reflecting upon their own
learning. Hattie also discusses studies that found that “all children benefited
from strategy training; both those with and those without intellectual
disabilities.”
Once again—for BOTH
of these approaches, there is no specificity.
Moreover, NO ONE reading Hattie’s books would have a clue as to where to
begin the implementation process for either.
More specifically: Response to Intervention is not a single,
replicable intervention.
Many different
researchers have defined it, its components, its implementation processes, and
its applicability (for example, to literacy, math, language arts, behavior) in
many different ways.
And so. . . from
Hattie’s research, one would conclude that this is a worthwhile area to
research when students are academically struggling or presenting with
challenging behavior. But, one would
have to analyze the specific research for their area of student concern.
More specifically: Hattie describes “Comprehensive Interventions
for Learning Disabled Students” in the plural.
And so. . . from
Hattie’s research, which learning disabilities are did his meta-analytic
studies address? What were the
interventions? At what age and level of
severity did the interventions work with students? And, how was “success” defined and measured?
As Hattie himself
noted. . . he could write a book just in this area (and some esteemed educators
have).
But once again,
while it is important to know that some interventions for learning disabled
students work, one would have to answer the questions immediately above, know
the research-to-practice in a specific area of disability, and have the
consultation skills to help teachers implement these interventions “in real
time.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Conclusions
I want to make it
clear that this Blog is NOT questioning Hattie’s research in any way.
Hattie has made
many astounding contributions to our understanding of the research in areas
that impact student learning and the school and schooling process.
However, consistent
with the theme of the three Blogs in this series, I AM expressing concerns—and,
hopefully, providing good guidance—as to how educational leaders need to
analyze, understand, use, and make systems-level decisions based on school and
psychoeducational research. . . research that varies in both quality and
utility.
As noted numerous
times across the three Blogs: I fully
understand how challenging it is for districts and schools to analyze the
research related to the empirical efficacy of a specific program, strategy, or
intervention. I also recognize—as a
practitioner who works in the schools—their limited time and more limited
resources.
And I agree that
districts and schools should be able to trust the “national experts”—from
their national associations, to their departments of education, to their
published journals—in this regard.
But testimonials do
not qualify as research, and—unfortunately—some “research” is published in the
absence of impartiality.
We need to be careful.
Districts and
schools need to selectively do their own due diligence. . . or at least consult
with professionals who can provide objective, independent evaluations of the
curricula, programs, or interventions being considered for student, staff, and
school implementation.
Hopefully, the
narrative in these three Blogs will provide educational leaders with the
information and questions that need to be asked. . . providing an assist in the
due diligence process.
In the end, schools
and districts should not invest time, money, professional development,
supervision, or other resources in programs that have not been fully validated
for use with their students and/or staff.
Such investments
are not fair to anyone—especially when they become counterproductive by (a) not
delivering the needed results, (b) leaving students further behind, and/or (c)
creating staff resistance to “the next program”—which might, parenthetically, be
the “right” program.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this
discussion has been useful to you.
As always, I look
forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
I hope that your
school year continues to be successful.
We are still thinking about those in the greater Houston area and across
Florida. . . and now, in Puerto Rico and across the Caribbean.
If I can help you
in any of the areas discussed during this Blog series, I am always happy to
provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify
your needs and directions on behalf of your students, staff/colleagues,
school(s), and district.
Best,
Howie
