Saturday, June 5, 2021

Maximizing Meeting Participation and Productivity: Is Everyone “Bringing It” to Your (Virtual or In-Person) Meeting?

 Why Be There if You’re Not There?

Introduction

   As a consultant to many school districts across the country (and world), most of my “engagements” focus on helping students, staff, schools, and systems go “to the next level of excellence.”

   Because this focus is both process and outcome oriented, I need to build strong relationships with my (new) colleagues, and understand the history, dynamics, and complexities of their system and its “moving parts.”

   If a project, for example, involves strategic planning at the leadership level, or a needs assessment for a special education department or social-emotional learning initiative, I may work with a district or school for two or more months.

   If the project, however, involves systemic change where we are building the infrastructure and capacity needed for long-term, sustainable outcomes, I may work with a district or school for one or more years.

   Currently, I have the honor of working with twenty schools in three diverse communities in three different states as the Lead National Consultant on three five-year federally-funded School Climate Transformation Grants. We are currently in the middle of Year 2—a year, due to the pandemic and other national and world events, that has been unlike any other year I’ve experienced in my 40 years as a school psychologist and educator.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Meetings. . . And More Meetings

   During the past few weeks, I have spent most of my consulting time in two types of (virtual) meetings:

  • Meetings where administrators, staff, and others are analyzing the data from this past school year to determine the progress, accomplishments, current status, and needs (for the next school year) of students, staff, committees/teams, and/or schools.

  • Meetings where we are strategically planning for the beginning of the coming new school year—aligning students and staff, curriculum and instruction, resources and technology, and services and supports—so that everyone and everything is ready for “Day 1.”

   Of course, given the past 16 months of the Pandemic, some of the data are non-existent or “fuzzy,” and we are continually trying to differentiate whether students’ academic and/or social-emotional gaps (a) existed before the Pandemic; (b) occurred during or are due to conditions related to the Pandemic; or (c) are new, but unrelated to the Pandemic.

   Critically, most of my meetings these past few weeks have been “productive.” Some could have been “more productive.” And in a few meetings, the meeting did not seem to be “productive” for everyone attending.

   And while we did not ask participants to evaluate and share their meeting experiences and perceptions, I always wonder if my evaluation that a specific meeting was “productive” is universally shared by everyone else who was at the same meeting.

_ _ _ _ _

   Indeed, at a few meetings, valued colleagues were admittedly (or not) multi-tasking. Some, in fact, were in two meetings at once!

   As an aside, it is interesting that—unlike a conference room where everyone is physically present—in a virtual meeting, you are more aware of participants’:

  • Attentional Presence (and whether they are engaged in the meeting, or reading or working on something else);

  • Physical Presence (for example, when they momentarily move to another part of their office to file or pick something up—assuming their camera is actually on); and

  • Interactional Presence (and whether they are in a muted conversation with someone else in the room with them).

   These three factors contribute to meeting participants’ engagement.

   And this engagement (a) communicates their commitment to (or prioritization of) the meeting, (b) affects others’ feelings regarding the quality and collaborative nature of the meeting, and (c) predicts the productivity of the meeting.

   And it’s not that the same multi-task or “off-task” behavior doesn’t also occur in in-person meetings.

   It’s just that we all need to be evaluating the quality and productivity of our (virtual) meetings this past year—especially as many districts and schools will likely use both in-person and virtual meetings this coming year.

   Indeed, just as our staff and schools will use this past year’s data to improve different educational processes next year, we also have an opportunity to re-calibrate and improve the expectations, norms, and interactions in our meetings next year.

   This will ensure that their productivity and outcomes will move “to the next level of excellence.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Evaluating and Improving Meeting Participating and Productivity

   Whether you work in a large or small organization, department, or team, at some point, you need to attend and participate in meetings.

   If you are a CEO, department head, or team leader, you often are chairing or facilitating those meetings.

   But even as a meeting participant, we should leave every meeting explicitly asking ourselves:

  • Was the meeting productive relative to its actual or potential outcomes, and to the time invested in preparing and participating?

  • Was everyone attending fully committed to meeting—and the colleagues there—relative to their personal preparation and participation?

  • Was I fully prepared for, and present, participating, and productive at the meeting?

  • Am I excited about preparing for and participating in the next meeting of this same group?

   At times, you may want to spend the last five minutes of every (most) meetings discussing the answers to, implications of, and improvement steps resulting from these questions.

   But for right now, schools, districts, and other educational agencies or organizations can ask these essential questions in an evaluative way to determine what needs to be added, modified, or changed to improve the quality of your meetings next year.

_ _ _ _ _

   But beyond these questions and this (self-)evaluation, let’s remember that there are some expectations and norms that create the foundation for all effective meetings. 

   We discussed these a few Blogs ago when we differentiated between group members who have a “Me-First” attitude or perspective, and team members who have a “We-First” attitude or perspective.

[CLICK HERE for April 17, 2021 Blog]

   The foundation for all effective meetings involves Team Members who:

  • Come prepared and on time

  • Listen to each other with interest

  • Participate actively in discussions

  • Keep side conversations to a minimum

  • Treat everyone with respect and in a dignified manner

  • Interact positively and productively with others

  • Ask questions for clarification when they don’t understand

  • Encourage different points of view

  • Are honest and open to the ideas of others

  • Focus on issues and content, not personalities and personal agendas

  • Are willing to compromise

  • Check for others’ readiness before finalizing decisions

  • Keep the best interests of their constituents in mind

  • Commit to supporting all final decisions—even when disagreements exist

  • Follow through on agreements and action items

  • Review the effectiveness of each meeting at the end of the meeting, making suggestions to improve the group process in the future

   In a virtual meeting world, this includes (a) requiring everyone to keep their video cameras on; (b) making sure (ahead of time) that everyone is trained and skilled in using the technology; and (c) ensuring that everyone agrees to stay only on meeting-relevant documents or websites.

   In an in-person meeting world, this includes (a) turning off all hand-held devices; and (b) a commitment (once again) to stay only on meeting-relevant documents or websites (if computers need to be on at all).

   In addition, it is always important to have a written Meeting Agenda (that was shared ahead of time), someone taking notes or summarizing decisions on a virtual or physical whiteboard, and someone else taking Meeting Minutes as part of a permanent record of the meeting.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   After reviewing countless websites, reports, and articles on “How to Run an Effective Virtual Meeting,” my primary conclusion is that it is more about running an effective meeting, and then adapting—as needed—to a virtual platform.

   And thus, I recommend that you start with the essential post-meeting questions and the fundamental characteristics of an effective meeting above, and then decide what modifications are needed. These modifications may be specific to the people who are attending your meetings, or the fact that some of the meetings are virtual.

   In addition, I strongly recommend that you begin the new school year with a discussion (not a lecture) of the Meeting Norms above, why they are important, how they will facilitate participation and productivity, and when they will be evaluated during the year.

   You can also post these Norms in any (conference) rooms where most of your meetings will occur, and remind people of the norms at the beginning of each meeting.

   Finally, you may want to discuss appropriate and productive ways to address situations where one or more people are not fully following the expectations and norms—so that there are norms even for “how to disagree” or “deal with difficult people” in a meeting.

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the suggestions in this Blog are useful to you. Given the number of meetings some of us attend in a typical week, and their importance to the effectiveness and outcomes of most organizations, it is important to periodically re-calibrate this process so that we can truly move to the next level of excellence.

   For districts and schools, a logical time for this is at the beginning of the new school year. But this must be a planned event that is focused on the future but guided by the past.

   And so, at the “end” of this school year, it is a good time to think about how you will approach this in the coming months.

   If there is anything that I can do to add value to this discussion and process in your setting, please feel free to contact me.

   As always, I am happy to provide a free, one-hour consultation or “chat session” on how to apply these (and other) ideas to best meet the needs of your students, staff, schools, and system.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Sustaining Student Outcomes Beyond the Pandemic: Where Districts Need to Allocate Their American Rescue Plan (2021) Funds

Lessons Learned from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)

Preface and Context

  The U.S. Congress has passed three stimulus bills that provided nearly $190.5 billion to the Elementary and Secondary Emergency Education Relief (ESSER) Fund administered by the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE). Each states’ funding is based on the same proportion share that they receive under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title-I, Part A.

   The three stimulus bills are:

  • The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER I) Fund under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed in March 2020.
  • The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER II) Fund, passed in December 2020, the under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act.
  • The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER III) Fund was passed in March 2021, under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021.

   The primary focus of ESSER I was to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19.

   ESSER II and ESSER III funds will predominantly help school districts to reopen and operate safely, and to address the impact of the Pandemic on students. ESSER I funds are available for obligation through September 30, 2021. ESSER II funds are available through September 30, 2022. And, ESSER III funds are available through September 30, 2023.

   While ESSER I and II funds relate to activities that address learning loss, at least 20% of a district’s ESSER III must address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions. Districts must ensure that the interventions respond to the students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs. In addition, the interventions must address the impact of COVID-19 on under-represented student subgroups such as, students of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and who are English second-language learners, from migrant families, homeless, or in foster care.

   This Blog focuses on ESSER III and ESSER II funding.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Introduction: American Rescue Plan Money is Coming!

   On May 11, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) announced that more than $36 billion in grants under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act were awarded to over 5,000 institutions of higher education across our nation.

   For (pre-)K to 12 districts and other Local Education Agencies (LEAs), this means that ARP funds will also soon be available for you. Indeed, most state departments of education have already applied for these funds and, once approved, it is expected that individual LEAs will need to apply in turn to receive their funds.

   More specifically, the ARP is making approximately $129 billion in federal funds available for K-12 education through its Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund. While most of this money will go to (pre-)K to 12 districts and LEAs, the states must use a portion of these funds to address the recovery and other service delivery needs of homeless students.

   As passed by Congress, ARP funds have been allocated as follows:

           Source: Education Week and the Learning Policy Institute

   With the end of the school year coming soon, and little time between now and the beginning of the new school year, districts will have precious little opportunity to strategically plan for and develop sound proposals for these ARP funds.

   This is similar to the Spring of 2009, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided billions to districts across the country in response to the Great Recession and the earlier melt-down of a number of key financial institutions.

   Given the anticipated time crunch, and the ultimate educational goal of facilitating the sustained academic and social, emotional, and behavioral progress of all students, it is important to re-visit how districts used their ARRA funds, and how their investments directly impacted student outcomes. Using these “lessons learned,” districts can hopefully increase the return-on-investment relative to their incoming ARP funds.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Lessons Learned from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

   The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; 2009) initially provided approximately $93.5 billion to (pre-)K to 12 education. The largest funding areas were:

  • $53.6 billion for school districts and states to pay for teacher salaries and educational programs
  • $21 billion for school facility modernization and construction
  • $5 billion for Head Start
  •  $12 billion for special education programs, including job training for those with disabilities

   An April 16, 2015 Report by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that most of the ARRA funds distributed to districts were spent on “capital outlays, such as construction, land purchases and equipment acquisition.”

   Even when districts used the funds to hire personnel, the Report noted that this came largely in the form of non-teaching staff. The stated reason for this was that districts “may have been less willing to hire new staff for risk that, once the short-lived grants were spent, the new staff would need to be let go.”

   In the end, a January 5, 2012 Congressional Budget Office analysis reported that, of the estimated $93.5 billion in ARRA funds available to the USDoE for distribution, fully $6.3 billion was not spent. This was the second largest amount of unspent ARRA funds among the sixteen-plus federal agencies tracked.

   Even in the face of these unspent ARRA funds, a significant amount of money was used in ways that had no direct effect on students.

   At the extreme level, the Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute reported (February 24, 2010) that the New Holstein School District legally paid $416,219 in ARRA funds to their health insurance trust and an additional $237,862 to its utility companies.

   The Institute explained these expenditures by citing the mixed messages coming from the U.S. Department of Education.

   On one hand, the USDoE published a general guidance reminding districts that ARRA money should “supplement, not supplant” funding for educational expenses. On the other hand, the USDoE told ARRA awardees that, “The ARRA is expected to be a one-time infusion of substantial new resources.  These funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires. . . Invest the one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize a ‘funding cliff.’”

   On the whole, the ARRA expenditures and experiences detailed above suggest that ARRA funds were largely spent on things that had only indirect effects on students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral instruction, progress, and outcomes. This is consistent with my experiences during ARRA as I worked as a Federal Grant Director at the Arkansas Department of Education and across the country as a consultant.

   Specifically, I saw well over a thousand school districts spend their ARRA funds on equipment (e.g., buses and whiteboards), quickly outdated computers and software, off-the-shelf supplemental curricula, and other disposable materials. Moreover, I witnessed numerous indiscriminate “shop ‘til you drop” spending sprees where districts bought unvetted “stuff,” because their “use it or lose it” ARRA funds were about to be recalled.

   And so, in the context of the forthcoming ARP funds, the critical question is:

Did sustained outcomes, relative to students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral progress, result from the ARRA money distributed to districts across the country?

   Upon reviewing the annual Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act outcomes reported to the USDoE during and immediately after the ARRA funding, the clear answer to this question is, “No.”

   So, based on the funding lessons learned from ARRA, how can districts target their ARP funds more judiciously toward the strategic needs of their students, and toward meaningful and sustained academic and social, emotional, and behavioral student outcomes?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What Practices Should Districts Target with their ARP Dollars?

   Given the ARRA discussion above, it would be much easier to talk about what districts should not target in the ARP proposals that they submit to their respective state departments of education. But I am going to largely avoid that trap.

   Indeed, for those who regularly read my Blog articles, you know that I am going to emphasize the importance of strategically targeting research-based practices, rather than embracing generic frameworks, programs, and computer-based instructional or intervention software systems that do not involve direct teacher or related service staff support.

   But in emphasizing research-based practices, I do not recommend using a top-down approach that involves, for example, consulting the most-recent Hattie list of the strategies that correlate most strongly with student achievement.

CLICK HERE for the April 13, 2019 Blog Article:

“How Hattie’s Research Helps (and Doesn’t’ Help) Improve Student Achievement. Hattie Discusses What to Consider, Not How to Implement It (More Criticisms, Critiques, and Contexts)”

_ _ _ _ _

   Instead, I strongly advocate for a bottom-up approach where districts and schools analyze the current academic and social, emotional, and behavioral status, progress, strengths, and needs of their own students, and then strategically determine (a) what differentiated instruction and student grouping approaches will maximize learning; and (b) what additional multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions will most impact students who are academically struggling and/or exhibiting social, emotional, or behavioral challenges.

CLICK HERE for the March 6, 2021 Blog Article:

“A Pandemic Playbook to Organize Your School’s Academic and Social-Emotional Strategies Now and for the 2020-2021 School Year: Where We’ve Been and What You Should Do”

   In this context, students who are at-risk, underachieving, unmotivated, unresponsive, and unsuccessful should be particularly supported. And this should especially include students from poverty, with disabilities, who do not have English as their primary language. . . and students of color who have experienced implicit and explicit bias, school finance gaps, and institutional inequities for many past generations.

   Once this bottom-up strategic planning is complete, the ten practice and support areas below are recommended to produce meaningful and sustained (i.e., beyond ARP) academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for the students especially identified above.

   Note that some of these ideas require coordination and collaboration with other partners. In addition, a few of the ideas may need approvals from your respective departments of education (or beyond).

_ _ _ _ _

Ten Recommended Practice and Support Areas for your ARP Funds

[CLICK HERE for a Comprehensive Discussion with “Next Step” Details for each of these Recommendations]

   Based on the 2009 ARRA “lessons learned” and the discussion above, the Ten Investment Recommendations are:

  • Recommendation 1: Grow Your Own Specialists—For Existing Staff.
  • Recommendation 2: Grow Your Own Teachers and Specialists—For High School Graduates and Community Applicants.
  • Recommendation 3: Grow Your Own Coaches and Intervention Specialists.
  • Recommendation 4: Full-Service School Programming and/or Staffing.
  • Recommendation 5: Academic Tutors and Credit Recovery Instructors.
  • Recommendation 6: Social-Emotional Support Mentors or Case Managers.
  • Recommendation 7: Data-, Tech-, or Case-Managers.
  • Recommendation 8: Establish a Career and Technical Education Center, Internship, or “5th Year” Apprenticeship Program.
  • Recommendation 9: Parent Liaisons and Parent Educators
  •  Recommendation 10: College Entrance and Dual-Enrollment Support Mentors

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   The focus of today’s Blog has been on how to apply for and invest your short-term American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds in ten key effective practice growth areas so that your district or school (a) can address specific students’ current academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs, while (b) compounding the results of those investments into long-term, sustained outcomes in these same areas for all students.

   We addressed the importance of immediately addressing the needs of students who are at-risk, underachieving, unmotivated, unresponsive, and unsuccessful. And we included in this group students from poverty, with disabilities, who do not have English as their primary language. . . and students of color who have experienced implicit and explicit bias, school finance gaps, and institutional inequities for many past generations.

   In the first part of this Blog, we identified the financial “pots” that are available for (pre)K to 12 districts or LEAs according to the ARP legislation.

   We then provided an historical contrast with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), providing documentation the billions of ARRA dollars awarded to districts across the country were invested in (a) capital outlays, such as construction, land purchases and equipment acquisition; (b) non-teaching (rather than instructional) staff; and (c) other materials and resources that were not vetted (because districts were spending the money before losing it at the end of the award period), and that did not have direct impact on student outcomes.

   We also documented how many U.S. Department of Education ARRA dollars were “left on the table,” and how districts were given precious little time to strategically plan for and allocate their money.

   With these ARRA “lessons learned” in-hand, we recommend ten growth areas for districts to consider with their ARP money. If all of the financial metaphors are hitting home, then you are fully understanding these recommendations.

   Once again, the focus here is on addressing short-term needs while building a long-term infrastructure (using some of the money as a “start-up”) to directly address students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs.

   The additional focus is on well-researched and proven practices, and not global frameworks, untested programs, and off-the-shelf curricula or computer-based interventions.

_ _ _ _ _

   As a bonus, we also want to call your attention to a recently published resource (May, 2021) focusing on teacher recruitment and retention, targeting the diversification of the workforce, and emphasizing the positive impacts on students.

   The resource, Teaching Profession Playbook, was developed by 26 organizations including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Parent Teacher Association. It describes important strategies and provides examples for attracting and supporting a wide range of different teachers and other educators.

[CLICK HERE for this Resource]

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the ARP and ARRA documents, and the funding recommendations above are useful to you and your staff. We have a critical opportunity, with funding, to address a number of the academic and social-emotional effects of the Pandemic. And we want to maximize this opportunity with investments that have immediate and long-term benefits.

   If there is anything that I can do to add value to the discussion above in your setting, please feel free to contact me with your questions.

   As always, I am happy to provide a free, one-hour consultation or “chat session” on how to apply these (and other) ideas to best meet the needs of your students, staff, schools, and system.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Entire Blog Article]