Reconciling “Civil Liberty” Claims that Compromise Public Health and Student Welfare

 When a “Me-First” Perspective Undermines Our “We-First” Needs

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   No one promised that Life would be easy.

   But on some days (weeks, months, years), Life is more challenging than others.

   On Friday morning, I woke up to the following new or continuing national headlines:

• A respected TV news journalist lost her 2-year-old son to pediatric cancer

• Eight people—half of them members of the Sikh community—were gunned down at an Indianapolis FedEx Ground facility. . . at least the 45^th mass shooting (of four individuals or more) in the United States in the past month

• A 13-year-old Hispanic adolescent was shot and killed after fleeing from a police officer at 2 AM in an alley in the Little Village neighborhood on the West Side of Chicago

• Protests continued after 20-year-old Daunte Wright was killed by a police officer who used her gun instead of her Taser in Brooklyn, MN—only 10 miles from where George Floyd was murdered last year

• The Pandemic continues with its disproportionate effects on students and families of color, with disabilities, and in poverty.

• A letter published in JAMA Pediatrics presented a statistical model showing that, by February 2021, around 40,000 children had lost a parent due to the COVID-19. 

_ _ _ _ _

   Yes. . . it’s easy to be overwhelmed by Life.

• For those who are spouses/partners and parents/guardians, there also are the daily and monthly realities of food, bills, health, insurance, taxes, parenting, and (sometimes) caring for aging parents.

• For those who are educators, essential workers, or other employees, there also are the daily and monthly realities of being productive, collaborating with co-workers, dealing with virtual or on-site pandemic-driven interactions, and earning a paycheck above the poverty line (and hopefully higher).

• For my friends and colleagues of color (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and others), there also is the ever-present history and reality of implicit and explicit bias, prejudice, racism, threats, disproportionality, micro- and macro-aggression, and inequity.

_ _ _ _ _

   Being a solution-oriented person and professional, I want to provide practical and realistic recommendations to address the situations described both in the news and with the individuals above. . . and then apply them to the school and schooling process.

   These recommendations necessarily exist along a continuum from policies, to procedures, to practices, to actual performance.

   But at their root, the continuum is anchored by people.

   And today’s message is a reflection on a “people-centered” continuum embedded in any solution I might recommend.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

When Claims for Civil Liberty Conflict with the Common Good

   Also, earlier this week (Thursday, April 15), I watched a House Oversight subcommittee hearing where Ohio Republican Jim Jordan questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci on what it will take to fully reopen our country even as the current Pandemic continues.

   [I note, parenthetically, how many school districts across the country are still teaching virtually, and how a number of districts—including those I work with in Michigan—have recently returned to virtual instruction due to COVID-19 spikes.]

   Critically, the interchange between Jordan and Fauci became quite contentious as Representative Jordan framed Fauci’s public health recommendations as an assault on American’s constitutional rights.

   Here is the most telling transcript of the interchange:

JIM JORDAN: What metrics, what measures, what has to happen before Americans get more freedom?

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: My message, Congressman Jordan, is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can to get the level of infection in this country low that it is no longer a threat. That is when. And I believe when that happens, you will see--

 

JIM JORDAN: What determines when?

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: I'm sorry.

 

JIM JORDAN: What? What measure? I mean, are we just going to continue this forever? When do we get to the point? What measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedoms back?

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: You know, you're indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital.

 

JIM JORDAN: You don't think Americans liberties have been threatened the last year, Dr. Fauci? They've been assaulted. Their liberties have.

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: I don't look at this as a liberty thing, Congressman Jordan.

 

JIM JORDAN: Well, that's obvious.

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: I look at this as a public health thing. You're making this a personal thing, and it isn't.

 

JIM JORDAN: It's not a personal thing.

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: No, you are. That is exactly what you're doing.

 

JIM JORDAN: No, your recommendations carry a lot of weight, Dr. Fauci. We just had the chair of the Financial Services Committee said she loves you, and you're the greatest thing in the world.

MAXINE WATERS: Will the gentleman yield?

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: My recommendations are consistent--

 

MAXINE WATERS: Will the gentleman yield?

 

JIM JORDAN: No, it's my time.

 

ANTHONY FAUCI: Can I answer the question, please? My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. It's based on the CDC guidance. We are doing very well with regard to the roll out of vaccines, and yet, we are seeing in the country that there are several States in which the numbers are going up. When we had the big peak in the winter during the holidays and beyond, then it came down. We would have liked to see it go all the way down to a very, very low level.

 

Arbitrarily, we don't know what that number is, probably less than 10,000 per day. Right now, it's up at a high enough level that, in fact, if you look at the weekly average, it's starting to creep up. So as I said in my last slide, we're at a critical turning point. Every day, we get better and better at being able to control it because every day, three to four million people get vaccinated.

   Congressman Jordan had every right to ask for some statistical criteria that would indicate a more complete return to our typical or normal routines and lifestyles.

   But his strategically-selected statements regarding individual Americans “getting their liberties and freedoms back” because of public health steps that “threaten and assault” these liberties do not represent all Americans.

   What about the Americans whose individual liberties and freedoms are contingent on the same public health steps—taken collectively by many Americans—that are needed to mitigate this Pandemic?

   Said more generically:

   How do we understand and reconcile, often when crafting policy, individual rights when some of those rights result when people need to act in the common good?

   [For my educational colleagues, an example of this is free speech. When does a student’s right to “disruptive” free speech cross the line as it (even potentially) impacts the social, emotional, and behavioral climate and management of the school?]

   One way to address this question is by understanding how a “Me-First” perspective or claim can undermine a “We-First” situation or resolution.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Me-First versus We-First Continuum

   People’s reactions to most social and policy-related situations (including those even at the local school or district level in education) can be analyzed across a “Me-First” to “We-First” continuum.

   At the Me-First polar end, people are totally committed to ensuring that they will fully benefit from any decision, or that all decisions will align completely with their attitudes, beliefs, attributions, expectations, or desires.

   At the We-First polar end, people are totally committed to ensuring that any decision will best serve “the common good”—including those who cannot provide for themselves, or that all decisions will “right” a current or historical “wrong,”—providing compensation or reparation to the slighted group.

   Some of the factors that influence your position along this continuum include, for example, your parental and family upbringing, socio-economic status, religion, politics, education, peers, mentors, social and cultural experiences, and personality.

   Moreover, your position on the continuum typically is not fixed or universal. Indeed, it may vary across different issues.

   But. . . from issue to issue, your position on the continuum influences three additional factors:

• Your emotionality or emotional states, and

• Your beliefs or attributional states

• Your behavior, interactions, and decisions

   These emotional or attributional states are quickly triggered or heightened when someone starts at one of the two extreme ends of the continuum, and they are intolerant of anyone else’s differing perspective.

   These states are also triggered (a) when someone has a significantly different perspective from another person—no matter where the two fall on the continuum; (b) when someone attacks or threatens another’s viewpoint; or (c) when the (potential) outcomes of a decision are viewed by someone as radically inconsistent with their Me-First or We-First position.

   When these situations occur, we can (a) get extremely emotional and stop listening or become argumentative; and/or we can (b) “dig in,” possibly withdraw, and embrace our beliefs even more strongly (irrationally) while completely rejecting the viewpoint that is creating the cognitive dissonance.

_ _ _ _ _

   While this appears to explain some of the interchange between Jordan and Fauci above, I would suggest two additional (political) dynamics: patronage and persuasion.

   Jordan’s extreme, calculated, and over-generalized jump from a public health concern to his individual rights assertion was an attempt to make political points. He was speaking directly to, if not patronizing, his followers. I believe that Jordan was playing to his Me-First constituency to convince them that he was “still in their camp.”

   But he was simultaneously playing his own Me-First “card.” His patronage was motivated to inspire his constituency to support his Me-First desire to keep his elected position in the future.

   Clearly, this is my interpretation and my belief relative to Jordan’s behavior. Moreover, the foundation of this interpretation is my own position on the Me-First to We-First continuum. . . a position where I typically look at policy issues from a We-First and common good perspective.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How Do We Bridge the Me-First to We-First Continuum

   The last statement above may be the most important point here.

   When discussing policy or related issues, we need to be aware of our own position along the Me-First to We-First continuum, and then we need to listen and understand the positions of others involved in the discussion.

   We also need to set ground rules to guide the discussion, and decide how decisions will be made.

   Relative to the latter area, decisions can be made in different ways. They can be made by the group’s Chairperson after listening to members’ recommendations, by securing a group consensus, or as a result of a majority (51%) or super-majority (67%) vote.

   The most important thing to facilitate good group process and members’ commitment to the final decision is that group members should know how a specific decision will be made before the discussion progresses too far.

   In the former area, some “standard” ground rules include:

   Group members:

• 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

   When people are aware of their own position along the Me-First to We-First continuum, understand others’ positions, and follow the ground rules above, more—and more effective—decisions will result, and more individuals and groups will benefit.

   There will still be disagreements, and there will still be impasses. But the group will progressively experience a “more perfect union.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pulling it All Together

   In reviewing the new or continuing national headlines in the Introduction to this Blog, some important themes emerge:

• Our health and the health of our children impact our social, emotional, and behavioral interactions individually and with those around us.

• Some of the guns that are readily available to the public can kill large numbers of innocent people in a short amount of time.

•  People do kill themselves and other people at the same event, and the lack of mental health services—and effective mental health services—contribute at times to these acts.

• People do kill other people at times because of prejudice, revenge, hate, and intolerance.

•  Police training, coaching, supervision, evaluation, and accountability needs to be modified, changed, updated, and supported. This takes money.

• There still is a drug problem in our communities—involving both illegal drugs and improperly prescribed legal drugs (e.g., opioids).

• Parental supervision and good parenting are still important. 13-year-old adolescents should not be out at 2 AM.

• Black history is real, and racially-motivated lynchings and other atrocities, community red-lining, prejudice and discrimination, and socio-economic losses to generations of Black families did (do) occur.

• The Pandemic has highlighted and extended the pre-existing disproportionate social, emotional, economic, medical, and other impacts on students and families of color, with disabilities, and in poverty.

• Our children have experienced significant family, social, and academic losses because of the Pandemic. We need to strategically approach these student losses knowing that they will need time, resources, expertise, and patience in order to heal and progress.

   From a Me-First to We-First perspective, why can’t we take actions (e.g., relative to assault weapons) that prevent and resolve some of the issues above by making practical, We-First decisions that respect Me-First rights?

   And, why can’t we use a variety of Me-First decisions and actions (e.g., relative to teaching Black history, addressing racism, and remediating current and past institutional wrongs in the Black community) that combine to become We-First benefits?

   We have done this in the past—eliminating polio and smallpox, decreasing lung cancer and breast cancer due to smoking, apologizing to and compensating Asian Americans confined in internment camps during WWII, requiring seatbelts and making cars safer while decreasing our insurance premiums, cleaning up our air and rivers, protecting our senior citizens and those with disabilities.

   With some of the suggestions above, I know we can do this now and in the future.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Unfortunately, some learn about the importance of prevention by experiencing misfortune.

   But many times, the misfortune is a Me-First event, and it does not result in systemic change.

   When enough misfortune is directly experienced by enough people, however, prevention and systemic change become more important and easier.

   This occurs when misfortune becomes a collective, We-First event.

   For example, if only a few people lose their electricity—even for an entire week—only they experience a desire for change. In response, they may individually buy a generator for their house.

   But when an entire city or state (like Texas a few months ago) experiences the devastating failure of an entire electrical grid, immediate calls for changes in policy and procedures arise so that “this will never happen again.” Here, a We-First response is expected.

_ _ _ _ _

   This Blog has discussed the Me-First to We-First continuum, provided numerous examples, identified many critical issues that directly affect our lives and those of our children, and made a plea for discussions and decisions that are more balanced, reflective, respectful, and responsible.

   The foundation of our success—in life, at home, in the workplace, and at school—is anchored by people who are willing to communicate, collaborate, and navigate the Me-First to We-First continuum.

   We can do this.

   I hope that these reflections are useful to you, and that you will discuss them with your family, colleagues, and community leaders.

   If there is anything that I can do to add value to this discussion, please feel free to contact me with your questions, or set up a free, one-hour consultation with me and your team.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

 

Why Schools Need to Evaluate and Validate Before They Select and Direct (Their New Federal Funds to Services and Interventions)

 

Be Cautious—What We Don’t Know about Student Mental Health and the Pandemic 

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   We have known for decades that between 25 and 40 percent of all students need mental health services at some point during their school careers. What we don’t know when we initially recognize the existence of “a problem” is (a) what the problem actually is, and (b) what the right services, supports, and interventions are to ameliorate the problem.

   That is left to the science of psychology, the diagnostic skill of experts, and the clinical acumen of those providing the interventions or therapies—the latter when warranted by the intensity of the problem.

   As we remain in the midst of the pandemic, and as more students return to school on-site, there are increasing reports on students “experiencing” higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and trauma.

   Some of these reports are, quite frankly, published in the popular press and—while well-meaning—they are based mostly on some “expert’s” beliefs, projections, or fears—and not on objective data and fact.

   Some of these reports cite epidemiological information based on group data from a specific geographical area, location, and setting. Critically, even when the mental health “diagnoses” reported are accurate, the data are often skewed to the setting involved. Thus—for those of us in education, the results do not reflect what truly exists in school.

   The vast majority of the reports, relative to real students in actual schools, are non-existent.

   That is because most of the mental health practitioners in our schools (e.g., counselors, school psychologists, clinical social workers) have not yet had the time (a) to identify, differentially evaluate, and provide services to their students in need; (b) to see enough of these students to get accurate incident and trend data; and (c) to compare the data now with data from the past.

   Notably, the mental health practitioners in the schools are the best professionals to determine how many students have social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges in our school. But they need to differentially evaluate which of their current student challenges (a) existed before the pandemic, (b) began during the pandemic (but are unrelated to the pandemic), or (c) began during the pandemic and are related to pandemic conditions or events.

   Thus, on an individual student-by-student basis, school-based mental health practitioners need to first evaluate and validate.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What We Don’t Know: An Example with Numbers

   The major “take-away” above is that educators and school leaders need to “evaluate and validate” their own students and their own data before they “select and direct” the implementation of social, emotional, or behavioral services, supports, strategies, and interventions for their students.

   As a case in point, this week (March 31, 2021), Education Week published an article, “Data: What We Know About Student Mental Health and the Pandemic.”

   The thesis of the article was to emphasize—causally—how the pandemic has increased students’ mental health needs across the country.

   Unfortunately, the article inappropriately (methodologically and statistically) used three sets of data to make its (faulty) points—points that educators and school leaders need (as above) to “evaluate and validate” for themselves using their own school-based mental health practitioners and their own student data.

• The beginning of the Education Week article quoted a clinical psychologist at Stanford Medical School who said, about the children being referred to her, “I’ve never had so many referrals than in the last six months. … Normally it’s two or three a month and now it’s maybe two a week.”

[This is the “testimonial” of one practitioner in a highly selective setting citing data that may not be related to the pandemic, and that cannot be generalize to schools across the country.]

_ _ _ _ _

• The middle of the article cited information from “a nationally representative survey of more than 2,000 parents and nearly 900 teenagers this fall” that concluded that the pandemic was “causing” more anxiety for the students than “keeping up on their academics or getting ready for college.”

[This is an example of how survey data—which measures students’ perceptions and not necessarily their objectively-determined realities—are used to draw (questionable) conclusions. This passage also assumes (without validation) that the pandemic is “causing” student anxiety, and it does not discuss how many students need mental health support for their anxiety.]

_ _ _ _ _

• Finally, the Education Week article presented results from a “new nationally representative EdWeek Research Center survey (completed between January 29 to February 11, 2021 that) asked both educators and students in grades 9 through 12 to talk about the mental health challenges they’ve faced and supports they’ve received during the pandemic.”

The survey results noted that a majority of the students reported experiencing more problems now than in January, 2020—with higher rates reported by Black, Latinx, low-income, and LGBTQ students.

[While this survey at least involved students and school-related issues, there were no data in the published Report that objectively validated that this was indeed a “nationally representative sample of students.”

Moreover, the survey (once again) involved students’ self-perceptions, and no data reflected the clinical severity, intensity, or duration of the “problems experienced” by the students.

Indeed, for the record, here were the “problems” cited:

Not finishing schoolwork because of procrastination

Feeling very happy and very sad during parts of the school day

Feeling too sad/down to focus on class

Problems concentrating or remembering things for school

Distracted by anxieties, worries, fears during class

Feeling tired during class

Skipping or showing up late for class

Feeling isolated from classmates

Not participating/speaking in class

Getting low grades or incompletes

In the end, none of the survey results are surprising, but they are not helpful to individual districts or schools that may need to provide strategic services or interventions to specific students in need.]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

New Federal Funding: Selecting and Directing American Rescue Plan Funds to New Interventions

   Relative to students’ current academic and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs—new federal funds are now available through the recently-passed American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021.

   Here is the funding available (some overlaps may exist) from the ARP:

• The ARP includes a total of $169.5 billion in funding for education, with $129.6 billion for K-12 education and $39.6 billion for higher education.

Specifically, for K-12 education, the ARP provides $122 billion for new Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund awards to State Education Agencies (SEAs), which must allocate 90% of their funding to local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs must use at least 20% of their funding to address learning time loss for students. They can use the remaining 80% for other activities that address needs arising from the pandemic.

• The ARP also provides more than $3 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) state formula grants, another $2.75 billion in Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools, $850 million for the nation’s Outlying Areas, $800 million to meet the pandemic-related needs of homeless children and youth, and $190 million for Tribal Education Agencies, Alaska Native Education, and Native Hawaiian Education.

• Finally, the ARP includes just under $4 billion in emergency funding for substance use and mental health programs, including:

• $1.5 billion for block grants for prevention and treatment of substance use;
• $1.5 billion for block grants for community mental health services;
• $420 million for expansion grants for certified community behavioral health clinics;
• $100 million for behavioral health workforce education and training;
• $80 million for mental health and substance use disorder training for health care professionals, paraprofessionals, and public safety officers;
• $80 million for pediatric mental health care access;
• $50 million for community based funding for local behavioral health needs;
• $40 million for grants for health care providers to promote mental health among their health professional workforce;
• $30 million for Project AWARE;
• $30 million for community based funding for local substance use disorder services;
• $20 million for education and awareness campaign encouraging healthy work conditions and use of mental health and substance use disorder services by health care professionals;
• $20 million for youth suicide prevention; and
• $10 million for the national child traumatic stress network.

_ _ _ _ _

   With these new funds available, districts and schools have some important decisions to make on behalf of their students.

   In the section above, we emphasized the importance of having your mental health experts evaluate your students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs so that the most strategic and needed services and interventions can be targeted for these new federal funds.

   In our last Blog, we also encouraged you to critically and objectively analyze the research, outcomes, and efficacy—for your schools, staff, and students—of the frameworks and programs that will be “pitched” to you in the coming weeks.

[CLICK HERE for: 

"A Consumer Alert: Student Awareness Does Not Usually Change Student Behavior--Do We Need to Dig a Moat Around CASEL's Approach to Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)?"

   To assist with this critical analysis, we have integrated over 25 of our past Blogs into a new Monograph:

[CLICK HERE]

Trauma, Stress, Mindfulness, & SEL: Why Schools Need to Validate the Science Before Selecting their Solutions for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs

   This Monograph is organized in five sections:

• Differentiating Between Stress and Trauma, and Problems with Trauma-Informed Programs
  

• Understanding Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Challenges, and Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports

• The History and Hype of Social-Emotional Learning

• Teaching Students Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Self-Management from Preschool through High School

• Being Mindful of Mindfulness

and it critiques the framework and efficacy of social-emotional learning practices and programs, while detailing the questionable research and troubling track records of trauma-sensitive or trauma-informed school programs, mindfulness interventions, and the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework.

   For example, recent research reviewing over 7,000 school-related studies over the past decade has found that there are no Trauma-Informed School Programs that have been effectively evaluated such that they can state—with any level of evidence-based certainty—that they can demonstrate any positive impact on preventing or addressing student trauma.

   Moreover, the PBIS framework has a long, near-25 year old history of “glorifying” the number of schools that are “implementing” different strategies from its menu, even as most schools only implement at the Tier 1 Prevention level and do not sustain their strategies with fidelity for more than three years.

   This has left millions of school educators frustrated with the wasted time, money, and effort invested in PBIS, and millions of students with significant social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs untouched, unaffected, or worse off.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Where Schools Need to Start: The Foundation for all Interventions

   Despite its weaknesses, the Education Week article described earlier in this Blog does make two important points:

• School and district staff do need to help students learn to cope with conditions related to the pandemic so that they can successfully focus on their school responsibilities and interactions.

• We won’t know the full impact of the pandemic for many years, so schools need be prepared to address students’ ongoing and changing academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs for the long haul.

   To begin this process, we remind our colleagues of the benefits of the following strategies:

•  Listen to students with your full attention.

Students need to feel that they are the “most important” thing in your life when you are interacting with them. If you are not modeling listening with your full attention, then you really cannot expect them to learn or demonstrate the same courtesy with you and others.

_ _ _ _ _

• Acknowledge and label students’ feelings, while teaching and reinforcing their emotional control skills.

Help students to recognize how emotions link to interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills.

Students are always learning about different emotions and how to handle them. At the elementary level, we teach the student how to recognize different emotions, how they feel—physiologically—under different emotional conditions, and how to control mild to moderate emotional situations. At the secondary level, the focus is on teaching students how to control more extreme emotional situations, and how to analyze and solve their own social and interpersonal problems.

_ _ _ _ _

• Talk with your students using a problem-solving approach, and teach and model effective problem-solving in different situations.

When talking with students during actual or potential conflict situations, teachers can strategically model the language and process that we use in our Stop & Think Social Skills process:

“Let’s Stop and Think about this together. We need to make a good choice and think about what is happening here, and what we want to happen next. What choices or steps do we have or need to resolve this situation? Let’s get ready to follow these steps, and. . . just do it! How did it go. . . Can we reinforce ourselves for a good job?”

_ _ _ _ _

• Talk with students using an appropriate volume, tone of voice, and level of respect—even under “emotional” conditions.

Remember, even when students are not demonstrating appropriate behavior, you need to model your own social, emotional, and behavioral control. For example, if you are irritated with your students and talk with them in an excessively angry, critical, demeaning, or loud voice, your students might react negatively to the emotionality or disrespect in your voice, refuse to listen to you (now and in the future), and “write you off” as someone who “talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.”

Even though it is challenging, it is important to maintain an appropriate volume, tone of voice, and level of respect when talking and interacting with students in all situations. If you “blow” it, step back, let the air clear, and come back later to discuss the situation with your students and even (gasp!) apologize if your behavior was inappropriate.

_ _ _ _ _

• Give students time to process their feelings, thoughts, issues, and responses. In other words, when needed, be patient, don’t talk too much, and give your students a chance to work things out on their own.

When students approach you with a problem, give them the time, place, structure, and guidance to process it on their own. Indeed, once you have taught students the problem-solving process, every problem-solving opportunity become a “teachable moment” where students learn how to apply the original instruction.

While you may need to provide more help—from a skill perspective—to younger students during these teachable moments, you may also need to provide more help—on an emotional level—to older students who are sometimes confronted by some highly emotional situations and dilemmas.

_ _ _ _ _

• Remember to reinforce your students for Good Choices, while teaching and prompting them to self-management and self-reinforce themselves.

From kindergarten through middle school and high school, students increase their self-awareness, and learn how to depend on themselves as they plan, implement, monitor, evaluate, correct, and reinforce their own emotions, thoughts, and behavior. All of these processes increase students’ self-confidence, self-management, as well as their self-accountability. Self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement are particularly important parts of students’ developing self-management skill sets, because students are often too dependent on what others’ think about, believe, or respond to in different situations.

_ _ _ _ _

• Finally, give students hope.

Students need encouragement for their growth, progress, and effort—even if they are not always “perfect.” Help them expect and belief that they can improve and succeed over time. Give them opportunities to see different situations in different ways. Critically: give them a chance to see themselves as positive, productive, valued, and valuable individuals.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   While we know a lot about students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs, we are learning more given the unique circumstances of the pandemic.

   And while it is important to anticipate that more students will need more services, supports, and—potentially—interventions, we need to approach this process in clinically valid, strategic, and efficacious ways.

   And thus, we want to emphasize the primary message of this Blog:

   Educators and school leaders need to “evaluate and validate” their own students and their own data before they “select and direct” the implementation of social, emotional, or behavioral services, supports, strategies, and interventions for their students.

   With the new funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, we need to be sure that proven practices based on sound science are chosen to support students in our schools.

   In the rush to help our students, let’s not fall prey to the “old” stories (some from our federal and state departments of education) of programs and frameworks “that work”. . . or the “new” stories of “innovation” and “technological advances” that simply will not result in demonstrable and sustained student outcomes.

   In the midst of the tragedies and losses, frustrations and roadblocks of the pandemic, we have an opportunity to have real impact. Let’s do our homework so that we can make the critical decisions to “seize the moment and win the day.”

_ _ _ _ _

   We hope that this information has been useful to you, and that it will help you plan your next steps so that we can help and support our students both in the next phases of the pandemic and thereafter.

   If there is anything that I can do to guide you through this process, please feel free to contact me with your questions, or to set up a free, one-hour consultation with me and your team.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]