Behind Every Iron Chef is
an Iron-Clad Recipe
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of this Discussion]
Dear Colleagues,
I tell a student that the
most important class you can take is technique. A great chef is first a great
technician. 'If you are a jeweler, or a surgeon or a cook, you have to know the
trade in your hand. You have to learn the process. You learn it through endless
repetition until it belongs to you.
Jacques Pepin
Introduction
Cloaked in subdued anxiety, I am
actually writing this from an airplane—my first business trip (to California
and New Mexico) in eighteen months.
Leaving behind the virtual world
(for now), I am looking forward to helping four schools prepare—not just for
the troubling effects of the pandemic on their students’ social, emotional, and
behavioral health—but for the issues that also were present before COVID-19.
One of these pre-pandemic issues
involves helping teachers, staff, and administrators to better understand the
behavior of students of color. Too often, when these students demonstrate
“inappropriate” behavior, they are viewed as “discipline problems.”
When educators understand the
historical, cultural, sociological, and psycho-educational “make-up” of
students of color, they more accurately contextualize and respond to their
“inappropriate” behavior.
[Please note the quotation marks
above.]
One of the challenges here is getting teachers
and administrators to see their place in the decades-old national problem where
students of color are disproportionately sent to the principal’s office for
“discipline,” and then disproportionately suspended or placed in alternative
programs by their administrators.
This problem often includes
teacher referrals and administrative placements for behaviors that are dealt
with in the classroom for White students, but responded to more punitively for
students of color.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
An Overview of Part I in this Series
This two-part Blog Series is
dedicated to helping districts and schools to successfully eliminate
disproportionate discipline referrals and (punitive) actions for students of
color.
In Part I of the Series, we
presented a definition of “racism,” and talked about Critical Race Theory. We
did this to emphasize that (a) the disproportionate disciplinary treatment of
students of color—especially Black students (as well as students with
disabilities)—has existed for decades, and that (b) initiatives to eliminate
disproportionality should not be linked to the recent politicized
conversation involving Critical Race Theory.
Relative to the latter area, we
objectively reviewed the current information regarding Critical Race Theory and
its presence in America’s classrooms. We also expressed concerns about the
impact that legislative and other policy-level actions—focused on restricting
or eliminating the discussion of Critical Race Theory in schools—might have on
teachers and students.
[CLICK HERE to Read Part I]
In the end, with citations, we
documented:
- The political nature of the Critical Race Theory legislation
in a number of states;
- The fact that most teachers are not teaching this theory in
their classrooms;
- Concerns that schools are going to be wasting a lot of time
this year on Critical Race Theory discussion, debate, professional development,
lesson plan analysis, and administrative supervision (to ensure that teachers
understand and do not include Critical Race Theory in their classrooms)— because
of the legislation and/or because of misinformation in many communities; and we
documented
- The additional implications relative to teacher trust,
academic freedom, and the potential that legitimate classroom instruction and
discussion on race, racism, equity, and Black history will be reduced,
sanitized, or eliminated because teachers are afraid either to be unjustly
accused of teaching Critical Race Theory, or to trigger undue student
controversy or emotions.
Based on the information
presented in Part I, we recommended that educators avoid wasting their time by
looking past the Critical Race Theory politics and debate and, instead, focus
directly on how to eliminate the disproportionate disciplinary referrals and
actions against students of color—a long-standing result of racial bias in our
schools.
Part I then discussed the
different approaches that have been implemented in the past to address
school-level disciplinary disproportionality—explaining why they have not
worked and, hence, why they should be avoided in the future.
This presentation was organized by
describing six Reasons or Flaws:
Reason/Flaw #1.
Educational leaders have tried to change the disproportionate numbers through
policy and not practice.
Reason/Flaw #2. State
Departments of Education (and other educational leaders) have promoted
whole-school programs that are unproven or have critical scientific flaws.
Reason/Flaw #3. Districts
and schools have implemented frameworks that target conceptual constructs,
rather than instruction that teaches social, emotional, and behavioral skills.
Reason/Flaw #4. Districts
and schools have not recognized that classroom management and teacher training,
supervision, and evaluation are keys to decreasing disproportionality; and they
are depending on Teacher Training Programs to equip their teachers with
effective classroom management skills.
Reason/Flaw #5. Schools
and staff have tried to motivate students to change their behavior when they
have not learned, mastered, or are unable to apply the social, emotional, and
behavioral skills needed to succeed.
Reason/Flaw #6. Districts,
schools, and staff do not have the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to
implement the multi-tiered (prevention, strategic intervention, intensive
need/crisis management) social, emotional, and/or behavioral services,
supports, and interventions needed by some students.
[CLICK HERE to Read Part I]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
An Overview of Part II in this Series
In this Series Part II, we
respond to the six reasons/flaws above by providing effective practices and
solutions to decrease or eliminate disproportionality.
As part of this discussion, we
directly address an embedded issue in many of the race-based laws passed by
different states during this year’s legislative sessions.
In a July 14, 2021 Education
Week article, “Four Things Schools Won’t Be Able to Do Under ‘Critical Race
Theory’ Laws,” it was noted:
In
recent years, some school districts with shifting racial demographics have
launched multi-pronged efforts to better serve students of color. They’ve
formed diversity, inclusion and equity committees made up of students,
teachers, and administrators, hired equity officers, and offered ongoing
training for teachers to recognize and rid themselves of their unconscious
biases, which many experts argue lead to, among other things, disproportionate
suspensions and expulsions, for Black and Latino students.
Now,
in at least nine states (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa), those efforts, advocates
and district administrators say, would effectively come to a halt.
[CLICK
HERE for Article]
We clearly believe that staff who
are specifically motivated by explicit bias and overt prejudice should be held
directly accountable for discriminatory behavior. This has not changed due to
the recent state legislation.
However, we also recognize
that—even if it were permitted—“ongoing training for teachers to recognize and
rid themselves of their unconscious biases” has largely not worked.
[See our December 5, 2020 Blog:
“Training Racial Bias Out of Teachers: Who Ever Said that We Could? Will the
Fact that In-Service Programs Cannot Eliminate Implicit Bias Create a Bias
Toward Inaction?”
CLICK
HERE to Link]
So, at least on this level, the
recent state legislation in this area should not dramatically impact school and
districts’ effective efforts to decrease and eliminate disciplinary
disproportionality.
And yet, this still is not
occurring in so many districts and schools because, as discussed in Part I of
this Blog Series, many have focused their efforts in one or more of the six
Reason or Flaw areas above... and many are not using the scientific,
psychoeducational components that do not involve racial anti-bias training,
and that do involve essential and proven field-tested practices.
Thus, in this Blog, we will:
- Describe five interdependent psychoeducational components
and their specific, embedded practices (addressing Flaw #1); that are
- Organized within a strategically-implemented,
evidence-based, multi-tiered professional development and coaching-centered
whole-school initiative (addressing Flaw #2); that focuses on
- Teaching students—from preschool through high
school— specific, observable, and measurable social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management skills (addressing Flaws #3 and 5).
- We then advocated the use of a data-based
problem-solving process—when students demonstrate frequent, persistent,
unresponsive, significant, or extreme levels of inappropriate, disruptive,
unpredictable, antisocial, or dangerous behavior—to objectively identify the
root causes of the behavior, and to discriminate discipline problems from
social, emotional, behavioral, and/or mental health problems. . . so that
- The assessment results can be linked to the
strategic or intensive multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, or
interventions that will eliminate the student problem and replace it—once
again—with appropriate behavior (addressing Flaw #6).
While this Blog will primarily
focus on student outcomes, note that we provided an extensive discussion in
Part I of this Series addressing the fact that some teachers, staff, and
administrators are complicit in the disproportionate office referral and school
suspension numbers when they (re)act due to a lack of (student and racial) knowledge
and information, understanding and analysis, skill and application, motivation
and self-reflection, entitlement and privilege, or prejudice and bias.
To address these professional (or
unprofessional in the case of prejudice and bias) gaps, we recommended
district- and school-level training, coaching, supervision, and evaluation as
keys to decreasing disproportionality (addressing Flaw #4).
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of this Discussion]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Solving the
Disproportionality Dilemma
This Blog began with a quote from
a Master Chef discussing the importance of (over-)learning the techniques
needed to prepare a world-class meal.
Expanding on this analogy by reflecting
on the title of this Blog, good technique—which involves process, must
be complemented by a good recipe—which involves substance (i.e., the
ingredients) and sequence (i.e., the step-by-step implementation).
Applying this to eliminating
disproportionality, schools need to have both a proven recipe for change, and
the complementary processes needed to prepare the recipe with intent and
fidelity.
A major principle grounding the
disproportionality recipe is:
- When all students (including students of color) are taught
(in developmentally, culturally, and pedagogically-sound ways—from preschool
through high school), and when they have mastered and can apply specific and
scaffolded interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution,
and emotional control, communication, and coping skills. . . and
- When they are prompted, motivated, and held accountable for
using these skills in all school settings and circumstances. . .
- They will consistently demonstrate appropriate, prosocial
interactions. . . such that
- The need to need a disciplinary referral to the principal’s
office will become moot.
Critically, and as acknowledged
earlier, some students will need multi-tiered strategic or intensive services,
supports, strategies, or interventions in order to learn and demonstrate their
social, emotional, and behavioral skills.
To determine these services and
supports, data-based analyses should be conducted to determine why the students
are not learning or performing so that, like a Master Chef, modifications to
the recipe can occur—still resulting in a world-class meal.
_ _ _ _ _
At the center of the
disproportionality recipe are five interdependent components that have an
assortment of important practices within them (see the Figure below).
From:
Knoff, H.M. (2014). School Discipline, Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: A Positive Behavioral Support Implementation Guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
CLICK HERE for more information.
These components are:
- Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climates
- Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skill Instruction
- Student Motivation and Accountability
- Special Situations and Multi-Tiered Services and Supports
They are briefly described below.
_ _ _ _ _
Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climate
Effective schools work
consciously, planfully, and on an on-going basis to develop, reinforce, and
sustain positive and productive relationships so that their cross-school and
in-classroom climates mirror these relationships.
Critically, however, these
relationships include the following interactions: Students to Students, Students to Staff,
Staff to Staff, Students to Parents, and Staff to Parents.
Relative to minority students, these
interactions involve understanding them, their backgrounds, their personal and
familial histories, their strengths and weaknesses, and their personal or
unique stories or experiences.
For minority students, this also
includes understanding their racial and cultural backgrounds, but care is
needed not to stereotype these backgrounds such that individual students are
not seen as individuals.
Positive relationships and
school/classroom climates result when all of the adults in a school actively
participate. But the students are also part of this process, as well as the
different formal and informal peer groups, clubs, and organizations represented
across the school.
_ _ _ _ _
Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skills Instruction
All students from preschool
through high school—including students of color—need to be explicitly taught
(just like an academic skill) the explicit social, emotional, and behavioral
expectations in their classrooms and across the common areas of the school. These
expectations need to be communicated in a positive, prosocial—rather than a
negative, deficit-oriented—way. That is, students need to be taught “what to
do,” rather than “what not to do.”
Indeed, teachers and
administrators will have more behavioral success teaching and prompting
students, for example, to (a) walk down the hallway (rather than “Do not run”);
(b) raise your hand and wait to be called on (rather than “Do not blurt out
answers”); or (c) accept a consequence (rather than “Don’t roll your eyes and
give me attitude”).
In addition, these expectations
need to be behaviorally specific—that is, we need to describe exactly what specific,
observable steps we want students to perform—for example:
- Walk onto the bus
quietly, using social distancing;
- Sit in the first
open seat and move all the way in;
- Put your books on
your lap or your bookbag under the seat in front of you;
- Talk only with
your neighbors using a whisper or conversational voice; and
- Stay seated until
the bus has stopped, and it is your turn to leave.
Indeed, it is not instructionally
helpful to talk in constructs—telling students that they need to be
“Respectful, Responsible, Polite, Safe, and Trustworthy.” This is because each
of these constructs involve a wide range of undefined behaviors. Moreover, at
the elementary school level, students really do not functionally or
behaviorally understand these higher-ordered constructs. At the secondary
level, meanwhile, students often interpret these constructs (and their many
inherent behaviors) very differently than staff.
Thus, and as above, we need to
teach students the interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention
and resolution, and emotional control, communication, and coping skills that we
want them to demonstrate at each grade and developmental level.
Moreover, we need to teach these
skills the same way that successful basketball coaches teach the plays in their
playbooks. That is, we need to (a) teach students the specific steps for each
social skill, along with the related behaviors; (b) positively demonstrate the
steps to them in meaningful and real-life scenarios; (c) give students structured
opportunities to practice each skill in simulated roleplays with guidance and explicit
feedback; and then (d) help students to apply (or transfer) their new skills more
automatically and independently to “real-world” situations.
Embedded in this instruction is
the social problem-solving needed to select the best behavioral choices for
different situations. Also included is how to maintain self-control when faced
with emotional triggers and stress, peer pressure and conflict, or other home
or school disruptions.
Significantly, there are hundreds
of important social, emotional, and behavioral skills that could be taught
during students’ school careers. Examples of some needed social skills include:
Listening, Following Directions, Asking for Help, Ignoring Distractions,
Dealing with Teasing and Bullying, How to Accept a Consequence, How to Deal
with Losing or Not Getting Your Own Way, How to Handle Peer Pressure and
Rejection, How to be a Good Leaders and a Good Team Member, How to Set Goals
and Develop Good Action Plans.
All of the core social skill
instruction is led by general education teachers. This is because (a) they know
the students better than anyone else; (b) they have more opportunities to
prompt, practice, reinforce, and correct the skills in real-life classroom
situations; (c) they need to use these skills to facilitate classroom
management and positive school climates; and (d) they need to integrate these
skills into students’ academic engagement and success.
For students who need modified,
small group, or individual (cognitive behavior therapy-based) instruction
(e.g., at the Tier 2 or Tier 3 levels), this is done by school or school-based
mental health staff—counselors, psychologists, or social workers.
Relative to disproportionality,
when students of color learn these skills, routines, and interactions—in
developmentally, culturally, and pedagogically-sound ways, they will more consistently
demonstrate appropriate, prosocial interactions, and there will be less (no)
need for discipline.
_ _ _ _ _
Student Motivation and Accountability
For the skill instruction
described above to “work,” minority students need to be motivated to and held
accountable for demonstrating positive and effective social, emotional, and
behavioral skills.
Scientifically, motivation is
based on two component parts:
Incentives and Consequences.
But to work, these incentives and
consequences must be meaningful and powerful to the students (not
just to the adults in a school).
That is, too often schools create
“motivational programs” for students that involve incentives and consequences
that the students couldn’t care less about. Thus, the programs look good “on
paper,” but they hold no weight in functional, behavioral reality—at least from
the students’ perspectives.
But this is not about motivational
programs, it is about effective practices.
And in order to decrease or
eliminate disproportionality, while increasing effective classroom management and
student self-management practices, teachers need a classroom discipline “road
map.”
For us, we call this road map the
Behavioral Matrix, and we work constantly with schools nationwide to
help them develop their own grade-level Matrices that are sensitive to and reflective
of their staff and students.
The Behavioral Matrix is
the “anchor” to a school’s behavioral accountability and progressive school
discipline system. At the Elementary School level, there typically is a
Behavioral Matrix at each grade level because of the developmental differences
across prekindergarten through (typically) Grade 5 students.
At the Secondary level, there
typically is a school-wide (for example, Grade 6 to 8, and Grade 9 to 12)
Matrix for each middle and high school, respectively. Significantly, at times
these schools create separate Grade 6 and Grade 9 matrices, because these
students are often entering their middle or high schools, respectively, for the
first time, and the schools want to individualize the behavioral expectations
and accountability attention specifically to them.
Every Behavioral Matrix
has quadrants that address appropriate versus inappropriate behavior,
respectively (see the Figure below). The first two quadrants of the Matrix
specify (a) the behavioral expectations in the classroom connected (b) with
positive responses, motivating incentives, and periodic rewards.
The third and fourth quadrants,
respectively, identify four progressive “Intensity Levels” of inappropriate
behavior, connected with research-based responses and strategies that
facilitate a change of this inappropriate behavior.
When teachers and
administrators use these quadrants with fidelity, they help to eliminate both
disproportionate referrals of students of color to the principal’s office, and repeated
school suspensions of the same students—especially, when multi-tiered services
and supports are in order.
When students are taught, as recommended,
about the different levels of inappropriate behavior and how each level will be
addressed, many (a) are motivated to avoid these responses by demonstrating
appropriate behavior, or (b) are not surprised by the teacher consequences or
administrative responses that occur when they choose to demonstrate
inappropriate behavior.
In addition, many students
internalize the Matrix, and it becomes an internal, intrinsic self-management
guide that facilitates self-control, behavioral decision making,
self-reinforcement, and self-accountability.
When teachers are involved
in creating and/or are taught to use the Matrix as part of their classroom
management, they realize that (a) Intensity I or II inappropriate student behaviors
should not be sent to the principal’s office, and (b) there will be
administrative questions, training, coaching, or even personnel-related actions
if they continue to send Intensity I or II behavior to the office.
The four Intensity Levels are
briefly defined as follows:
Intensity
I (Annoying) Behavior: Behaviors in the classroom that are
annoying or that mildly interrupt classroom instruction or student attention
and engagement. Teachers handle these behaviors with a minimum of interaction
by using a corrective response (e.g., a non-verbal prompt or cue, physical
proximity, a social skills prompt, reinforcing nearby students’ appropriate
behavior).
_
_ _ _ _
Intensity
II (Disruptive or Interfering) Behavior: Behavior problems in
the classroom that occur more frequently, for longer periods of time, or to the
degree that they disrupt classroom instruction and/or interfere with student
attention and engagement. Teachers handle these behaviors with a corrective
response, and a classroom-based consequence (e.g., loss of student points or
privileges, a classroom time-out, a note or call home, completion by the
student of a behavior change plan).
After
the consequence is over, and guided by the teacher, the student must positively
practice the appropriate behavior that the student should have done and did not
do (hence, requiring the consequence) at least three times as soon as possible.
_
_ _ _ _
Intensity
III (Persistently Disruptive or Antisocial) Behavior:
Behavior problems in the classroom that significantly (as in a single incident)
or persistently (as in multiple incidents that increase in severity over time)
disrupt classroom instruction or engagement, or that involve antisocial acts
toward adults or peers.
These
inappropriate behaviors require some type of out-of-classroom response (e.g., a
time-out in another teacher’s classroom, removal to a school “student
accountability room,” an office discipline referral), and a consequence that
involves the classroom teacher (even if, for example, an administrator is
involved)—so that the student remains accountable to the teacher and the
classroom where the behavior occurred.
The
consequence could be followed by a restitutional pay-back (e.g., an apology,
cleaning up/repairing damaged property or a messed-up classroom, community
service), and should be followed by the positive practice of the appropriate
behavior described in Intensity II above.
If
it is believed or apparent that the inappropriate behavior is not a
discipline problem but a social, emotional, behavioral, or psychoeducational
problem, the student should be referred to the school’s Multi-Tiered
Services (Child Study, Student Services) Team for assessments to determine the
root cause(s) of the problem, and a resulting behavioral intervention plan that
specifies the services, supports, strategies, or interventions that are both
linked to the assessment results and needed to ameliorate the problem.
_
_ _ _ _
Intensity
IV (Severe or Dangerous) Behavior: These involve extremely
antisocial, damaging, and/or dangerous behaviors—on a physical, social, or
emotional level—that are typically cited and described in a District’s Student
Code of Conduct handbook. These inappropriate behaviors require an immediate
administrative referral and response (e.g., a parent conference, suspension, or
expulsion), followed (at times) by additional consequences, restitutional
requirements, and (once again) positive practice sessions.
While
an administrator may, by Code, need to suspend a student, if she or he believes
that the offense is not a discipline problem but a social, emotional, or
behavioral problem, the student—as in the Intensity III description
above—should be referred into the school’s Multi-Tiered Services and Supports
process.
_
_ _ _ _
As noted, relative to
disproportionality, when teachers consistently use the Intensity I, II, and III
areas of the Matrix for all students, disproportionality is decreased or
eliminated. This often occurs because the Matrix specifically discriminates
between annoying (Intensity I) and disruptive behavior in the classroom
(Intensity II)—explicitly identifying the different responses that facilitate
students’ change of behavior.
When Administrators additionally
hold teachers accountable for using the Matrix appropriately and consistently with
all students, once again, disproportionality is effectively addressed.
When implementing the Behavioral
Matrix process, schools need to use it with specific peer groups. This is
because some peer groups have more social power, reinforcement, or influence
over some individual students— reinforcing their inappropriate behavior and
undermining school and classroom management. Here, the incentives and
consequences built into the Matrix may need to be modified—both for the individual
students and the peer groups involved.
_ _ _ _ _
Taken altogether, the Behavioral
Matrix increases the probability that all students—including students of
color—demonstrate the appropriate interpersonal, social problem-solving,
conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control, communication, and
coping skills described and taught in the second component above.
When all students—including
students of color—decide to demonstrate inappropriate behavior, the Behavioral
Matrix provides a predictable, but flexible and strategic, roadmap of proven
practices that are focused on holding students accountable for their behavior,
while motivating them to make a better choice the next time.
For teachers, the Behavioral
Matrix also provides them a roadmap, but it especially addresses what needs to
occur when students demonstrate Intensity I of II inappropriate behavior.
For administrators, the
Behavioral Matrix provides guidance as to how to address serious student
inappropriate behavior, and what to do when teachers send inappropriate
“discipline” referrals to the office.
Over time, the Behavioral Matrix
process helps schools and staff to discriminate and effectively address
disciplinary problems and—from a multi-tiered perspective—social, emotional,
and behavioral problems.
We have published an extensive
number of resources that help schools to effectively develop and successfully
implement the Behavioral Matrix process. For example, you may be interested in
our Monograph:
Developing School Discipline Codes that Work: Increasing
Student Responsibility while Decreasing Disproportionate Discipline Referrals
For more information:
[CLICK HERE
for Behavioral Matrix RESOURCES]
_ _ _ _ _
Consistency and Fidelity
Consistency is a process. It
would be great if we could “download” it into all students and staff. . . or
put it in their annual flu shots. . . but that’s not going to happen.
Consistency needs to be “grown”
experientially over time and, even then, it needs to be sustained in an ongoing
way. It is grown through effective strategic planning with detailed
implementation plans, good communication and collaboration, sound
implementation and evaluation, and consensus-building coupled with constructive
feedback and change.
It’s not easy. . . but it is
necessary for school success. And it is especially important when
working with students of color—who
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of How to Help Staff to be More Consistent]
_ _ _ _ _
Special Situations and Multi-Tiered Services and Supports
The last of the evidence-based,
interdependent components that districts and schools need at the center of
their disproportionality recipe involve three “special situations”—the last of
which requires a sound multi-tiered system of supports.
The first Special Situation
focuses on the multiple settings in a school. Here, schools need to plan for
student behavior and interactions not just in the classroom, but also in the
common areas of the school—for example, the hallways, bathrooms, buses,
cafeteria, and the playgrounds or common gathering areas.
The second Special Situation
focuses on the impact of peer groups as psychosocial influencers, and their
relationship to teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, hazing, and physical
aggression (fighting).
The third Special Situation
focuses on the fact that some student behavior occurs due to significant or
intense idiosyncratic situations or circumstances that are not disciplinary in
nature, but are part of their social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health
make-up. As discussed earlier, these students often need multi-tiered strategic
(Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) services, supports, strategies, or interventions
that are based on functional or diagnostic assessments that determine the root
causes of the students’ challenging behavior.
Examples of some of the triggers
or causes of these social, emotional, and/or behavioral (not disciplinary)
challenges include:
- Physical, Biological,
Physiological, Genetic, Neurological issues
- Significant stresses
or traumas
- Dysfunctional home
and family situations
- Poverty or Economic
stresses
- Significant Life
Changes or Events
We know the students of color are
at-risk in a number of the areas above. Indeed, this fact has been reinforced
especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of these Three Special Situations and their Relationship to Disproportionality]
We have discussed the
evidence-based, effective characteristics of a school-level multi-tiered system
of support process in a number of past Blogs.
An excellent resource—that we
used to guide districts’ and schools’ MTSS processes through our work at the
Arkansas Department of Education for 13 years—is:
A Multi-Tiered Service and Support Implementation
Guidebook for Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap
[CLICK
HERE to Review this Resource]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This two-part Blog Series was
dedicated to helping districts and schools to successfully eliminate
disproportionate discipline referrals and (punitive) actions for students of
color.
In Part I of the Series, we
presented a definition of “racism,” and talked about Critical Race Theory. We
did this to emphasize that (a) the disproportionate disciplinary treatment of
students of color—especially Black students (as well as students with
disabilities)—has existed for decades, and that (b) initiatives to eliminate
disproportionality should not be linked to the recent politicized conversation
involving Critical Race Theory.
Relative to the latter area, we
objectively reviewed the current information regarding Critical Race Theory and
its presence in America’s classrooms. We expressed concerns about the impact
that legislative and other policy-level actions—focused on restricting or
eliminating the discussion of Critical Race Theory in schools—might have on
teachers and students. And, we recommended that educators avoid wasting their
time by looking past the Critical Race Theory politics and debate and, instead,
focus directly on how to eliminate the disproportionate disciplinary referrals
and actions against students of color—a long-standing result of racial bias in
our schools.
Part I then discussed six
different approaches that have been implemented in the past to address
school-level disciplinary disproportionality—explaining why they have not
worked and, hence, why they should be avoided in the future.
In this Part II, we addressed the
six reasons/flaws from Part I by providing effective practices and solutions to
decrease or eliminate disproportionality.
As part of this discussion, we
directly addressed and dismissed an embedded issue in many of the race-based
laws passed by different states during this year’s legislative sessions: the
use of (especially, one-session in-service) anti-bias or diversity training
with school staff members. Relative to disproportionality, however, we still
clearly stated that staff who are specifically motivated by explicit bias and
overt prejudice should be held directly accountable for discriminatory
behavior, and that the recent state laws have not changed this professional
(for administrators) responsibility.
The remainder of this Blog:
- Described five interdependent psychoeducational components
and their specific, embedded practices (addressing Blog Part I’s Flaw #1); that
are
- Organized within a strategically-implemented,
evidence-based, multi-tiered professional development and coaching-centered
whole-school initiative (addressing Flaw #2); that focuses on
- Teaching students—from preschool through high
school— specific, observable, and measurable social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management skills (addressing Flaws #3 and 5).
- We then advocated the use of a data-based
problem-solving process—when students demonstrate frequent, persistent,
unresponsive, significant, or extreme levels of inappropriate, disruptive,
unpredictable, antisocial, or dangerous behavior—to objectively identify the
root causes of the behavior, and to discriminate discipline problems from
social, emotional, behavioral, and/or mental health problems. . . so that
- The assessment results can be linked to the
strategic or intensive multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, or
interventions that will eliminate the student problem and replace it—once
again—with appropriate behavior (addressing Flaw #6).
Using the metaphor of a Master
Chef who needs an excellent recipe and well-honed technical skills to prepare a
world-class meal, the five interdependent psychoeducational components needed
and discussed to eliminate disproportionality were:
- Positive Relationships and School/Classroom Climates
- Positive Behavioral Expectations and Skill Instruction
- Student Motivation and Accountability
- Special Situations and Multi-Tiered Services and Supports
The inherent principle grounding
the evidence-based approach to disproportionality is:
- When all students (including students of color) are taught
(in developmentally, culturally, and pedagogically-sound ways—from preschool
through high school), and when they have mastered and can apply specific and
scaffolded interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and
resolution, and emotional control, communication, and coping skills. . . and
- When they are prompted, motivated, and held accountable for
using these skills in all school settings and circumstances. . .
- They will consistently demonstrate appropriate, prosocial
interactions. . . such that
- The need to need a disciplinary referral to the principal’s
office will become moot.
In addition, as teachers, support
staff, and administrators design, conduct, and apply this process, they will
develop more intimate relationships with students of color that will help them
to understand the backgrounds and social contexts of these students. Thus, when
annoying or disruptive inappropriate behavior occurs with these same students
of color, they can more easily to move into a self-management problem-solving
mode—reacting more to the person than the person’s race.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I hope that this
Series was useful to you, and always look forward to your comments. . . whether
on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you in any of the components
or multi-tiered areas discussed above, know that I am constantly working with
districts and schools— virtually and on-site—in this important area. 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.
As your school year enters the
new school year, please accept my best wishes for a safe and productive one. .
. one complete with active and positive student engagement, learning, and
success.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Version of this Discussion]
