Research Does Not Support Growth Mindset Strategies in the Classroom: How “Culturally Fluent Ideas” Influence Educators to Waste Time, Money, Resources, and Good Faith

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   I was listening this week to a National Public Radio program on the history of “Sesame Street” which began its PBS run on November 10, 1969. The show was created by television producer Joan Ganz Cooney who was talking with friends at a cocktail party in New York City about whether a children’s television show could teach children—largely from poverty—how to read.

   At this point in television history, most of the programming for children consisted of cartoons or other “entertainment” programs funded largely by companies and advertisers to sell their products. If you still remember some of the “now-ancient” advertising products, catch-phrases, or ad-tunes/“jingles” locked in your nostalgic brain, you know they were good at it.

   Similarly, Cooney—with funding from the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the U.S. federal government—wanted to “master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them.” But in order to justify her funding, she knew that Sesame Street needed to quickly demonstrate that it could help young children to be better prepared for school.

   And so, she did something that few commercial (or governmental) ventures in education do today. . . she convened a diverse group of experts in early childhood education and developmental psychology, music and entertainment, cultural diversity and second language learning, and outcome-based research and evaluation. And for two years, they created, tested, researched, and established the best ways to use television as an educational vehicle.

   Today’s educators should attend to the now 55-year old Sesame Street lessons of research before large-scale implementation, data-based outcomes before testimonials and sound-bites, and proven practices before marketing and gratuitous promises.

   But these lessons often fall on deaf ears.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Growth Mindset “Promise” Lacks Proven Practices

   Over the years, my Blogs have highlighted many programs and approaches that have been formally or informally marketed or promoted by individuals, companies, foundations, and even the U.S. Departments of Education or Health and Human Services that have not demonstrated their efficacy through independent and objective research.

   And yet, the popular press and mass marketing of these programs have been so successful that thousands of schools have implemented them to the tune of millions of dollars and countless other time and personnel resources. Some of these programs have done little to improve students’ academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral outcomes.

   And some of these programs have left students, staff, and schools further behind, more frustrated, and resistant to future innovations—even those that are proven to produce the results needed and desired.

   One very popular trend in many schools involves the training and implementation of “Growth Mindset” strategies and programs.

   In a recent 2023 article in the highly regarded, refereed journal Psychological Bulletin, authors Macnamara and Burgoyne summarized the Growth Mindset “movement”:

According to (Dweck’s) mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change— that is, those who hold a growth mindset—will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed.

 

Holding a fixed mindset means believing intelligence or other characteristics are relatively stable. Proponents of mindset theory claim holding a fixed mindset is detrimental for a variety of real-world outcomes because people with fixed mindsets (a) seek to appear smart/talented at all costs, (b) avoid effort, and (c) refrain from challenges and conceal weaknesses. In other words, people with fixed mindsets have the “one consuming goal of proving themselves” (Dweck, 2016, p. 6), and therefore avoid challenges (Dweck, 2016) and are “devastated by setbacks” (Dweck, 2008a, p. 1).

 

In contrast, holding a growth mindset means believing intelligence or other characteristics are malleable. Proponents of mindset theory claim holding a growth mindset is beneficial for a variety of real-world outcomes because people with growth mindsets (a) focus on learning, (b) believe effort is key, and (c) embrace challenges and mistakes (Dweck, 2007a, 2009). In other words, people with growth mindsets have a desire to learn, and therefore seek challenges and are resilient to setbacks (Dweck, 1986, 2006, 2009, 2016).

 

Mindset proponents encourage parents and teachers to promote growth mindsets in students because, “what students believe about their brains—whether they see their intelligence as something that’s fixed or something that can grow and change—has profound effects on their motivation, learning, and school achievement” (Dweck, 2008a, p. 1). The promise of profound effects on learning and achievement led researchers to develop growth mindset interventions—treatments designed to teach students to have more of a growth mindset.

 

Millions of dollars in funding from private foundations (e.g., Raikes Foundation, Gates Foundation) and government agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education) have been awarded to researchers, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit companies for growth mindset intervention studies.

 

As an example, the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences recently awarded a $3.5 million grant to Mindset Works (a for-profit company established by Carol Dweck—the researcher behind the Growth Mindset movement). The goal of this grant was to determine whether “Brainology”—Mindset Works’ flagship growth mindset intervention product—is effective or not.

 

For context, Mindset Works has been selling Brainology to schools for thousands of dollars for the past decade claiming that it benefits students. This conflicting information raises the question of whether (a) Brainology is beneficial, as Mindset Works claims on its website, or (b) there was not enough evidence to make this claim, hence why the grant from Institute of Education Sciences was needed.

_ _ _ _ _

   Macnamara and Burgoyne decided to examine the concerns above, assessing both published and unpublished research investigating the impact of growth mindset interventions on students’ academic achievement.

   To do this, they conducted three meta-analyses involving a total of 61 independent records (e.g., articles, dissertations, commissioned studies) that included 63 studies and 79 independent samples with a total sample size of 97,672 students. The studies included in the meta-analyses were published or available from 2002 through 2018, with 44 of them from 2016 or later. Significantly, the authors established their research selection, inclusion, and analysis criteria before beginning their study, and they used appropriate statistical methods to control for random or artifactual “results.”

   This highly sophisticated, comprehensive, transparent, and detailed study produced the following, according to the authors, results:

When examining all studies (63 studies, N=97,672 students), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d=0.05), which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant.

 

When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students’ mindsets as intended (13 studies, N=18,355 students), the effect was nonsignificant (d= 0.04). When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N=13,571 students), the effect was nonsignificant (d= 0.02).

 

We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Volley and Counter-Volley: Response and Rejoinder

   The same 2023 issue of Psychological Bulletin that published the Macnamara and Burgoyne article discussed above also included a second meta-analysis article on the Growth Mindset research (by Burnette et al.), as well as three commentary articles from different authors who reviewed the two studies.

   In a later 2023 Psychological Bulletin issue, Macnamara and Burgoyne published a new article reflecting on these three commentaries. Noting that their original meta-analysis was more objective, methodologically sophisticated, and comprehensive than the Burnette et al. study, Macnamara and Burgoyne further defended their research conclusions:

We (Macnamara & Burgoyne, 2023) tested 11 preregistered moderators and examined the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. We found major areas of concern in the growth mindset intervention literature.

 

For instance, 94% of growth mindset interventions included confounds, authors with a known financial incentive were two and a half times as likely to report positive effects, and higher quality studies were less likely to demonstrate a benefit.

 

Yan and Schuetze (2023) contextualized these findings by describing problems with mindset theory and its measurement.

 

Likewise, Oyserman (2023) discussed how growth mindset is a culturally fluent idea; papers supportive of growth mindset are widely embraced, whereas papers taking a skeptical approach are challenged.

 

In another commentary, Tipton et al. (2023) challenged our results, claiming to produce positive effects by reanalyzing our data set using Burnette et al.’s (2023) approach. However, in addition to changing the approach, Tipton et al. changed effect sizes, how moderators were coded, and which studies were included, often without explanation.

 

Though we appreciate the discussion of multiple meta-analytic approaches, we contend that meta-analytic decisions should be a priori, transparently reported, and consistently applied. Tipton et al.’s analysis illustrated our (Macnamara & Burgoyne’s, 2023) conclusion: Apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement may be attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How Culturally Fluent Ideas Help Vendors (Even Harvard Psychologists) Brand and Market Effective, but Common, Strategies

   Critically—as with academic learning styles, emotional intelligence/social-emotional learning, trauma-informed schools, restorative justice programs, mindfulness, and some other contemporary educational “movements” (see some of my past Blogs)—there are districts and schools that say they are “doing” growth mindset “programs or activities” in their schools.

   But, in reality, they are just doing what good schools do, for example, to:

·       Develop positive and self-affirming students with good self-esteem; 

·       Encourage students to be optimistic and believe in their ability to learn and grow over time; 

·       Help students focus more on their mastery of skills and how to get correct answers, rather than obsess over grades and the number of right answers they’ve gotten; and

·       Teach students how to focus on and organize their school work, plan their time and study effectively, and evaluate their effort when they are both academically successful and unsuccessful.

   You don’t need a packaged, marketed intervention or program to do this.

   And you don’t need to call these interactions “Growth Mindset activities” to (a) rationalize the presence or importance of these interactions, or (b) be a “with-it” educator who is an “in vogue” member of the “GM Appreciation Club.”

   You use these strategies because they are beneficial, and because they have successfully impacted students way before Dweck coined the phrase “Growth Mindset,” opened Mindset Works, and started her side-hustle Brainology.

_ _ _ _ _

   Indeed, Oyserman—one of the three Discussants who critiqued Macnamara and Burgoyne’s meta-analytic study in the second 2023 Psychological Bulletin issue (see the Blog section above)—discussed how growth mindset is a “culturally fluent idea.”

   This means that its descriptions, characteristics, and alignments to what many educators already believe (NOTE the four bullets immediately above), make it and its name accepted without criticism.

   This helps explain why—even in the face of the unsupportive research summarized by Macnamara and Burgoyne—educators have nonetheless invested needless time, effort, and resources into this “Emperor with No Clothes” endeavor.

   But it also helps explain why those who legitimately question a culturally-fluent idea—like growth mindset programs or interventions (along with academic learning styles, emotional intelligence/social-emotional learning, trauma-informed schools, restorative justice programs, mindfulness, and the like)—are often met with disbelief, disdain, criticism, rejection, and indignant (but unsupported) counter-assertions.

_ _ _ _ _

   While it is disconcerting that popularism and populism override science and sound scientific study, there are four practical reasons why Macnamara and Burgoyne’s well-organized and executed meta-analysis should be closely attended to. . . especially if your district or school is implementing Growth Mindset interventions from, for example, a direct descendent or a casual disciple of Dweck.

·       As already noted, districts and schools do not have the time, money, resources, and teachers’ good faith to waste on strategies that cannot provide the academic, or social, emotional, or behavioral student outcomes needed, marketed, or promised. 

·       When these strategies do not work, students, staff, and schools often are left further behind, more frustrated, and more resistant to future innovations—even those that were unselected, but are proven to produce the results originally needed and desired.

·       There is always a fear—especially when student motivation and productivity is a desired outcome—that an intervention’s failure to improve student performance is “blamed” on the students for “not doing what we trained or told them to do,” rather than on a poorly selected or implemented, or ineffective, intervention.

·       Finally, given our country’s student academic gaps after the pandemic and the attempts to close these gaps especially with accelerated programs, there is a concern that schools will use growth mindset interventions to supplement the acceleration process.

This might result in a “double jeopardy” situation where (a) the failure to “close the gap” is (again) blamed on the students (as in the bullet above); (b) teachers put even more pressure on students to implement their growth mindset training; (c) schools avoid (or ignore) questioning both the growth mindset and accelerated learning interventions; and (d) students never get the academic interventions they need, and fall further behind. 

[CLICK THE LINK HERE to our July 22, 2023 Blog: “When State Policy Undermines Effective School Practice: Too Much of Anything Often Results in Nothing (or Worse)”]

   Clearly, the most concerning of the negative outcomes above are the emotional and academic effects on the students who receive misguided growth mindset interventions.

   Indeed, ignoring gaps in their prerequisite academic skills, learning and mastery struggles, inadequate curricular materials and supports, and/or ineffective teacher instruction, how will different students’ short-term and long-term motivation and self-concept be affected when they are told—only— that their success depends on implementing and sustaining growth mindset beliefs and practices?

   And what will happen to these students’ motivation and self-concept when, predictably, these growth mindset beliefs and practices are not successful, and they are told to “just try harder”?

   Moreover, what will happen to their teachers’ beliefs when some of these students simply give up?

   And where—academically, behaviorally, now, and post-graduation—will these misplaced beliefs end up?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog began with a celebration of 55 years of “Sesame Street,” the first children’s television program to apply psychological and educational research—for two years before going on the air—to empirically demonstrate that it could teach preschoolers how to read, count, and get along with their friends.

   Sesame Street’s research-embedded approach stands in direct contrast with some of the most prevalent “programs” in our schools today. . . programs that were never comprehensively and objectively field-tested before being disseminated to schools, and that have been aggressively marketed by their developers and enabled by a too-willing popular press.

   Among these programs are those selling misguided strategies that purport to “address”, for example, (a) students’ different academic learning styles, emotional intelligence, social-emotional learning, and mindfulness; and (b) schools’ need for trauma-informed schools programs, restorative justice programs, and accelerated learning initiatives.

   This Blog, though, focused on yet another program: classroom-based Growth Mindset interventions.

   According to Dweck’s mindset theory, students who believe that their cognitive skills are not fixed or predetermined. . . but that they can grow and evolve with time and effort. . . will academically achieve more than those who believe these skills are fixed. Dweck has monetized her work through the for-profit Mindset Works which offers its “Brainology” program.

   Analyzing the broader Growth Mindset research, the Blog describes the recent research published by Macnamara and Burgoyne who conducted three meta-analytic studies involving 63 studies and 79 independent samples with a total sample size of 97,672 students. They found:

Major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d=0.05), which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant.

 

When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students’ mindsets as intended (13 studies, N=18,355 students), the effect was nonsignificant (d= 0.04). When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N=13,571 students), the effect was nonsignificant (d= 0.02).

 

We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias.

   The 2023 issue of Psychological Bulletin—that published Macnamara and Burgoyne’s article—included a commentary article by Oyserman. She suggested that schools were adopting growth mindset interventions—despite Macnamara and Burgoyne’s negative research results—because growth mindset is a “culturally fluent idea.”

   This occurs when interventions or programs contain characteristics and/or approaches that align with those that educators already believe in.

   The result is that many educators then tacitly accept the intervention or program without evaluating its efficacy and (student) outcomes, and even reject (or worse) research or recommendations by those who legitimately critique their favored approach.

   This Blog also discussed how some districts and schools say they are “doing” growth mindset programs or activities but, in reality, they are just implementing effective strategies that:

·       Develop positive and self-affirming students with good self-esteem;

·       Encourage students to be optimistic and believe in their ability to learn and grow over time;

·       Help students focus more on their mastery of skills and how to get correct answers, rather than obsess over grades and the number of right answers they’ve gotten; and 

·       Teach students how to focus on and organize their school work, plan their time and study effectively, and evaluate their effort when they are both academically successful and unsuccessful.

   In the end, schools do not need a packaged, marketed growth mindset intervention or program to implement the approaches above. And they don’t need to call them “Growth Mindset activities” to (a) rationalize the presence or importance of these interactions, or (b) appear to be current.

   But if schools are implementing Growth Mindset interventions from, for example, from Mindset Works (or another vendor), we identified four concerns.

   The most troubling of the four involve the negative emotional and academic effects on the students who receive growth mindset training that is (predictably) unsuccessful. This may result in teacher criticism that they “are not doing what they have been taught to do.”

   But it also might discourage analyses that demonstrate that students are not academically achieving because they lack prerequisite academic skills, inadequate curricular materials and supports, and/or effective teacher instruction.

   The result is that students might emotionally or socially withdraw due to the criticism, and their academic performance may suffer. . . or continue to be unaddressed.

_ _ _ _ _

   Thanks for reading this important Blog. While I believe that all educators’ hearts are in the “right places” for their students, it is important that our minds be aware of the potential effects of culturally-fluent ideas.

   As most of us make our transition into the new school year, know that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you and your colleagues move “to the next level of excellence” during the coming months. Please feel free to reach out and let’s talk.

Best,

Howie

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

Using “Flipped Learning” in a School’s Professional Development Initiative: Engaging Teachers and Support Staff in Outcome-Based PD—Even in a Virtual World

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   This past month, I began an 18-month professional development (PD) contract with the largest virtual school network in a specific mid-Atlantic state. Consistent with all of their virtual work, my PD with their district and school leaders is also, naturally, virtual.

   Critically, the focus of our work is to bring their multi-tiered service and support (MTSS) system up to the next level of excellence. Thus, many of our discussions center on their preschool through high school students’ academic achievement, and their social, emotional, and behavioral skills and interactions at the Tier I virtual levels of general education “classrooms.”

   But these discussions also necessarily move quickly to how to select the “right” supports and interventions when students are academically struggling or presenting with significant social-emotional challenges.

   Significantly, the Network’s leaders want to address their students’ needs, while also training administrators and related services leaders in how to deliver the same PD that I am providing to them. In this way, the leaders believe that they can sustain the integrity and intensity of their upgraded MTSS system long after my contract with them is over.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Professional Development Reboot #1

   Today’s Blog discussion perfectly follows the four-part Series that we concluded in my last Blog (May 27, 2023). The Series discussed the Four Pillars of Teacher Preparation and Proficiency. . . as we systematically dissected how districts and schools can improve their teacher recruitment, selection, professional development/training, evaluation, tenure, and continuing appointment processes.

[See the Last Blog in the Series that summarizes all Four Blogs:

“Ensuring that Post-Tenure Teachers Remain Actively Engaged as Collaborative Contributors in their Schools: Aligning the Seven Areas of Continuous School Improvement to Teacher Leadership and Advancement” (Part IV)

[CLICK HERE to LINK]

_ _ _ _ _

   Throughout the Series, we encouraged districts and schools to replace the unsuccessful, long-standing, and narrow “job performance” approach to teacher evaluation with a “professional development and growth” perspective.

   This perspective reinforces interactions where teachers continuously (a) upgrade their instructional practices—aligning them with the most-current research, content, and application; while simultaneously (b) demonstrating their dedication to students, colleagues, schools, and communities through scaffolded training, coaching, consultation, and evaluation activities that emphasize their professional and personal growth, effectiveness, and—eventually—leadership and specialization.

   We also encouraged schools to make PD a conscious and continual presence by establishing a Professional Development/Teacher Support and Mentoring Committee as one of six permanent school-level committees.

   A primary activity for this Committee would be to oversee its school’s multi-faceted PD process and goal of maintaining, increasing, and sustaining staff knowledge and understanding, skills in instruction and intervention, and confidence and independence in three academic and social-emotional areas: (a) Research and Curriculum Development; (b) Instruction and Student Learning; and (c) School, District, and Community Service.

   All of this is geared to creating a school culture of staff self- and peer-accountability. . .  and a climate where everyone recognizes the importance of professional growth and proficiency.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Professional Development Reboot #2

   Relative to the specifics of the multi-faceted PD process, another past Blog noted that districts and schools need to avoid the simplistic (and largely unproductive) approach to PD that consists largely of fly-by, “spray and pray,” or awareness-only “training.”

[See our May 14, 2022 Blog:

“Reconceptualizing Professional Development for the Coming School Year: Moving Away from Fly-by, “Spray and Pray,” and Awareness-Only Training”

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog]

_ _ _ _ _

   Instead, PD should be conceptualized as a series of scaffolded in-service and demonstration, then coaching and practice, then implementation and evaluation, and always feedback and mastery activities.

   Embedded in these activities are three interdependent components:

·       The Learning, Understanding, and Mastery of the targeted information, content, and knowledge related to a specific professional development area or initiative; that transfers over time into. . . 

·       The effective Skills and Application Expertise needed to sustain the initiative and make it successful with students in a classroom or other school setting; that results over time in. . . 

·       Individual and collective Staff Competence, Confidence, and Independence because the information, skills, and applications have been implemented many times, under different conditions, and with a wide variety of students and needs.

   Clearly, this means that, while PD may start with an in-service presentation, it does not end until—with additional training and experience—staff can (a) teach the content themselves, (b) coach other colleagues relative to implementation and application, and (c) evaluate implementation efficacy and impact for themselves, their mentees, and their students.

   This brings us back to how I needed to structure the virtual MTSS PD initiative for the state-wide Virtual Network I am currently consulting with.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Using Flipped Learning as the Primary Instructional Vehicle for the Virtual Network’s MTSS Initiative

Flipped Learning

   As I analyzed the best ways to deliver the MTSS content and skills during my 18-month Virtual Network contract, I began “with the end in mind.” That is, I re-considered the two primary PD and training goals, and worked backwards to determine the delivery methods needed.

   Once again, the outcomes desired by the Virtual Network were:

·       To bring their multi-tiered service and support (MTSS) system to the next level of effectiveness relative to their preschool through high school students’ academic achievement, and their social, emotional, and behavioral skills and interactions; and 

·       To train the Network’s administrators and related services leaders so that they can (a) provide the same PD that I am providing to them, and (b) sustain the integrity and intensity of their upgraded MTSS system over time.

   After some research and planning, design and development, and scenario-testing and analysis, I decided on a new, PD-oriented use of education’s Flipped Learning methodology.

   That is, I decided to implement the Flipped Learning approaches typically used at the secondary and post-secondary levels to virtual professional development with adult educators. To my knowledge, this may be the first time that this Flipped Learning application has been discussed in educational circles.

   Going “backwards to go forward,” Patricia Roehling and Carrie Bredow discussed the “typical” secondary and post-secondary use of Flipped Learning in a September 28, 2021 Brookings Institution blog article. The anchor to their recommendations was a meta-analytic study that they completed where they combined the data from 317 studies involving 51,437 students in higher education to combine the effectiveness of flipped and lecture-based courses taught by the same instructor.

   They began their article by describing Flipped Learning:

Flipped learning is an increasingly popular pedagogy in secondary and higher education. Students in the flipped classroom view digitized or online lectures as pre-class homework, then spend in-class time engaged in active learning experiences such as discussions, peer teaching, presentations, projects, problem solving, computations, and group activities.

 

In other words, this strategy “flips” the typical presentation of content, where class time is used for lectures and example problems, and homework consists of problem sets or group project work. Flipped learning is not simply a fad. There is theoretical support that it should promote student learning.

 

According to constructivist theory, active learning enables students to create their own knowledge by building upon pre-existing cognitive frameworks, resulting in a deeper level of learning than occurs in more passive learning settings. Another theoretical advantage of flipped learning is that it allows students to incorporate foundational information into their long-term memory prior to class. This lightens the cognitive load during class, so that students can form new and deeper connections and develop more complex ideas. Finally, classroom activities in the flipped model can be intentionally designed to teach students valuable intra- and interpersonal skills.

 

Since 2012, the research literature on the effectiveness of flipped learning has grown exponentially. However, because these studies were conducted in many different contexts and published across a wide range of disciplines, a clear picture of whether and when flipped classrooms outperform their traditional lecture-based counterparts has been difficult to assemble.

_ _ _ _ _

   After describing their meta-analytic study, Roehling and Bredow presented their Flipped Learning (versus lecture-based) conclusions, as well as the educational settings where Flipped Learning appears most successful.

Students in flipped classrooms performed better than those in traditionally taught classes across all of the academic outcomes we examined. In addition to confirming that flipped learning has a positive impact on foundational knowledge (the most common outcome in prior reviews of the research), we found that flipped pedagogies had a modest positive effect on higher-order thinking. Flipped learning was particularly effective at helping students learn professional and academic skills.

 

Importantly, we also found that flipped learning is superior to lecture-based learning for fostering all intra-/interpersonal outcomes examined, including enhancing students’ interpersonal skills, improving their engagement with the content, and developing their metacognitive abilities like time management and learning strategies.

 

Flipped learning was shown to be more effective than lecture-based learning across most disciplines. However, we found that flipped pedagogies produced the greatest academic and intra-/interpersonal benefits in language, technology, and health-science courses. Flipped learning may be a particularly good fit for these skills-based courses, because class time can be spent practicing and mastering these skills. Mathematics and engineering courses, on the other hand, demonstrated the smallest gains when implementing flipped pedagogies.

_ _ _ _ _

 

   Finally, Roehling and Bredow discussed their research outcomes relative to designing an effective Flipped Course:

When designing a flipped course, the conventional wisdom has been that instructors should use pre-class quizzes and assignments to ensure that students are prepared to participate in and benefit from the flipped class period. Surprisingly, we found little support for this in our analysis. While using in-class quizzes did not affect learning outcomes, using pre-class quizzes and assignments to hold students accountable actually produced lower academic gains.

 

It’s unclear why this is the case. It may be that pre-class assignments shift the focus of student preparation; rather than striving to understand the course material, students focus on doing well on the quiz. This suggests that, to hold students accountable for pre-class preparation, instructors should consider using in-class quizzes and assessments rather than pre-class assignments.

 

We also found that more isn’t always better. Compared to courses where all (or nearly all) class sessions followed the flipped model (“fully flipped”), courses that combined flipped and lecture-based approaches (“partially flipped”) tended to produce better academic outcomes.

 

Given the time and skill required to design effective flipped class sessions, partially flipped courses may be easier for instructors to implement successfully, particularly when they are new to the pedagogy. Partially flipped courses also give instructors the flexibility to flip content that lends itself best to the model, while saving more complex or foundational topics for in-class instruction.

_ _ _ _ _

   Among many advantages, Flipped Learning approaches give students more freedom and flexibility relative to learning at their own pace and mastering targeted content. Students, for example, may pause or rewind the presentations and, thus, they can write their notes or questions in a more thoughtful way.

   In addition, thought questions can be embedded within the videos so that they are answered by every student at home. This eliminates the “question-and-answer time” needed during in-class presentations, as well as the fact that most in-class questions are typically answered by only one student.

   Thus, Flipped Learning provides students who need more time to digest and understand lecture material more equal access to learning. As well, teachers have more confidence that students understand the material, because they can review every student’s answers to the video-embedded questions.

   Moving on: Flipped Learning approaches also “standardize” the content presented. And, as noted earlier, they allow teachers to spend more time in class applying the information to real-world situations, and students to engage in collaborative classroom discussions and projects that elevate the breadth and depth of the originally-presented information.

   Finally, Flipped Learning videos help to solve the common teacher dilemma of how to simultaneously catch up students who have missed class due to illness, emergencies, or truancy, while maintaining the instructional pace for students who are consistently in class and engaged.

_ _ _ _ _

Applying Flipped Learning to My Virtual Network’s MTSS Initiative

   Given Roehling and Bredow’s elegant research, and the Flipped Learning advantages detailed above, the decision to use a Flipped Learning approach for my MTSS training and consultation with the Virtual School Network was ”virtually” (sorry. . . pun intended) automatic.

   Much of this was accomplished:

·       By using a series of MTSS on-line/on-demand modules where everyone had access—on their own time—to the same content. 

·       The Network’s MTSS Leaders watched the assigned video modules on their own and in small study groups, digesting the critical information independently and through group discussions. 

·       Next, we analyzed and discussed the information in each Module in separate virtual PLC meetings attended by all of the MTSS Leader cadre. I facilitated each meeting, but the bulk of each meeting involved a Leadership dyad presenting the most important information from each module in a PowerPoint presentation (see the schedule below). 

·       In this way, the Network’s Leaders not only began to master each module’s content for themselves (Note the maxim: “If you can teach it, you must first understand it.”), they began the training process that would eventually result in their ability to competently present each module to their schools and colleagues.

·       To facilitate this latter goal, we had separate sessions—later in the PD and consultation contract— where each Leader did a full presentation of each module with critical feedback from both peers and me.

·       Finally, all of this PD was virtual—thus making these sessions both time- and cost-effective.

Moreover, the training and support approaches described above maximized the potential that the PD would successfully translate (a) Learning, Understanding, and Mastery into effective (b) Skills and Application Expertise into (c) individual and collective Staff Competence, Confidence, and Independence.

_ _ _ _ _

   One of the essential take-aways here relates especially to the fact that many districts and schools have significantly cut the Professional Development Days out of their annual calendars. And yet, well-designed and implemented professional development is a primary and necessary way for schools to improve the science-to-practice instruction, pedagogical effectiveness, and multi-tiered intervention skill of their staffs.

   To this end, the Flipped Learning approaches above may “soften” the decrease of districts’ and schools’ formal PD days, while still providing the PD/PLC sessions that facilitate staff growth and enhanced instructional proficiency.

_ _ _ _ _

Where Did the Virtual Network’s Flipped Learning MTSS Modules Come From?

   As many of you know, I often write multi-year federal (and other) grants for districts and schools across the country when they want to implement my (a) strategic planning and school improvement, (b) academic and social-emotional learning, and (c) differentiated instruction and multi-tiered intervention model (Project ACHIEVE; www.projectachieve.info). When awarded, these grants fund all of my on-site and virtual training and consultation services.

   For example, I am currently the National SEL/PBIS Consultant for multiple districts in three areas of the country (New Jersey, Michigan, and Oklahoma), supporting three separate five-year U.S. Department of Education School Climate Transformation Grants.

   During the first year of these Grants (which started in October 2019), the Pandemic closed down the world in March, 2020. But the Grants did not shut down. . . their implementation (as with everything else) simply went 100% virtual.

   It was at this point that my professional development and consultation services needed to “pivot with the Pandemic.”

   And so, I modified, upgraded, and “re-packaged” the three most important PD elements of the Grant into on-line/on-demand courses:

·    Course 1: Teaching Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills to Improve Student Engagement, Behavior, and Achievement: Using the Stop & Think Social Skills Program as an Exemplar [16 modules]

·    Course 2: Coping with Stress in a Stressful World: Teaching Students How to Manage Their Emotions, Thoughts, and Behavior [4 Modules]

·   Course 3: Designing and Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports: Academic and Social-Emotional Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention [9 Modules]

   These courses are now available to anyone.

   They come complete with on-demand video sessions, handouts, additional readings, supplemental resources, quizzes, and certificates of completion.

   Each course also has a free 35-minute Introductory Webinar that not only discusses the major components and approaches for each topic, but also provides an overview of the Course Syllabus (which also is available without charge).

   If you would like to view one or more of the Introductory Webinars, the Course Syllabi, or additional descriptions:

[CLICK THIS LINK for INFO on these THREE On-Line COURSES]

or see the additional information below.

_ _ _ _ _

   When the Virtual School Network approached me for the PD described above, their Leadership Team had already completed an independent study with the MTSS course (#3) above.

   Given this experience, they wanted to work with me to maximize their understanding of the information in the Course and, once again, to prepare their MTSS Leaders to implement the field-tested and proven MTSS procedures with their schools and colleagues.

   Relative to the latter, we trained the Virtual School’s MTSS Leaders to present the same PowerPoints that were in the Course modules.

   As above, the training began by having a Leadership Dyad present the most important information from each MTSS Module in their own PowerPoint presentation during separate PLC sessions.

   Once the Dyad presentation was concluded, the rest of the session used the following template:

·     I discussed any important information or skills that were missed by the Leadership Dyad from the MTSS Module presented.

·     Questions about critical information in the Module were asked and answered.

·     A group discussion regarding the school, staff, and student implications of the Module was facilitated with a focus on how to upgrade the schools in the Virtual Network’s current practices.

·     A group discussion occurred addressing “effective practices” in presenting the information in the Module during a virtual in-service presentation for any school staff.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   In an ever-changing professional world, educators need to continuously (a) upgrade their instructional practices—aligning them with the most-current research, content, and application; while simultaneously (b) demonstrating their dedication to students, colleagues, schools, and communities through scaffolded training, coaching, consultation, and (self-) evaluation.

   The primary vehicle needed here is Professional Development (PD).

   And while PD may start with an in-service presentation, it does not end until staff can (a) teach the content themselves, (b) coach other colleagues relative to implementation and application, and (c) evaluate implementation efficacy and impact for themselves, their mentees, and their students.

   This is accomplished by teachers’ (and others’) engagement in scaffolded activities geared to three interdependent components:

·       The Learning, Understanding, and Mastery of targeted information, content, and knowledge related to a specific professional development area or initiative; that transfers over time into. . . 

·       The effective Skills and Application Expertise needed to sustain the initiative and make it successful with students in a classroom or other school setting; that results over time in. . .

·       Individual and collective Staff Competence, Confidence, and Independence because the information, skills, and applications have been implemented many times, under different conditions, and with a wide variety of students and needs.

_ _ _ _ _

   This Blog described the application of this information to an 18-month PD contract with the largest virtual school network in a mid-Atlantic U.S. state. Consistent with all of their virtual work, my PD with their district and school leaders was also virtual—focused on helping their Leadership Team bring their preschool through high school multi-tiered service and support (MTSS) system up to the next level of excellence.

   After analyzing the best ways to virtually deliver the MTSS content and skills desired by the Network, and reading a 2021 meta-analysis of 317 higher education studies involving 51,437 students (by Patricia Roehling and Carrie Bredow at the Brookings Institution), we decided to use a Flipped Learning PD approach.

   This Flipped Learning approach used the nine modules from a comprehensive on-line/on-demand course,

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

to train the MTSS Leaders in the Virtual Network in how to upgrade the MTSS services and supports across their schools and colleagues, while also preparing them to be the primary PD-providers for this initiative.

   The Blog describes the characteristics and advantages of Flipped Learning with adult learners, how it was applied to the PD for the Virtual Network’s MTSS Leaders, and how the MTSS Course was designed and modified for these Leaders.

   As many districts and schools cut Professional Development Days out of their annual calendars, this Flipped Learning methodology has the potential to become the “standard” approach to helping staff and schools maintain their research-to-practice edge—facilitating staff growth and sustaining instructional and intervention proficiency.

_ _ _ _ _

   Congratulations to everyone for completing (or near completing) a successful school year!

   As you move into the Summer, I hope that this Blog provided some useful information and recommendations as to how you will approach PD during the new school year.

   Know that I am available to you throughout the Summer.

   If you or your colleagues need my assistance—to discuss ideas, consider new solutions, focus attention to proven and results-driven practices—please feel free to contact me at any time. The first consultation, as always, is free.

Best,

Howie

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

Teaching Students Needed Academic and Social-Emotional Skills: We Need to Sweat the Small Stuff

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Once again, I am writing this Blog while flying at 33,000 feet. . . this time traveling from Vancouver, British Columbia back to Little Rock, Arkansas (for about 10 hours until I fly to my next consultation in New Jersey).

   I spent a phenomenal week working with the school psychologists attending the British Columbia Association of School Psychologists’ Annual Conference. There, I guided some in-depth discussions regarding how to design and implement effective (a) school-wide Social-Emotional Learning/Positive Behavioral Support and (b) Multi-Tiered Academic and Behavioral Support systems, and how to differentiate among and address (c) student stress, anxiety, and trauma practically in the classroom as part of a multi-tiered process.

   As always, I benefitted as much from the experience as I think I contributed.

_ _ _ _ _

   During our discussions, I emphasized a number of times the importance of “sweating the small stuff.”

   I “get” that the intent of the saying, “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” is to encourage us to look at the “big picture of Life,” to take a deep breath, and to not obsess over the small irritants that seem to occur daily.

   But in education and psychology, and especially when working with students who are academically struggling or demonstrating social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges, we must drill way past the “big picture” into the details of why these struggles or challenges are occurring, so that we can link them to the how reflected in the specific services, supports, strategies, and interventions needed for change.

   In today’s message, I want to provide some school-related instructional or intervention examples of this theme to remind both educators and related services professionals that a focus on the “small stuff” is needed to generate the “big stuff” that maximizes students’ academic and social-emotional learning, mastery, proficiency, and independence.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Brief Medical Miracle Analogy

   Before focusing on education, let’s start this journey by using medicine—and its focus at times on the “building blocks of life” as a metaphor for the need to “go small.”

   Just this week, it was announced that doctors were able to successfully treat in utero an unborn child with a rare genetic condition called Infantile-onset Pompe.

   According to the Hospital’s Press Release:

Pompe disease is seen in less than 1 in 100,000 live births, and is caused by mutations in a gene that makes acid alpha-glucosidase, an enzyme that breaks down glycogen. Without it or with limited amounts, glycogen accumulates dangerously in the body. After delivery, treatment to replace the enzyme is available, but the disease still often results in very low muscle tone, ventilator dependency and death.

 

The disease is one of several rare lysosomal storage disorders that can severely damage major organs before birth. Babies born with Pompe typically have enlarged hearts and die within two years if untreated.

   Two medical miracles actually occurred here.

   First, doctors have the know-how to complete genetic testing on unborn children that reveals different life-threatening conditions early in their prenatal development.

   Second, in this case’s new medical breakthrough, doctors provided this baby the enzyme replacement therapy well before she was born.

   The child is now 16 months old, and she has hit virtually all of her developmental milestones—for example, crawling, walking, talking, eating—at the expected times. More significantly, her cardiac functioning is normal.

   According to the attending doctor:

“This work also continues to expand the number and type of rare genetic diseases that can be treated prenatally. As new treatments become available for children with genetic conditions, we are developing protocols to apply before birth. I think of this as another step in expanding the repertoire of fetal therapy to treat genetic diseases that, while individually rare, are a large percentage of congenital anomalies.”

_ _ _ _ _

   The point here is that many areas of science and medicine “travel” at the cellular (or smaller) level.

   Indeed, we are now treating illnesses and conditions that affect us at the “big picture” level—impacting our day-to-day functioning, our quality of life. . . indeed, our life itself—because doctors and other scientists are able to modify minute, microscopic biochemical, genetic, or physiological structures, pathways, and interactions.

   Ultimately, in many professions, success occurs because they attend to and “sweat” the small stuff. There just are no other alternatives.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Some “Small Stuff” Examples in Education

   Critically, the five “small stuff” examples below have all occurred during the last three weeks in some of the schools where I am consulting.

   Some of you may remember that I wrote the five-year U.S. Department of Education School Climate Transformation Grants that were awarded in 2019 to three different school district clusters in Oklahoma, Michigan, and New Jersey, respectively.

   As part of the Grant activities, I work on-site in these districts’ schools for up to 40 days per year—helping them design and implement effective multi-tiered academic and social-emotional learning/positive behavior support systems, using Project ACHIEVE’s (www.projectachieve.info) evidence-based model, from preschool through high school.

   Ultimately, to accomplish our student-centered goals, we need to get “small.” Here are five examples that we hope will motivate you to think “smaller” about some of your professional activities or interactions with your students, staff, or others in your workplace.

_ _ _ _ _

Small Procedures

   When we are preparing to conduct a Case Conference on a specific struggling or challenging student involving the multi-disciplinary, school-level Multi-Tiered Services (or Student Services) Team, we always asked the student’s teacher(s) to complete the “First Things First.”

   This involves a set of activities where the teacher(s) supported by select MTSS Team members (a) complete a Student Record Review, (b) Interview parents and previous teachers (or interveners), (c) determine the current functional academic and social-emotional skill level of the student, (d) identify or discount critical medical (or related) conditions, and (e) do classroom observations so that others can see the depth and breadth of the problem.

   One of my schools recently prepared for and conducted an MTSS Team Case Conference that I observed so that I could provide feedback on their use of our data-based problem-solving process.

   The Case involved a Second Grader who was way behind academically (e.g., she was “reading” at the end of kindergarten level), who was still reversing many numbers and letters, and whose First Grade teacher had recommended retention—which the parents had rejected. The child had been in this school since kindergarten, and she was only receiving periodic academic intervention supports.

   Nonetheless, when the School Counselor interviewed the mother three days before the Case Conference, for the very first time, the parent shared that the child had had significant breathing difficulties at birth, that her developmental milestones (e.g., walking, talking, etc.) were very delayed, and that she had had occupational therapy services before starting kindergarten.

   Small procedures means that we break, here, the MTSS process into the specific steps needed to collect the initial background and historical information needed on every student for every case.

   Everyone around the MTSS table acknowledged that the developmental information above should have been common knowledge at least two years ago. Indeed, this was a case of a parent not knowing the importance of this information, coupled with no one at the school ever asking for it. This not a case of a parent withholding the information.

   The MTSS Team immediately initiated a referral for special education and accommodation services and supports that would include (a) the completion of cognitive, processing, and academic achievement assessments; (b) a complete social-developmental history with the parents; and (c) a neurological screening to determine other potential concerns in that area.

_ _ _ _ _

Small Gestures

   In another one of my Grant districts within the last two weeks, we were reviewing the results of a school climate survey completed by all of the students in Grade 5 and above.

   The Superintendent was very concerned because, among a number of troubling outcomes, a large percent of the student body agreed or strongly agreed to a statement, “My teachers care about me and my peers.”

   Noting that even if this was a student misperception, something needed to be done.

   A discussion ensued that focused on (a) some questioning the validity of the results, and wanting to re-write some questions and re-survey the students; (b) some expressing frustration that the students were not recognizing what the staff was already doing for them—suggesting that they were ungrateful; (c) some saying that the results had to be from a small minority of students—completely missing that eliminating these students’ results would not appreciably change the data; and (d) some generating interventions to “fix” the problems.

   The Superintendent patiently waited for the discussion to subside and then she asked me for my reflections.

   I first told the group that we should not be responding or making changes to the survey just to make us feel better.

   I then briefly explained that this survey—just like a thermometer—was a screening tool. . . it was simply identifying some “hot” areas within the school that concerned the students.

   Moreover, even if we re-wrote specific survey items and re-surveyed the students, the results—just like a thermometer—would not likely or fully tell us why we were getting the “hot” results. And this “outcome” would occur after spending (wasting) a lot more time in re-writing, re-surveying, re-analyzing the data, and re-discussing “the problem.”

   In the end, I suggested that we “get small”. . . that we begin to connect with the students and show them that we care by setting up a series of focus groups to listen to their concerns, their analyses, and their suggestions.

   In this way, everyone would experience two wins. First, the win of demonstrating to the students that the staff care enough to listen to their voices, and to entertain their suggestions on how to improve the school’s climate for them.

   This would then pave the way for a second win. . . an improvement of the school’s climate that would result in greater student attendance, engagement, motivation, and—hopefully—learning.

_ _ _ _ _

Small Goals

   Another one of my Grant schools has a period each day at the secondary level for either academic remediation or enrichment.

   Relative to the latter, the staff have struggled—for the last two years—to figure out how to maximize the benefits of this intervention time.

   In fact, the outcome data suggest that there have been minimal academic benefits to the students, and that the staff are pretty frustrated with the entire endeavor.

   For me, the core of the problem is that the school is (a) focusing on reading and then math intervention weeks for all students on a rotating basis; (b) the intervention groups are organized by students’ scores from a computerized academic screening and progress monitoring program; and (c) the students in the intervention groups seem to be constantly changing (as are the assignments to intervention teachers).

   Rather than focus on the flaws embedded in the processes above, I—again—suggested that the school “get small.”

   This entailed the following:

·       Identifying the specific and core-essential skills in reading and math that each student needed remediation in; 

·       Prioritizing—for each quarter of the school year—whether a student would focus on either reading or math during their intervention time; and

·       Mapping all of the students with different reading or math skill needs on a white board, and clustering the intervention groups so that each one would focus on a homogeneous set of skills, targeted intervention materials, evaluation approaches, and expected outcomes.

   Thus, “getting small” here meant focusing on a small set of skills to remediate, small student groups that would stay intact for at least nine weeks—with the same teacher, and small goals that had a high probability of being successfully attained.

_ _ _ _ _

Small Behaviors

   While presenting at the British Columbia Association of School Psychologists’ Conference, I talked some about our Stop & Think Social Skills Program, and why social skills instruction needed to target specific, observable, and measurable skills.

   Yes. . . we got small.

   I first made the point that an effective Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) initiative or program would be unsuccessful—relative to students learning and demonstrating actual interpersonal interactions—if it focused only on behavioral constructs—for example, respect, responsibility, safety, caring, honesty, cooperation, altruism.

  Indeed, to attain any goal related to behavioral constructs, teachers would (a) have to determine what respectful behaviors, responsible behaviors, safe behaviors, caring behaviors, honest behaviors, cooperative behaviors, and altruistic behaviors they want students to demonstrate; and then (b) teach their students these skills using sound behavioral instruction practices.

   This then led to my second point.

   In order to get the desired student behavior outcomes, social skills need to be taught from preschool through high school, using a scaffolded scope and sequence taught across the school year, the instruction needs to focus on behaviorally teaching—not just talking—about desired goals and expectations, and the instruction needs to use the same behavioral strategies that are used when we teach sports teams, theatre groups, painters, or musicians their crafts.

   To be sure. . . getting small is not always easy, but it is always necessary.

_ _ _ _ _

Small Steps

   Staying with the social skills theme above, within the past two weeks, I was doing demonstration Stop & Think Social Skill lessons in one of my Grant middle schools.

   In one 6^th Grade classroom—organized by the school as a self-contained general education classroom because the students had a hard time transitioning to seven different periods and teachers during the school day—I taught the “Dealing with Teasing” skill.

   [Note that I had never worked with these students before. In addition, while I wanted to teach this skill to the students, another purpose for the demonstration was to model an effective social skills lesson for the classroom teacher.]

   When we got to the role play part of the lesson, I chose two willing students at random to come up in front of the class and role play a scene where one of them would “tease” the other, and he (in this case) would verbalize and then demonstrate one of the “good choice behaviors” embedded in the Dealing with Teasing skill script.

   I noticed that the student who was going to be teased in the role play was somewhat quiet and a bit awkward. At the same time, as I always stay with the students doing a role play—to guide them through the script and the skill (as needed), and to ensure that a “positive practice” of the skill occurs—I was confident that this “teachable moment” would be a successful one for him.

   In the end, I needed to provide a fair amount of guidance and “scripting” for this student, but he did a great job and really seemed to both embrace and understand the skill, its intent, and its importance. He also appeared to be very pleased with his performance.

   Later in the day, I met with the 6th Grade Teacher to debrief the training. It was at this point that she told me how proud she was of the roleplaying student because he is on the autism spectrum.

   I was actually really surprised because, while I noted his awkwardness, I did not pick up his developmental-behavioral challenge during our interactions earlier that day.

   So. . . the “small stuff” lesson here is that (a) teaching students social skill behaviors is a step-by-step process; (b) even some of the students who most need these skills (e.g., those on the spectrum) can learn them when the skill steps are broken down and systematically integrated; and that (c) virtually all students can learn when we “sweat the small stuff” as we build their skills toward “the large stuff.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Educators consistently talk about the importance of evidence-based practices. This is complemented by discussions noting that evidence-based practices—in order to work—need to be implemented with fidelity. And yet, in order to attain fidelity, educators typically need to attend to and follow the specific implementation steps that (full circle, here) are the reasons that the practices in question are evidence-based.

   Said a different way:

In order to make big and meaningful academic and social, emotional, and behavioral gains with students in our classrooms and schools, we need to sweat the small details that make effective practices work.

   In this Blog, we shared five school-related instructional or intervention vignettes to demonstrate the importance of this theme, and to remind educators and related services professionals that a focus on the “small student stuff” is needed to generate, as above, the “big educational stuff.”

   The vignettes described actual situations that I have experienced over the past three weeks—many in one or more of the schools where I am helping to implement effective multi-tiered academic and social-emotional learning/positive behavior support systems as part of three different five-year U.S. Department of Education School Climate Transformation Grants.

   The five vignettes focused on five “small” areas: Small Procedures, Small Gestures, Small Goals, Small Behaviors, and Small Steps.

   We hope that this discussion will encourage educators to look at and evaluate their current practices with students, and ask two Questions:

·       Am I attaining the success I am having with students because I am “sweating the small stuff?”

·       Where I am not having my desired success with students—or where I know I could have greater success, is it because I am missing, ignoring, or not “sweating the small stuff?”

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the reflections in this Blog are relevant and useful to you.

   In many ways, one of the reasons why I write these Blogs is that it gives me an opportunity to “Stop &  Think” about my work in the field, why I have been successful in specific cases, and how I could be more successful in others. This makes my future work more intentional, planful, and impactful.

   As always, if you and your colleagues would like to “get small” and reflect on your students, schools, or professional settings with me—please feel free to send me an email, and let’s set up a time to talk. I would be honored to assist.

Best,

Howie

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